By popular request, here is the Jonas thread. All comments by Jonas and replies to his comments belong in this thread.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
By popular request Flying Binghi has his/her own thread. This is the only thread that FB can post to, and all replies to any comment to FB should go here.
I can't move comments, so I will delete comments that do not follow these rules.
By popular request sunspot has his/her own thread. This is the only thread that sunspot can post to, and all replies to any comment to sunspot should go here.
By popular request, Brad Keyes is only permitted to post in this thread.
By popular request. Comments from Brent and folks arguing with him are cluttering up more useful discussions. All comments by Brent and responses to comments by Brent should go in this thread. I can't move comments in MT, so I'll just delete comments that appear in the wrong thread.
A question for the deltiod zealot: where in the world has it got unberable hot in the last decades?
Well, since you ask PantieZ the 2003 heat wave killed nearly 35,000 in Europe
"The European heat wave of 2006 was the second massive heat wave to hit the continent in four years, with temperatures rising to 40 °C (104 °F) in Paris; in Ireland, which has a moderate maritime climate, temperatures of over 32 °C (90 °F) were reported. Temperatures of 35 °C (95 °F) were reached in the Benelux and Germany (in some areas 38 °C (100 °F), while Great Britain recorded 37 °C (99 °F). Many heat records were broken (including the hottest ever July temperature in Great Britain) and many people who experienced the heat waves of 1976 and 2003 drew comparisons with them. Highest average July temperatures were recorded at many locations in Great Britain, Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden and Germany".
With many other records falling in later years:
"A record-breaking heat wave hit South-western Asia in late July and early August 2011, with temperatures in Iraq exceeding 120 °F (49 °C),[56] and an "asphalt-melting, earth-parching, brain-scrambling heat of midsummer" in Tbilisi, Georgia.[57] The Iraqis were further challenged by pressure to fast during Ramadan, despite heat of 124 °F (51 °C) in Baghdad and 126 °F (52 °C) in Diwaniya on 4 August.[56] The extreme heat inspired conspiracy theories of the government corruption in Iraq and retaliation from the United States government;[56] and, in Georgia, the Apocalypse, mutant locusts caused by Chernobyl, snakes imported by unseen enemies, and sun spots.[57]
Most parts of the United Kingdom experienced an Indian summer between September and October 2011. The heat wave resulted in a new record high temperature for October at 30°C.[58]
Land surface temperatures of March 8–15, 2012. Land surface temperatures are distinct from the air temperatures that meteorological stations typically measure. In March 2012, one of the greatest heat waves was observed in many regions of North America. First very warm air pushed northward west of the Great Lakes region, and subsequently spread eastward. This air mass movement was propelled by an unusually intense low level southerly jet that stretched from Louisiana to western Wisconsin. Once this warm surge inundated the area, a remarkably prolonged period of record setting temperatures ensued.[59] NOAA's National Climate Data Center reported that over 7000 daily record high temperatures were broken over the U.S. from 1 March thru 27 March.[59] In some places the temperature exceeded 30 °C (86 °F) with anomalies up to +22°C. Temperature records across much of southern Canada were also demolished.[60]
In March, 2012, the United Kingdom experienced a heat wave with temperature anomalies of +10 °C in many places.[61]
In late June 2012, much of North America began experiencing a heat wave, as heat spread east from the Rocky Mountains. During the heat wave, the June 2012 North American derecho caused violent storms that downed trees and power lines, leaving 3 million people in the eastern U. S. without power on June 30.[62] The heat lasted until Mid-August in some parts of the country.
The Australian summer of 2012-2013, known as the Angry Summer or Extreme Summer, resulted in 123 weather records being broken over a 90-day period, including the hottest day ever recorded for Australia as a whole, the hottest January on record, the hottest summer average on record, and a record seven days in row when the whole continent averaged above 39° C.[63][64] Single-day temperature record were broken in dozens of towns and cities, as well as single-day rainfall records, and several rivers flooded to new record highs.[63] From Dec 28th, 2012 through at least January 9th, 2013 Australia has faced its most severe heatwave in over 80 years, with a large portion of the nation recording high temperature reading above 40°C to 45°C or greater in some areas, a couple spots have also neared 50°C. This extreme heat has also resulted in a 'flash' drought across southern and central areas of the country and has sparked several massive wildfires due to periodic high winds"
Culminating in new colour being required in the Australian BOM temperature maps in 2012 to cope with the excessive heat".
That you don't know any of this is completely unsurprising for someone as pig-ignorant as you, PantieZ.
Fuck, the only zealots on Deltoid are the fucking idiots playing denier-bingo, like panties here.
Still, it keeps them busy and stops them from adding yet more pollution to the Heartland Chinese scandal and Ed Snowden threads elsewhere.
Oh gosh, chek, 35 000 you say? And of course their death certificate says " killed due to AGW"? Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't a heat wave weather? Old people about to die anyway, dying a little sooner due to a weather event isn't by a long shot proof of AGW.
So, rephrasing so you perhaps will understand, where in the world has the climate got unbearable hot?
And for the record since you are unable to comprehend, the link at Climate Depot contains a long list of peer reviewed science, since I know you put such a value to that kind of things. A long list pulling the ipcc pants down to the ankles.
“Surely a few more years of cooling will leave only the true believers in their misanthropic ideology, and the truly idiotic”.
One fault in that sentence, no need to wait a few years. If you want to see the misanthropic idiots just google "deltoid" and you will find them.
PentaxZ, the world changes, but not the mindset of a deltoid. Hans von Storch is not a Deltoid though, but he is a scientist;
"Auch mein Eindruck ist, dass die Klimahysterie abgenommen hat. Es gibt zwar noch immer Leute, die bei jeder Naturkatastrophe rituell rufen: „Haltet den Dieb, der Klimawandel hat Schuld!“ Doch viel mehr redet man mittlerweile über die naheliegenden Ursachen der Hochwasser wie das Versiegeln der Böden oder das Verschwinden natürlicher Überschwemmungsgebiete. Und das ist auch gut so."
"Oh gosh, chek, 35 000 you say? "
Ah, I see, you are a psychopath who has absolutely no care if tens of thousands die.
Your pretend that you care about the welfare of others is a complete sham, panties. You absolutely do not care about anyone other than yourself.
You have just proven it.
Proven what, wow? You claim people have died due to AGW. Where's the proof? Where in the world was the humans which AGW supposedly killed? Where on earth has it become unberable hot? You make these stupid claims. Put your money where you mouth is!
I'd said, panties. But you're unable to read anything that isn't conformant to a personal rapture state, aren't you?
You've proven you're a psychopath who doesn't give a shit when tens of thousands of people die.
Where's the proof???? Did you REALLY say that?
Died of heat stroke.
Anthropogenic Global WARMING.
The connection is that warming == more heat.
And dying of heat stroke means that it was very hot.
How tiny do I have to make the logical steps before you can make the connection? Or are you a YEC and every single step from ape to man doesn't bring more evidence for evolution, but brings up more transitionals that aren't there?
You're definitely retarded enough for a YEC.
Since when is a weather event AWG? And why does it only goes in one ( the warm) direction? Does the death sertificates on those 35 000 say " death by AGW?
And again, where in the world has it gotten unberable hot? Simple enough to answer, wouldn't you say?
Like the blind men each trying to describe an elephant from their limited perceptions, the self-imposed blindness due to your beliefs cannot let you see the AGW elephant in the room.
While it is a truism that individual weather events can't be ascribed to AGW, you were presented with a collection of events all occurring within a relatively short space of time. Focussing on one and insisting the elephant is a snake is due to your own blindness PantieZ. It should also be superfluous to add that AGW manifests itself as weather events.
The correct question to ask is: 'are these type of events predicted by AGW theory'? To which the answer is 'yes', and vague generalisations bordering on the inane by Von Storch don't alter that one whit.
chek, you are rambling as much nonsense as the other Deltoids here. Rarely ever any sunbstance. So far, the possible AGW-signal among the noise of fully natural variations and fluctuations has not been identified and observed.
As you might know, the IPCC in the 2007 AR4 made a terrible overreach on how certain and how much it was and could be attributed. You guys here are still licking your (intellectual) wounds over that, pretending that nothing except the unfaltering faith matters. But that's you problem, not ours.
As so many here, you seem unable to distinguish between AGW and temperatures (mentally thinking that any warming also must be AGW, which it is not, not even in your 'theory' or the unvalidated hypothesis you rather should call it).
Further, the hiatus and the longer it lasts, very quickly diminishes the likelihood of that hypothesis, especially for the mor CAGW-leaning versions.
Deltoid has hosted commenters like you, Jeff, Bernard, Stu, Lionel, and a variety of others and whatever your hopes might have been for that period, they don't alter reality. Rather I'd say, it has provided a forum for the decreasing number of hard faithers who cannot function in the real scientific community where facts and observations are the standard to be measured by.
In some way it's tragic, but this kind of behaviour has been around and manifested itself in other utopian and often totalitarian beliefs too ...
It's good that the rest of the world is starting to sober up from all this climate madness ...
"Correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t a heat wave weather? Since when is a weather event AWG?"
When AWG is happening, all weather is AWG.
Fucking moron.
There is no 'hiatus' moron.
Arctic melting accelerated from 2007-2012. That requires heat and lots of it. You need some new talking points Jonarse.
A 0.22C trend is NOT a haitus, asswipe.
chek
Moving the goalposts somewhere completely different now?
The hiatus has lasted for 1½ decade or more or more. And you know it! You also know that atmospheric CO2 is supposed to heat the atmosphere, and as the faithers believe there furthere amplify its moderate effect through large positive feedbacks.
Sorry chek, but we won't let you off the hook that easily. And you are still conflating AGW with (previous) warming. As do so many of you!
chek, like you I agree with professor Curry's observstion that the hiatus seem to catch less interest at the moment. The "cooling since 2002" is "hotter":
"Attention in the public debate seems to be moving away from the 15-17 yr ‘pause’ to the cooling since 2002 (note: I am receiving inquiries about this from journalists). This period since 2002 is scientifically interesting, since it coincides with the ‘climate shift’ circa 2001/2002 posited by Tsonis and others. This shift and the subsequent slight cooling trend provides a rationale for inferring a slight cooling trend over the next decade or so, rather than a flat trend from the 15 yr ‘pause’."
Like curry, you're making shit up.
Again.
Curry, von Storch, Lindzen, etc. ;-)
Regarding the Arctic, here some science from 1930:
"1. Receding of glaciers and “melting away” of islands….all the Greenland glaciers which descend into Northeast Bay and Disko Bay have been receding since approximately the beginning of the century. On Franz Joseph Land during recent years several islands have appeared as if broken in two. It turned out they had been connected up to that time by ice bridges. …I noted a great decrease in the size of (Jan Mayan and Spitzbergen) glaciers. Ahlman terms the rapid receding of the Spitzbergen glaciers “catastrophic”."
"Curry, von Storch, Lindzen, etc"
yup, agree, like them you're making shit up.
Wow, more 1930's Arctic science for you: ;-)
2. Rise of air temperature. (Over the last 20 years) the average temperature of the winter months has steadily increased…(in the last 10 years) in the whole Arctic sector from Greenland to Cape Chelyuskin there has not been a single (negative) anomaly of average annual and monthly winter temperatures, while the positive anomalies have been very high….
3. Rise in temperature of Atlantic water which enters the Arctic Basin…the temperature of surface water and of Gulf Stream water has steadily risen…
Wow, can't be easy to be you. ;-)
Give it up Olap. Your stupid piddling anecdotes are as tiresome as your attempts to make them seem relevant.
And, yes, that location was retreating from the post-LIA cold period.
Just like at the turn of the 19th century, the global temperatures were rising from the LIA norms.
This is called "Changing climate".
But it has warmed MORE than it was before the LIA.
You can't "recover" to a level higher than you had before the event here.
Likewise, the retreat today is more than the advance the LIA engendered in its climate change. Therefore the retreat is NOT a recovery from the LIA.
You agree that melting ice and retreating glaciers are indications of a changed climate, but ONLY as long as it isn't AGW doing the changing.
This is why you're called a denier and a blithering incompetent and malign idiot. Rightly so.
"Wow, can’t be easy to be you"
Not with fuckwits who prefer the easy option of "make shit up all the time" and decide to go the harder route of actual genuine cogitation and truth.
Liars ALWAYS have an easy time of it and those constrained to the truth and facts are ALWAYS having a hard time in the liars' and criminals' presence.
"Wow, more 1930′s Arctic science for you"
Really?
Then you need some geography lessons.
The arctic isn't just one bay.
Devastating to your case, yes, but true.
Dear Wow, I don't make shit up, I just point you in the right direction. No harm in that, is it? By the way, here is some more Arctic science from the year 1930:
4. Decrease in ice abundance….15% to 20% (over 20 years)….In earlier times, polar ice often approached the shores of Iceland and interfered with fishing and navigation. For the past 25 years ice has not appeared in significant quantities.
5. Increase in speed of drift ice.
6. Change in cyclone routes. There is no doubt that the increase in air temperatures, increase in Atlantic water temperatures, intensification of ice drift, etc., are closely connected with an intensification of atmospheric circulation, and in particular with a change in cyclonic activity at high latitudes. Vize shows that Atlantic cyclones are now shifting considerably north, by several hundred km, from their courses in the period before the warming of the Arctic.
No, olap, you do completely make shit up. There's no "only" about it. And it's fucking obvious as hell.
Only you think it works because you're so used to denial, fantasy becomes the norm for you.
You're an ignorant asshole shitting over everyone and everything because facing reality is far too much for you to handle.
I feel sorry for your parents.
And that 20% was the overabundance caused by the LIA, fuckwit.
Therefore, now that we've lost 80%, three quarters of that loss IS NOT "recovery".
Fucking simple maths, but you deny the shit out of it because you're a cunt.
@wow
"but you deny the shit out of it because you’re a cunt."
That's a new one wow! Usually you claim it's because he spends all his time on "free market think tank" blogs. You need to get your story straight wow. It's doesn't look credible if you keep inventing new "reasons". Some consistency from you would go a long way!
;)
More Arctic science for you, dear Wow. Remember that it is the year 1930:
"7. Biological signs of warming of the Arctic. …fish have ranged further and further to the north…cod in large quantities have appeared along the shores of Spitzbergen and Novaya Zemlya…also mackerel, dolphin where formerly were not found…during recent years fishing has gradually shifted into the Arctic waters, and this unquestionably must be ascribed in considerable degree to the warming of these waters….many heat-loving bottom organisms are now found in regions these organisms were not found (30 years ago). Knipovich says: “ In a matter of fifteen years…there occurred a change…such as is usually associated with long geological intervals”.
8. Ship navigation. …a number of ship voyages (were made) which could hardly have been accomplished in the preceding cold period.
Still more remarkable is the fact that the warming of the Arctic is not confined to any particular region."
Both are not inconsistent with each other. Surely even a fuckwit like you can deduce that Griselda.
GSW, so you noticed it too. Wow's problems go far beyond his science impotence. Now the "cunt" is to blame.
A true Lord Byron... ;-)
Olap, cease the wanking with factoids and get to when to the first trans-polar voyage in a single season occurred. That is the measure that smashes apart your stupid implications as being anything like modern conditions.
You, of course, being more used to gobbling then spewing up the chum chump chunks you're fed rather than applying thought, won't have thought of that.
One more time for you dear chek:
"Still more remarkable is the fact that the warming of the Arctic is not confined to any particular region.”
;-)
@Olaus
I was thinking more Wilde than Byron, Olaus. Oscar had an ear for the witty "Bon mot" as well. I think wow's post is a keeper,
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/12/jonas-thread/comment-page-61…
Perhaps Lloyd Webber could try setting it to music, who knows, "Wow the Musical", showing in sewers across the country.
;)
GSW, anyone that cun't write poetry like wow is a true word smith. ;-)
#35 already predicts your expected expression of stupid at #36 Olap.
BULLSHIT you lying sack of crap.
Prove it or retract it, you whining arselick.
Yeah, olap, I figured that even the simplest fact about the earth if it wasn't within your physical reach was beyond you.
Well done, you've just managed ULTRA retard level.
And anyone who can't understand simple facts is a moron, gitter and olap.
Keep fiddling in your pants, though.
No, check, they're morons. Moreover, as seems to be common among the libertards (especially Merkin Libertards), not only are they moronic and ill equipped to think, they're damn well PROUD of how monstrously dumb they are. Even to the extent of back-slapping each other over how dumb they've managed to be.
Wow - are you really unaware of that your written comments can be seen by others and for time to come?
The most amazing thing about these Swedish murkin wannabees is how they're not ashamed of their rectal swab level of intelligence (intelligence by one measure being the ability to integrate facts and not cling to anecdotal factoids.
And yet they push themselves forward as the flagship case against the most coherent theory since the Manhattan Project, while expecting to be taken seriously.
chek
"the most coherent theory since the Manhattan Project.."
You really have absolutely no clue about science either, do you!?
And nobody expects you to manage anything here. Don't try to flatter yourself! I usually ask people what their best arguments are for their case. Here people mostly aren't even capable of putting their case to coherent words. Certainly you aren't!
Heck, most of you already derailed over that (infamous) AR4 claim .... and never recovered from there
And the retards here are crowing about "15-20% reduction over 20 years" as if it somehow proves AGW doesn't exist.
This, however, is entirely why their petulant demands for information are given the way they are (i.e. if at all): they don't fucking read a thing. They run a script internally on what they WANT to be said, then parrot that as if it were true.
wow, you are unfortunately completely devoid of critical assessment of scientific methodology, i.e. it is totally ridiculous to think that arctic sea ice extent in the first decades of the 20th century could be estimated with ANY accuracy (have you heard WHEN the first humans reached the north pole, hein??)
there are no reliable data until 2002, basta, everything else is your usual cherry-picking of what your ideology forces you to believe. period.
So the question remains, where in the world has it gotten unberable hot due to AGW?
Funny how the deltiod zealots claims that AGW is to blame for a weather event like a heatwave, but a -50 deg C blizzard is just weather (which it of course is, exactly as a heat wave is). How come this double standard and moving of goal posts?
@Jonas #95
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/12/jonas-thread/comment-page-60…
Missed this earlier Jonas, won't make too big an issue of the site policies, all things in moderation eh? ;)
Happy with the expanded "phases" of jeff's pathology that you've charaterised.
"It is indeed very difficult to extract what at all he might be trying to say and accomplish here. It looks mostly just like frustrated angry barking at a world he does not understand."
Yes, "a world he does not understand" is quite a good way of putting it. It's not just the lack of math or physics education (that's visible anyway, there may have been six years of the stu type stuff), but more struggling to come to terms with the real world as a whole that he finds "challenging"; references to "transnational elites" and Obama being a right-wing stooge(?).
Your,
"He does not understand major parts of the world, of reality, of why people don’t share his utopian nonsense fantasies about neither world, politics, nor other people. He does not know what (real) science is, how it works and how it may accomplish advancement, and what such may be."
also correct, and I don't think he is aware of the effect it has on the simple folk either; the chek, wow and BJ s of the world, what about these poor wretches? Forever doomed to wander around blogs thinking that if a paper doesn't end with the words "the End is Nigh, Amen.", then it's not been properly "peer reviewed"! I've lost track of the number of times one of them has congratulated him on how "sciency" he is and how much they appreciate his various misrepresentations. It's not good.
"I think that is why he is shouting so much, and here. Where most of the others are in the same situation. Meaning (amonst others) totally incapable of articulating and argument worth listening to …"
Yes, no arguments, just shouting. It's how you can tell it's over apparently, as in "All over bar the..".
Cheers Jonas!
;)
The projection of deniers would be fascinating if it wasn't such a common event.
It's practically the only event on show, chek.
There's nothing else on the box.
"So the question remains"
And the answer remains given, panties.
funny how the libertard zealots can't read or think.
GSW
The fascinating thing would be that he is totally unaware of how bad it is. Not even in the glaring face of evidence that his claims are utter nonsens is he able to get his story straight ... and he fancies himself to be an 'important scientist' too.
Well there are enclaves in the real world (in academia, byreaucracy etc) where delusions like his may susrvive and even thrive, where defying reality is part of the jobdescription. But even those cases rarely get as bad as our compulsive ranter here ..
His followers/on-cheerers are of the same kind: Shunning every part of substance, just shouting out what ought to be believed in faith, and more and more in glaring contrast to evidence from the real world.
Look at chek for instance, has he ever managed to even present an argument in a coherent string of words and sentences? (If yes, it must be extremely rare). And Wow ... well, nothing needs to be said, his comments (individually) often suffice to make the point.
But admittedly, those few commenting here who (at times!) exhibited som signs of actual thinking, of knowledge and capability to actually argue any substance, or only address such ... have always been few in numbers and receding. I can't see those hanging here some years back, at least trying to put forward an intelligabe position and arguing it (like a grown-up) still doing so.
As you say, the hysteria has peaked, and the belief-system is coming apart, the 'smarter' among them are jumping ship as the gravy traind is drying up, and those more 'professionally' invested in the cause are shifting their positions, trying to make as little noise as they can. Only the mislead faithers are still standing and shouting on the barricades ... and not understanding what is happening around them.
Just look at chek's: ".. the most coherent theory since the Manhattan Project .."
You just can't make these guys up. Chek (whom I suspects holds a (soft) PhD does not know what a scientific theory is)
Well, it's good of Tim to have them all on display here, and (albeit mangled and misnumbered) keep a record of all their fantasy claims and stated beliefs ... don't you think?
;-)
Just thought I'd add to my CV for the benfit of GSW and Jonas: I will likely be appointed Professor soon, and have just been offered a position as co-Editor in Chief of a new journal in a major series. Gee, I must have duped a lot of people, or else my qualifixations are recognized by those who matter.
Guess what? Your views mean diddly squat, Jonas and GSW. One of you (Jonas) is a legend in his own mind, and the other (GSW) is his fawning little puppy dog.
Talk about pathology eh? I was wondering when you two dolts will be invited for Professorships and what journals you both are at least Associate Editors on....
We all know the answer to thse questions.
Noe and None. And when it comes to 'hard science', you both are stuck in your nappies. If you weren't you'd be publishing with the big boys. You aren't, and again we all know why.
As an addendum, its funny that the only people I have encountered who think that I possess some kind of 'pathology' and that I don't have the necessary education are a few science-hating climate change downplaying/denying non scientists on Deltoid.
Stu and I have asked the self-profesed genuis on his won thread (Jonas) innumerable times what special educational qualifications he possesses and the answer is always the same. No response. Or, if one wants to be polite, "None of your business". Translated for the rest of us mere mortals that means "self-educated; no professional qualifications." Put another way, Jonas is saying that university education doesn't matter when one is a brilliant without one as he is.
And all along he is egged-on by his alter-ego sidekick, GSW, who also thinks he is some kind of science wizard and therefore compentent is commentng on any fields. When dressed down on his incorrect comments environmental science or ecology (e.g. Polar Bear demographics, C02 ferilization effects or global amphibian declines), he either stands his ground (by not replying at all to substantive arguments) or more often by belittling the field of ecology and the people who work in it.
So utterly predictable. Betula has mastered the art on the open thread. He also spewed out the C02/plant food nonsense and then went on to claim that eastern NA ecosytems were in good shape on thew basis of three piss-poor examples: Wild Turkey re-introduction programmes, booming white-tailed deer populations and the eastern range expansion of coyotes. When I shot these summarily down, he said nothing except to retreat back to an old meme about my 'lies and embellishment' over a trek I made across an Ontario Park in January-February of 2012.
GSW does much the same.
"“So the question remains”
And the answer remains given, panties."
Not in a long shot. You claim 35 000 people have died due to AGW. Prove it, if you can. A heat wave is a weather event, nothing else.
17 years and counting, no armageddon to be found anywhere. Where has it become unberable hot due to AGW? Let's hear it!
blockquote>Prove it, if you can. A heat wave is a weather event, nothing else.
PantieZ re-read #13 again.
Then when you think you've understood it, get someone proficient in English to explain it to you again.
Congratulations Jeff.
Well done on the appointments, and well done on presenting something to stick in the craws of the idiot denier trolls who couldn't match either achievement in a thousand years.
And still no answer. But hey, it's deltoid.
Just because you deny the answer is an answer does not mean it wasn't answered.
You just don't like the answer.
panties, you DO know that Armageddon is a religious term, right?
This is science. Even if you don't do it, that's what this is about. Science.
Not faith.
"And still no answer"
Nope, the answer is still given.
You're just denying reality.
But then again, you're a fuckwitted arselick denialist.
That's all you do: deny reality.
"panties, you DO know that Armageddon is a religious term, right?"
Exactly! And what then does it imply that you zealots promote it so furiosly?
Tim, fuck you.
Seriously, fuck you.
You put this up here, but don't give a fucking shit about what happens on it.
YOU clean up if you care,but if you don't give a shit about it, why the fuck should I?
Nop, no answer anywhere to be seen!
1) Where has it become unberable hot due to AGW?
2) Where are those death certificates that state "Dead due to AGW"?
3) Why does warm mongers allways claim that warm weather events is due to AGW and cold ones are nothing but weather?
Screaming for daddy now, are you wow? Screaming for censorship when you can't answer relevant questions! Such a loser.
PantieZ, comprehension isn't something that you do, or even can do. You can only help yourself with that, it can't be done for you.
In your strawman collection, just as causes of deaths due to hypothermia aren't ascribed to 'poverty'.
That's another load of bollocks solely due to your spectacular failure to comprehend, yet again. Stick to voting on TV reality shows or whatever your miniscule IQ can cope with PantieZ.
Written by Robert G. Brown. Read and ponder:
"Saying that we need to wait for a certain interval in order to conclude that “the models are wrong” is dangerous and incorrect for two reasons. First — and this is a point that is stunningly ignored — there are a lot of different models out there, all supposedly built on top of physics, and yet no two of them give anywhere near the same results!
This is reflected in the graphs Monckton publishes above, where the AR5 trend line is the average over all of these models and in spite of the number of contributors the variance of the models is huge. It is also clearly evident if one publishes a “spaghetti graph” of the individual model projections (as Roy Spencer recently did in another thread) — it looks like the frayed end of a rope, not like a coherent spread around some physics supported result.
Note the implicit swindle in this graph — by forming a mean and standard deviation over model projections and then using the mean as a “most likely” projection and the variance as representative of the range of the error, one is treating the differences between the models as if they are uncorrelated random variates causing >deviation around a true mean!.
Say what?
This is such a horrendous abuse of statistics that it is difficult to know how to begin to address it. One simply wishes to bitch-slap whoever it was that assembled the graph and ensure that they never work or publish in the field of science or statistics ever again. One cannot generate an ensemble of independent and identically distributed models that have different code. One might, possibly, generate a single model that generates an ensemble of predictions by using uniform deviates (random numbers) to seed
“noise” (representing uncertainty) in the inputs.
What I’m trying to say is that the variance and mean of the “ensemble” of models is completely meaningless, statistically because the inputs do not possess the most basic properties required for a meaningful interpretation. They are not independent, their differences are not based on a random distribution of errors, there is no reason whatsoever to believe that the errors or differences are unbiased (given that the only way humans can generate unbiased anything is through the use of e.g. dice or other objectively random instruments).
So why buy into this nonsense by doing linear fits to a function — global temperature — that has never in its entire history been linear, although of course it has always been approximately smooth so one can always do a Taylor series expansion in some sufficiently small interval and get a linear term that — by the nature of Taylor series fits to nonlinear functions — is guaranteed to fail if extrapolated as higher order nonlinear terms kick in and ultimately dominate? Why even pay lip service to the notion that or for a linear fit, or for a Kolmogorov-Smirnov comparison of the real temperature record and the extrapolated model prediction, has some meaning? It has none.
Let me repeat this. It has no meaning! It is indefensible within the theory and practice of statistical analysis. You might as well use a ouija board as the basis of claims about the future climate history as the ensemble average of different computational physical models that do not differ by truly random variations and are subject to all sorts of omitted variable, selected variable, implementation, and initialization bias. The board might give you the right answer, might not, but good luck justifying the answer it gives on some sort of rational basis.
Let’s invert this process and actually apply statistical analysis to the distribution of model results Re: the claim that they all correctly implement well-known physics. For example, if I attempt to do an a priori computation of the quantum structure of, say, a carbon atom, I might begin by solving a single electron model, treating the electron-electron interaction using the probability distribution from the single electron model to generate a spherically symmetric “density” of electrons around the nucleus, and then performing a self-consistent field theory iteration (resolving the single electron model for the new potential) until it converges. (This is known as the Hartree approximation.)
Somebody else could say “Wait, this ignore the Pauli exclusion principle” and the requirement that the electron wavefunction be fully antisymmetric. One could then make the (still single electron) model more complicated and construct a Slater determinant to use as a fully antisymmetric representation of the electron wavefunctions, generate the density, perform the self-consistent field computation to convergence. (This is Hartree-Fock.)
A third party could then note that this still underestimates what is called the “correlation energy” of the system, because treating the electron cloud as a continuous distribution through when electrons move ignores the fact thatindividual electrons strongly repel and hence do not like to get near one another. Both of the former approaches underestimate the size of the electron hole, and hence they make the atom “too small” and “too tightly bound”. A variety of schema are proposed to overcome this problem — using a semi-empirical local density functional being probably the most successful.
A fourth party might then observe that the Universe is really relativistic, and that by ignoring relativity theory and doing a classical computation we introduce an error into all of the above (although it might be included in the semi-empirical LDF approach heuristically).
In the end, one might well have an “ensemble” of models, all of which are based on physics. In fact, the differences are also based on physics — the physicsomitted from one try to another, or the means used to approximate and try to include physics we cannot include in a first-principles computation (note how I sneaked a semi-empirical note in with the LDF, although one can derive some density functionals from first principles (e.g. Thomas-Fermi approximation), they usually don’t do particularly well because they aren’t valid across the full range of densities observed in actual atoms). Note well, doing the precise computation is not an option. We cannot solve the many body atomic state problem in quantum theory exactly any more than we can solve the many body problem exactly in classical theory or the set of open, nonlinear, coupled, damped, driven chaotic Navier-Stokes equations in a non-inertial reference frame that represent the climate system.
Note well that solving for the exact, fully correlated nonlinear many electron wavefunction of the humble carbon atom — or the far more complex Uranium atom — is trivially simple (in computational terms) compared to the climate problem. We can’t compute either one, but we can come a damn sight closer to consistently approximating the solution to the former compared to the latter.
So, should we take the mean of the ensemble of “physics based” models for the quantum electronic structure of atomic carbon and treat it as the best predictionof carbon’s quantum structure? Only if we are very stupid or insane or want to sell something. If you read what I said carefully (and you may not have — eyes tend to glaze over when one reviews a year or so of graduate quantum theory applied to electronics in a few paragraphs, even though I left out perturbation theory, Feynman diagrams, and ever so much more:-) you will note that I cheated — I run in a semi-empirical method.
Which of these is going to be the winner? LDF, of course. Why? Because theparameters are adjusted to give the best fit to the actual empirical spectrum of Carbon. All of the others are going to underestimate the correlation hole, and their errors will be systematically deviant from the correct spectrum. Their mean will be systematically deviant, and by weighting Hartree (the dumbest reasonable “physics based approach”) the same as LDF in the “ensemble” average, you guarantee that the error in this “mean” will be significant.
Suppose one did not know (as, at one time, we did not know) which of the models gave the best result. Suppose that nobody had actually measured the spectrum of Carbon, so its empirical quantum structure was unknown. Would the ensemble mean be reasonable then? Of course not. I presented the models in the wayphysics itself predicts improvement — adding back details that ought to be important that are omitted in Hartree. One cannot be certain that adding back these details will actually improve things, by the way, because it is always possible that the corrections are not monotonic (and eventually, at higher orders in perturbation theory, they most certainly are not!) Still, nobody would pretend that the average of a theory with an improved theory is “likely” to be better than the improved theory itself, because that would make no sense. Nor would anyone claim that diagrammatic perturbation theory results (for which there is a clear a priori derived justification) are necessarily going to beat semi-heuristic methods like LDF because in fact they often do not.
What one would do in the real world is measure the spectrum of Carbon, compare it to the predictions of the models, and then hand out the ribbons to the winners! Not the other way around. And since none of the winners is going to be exact — indeed, for decades and decades of work, none of the winners was even particularly close to observed/measured spectra in spite of using supercomputers (admittedly, supercomputers that were slower than your cell phone is today) to do the computations — one would then return to the drawing board and code entry console to try to do better.
Can we apply this sort of thoughtful reasoning the spaghetti snarl of GCMs and their highly divergent results? You bet we can! First of all, we could stop pretending that “ensemble” mean and variance have any meaning whatsoever bynot computing them. Why compute a number that has no meaning? Second, we could take the actual climate record from some “epoch starting point” — one that does not matter in the long run, and we’ll have to continue the comparison for the long run because in any short run from any starting point noise of a variety of sorts will obscure systematic errors — and we can just compare reality to the models. We can then sort out the models by putting (say) all but the top five or so into a “failed” bin and stop including them in any sort of analysis or policy decisioning whatsoever unless or until they start to actually agree with reality.
Then real scientists might contemplate sitting down with those five winners and meditate upon what makes them winners — what makes them come out the closest to reality — and see if they could figure out ways of making them work even better. For example, if they are egregiously high and diverging from the empirical data, one might consider adding previously omitted physics, semi-empirical or heuristic corrections, or adjusting input parameters to improve the fit.
Then comes the hard part. Waiting. The climate is not as simple as a Carbon atom. The latter’s spectrum never changes, it is a fixed target. The former is never the same. Either one’s dynamical model is never the same and mirrors the variation of reality or one has to conclude that the problem is unsolved and the implementation of the physics is wrong, however “well-known” that physics is. So one has to wait and see if one’s model, adjusted and improved to better fit the past up to the present, actually has any predictive value.
Worst of all, one cannot easily use statistics to determine when or if one’s predictions are failing, because damn, climate is nonlinear, non-Markovian, chaotic, and is apparently influenced in nontrivial ways by a world-sized bucket of competing, occasionally cancelling, poorly understood factors. Soot. Aerosols. GHGs. Clouds. Ice. Decadal oscillations. Defects spun off from the chaotic process that cause global, persistent changes in atmospheric circulation on a local basis (e.g. blocking highs that sit out on the Atlantic for half a year) that have a huge impact on annual or monthly temperatures and rainfall and so on. Orbital factors. Solar factors. Changes in the composition of the troposphere, the stratosphere, the thermosphere. Volcanoes. Land use changes. Algae blooms.
And somewhere, that damn butterfly. Somebody needs to squash the damn thing, because trying to ensemble average a small sample from a chaotic system is so stupid that I cannot begin to describe it. Everything works just fine as long as you average over an interval short enough that you are bound to a given attractor, oscillating away, things look predictable and then — damn, you change attractors.Everything changes! All the precious parameters you empirically tuned to balance out this and that for the old attractor suddenly require new values to work.
This is why it is actually wrong-headed to acquiesce in the notion that any sort of p-value or Rsquared derived from an AR5 mean has any meaning. It gives up the high ground (even though one is using it for a good purpose, trying to argue that this “ensemble” fails elementary statistical tests. But statistical testing is a shaky enough theory as it is, open to data dredging and horrendous error alike, and that’s when it really is governed by underlying IID processes (see “Green Jelly Beans Cause Acne”). One cannot naively apply a criterion like rejection if p < 0.05, and all that means under the best of circumstances is that the current observations are improbable given the null hypothesis at 19 to 1. People win and lose bets at this level all the time. One time in 20, in fact. We make a lot of bets!
So I would recommend — modestly — that skeptics try very hard not to buy into this and redirect all such discussions to questions such as why the models are in such terrible disagreement with each other, even when applied to identical toy problems that are far simpler than the actual Earth, and why we aren’t using empirical evidence (as it accumulates) to reject failing models and concentrate on the ones that come closest to working, while also not using the models that are obviously not working in any sort of “average” claim for future warming. Maybe they could hire themselves a Bayesian or two and get them to recompute the AR curves, I dunno.
It would take me, in my comparative ignorance, around five minutes to throw out all but the best 10% of the GCMs (which are still diverging from the empirical data, but arguably are well within the expected fluctuation range on the DATA side), sort the remainder into top-half models that should probably be kept around and possibly improved, and bottom half models whose continued use I would defund as a waste of time. That wouldn’t make them actually disappear, of course, only mothball them. If the future climate ever magically popped back up to agree with them, it is a matter of a few seconds to retrieve them from the archives and put them back into use.
Of course if one does this, the GCM predicted climate sensitivity plunges from the totally statistically fraudulent 2.5 C/century to a far more plausible and stillpossibly wrong ~1 C/century, which — surprise — more or less continues the post-LIA warming trend with a small possible anthropogenic contribution. This large a change would bring out pitchforks and torches as people realize just how badly they’ve been used by a small group of scientists and politicians, how much they are the victims of indefensible abuse of statistics to average in the terrible with the merely poor as if they are all equally likely to be true with randomly distributed differences.
rgb"
Another fantasy you suffer from PantieZ.
Text cannot 'scream'.
What you're experiencing is the internal noise inside your own pointy head.
Your arsebuddy Jonarse suffers from a similar malady.
PantieZ @ # 68.
You'd think after the humiliation of suffering the indignities of having McIntyre's prolific ignorance exposed over the years, the deniers would be wary of having mere number crunchers apply their craft with complete ignorance of climate science.
But you'd be wrong, because here they go again.
Who is a denier I wonder?
And yet again:
1) Where has it become unberable hot due to AGW?
2) Where are those death certificates that state “Dead due to AGW”?
3) Why does warm mongers allways claim that warm weather events is due to AGW and cold ones are nothing but weather?
Try a remedial course in English PantieZ.
It'll help you enormously.
We're not here to pander to your self-chosen ignorance.
@Jonas,
Are you back to something approaching "realtime" for posting? ;)
Yes, "Just look at chek’s: “.. the most coherent theory since the Manhattan Project ..”" I wondered about that, be interested to know what particular "theory" chek thought that was a milestone for, and No he does not have a (soft) PhD in anything. It's impossible to be that inarticulate and get thru university (hopefully).
@Jeff
You just don't get it do you? In response to criticism that your only argument to date is your CV (and that is not an argument), you come back with "Guess what? my CV might be even better soon!". So Jeff's impressed with Jeff, plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
;)
Well, lookee who just appeared at # 57.
How's that paper on overturning attribution going?
No, I don't think it's gone anywhere either.
Truth be told, I don't think it even got started.
Anonymous blog comments are the zenith of your achievement, Jonarse.
@Jonas
That was a response to your #57 and you managed to get thru on #47 and #45 as well, v good! The Manhattan Project, come on chek explain, where did that gem come from?
GSW, oh I geddit alright. Clearly. You guys are easy to understand. Hit and run. Say something, and the rest of us minions must swallow it hook, line and sinker. It doesn't matter how scientifically shallow or just plain wrong it is, the opinions of you, Jonas, Betula et al are not to be questioned. Its just inconvenient that a very large majority of scientists would question - or downright ridicule - your views. Its just that most sensible researchers would find your ideas on environmental science to be comical at best and downright ludicrous at worst. Since 99.999% wouldn't respond to your bull**** with a barge pole, you do have one point: I must be crazy to waste my time on dolts like you and Jonas.
My intention was that you guys think you know more than you actually do. When your arguments are summarily shot down - as with your Polar Bear/frog decline/C02 fertilization nonsense - you simply ignore the ripostes and move on to something else. You must actually think you know what you are talking about - and that everything you say MUST be accepted as gospel. Forget the fact that your wafer-thin arguments have little empirical support. The rest of us here are supposed to swallow your nonsense and when we don't the knives come out. Not in the form of arguments with scientific underpinning, but in the form of insults, smears and innuendos.
I don't need to defend my CV to you any way, It speaks for itself. Your idol refuses to tell us his bonafides, except to intimate that he is clearly light years ahead of us mortals intellectually. And on the basis of what? His own self-perception, egged on by you and a few other deluded souls. Out in the big, bad world he's as anonymous as you are. A nobody, nothing, less than a blip. If Deltoid allows him (and you) to massage your egos, so be it. But this little innocuous corner of the blogosphere is where you are forever stuck. At least I don't have to say that, hence why I like to rub salt into your wounds.
Coming from the same stable as PantieZ, you seem to suffer similar inadequacies with understanding plain English. But let's ignore your difficulties with language and get to the heart of the issue here.
Why - after all; these years of pseudo-scientific posturing - hasn't your fellow traveller Jonarse been able to refute AGW attribution as published in AR4 in even the most minor of vanity publications? Nearly six years to write his paper and yet, nobody has heard anything. It's almost as if he is completely unable to, yet holds out a lie to you climatescam knuckle-draggers like a dog-catcher offering a rubber bone to a pack of rabid, frothing mutts..
Do you also think that Jonarse is - at best -merely a bag of piss-drenched wind and incapable of delivering what he appears to promise, even if only to you and your fellow moribund conspiracy theorists?
I rather think you'd be correct if so.
jeffie, "And on the basis of what?" On the rubbish coming from your mouth.
chek, I understand, you are so out of arguments that misspellings is all you have left (if you are unable to comprehend a sentence because some misspellings, perhaps you shouldn´d ride that high horse of yours). Or is there another reason why you won't answer the questions?
1) Where has it become unberable hot due to AGW?
2) Where are those death certificates that state “Dead due to AGW”?
3) Why does warm mongers allways claim that warm weather events is due to AGW and cold ones are nothing but weather?
You have been answered, but unfortunately you can't comprehend the answers PantieZ, hence your parrot with a wrung neck routine.
You're done now.
Next.
@Jeff
Much to your disappointment, we established that Polar Bears aren't going anywhere in a hurry (from the limited data available there are as many now as there's been in the last 100yrs), frog population decline is due to "pathogens" not CO2 (one of your beloved, but unsupported "stressors"), and unfortunately CO2 fertilisation of plants is well known, they teach it at school, even those in the "Ecology" community have arrived at a concensus on this.
" The rest of us here are supposed to swallow your nonsense and when we don’t the knives come out. Not in the form of arguments with scientific underpinning, but in the form of insults, smears and innuendos."
There's evidence for everything that's been claimed, that's all that matters Jeff, not your CV. We even referenced the the papers for you, whether you and BJ swallow it or not is up to you. Evidence Jeff, Evidence!
@chek (the simple folk)
The Manhattan Project, genuinely interested in your take on this and the "coherent theory" you mentioned. They way you said it gave the impression that you didn't really understand, I may be wrong, but some explanation would help. It comes across in the same way that if you'd refered to the Moon landings as being the "defining proof" for the "Theory of Gravity". The statement itself hints at a complete lack of understanding of the science, and "history of". But I'm happy for you to elucidate if you wish. In isolation your statement " the most coherent theory since the Manhattan Project" is just bizarre. Jonas picked up on it too.
"But let’s ignore your difficulties with language and get to the heart of the issue here."
I'm guessing this is an Oh, Oh, lets move along, nothing to see here statement. It was, again, just bizarre, but I'm happy for you to pursue if you wish.
" at best -merely a bag of piss-drenched wind"
Is there a Poet Laureate for alarmism? close run thing between you and wow, I would have thought.
;)
So quit dancing Griselda - why hasn't Jonarse the great pierced the heart of AGW theory with his ideas on attribution?
I'm leaning towards this actual mission is fucking with a simple-minded bunch of shit-for-brains conspiracy theorists and the reason his - ahem - killer hypothesis has not gone anywhere is that he's got nothing to back it up.
On the other hand he's collected a rabid bunch coop of kooks, so maybe that was the whole point.
Wow, Jeff, Stu et al.
BBD is right, it's time to hold these asswipes to account.
I propose striking through every comment from hereon in
from the troll collective and asking why Jonarse The Incredible hasn't published his refutation of attribution studies.
No more, no less. From now on.
@chek
There's no need to publish a "refutation" of the attribution studies, they're little more than conjecture (opinion formed on incomplete information). They are what they are, they're not proof of anything (Although you lot interpret them as though they were, god knows why). Jeff et al refuse to read the papers, I assume due to an aversion to maths. Others have to read them for them, and something inevitably gets lost in translation. You read the papers youself chek? or just follow the rest of the activist mob?
;)
There’s no need to publish a “refutation” of the attribution studies, they’re little more than conjecture (opinion formed on incomplete information). They are what they are, they’re not proof of anything (Although you lot interpret them as though they were, god knows why). Jeff et al refuse to read the papers, I assume due to an aversion to maths. Others have to read them for them, and something inevitably gets lost in translation. You read the papers youself chek? or just follow the rest of the activist mob?
So why can't Jonarse kill AGW theory with his counter to attribution? You make it sound so easy.
I think it's because he can't, and his real interest is in cultivating a rabid bunch of kooks like you and Olap and PantieZ, Griselda.
"Much to your disappointment, we established that Polar Bears aren’t going anywhere in a hurry (from the limited data available there are as many now as there’s been in the last 100yrs), frog population decline is due to “pathogens” not CO2 (one of your beloved, but unsupported “stressors”), and unfortunately CO2 fertilisation of plants is well known, they teach it at school, even those in the “Ecology” community have arrived at a concensus on this"
Who do you mean by 'we'????? You?!!!???? In truth, 'we' never concluded what 'you' did at all. Again, its exactly as I said: you say something, make an assertion base don your own limited understanding of the 'facts', and accept everyone else to swallow it.
First, polar bear demographics reveal that the bear populations are dominated by older animals; natality is down and thus once the aging population is gone, then the effects of this skewed age structure will become manifest. Second, your pathogen hypothesis in explaining a global pandemic of declines of many frog species is way too simplistic, and many herpetologists would say exactly the same thing. Certainly few will attribute it to one factor; several are likely involved, of which climate change is one, particularly when it is exacerbated by other factors. Finally, 02 fertilization in no way is a way of estimating the qualitative effects of atmospheric C02 increases on natural and managed ecosystems. In other words, non-linear increases in plant biomass ignore other changes - such as in plant secondary metabolism, intra- and inter-specific competition, interactions with consumers and their nutritional ecology etc. In other words one cannot extrapolate complex effects on the structure and functioning of communities and ecosystems linearly, as you and other non-experts do. I have explained these complexities in detail elsewhere and although they were probably well ver your layman head, they do not make them wrong.
But I have to come back to your opening. "We established"... So this is the way you debate. You say something, even with little empirical support, and although many of us including people who know a lot more about it than you (including me) disagree, these disagreements are to be ignored.
You care clueless, GSW. And clearly you cannot respond with any kind of sense to logical arguments. Saying 'we' on the basis of your own opinions is proof of that.
One final point: GSW is playing the 'now' game. Deniers do it all the time. I am used to them meddling with data or selectively interpreting it to draw their own conclusions.
With respect to Polar Bear populations, he is basing his exceedingly limited comments on the current numbers of bears, but not on important demographic and fitness related parameters that will tell us much about their future prospects. Perhaps this is over his layman's head, but if one studies more detailed aspects of natality, per capita fitness, and other physiological parameters the prognosis for bears is bleak.
His amphibian argument is so plainly simplistic and incorrect and I don't need to respond in detail to it. He has profoundly oversimplified a complex scenario. But again, deniers do this all of the time.
With respect to C02 fertilization, again I have never said that some - certainly not all, though - plants will grow larger as atmospheric C02 concentrations increase. But this is a less than cunning diversion. What other physiological traits of plants will change? How will this affect secondary and primary metabolisms? In turn, how will rapid changes in this affect plant-plant competition, and also plant-consumer interactions?
The fact is that deniers like GSW are intellectually dishonest. they try and give the impression that some global changes inflicted by humanity on complex adaptive systems have negligible effects or may even be beneficial by either greatly oversimplifying the conclusions or else basing them on one or two simple parameters. As I say above, basing Polar Bear prospects on current populations is meaningless unless one takes a more decidedly ecophysiological approach. Similarly, saying that plant biomass will increase as a result of C02 fertilization is nominally correct, but it ignores a vast array of other changes in plant traits that will not necessarily have positive effects on ecological communities and systems.
These are salient points, but are always overlooked or ignored by those who have pre-determined agendas to support. Nature is greatly oversimplified by people like GSW who have no expertise at all of the more complex processes involved in global change scenarios and who think they can wheedle their way through debates by espousing the most simplistic arguments. Jonas does it. PentaxZ does it. Betula does it. All they demonstrate to me is how little they know about non-linear complex processes in the environment.
jeffie
"In other words one cannot extrapolate complex effects on the structure and functioning of communities and ecosystems linearly, as you and other non-experts do."
Correct. and the same goes for the climate and weather:
In other words one cannot extrapolate complex effects on the climate and weather linearly, as you and other non-scientists do.
Since nor chek or wow can answer my questions, perhaps you can:
1) Where has it become unbearably hot due to AGW?
2) Where are those death certificates that state “Dead due to AGW”?
3) Why does warm mongers allways claim that warm weather events is due to AGW and cold ones are nothing but weather?
# 87 chek
That's the spirit! We know it works. The proof is for all too see on the open thread.
Here, let me get you started with this broken record moron:
BBD ... the selfproclaimed AGW-commenter with his 'energetically insufficient' UHI effect, and who believed that the summer to winter temperature difference 'proves the high CO2-feedbacks' ...
He most cdertainly has come to the right place here (somewhere where his blatherings still may be thought to contain substance, by a crownd that is generally oblivious to real and physcial sciences)
He has been shouting in the open threads for quite som time now: 'Accept the faith, accept the faith! ... nobody else questions it anymore'
And I said, oblivious to what real science is ...
Real funny, you zealots don't seem to know that you are becoming the worlds laughing stock. Hillarious!
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/seanthomas/100222487/when-it-comes-to…
And still, no one of you obviosly have the answer to three simple questions. And no, chek, a report of some weather events isn't a proof of AGW.
1) Where has it become unbearably hot due to AGW?
2) Where are those death certificates that state “Dead due to AGW”?
3) Why does warm mongers allways claim that warm weather events is due to AGW and cold ones are nothing but weather?
“Here come de heap big warmy. Bigtime warmy warmy. Is big big hot. Plenty big warm burny hot. Hot! Hot hot! But now not hot. Not hot now. De hot come go, come go. Now Is Coldy Coldy. Is ice. Hot den cold. Frreeeezy ice til hot again. Den de rain. It faaaalllll. Make pasty.”
Hillarious!
And yo cannot spell "hilarious" either, you moron.
chek, you really really haven't come off square one yet? Or probably haven't even entered the game ....
Or is it in sheer desperation you try nonsense like:
Ponder your (stupid) question for a second: You ask for "overturning attribution", while it has me who has asked for where that alleged attribution/certainty science that nobody has seen, is to be found. Because that would, if it existed, be the proper starting point questioning,scrutinizing, checking and if found wanting possibly överturning what is claimed there. If it existed, chek! Don't forget that: If such science exists at all, and can be found and read.
There is no way, chek, that even a foul mouthed Deltoid-ranter-regular can be entirely unaware of that fact: That so far there is nothing to be 'overturned' wrt to that AR4 claim, and you know it, and have known it for close to two years.
That's why you try supid inanities like:
This is how low your level is chek: You demand that non-existent science should be overturned or refuted, and that otherwise you will continue to belive that the non-existent science still holds.
Well chek, if you had been paying attention, this is what I told you from the start! Blind faith is all you have, and when challenged you demand 'Prove to me that my faith is wrong!' while holloring, clsing your eyes, covering your ears, and shouting the stuff that you shout ...
Jeffie is in the right company there!
Real funny, you zealots don’t seem to know that you are becoming the worlds laughing stock. Hillarious!(sic)
More projection from deniers.
NASA has a different verdict, which I'll believe rather than your malformed opinion anytime.
Hey PantieZ, whatever happened to Jonarse's quest to expose the IPCC's attribution studies? He couldn't do it, I suppose.
Pentax seems to be indulging in an 'O Lordy, where be mah warty-melon' racist stereotype and all...
No answers then? Laughing stock you are, greater and greater by the minute. Absolutely priceless!
Ok, let's make it easy for you, one question at a time. Starting with:
1) Where has it become unbearably hot due to AGW?
Shouldn't be to hard for you hard core warmistas. Shoot!!!
No answers then? Laughing stock you are, greater and greater by the minute. Absolutely priceless! Ok, let’s make it easy for you, one question at a time. Starting with:
1) Where has it become unbearably hot due to AGW?
Shouldn’t be to hard for you hard core warmistas. Shoot!!!
See #2, #13, #98
Hey PantieZ, whatever happened to Jonarse’s quest to expose the IPCC’s attribution studies? He couldn’t do it, I suppose, although he has collected a rabid bunch of kooks like you, so maybe that was the whole point.
That's the way.
PentaxZ
Read the words. If I can, you can.
chek, whatever Jonas and you are up to is hardly my business. If you want quick answers from him I suggest you tell tim to not obstruct his comments by delaying them.
Now, to the fun part. 1) Where has it become unbearably hot due to AGW? Is a straight answer to a simple question to hard for you?
Now, to the fun part. 1) Where has it become unbearably hot due to AGW? Is a straight answer to a simple question to (sic) hard for you?</strike)
See comments #2, #13, #98 on the previous page
Hey PantieZ, what happened to Jonarse’s quest to expose the IPCC’s attribution studies? You remember - that brought you here. He can’t do it, although he has instead collected a rabid bunch of kooks like you, PantieZ which looks like it was the whole point.
Now, to the fun part. 1) Where has it become unbearably hot due to AGW? Is a straight answer to a simple question to (sic) hard for you?</strike)
See comments #2, #13, #98 on the previous page
Hey PantieZ, what happened to Jonarse’s quest to expose the IPCC’s attribution studies? You remember – that brought you here. He can’t do it, although he has instead collected a rabid bunch of kooks like you, PantieZ which looks like it was the whole point.
Now, to the fun part. Where has it become unbearably hot due to AGW? Is a straight answer to a simple question to (sic) hard for you? </strike)
See comments #2, #13, #98 on the previous page
Hey PantieZ, what happened to Jonarse’s quest to expose the IPCC’s attribution studies? You remember – that brought you here. He can’t do it, although he has instead collected a rabid bunch of kooks like you, PantieZ which looks like it was the whole point.
See comments #2, #13, #98 on the previous page
Hey PantieZ, what happened to Jonarse’s quest to expose the IPCC’s attribution studies? You remember – that brought you here. He can’t do it, although he has instead collected a rabid bunch of kooks like you, PantieZ which looks like it was the whole point.
@Jeff
Your #90 and #91, where you claim "black is white" and "white is black". Your "re analysis" of what has been discussed is quite breath-taking. IT IS YOU THAT IS ACCUSED of oversimplifing/misrepresenting every ecological concern as being due to CAGW, no one else!
Pointing out to you, in your biodiversity armageddon rants, that the"primary literature" as you call it, doesn't support your "we're all doomed because of CO2" claims. Whether it be 4 dead Polar bears, declining frog populations, problems with Bees, or any of the other "warnings" from "soothsayer Jeff", CO2 has never been more than a bit part player, there have always been more pressing, more dominant, contributing factors; pathogens, land-use changes, farming practices, over-fishing, ENSO events, the list goes on ..
It's like pentaxZ keeps going on about, every extreme eather event you lot attribute to CAGW. You've done the same with biodiversity, but it's all balls! the evidence just isn't there. Evidence for claims Jeff, Evidence! (in case you still haven't grasped it, you can't pass of your crap prejudices as being "science", and therefore evidence, by referring to your CV)
Sure Jeff, "black is white" and "white is black", anything you say Jeff.
"IT IS YOU THAT IS ACCUSED of oversimplifing/misrepresenting every ecological concern as being due to CAGW, no one else!"
One thing is for certain GSW: you are a bald faced liar. Show me in any post In have ever made where I misrepresented every ecological concern as being due to CAGW. Just one! I even disagreed with one poster (Ianam) who claimed that I was downplaying AGW in overemphasizing other anthropogenic threats to the environment. Now we have you claiming just the opposite. I have always said that AGW is a major stressor along with several others. But I have never, ever misrepresented every ecological concern as being due to AGW. That you make this absurd claim totally guts everything else you claim. And I am supposed to be the one suffering 'pathological symptoms'. Look in the mirror, pal.
The fact that you say this suggests very strongly that you are in dire need of medical assistance. Therapy - whatever. In an earlier post you suggested that I attributed global amphibian declines to increased atmospheric C02 concentrations. Another pure and utter lie. Either your reading comprehension skills are way out of sync or you lie and make things up on the spot.
If this is your style of 'debating', along with your 'we have established' nonsense, then all I can say is that you and your hero belong together. IMHO you are totally and utterly bonkers.
I will agree with one thing you say GSW: I certainly am in need of medical help for lowering myself into the primordial ooze to engage with hacks like you and Jonas. No wonder my colleagues make fun of me for doing it. Wasting my valuable time is how they put it. And you know what? They are right. You aren't worth the effort. You've got some equally quacky supporters here - PentaxZ, Olaus and the grandmaster himself, Jonas, along with some other dimwits on other threads. Nary a one of you has a clue about anything remotely linked with environmental science, and yet I punish myself by trying to engage with you clowns. Self-flagellation.
I suppose I just cannot help it. But I have to admit that some of the gems you and your brethren write really take the cake.
Jeff ... Grossly misrepresenting reality again?
You have not been engaging in any relevant debate about anything. Not even in your own field are you capable of distinguishing betwen GW and AGW. Mostly you assume/pretend that all has to be the A of GW, even locally!
And you think you are 'engaging'!?
I on the other hand have engaged with not only the very few honest debaters here, but even tried to educate you about the very basic and first steps regarding real science. For instance that you don't get to make up your own 'facts', or that irrelevant arguments are the antithesis of science. As for example believing your CV has anything to do with how large positive feedbacks there are wrt to CO2 levels, or whether the IPCC just fabricated (opined about) that infamous claim of certainty and attribution, that has chek still frothing in renewed attempts of denial above ..
And now you accuse GSW for exaggerating your stance just a tiny little bit!? Well Jeff, show me one of your comments where you did better? Where you refrained from (not just slightly slanted, but) nonsense claims about me or others?
The description of you as 'black is white' and 'white is black' is quite apt. Because you are really terribly terribly unaware of that essentially everything you t ry to accuse me and others for is what you do and we don't.
You started you insults in your second comment. And they were as stupid then as they have been since! Don't blame me for your embarrassment when all your nonsense and inconsistencies are pointed out.
I have asked you for 1½ years to state even what my "earth shattering views" would be, which you derride so much. And you can only come up with stupid strawmen and even worse moronic drivel. Don't blame me for that either!
My observation, long long ago, that everyone who feels compelled to use the term 'denier' as an argument has zip to conbtribute, and mostly zip understanding of the issues too. And most certainly this has been true for you.
A 'scientist' who is incapable of even gettting simple 2-3 paragraph blog comments halfway correct and coherent ...
If you had listened to me instead of that random barking up imagined trees, you could have learnt somethin Jeff .... but I take it your fragile ego wouldnt allow you to learn anything new from me.
Hence you are stuck with moronic assertions like: "Stu nailed it" in (yet another) field where I know far more than you!
But don't blame me for that either, it's your own doing!
;-)
Hehe, are you falling back to your last resort, chekboy?
SPIEGEL: Do the computer models with which physicists simulate the future climate ever show the sort of long standstill in temperature change that we’re observing right now?
Storch: Yes, but only extremely rarely. At my institute, we analyzed how often such a 15-year stagnation in global warming occurred in the simulations. The answer was: In under 2 percent of all the times we ran the simulation. In other words, over 98 percent of forecasts show CO2 emissions as high as we have had in recent years leading to more of a temperature increase.
SPIEGEL: Just since the turn of the millennium, humanity has emitted another 400 billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, yet temperatures haven’t risen in nearly 15 years. What can explain this?
Storch: So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break. We’re facing a puzzle. Recent CO2 emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared. As a result, according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn’t happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) — a value very close to zero. This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year.
wow says
"Died of heat stroke.
Anthropogenic Global WARMING.
The connection is that warming == more heat.
And dying of heat stroke means that it was very hot."
0.06 degrees Celsius is hot. It's very, very hot. What a clown.
I don't know if you've noticed or not Jeff, but not just here with this clown contingent (and Brent was a similar case, as is Williwatts) but also elsewhere in the deniersphere, they place a great deal of faith in some imagined general level of * ahem * intelligence and education * cough * magically bestowing a competence sufficient to see them through whatever science is thrown at them.
The arrogance is that their stance is not even like going to a gunfight with a knife, but more like armed only with a paper hat.
God only knows what double-digit morons liker PantieZ, Olap and Griselda think they're achieving on their quixotic quest.
Speaking of which, it's moderately interesting that The Great Jonarse has had zero impact on any aspect of climate science with his Great Insight in all these years (and it has been years now), apart of course from cultivating the double-digit harem he drags around with him.
Where did you get that idea PantieZ? We need to know because you have the comprehension skills of a flatworm
Obviously, so why do you do it anyway?
17 years without warming, the last eleven even cooling at tiny bit. How is the CAGW armageddon going, check? Oh, perhaps that's why you don't have any answer to where it has become unbearably hot due to AGW? Right so, zealot?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2002/plot/hadcrut3gl/f…
Oh wait.... PantieZ thinks that a global average climate temperature is merely added to a local weather temperature to produce a death certificate.
I wonder what Idso think tank thought that one up and passed it for moron consumption? Almost as much as I wonder why Jonarse has had zero impact in all these years with his Great Insight.
# 17 pentaxZ
OHC 0 - 2000m
17 years without warming
I guess knowing nothing means that you don't have to even think about explaining the accelerating Arctic melt from 2007 to 2012, although my theory is that even basic arithmetic to calculate the years is beyond PantieZ
@Jeff
Your Biodiversity Armageddon rants are legendary, there's thousands of posts on Deltoid (over 6,000 of those on Jonas' thread, a record? ;) ) Here's a random excerpt from you,
"Please tell us all here – we wait with baited breath – examples of species that have been harmed by even small losses of habitat, and those that have not or have even benefitted, then place these findings in a broader ecophysiological and life-history related framework. Tell us why climate change will not be a major driver of extinctions. "
What did you mean when you posted this? let's see, "climate change".."major driver of extinctions". Don't get me wrong Jeff, now de emphasising CO2 as a "major driver of extinctions" as you do now, in favour more direct (as we've listed) causes, I see as a good thing, more inline with the primary literature. i.e. There's some fricking evidence for the other things.
We've been thru Polar Bears, links to Alan "Climate Change killed the Frogs" Pounds papers (we worked out eventually that it didn't), Coral Reefs, you're perfectly happy pushing any old crap. Please let us know when you think we might not all be Doomed!
Thanks Jeff, Enjoy!
;)
... but aside from that Griselda, I know from your previous here that you are a staunch advocate of the theory that a home-baked education is all any denier needs
Imagine my disappointment then when you fail to correct and berate your fellow traveller PantieZ when he goofs and adds a global temperature average to a local weather temperature!
How you must have laughed!! And yet you said nothing, perhaps because you knew no better.
That's likely why your pal Jonarse hasn't overturned IPCC attribution yet either. It must be distressing producing nothing after all these years.
Pentax is stupid even by Denier standards. Why bother?
And OHC.
Energy continues to accumulate in the climate system as expected. As it must.
Physics doesn't care what we think.
# 24 bill
Because it's there?
Pentax, I looked at your trend, and I thought you used too few years, considering your time period is not much larger than the known El Nino cycle.
SO I added a few years.
And I get:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1999/plot/hadcrut3gl/f…
Oh dear. Your trend was an artifact of choosing too short a period.
"Oh dear. Your trend was an artifact of choosing too short a period"
Oh dear, you choose a starting point to confirm your religious CAGW belief. Plotting a linear trend to a chaotic system is totally pointless. But since you zealots are so fond of straight lines, let's continue the game.
Your trend is an artifact of choosing a to short period. Let's add one year, craig.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1998/plot/hadcrut3gl/f…
@chaps
Has wow been banned?
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/12/jonas-thread/comment-page-61…
I think his posts could with a cooling off period, or time delay with a bleep.
BBD's not doing much better,
"You have nothing, which is why you lost the argument, you fucking buffoon. "
"If they can answer, they they can just fuck off and stop lying."
Pitiful, isn't it Craig?
Given the correct period to discern a trend, PantieZ misunderstood idea of a 'trend' can be seen tagged on <a href="http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1982/plot/hadcrut3gl/f… arse end here.
Whatever you think has never carried any weight here, Griselda.
":::adds a global temperature average to a local weather temperature!"
And yet that's exactly what you do when you claim 35 000 people has died due to AGW. Double standards and moving goal posts, that's your game, chek.
Still no answer to where it has become unbearably hot due to AGW?
Some healthy reading only for you, zealot.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2013/trenberths-missing-trends/
And yet that’s exactly what you do when you claim 35 000 people has died due to AGW. Double standards and moving goal posts, that’s your game, chek. Still no answer to where it has become unbearably hot due to AGW?
Comprehension of anything really isn't your stong point, is it PantieZ?
See comments #2, #13, #98 on the previous page
"See comments #2, #13, #98 on the previous page" wich is all about weather and nothing more, despite what your wet dreams tells you it is.
The fact, FACT, is that there has not been any warming the last 17 years and the last decade or so had in fact cooled. Deal with it!
And I would really appreciate an answer to Still no answer to where it has become unbearably hot due to AGW?
“Here come de heap big warmy. Bigtime warmy warmy. Is big big hot. Plenty big warm burny hot. Hot! Hot hot! But now not hot. Not hot now. De hot come go, come go. Now Is Coldy Coldy. Is ice. Hot den cold. Frreeeezy ice til hot again. Den de rain. It faaaalllll. Make pasty.”
Hillarious!
Your 'facts' actually aren't, they're denier lies.
To whit the accelerating melt of the Arctic between 2007 and 2012. Do the math.
Whoops I forgot, you can't even do that simple arithmetic.
Hilarious.
It's now patently obvious that you cannot understand plain English even when NASA put it in layman's terms.
Chek ... Sorry, but no! You can't come here two years late to the party and demand 'Do the math' after all your nonsense rambling, especially when you are so poor at doing the math by yourself
It is entirely correct to state that it hasn't warmed for some decade and a half and even cooled during some part of that.
And (as I've told you many times before) it is not the exact date or definitionen or choice of dataset that is the crux. No, it's the deviation from all the model prediction, and which is increasing the longer it lasts. Models is all the climate scare had to start with, and has been relying on. And the poorer the models describe reality, the poorer they are.
It's that simple!
Regarding ice (or OHC) you are both moving goal posts, and you are wrong.
As I (also!) told you before: The enhanced atmospheric GHG-effect if it exists is to bee seen in the atmosphere. (where it is hard to detect with stalling temperatures and missing hotspots). It cannot chose to go and hide somwhere else instead! Secondly, you can't just pick arctic sea ice. If at all, you need to look at all the earth's ice.
But don't bother chek. You've had two years trying to make a point (or even only simple math) and 'Jonarse' is about the level you reach ...
And very few reach further. (But the absence of Wow's usual word diarrhea is intriguing ;-) )
@ PentaxZ #32
I disagree with your claim that a linear fit to a climate time series is "totally pointless". Please provide a reference to at least one relevant textbook supporting your assertion.
If you cannot do so, please acknowledge your error and withdraw the claim.
* * *
At #38 you make an incorrect claim:
This is not a "fact, FACT", at all.
You are using an obsolete data set (HadCRUT3). If your graph at #32 is redone with HadCRUT4 the trend is positive - even with your cherry-picked starting year.
So much for your "FACTS".
And remember, pentax, short trends like the one you used are uninformative exactly because the climate system exhibits short-term internal variability, as you say above ("chaotic"). That's why 30-year climatologies tell us so much more about the underlying trend in, for example, global surface temperature.
* * *
You are still ignoring the increase in OHC:
- OHC 0 – 2000m
This hyper-focus on surface temperature is symptomatic of deniers who do not understand the basics of physical climatology:
- The troposphere ≠ the climate system
- Most (>90%) of the energy accumulating in the climate system as a consequence of radiative imbalance is in the oceans.
Here is a pretty picture which illustrates this very clearly.
And your unamusing, racist pastiche at #39 *still* contains a mis-spelling of "hilarious".
All in all, a miserable showing, pentax. Miserable.
@ GSW #33
The terms "you have nothing", "lost the argument", "fucking buffoon" and "lying" were carefully selected for accuracy.
I wonder if the likes of PantieZ et al will ever twig that denier sites don't set out to educate or inform their faithful flocks, but instead to fool, mislead and lie to them?
The sheer coprophagy of their whacky beliefs about what should be empirical evidence suggests they're fully invested in whatever their chief liars tell them.
Another spectacular own-goal by chek.
First, there exist no such thing as a 'denier'. Its a word only used by those who really cannot argue their stance, most often don't even understand it, and even less understand what objections are raised ... In short, it's a word, that frequently used on sites like this, and by commenters like chek.
Secondly, how can one even come up with the notion of "sites [that] don’t set out to educate or inform their faithful flocks, but instead to fool, mislead and lie to them" while commenting on Deltoid!?
It's like viewing into fantasyland reading some of the la-la-claims made here by the regulars.
@BBD
I'll take it from your #43 that you at least accept the "they can just fuck off" was Iill judged.
God, how I loathe the stench of prissy hypocrite in the afternoon.
GSW
Not at all. It is the final response to all serial liars.
GSW, since you are going to be our Mary Whitehouse this afternoon, why have you said nothing about the racist parody repeated, verbatim at #39?
Personally, I find racism infinitely more offensive than the odd "fuck off".
For the same reason that there are no raging arguments between 'it's cooling' enthusiasts and 'it's warming but it's the sun' groupies. They're all liars who don't step on other liars toes.
I'd say that BBD has nothing, nothing at all. Just a repeat-function of various stated claims he most often doesn't understand the underlying meaning of.
This has been established numerous times at several other more serious blogs. But according to himself he isn't even aware of what is lacking. He just raises his voice and repeats: 'Because I say so ... ' believing that he has grasp of physics which he really doesn't.
As I said above: This is the right place for him. The remaining faithers might believe that he says something knowledgable, just as they think that Jeff knows how real science is conducted and speaks for it ...
bbd
Yawn. I disagree with your. Please provide a reference to at least one relevant textbook supporting your assertion that there is any point in linear trends in climate predictions.
"You are using an obsolete data set (HadCRUT3). If your graph at #32 is redone with HadCRUT4 the trend is positive – even with your cherry-picked starting year."
Ah, you mean that the even more massaged data from Had CRUT4 is better? I see. So u
You have a problem with me cherry picking a starting point? But it's ok for you to do so? I call it double standard.
"
And remember, pentax, short trends like the one you used are uninformative exactly because the climate system exhibits short-term internal variability, as you say above (“chaotic”). That’s why 30-year climatologies tell us so much more about the underlying trend in, for example, global surface temperature."
I wonder, will you make the same claim when the present temperature stand still has continued for 13 more years, or will you once again move goalposts to fit your beliefs to your dogma? The fact is, as the thermometer readings show, that the temperature hasn't risen the last 17 years. Even your high preast pachauri says so. Who are you to question his word?
"This hyper-focus on surface temperature is symptomatic of deniers who do not understand the basics of physical climatology"
Little dear, all living creatures live on the earths surface or in the oceans. The temperature several kilometers above is hardly
Critical in any way.
Where has it become unbearably hot due to AGW? No one of the deltoid culprits seems to have an answer.
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
bbd
Yawn. I disagree with your. Please provide a reference to at least one relevant textbook supporting your assertion that there is any point in linear trends in climate predictions.
“You are using an obsolete data set (HadCRUT3). If your graph at #32 is redone with HadCRUT4 the trend is positive – even with your cherry-picked starting year.”
Ah, you mean that the even more massaged data from Had CRUT4 is better? I see. So u
You have a problem with me cherry picking a starting point? But it’s ok for you to do so? I call it double standard.
”
And remember, pentax, short trends like the one you used are uninformative exactly because the climate system exhibits short-term internal variability, as you say above (“chaotic”). That’s why 30-year climatologies tell us so much more about the underlying trend in, for example, global surface temperature.”
I wonder, will you make the same claim when the present temperature stand still has continued for 13 more years, or will you once again move goalposts to fit your beliefs to your dogma? The fact is, as the thermometer readings show, that the temperature hasn’t risen the last 17 years. Even your high preast pachauri says so. Who are you to question his word?
“This hyper-focus on surface temperature is symptomatic of deniers who do not understand the basics of physical climatology”
Little dear, all living creatures live on the earths surface or in the oceans. The temperature several kilometers above is hardly
Critical in any way.
Where has it become unbearably hot due to AGW? No one of the deltoid culprits seems to have an answer.
Little dear, all living creatures live on the earths surface or in the oceans. The temperature several kilometers above is hardly Critical in any way. Where has it become unbearably hot due to AGW?
You've been answered, but you're too unbearably stupid to understand that answer. Neither do you understand that statistics are for providing illumination and clarity, rather than abused as a crutch for the parotted, hand-me-down lies of liars like you.
@ PentaxZ #32
I disagree with your claim that a linear fit to a climate time series is "totally pointless". Please provide a reference to at least one relevant textbook supporting this assertion.
If you cannot do so, please acknowledge that you were mistaken to say this.
* * *
The improved reconstruction using more stations is better. Yes. You are implying that HadCRUT4 is using falsified data, which is tinfoil territory. You are not in a position to witter about double standards.
And you cherry-picked. Don't deny it. Worse, you were *wrong* and you are still repeating your rubbish despite being corrected:
This is a false claim. Here are the data that disprove it:
HadCRUT4, GISTEMP, UAH TLT; annual means 1996 - present; OLS linear fit
As for this "cooling over the last decade" stuff, you are reading *far* too much into an uninformatively short period. Here's the unvarnished truth: there are two strong La Niña events in the second half of the period (2008 and the "double-dip" LN of 2011 - 2012). This inevitably depresses the trend. Nobody serious would attempt to go any further than that. It would be a blatant, deceitful cherry pick, as is instantly obvious from any clear presentation of the data.
* * *
ENSO is an oscillation (the clue is in the name). Oscillations cancel out over time. They do not create long-term trends. A few La Niña aren't going to halt AGW in its tracks and only liars and fools would claim otherwise.
The best way to look at climate data is to take a long period and smooth it to remove monthly and some inter-annual noise. The underlying behaviour becomes immediately - and undeniably - evident. No trend-fitting is required:
HadCRUT4, GISTEMP, UAH TLT; full series; 5 year running means
Yeh PentaxZ, it sure is cooling...
http://phys.org/news/2013-06-global-temperatures-warmest.html
Fascinating, physics- and science-ignoramus BBD tries the 'oscillation'-spiel again. On top of that as a method to counter the very obvious temperature hiatus for 1½ decade by now.
And as everybody should (but probably doesn't) understand is that the hiatus and the consequences for the pet climate threat theory do not depend on the exact definition of 'no rise' nor the choice of dataset. It is the pause which is the elephant in the modelled room ...
No wonder that the believers come up with the funniest crooked new goalposts somewhere completely different ..
Priceless is also the notion that if you smooth things sufficiently, you don't even need a trend .. What did these people smoke instead of attending school and paying attention?
But Jeff PantieZ has gone been given the perfect defence, yessir. All AGW manifestations is 'weather', y'see. An' weather don't count. NASA can show all the bell curves they like an' critters can migrate wherever they damn well please. Just as long as it's understood it's all due to weather, nothin' more.
Jonarse pooped sorry popped up at #99 on Page 61 to whine:
Then it should be easy to demonstrate the errors. But as your two year campaign has shown, you can't. Not even page one, paragraph one, the first sentence.
@Pentax: The fact is, as the thermometer readings show, that the temperature hasn’t risen the last 17 years.
Wrong. Warming has most likely continued over the last 17 years. It is not distinguishable from flat at the 95% confidence level, but it is at above 90% confidence. Put it another way, "it has continued warming" is about 15 times as likely to be right as you bald assertion that "termperature hasn't risen".
Either you understand statistical significance, in which case you are a liar, or you do not understand statistical significance and you should shut the fuck up.
@Pentax: Even your high preast [sic] pachauri says so.
Wrong. Pachauri was verballed by a reporter. The fact that he immediately tried to get that misquote withdrawn doesn't register on Pentax's radar, because it doesn't suit his agenda.
If you are going to lie, Pentax, try to find lies that are less easy to disprove.
Hahahahahahahahahaha.......yor panic is shining through. The world isn't collaborating with your models and your dogma, so you make more and more imaginative and unworldly explanations up along the way. Clearly you zealots can't deal with real world facts. Why would you othervise defend your religious CAGW dogma so furiosly?
"Clearly you zealots can’t deal with real world facts."
Real world facts furnished and ignored by PentaxZ.
Illuminating, but not surprising.
Chek #59
It is really hard for you and your ilk, isn't it?
If there is no published (and proper) science behind that claim, then there aren't even any errors to be seen or demonstrated to be wrong.
The error, which I've been pointing out for many years now, is that the alleged science is nowehre to be found!
And that has been demonstrated over and over again. For the last two years here, by you and by many more!
So no, you'd probably be bettar off wrinting things like 'Jonarse' and 'pooped'
@ # 57
Is this tripe supposed to be a response to #42 and #52?
Because if it is, you haven't admitted that you were wrong to make that silly claim about linear fits, nor have you admitted that the "17 years no warming" guff is wrong.
So you need to try again, this time honestly and in good faith.
Or I will have to conclude you are a liar and a pitiful excuse for a human being etc.
No. You are the one denying the "real world facts" pentax.
You continually refuse to acknowledge the increase in OHC:
- OHC 0 – 2000m
Real world fact.
Your hyper-focus on surface temperature is symptomatic of deniers who do not understand the basics of physical climatology - a discipline grounded in real world facts:
Real world fact # 1: the troposphere ≠ the climate system.
Real world fact # 2: most (>90%) of the energy accumulating in the climate system as a consequence of radiative imbalance is in the oceans.
Here is a pretty picture which illustrates this very clearly.
These are real world facts that *you* are apparently unable to deal with. Hence the standard display of shut-eyed denial and convulsive projection.
Ha hahahahahahahahaha…….yor your panic is shining through. The world isn’t collaborating with your models fake, self-appointed "experts" and your dogma, so you make more and more imaginative and unworldly explanations up along the way. Clearly you zealots can’t deal with real world facts. Why would you othervise defend your religious CAGW anti-AGW dogma so furiosly furiously?
It becomes apparent after correction that PantieZ subconscious awareness and projecting skills are quite stunning.
"Because if it is, you haven’t admitted that you were wrong to make that silly claim about linear fits, nor have you admitted that the “17 years no warming” guff is wrong."
Why should I admit to something being wrong when it isn't? All you zealots keep yemling about this and that being proof of AGW and that the temperature is rising (a clear lie of course), but yet no one of you can point out a location where it has become unbearably hot due to AGW? You clowns don't think that's at least a little bit odd?
Computer models and straight lines isn't and hasn't ever been proof of anything. In the real world, when the reality and the map doesn't match, the map i concidered flawed. In the CAGW world it's allways the other way around. Massagong data untill it fits the dogma. I don't know what you call it, but in my world that's called a religious dogma.
@Pentax: "and that the temperature is rising (a clear lie of course)"
Of course, being a clear lie you will find it easy to disprove. Please feel free to do so. Failure to demonstrate its falsity will be noted for what it is. Put up or shut up Pentax.
@ #62
Astonishing. The data contradict you flatly and still you lie:
HadCRUT4, GISTEMP, UAH TLT; annual means 1996 - present; OLS linear fit
Look at the graph, pentax. You are lying.
You cannot back up your tripe about linear fits with a reference because you are wrong and no such reference exists. Which is why I asked you for it in the first place. Yet you will not admit that you are wrong. Instead, you lie.
Another lie directly contradicted by the data:
HadCRUT4, GISTEMP, UAH TLT; 1979 - present
And:
HadCRUT4, GISTEMP, UAH TLT; full series; 5 year running means
Who has *ever* said that it should be "unbearably hot due to AGW" anywhere on Earth NOW? Who? This is one of the most blatantly stupid strawmen I have ever seen. Truly moronic.
I've had some weak responses before, but your display of desperate, childish mendacity here is absolutely jaw-dropping.
You should be utterly ashamed of yourself.
"Massagong data"
Sound like Pentaxz is reverting to his pigeon English here. Which is hardly surprising since his scientific education is straight from a comic book.
The number of record warm temperatures recorded over the globe exceeds cold weather records by a ratio of about 5 to 1. This ratio has been increasing every decade for the past 60 years. That is proof that it is certainly warming. And although a single heat wave cannot be attributed to AGW, many recent heat waves in combination are part of a multi-faceted 'smoking gun' of evidence that it is warming.
But our Swedish meatball is not interested in empirical evidence, not when they are mangling science in support of alternate agendas.
"Sound like Pentaxz is reverting to his pigeon English here. Which is hardly surprising since his scientific education is straight from a comic book."
Typos is all you have left, jeffie. Real arguments was never your game.
"The number of record warm temperatures recorded over the globe exceeds cold weather records by a ratio of about 5 to 1. This ratio has been increasing every decade for the past 60 years."
And I suppose you have thermometer data for the last couple of milennia? What a clown you are.
"I forget where I read this but I just posted this at huffpo
Environmentalism, in the form of Climate Change Alarmism, is a religion.
Note the structural and behavioral similarities:
Monk = Scientist – They provide the articles of the faith
Priest = Journalist – They spread the faith and convert the faithful
Sin = Carbon Emissions – How an individual’s acts hurt the community
Salvation = Energy Reduction – How an individual can redeem oneself
Indulgences = Carbon Credits – Buying forgiveness
Church = IPCC – Organisation in charge of the faith
Bible = IPCC Reports – the official guidebook to the faith
Evangelists = Activists – aggressive promoters of the faith
God = Gaia – the ”superhuman” who will ”judge” us
Lovelock = Judas – the betrayer of the faith, the apostate
Hell = 2 degree temperature rise – hot/cold/dry/wet whatever is bad will be worse
Signs from God = Any Storm or Drought
Tithes = Carbon Taxes – every religion needs money"
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/6/22/lilley-in-huffpo.html
As I said, nowadays you zealots are nothing but the worlds laughing stock. Hillarious!
"You cannot back up your tripe about linear fits with a reference because you are wrong and no such reference exists."
I claim that the weather and the climate change as it always has. You claim CAGW. The burden of proof lays on you. And so far no proof of CAGW is anywhere to be seen.
"And although a single heat wave cannot be attributed to AGW, many recent heat waves in combination are part of a multi-faceted ‘smoking gun’ of evidence that it is warming."
Then, what about Europe? Four out of five of the last winters was eceptionally cold and snowy. With your own logic that's a sign of cooling. The same goes for other parts of the world. Hush, don't say that out loud. People can lose their CAGW faith.
I'm hoping that at some point in the future that this thread can be held up as an example of the result of Corporate Sponsored Ejucashun..
That this is what they produced when they had their chance and thought nobody was looking; PantieZ, Olap, Griselda and Jonarse.
@ #66
This is getting worrying.
It's how they circle-jerk in the denier bubble, to their dearest fantasies..
On present form, that would be "circlle". Despite repeated correction.
Teh Stupid Rides Out.
PentaxZ.
Over on the Open thread your buddies Betula, Olaus Petri KarenMackSunspot and other numpties are struggling (and consequently failing abysmally) with the answers to questions pertaining to this issue of detection of warming. Perhaps you could help them by addressing over there the questions posed.
There are also some supplementary questions begging answers. Your aforementioned Denialati mates seem to be unable to find the testicles with which to brave these matters, so perhaps you can show the world that you're made of sterner stuff, and actually respond... preferable with working demonstrated.
If Jonas is here I invite him to answer the questions too. They're not difficult (heck, a denialatus could even cheat and ask Dr G00gle) so it's baffling as to why these questions remain steadfastly unaddressed by the anti-science crowd.
"I’m hoping that at some point in the future that this thread can be held up as an example of the result of Corporate Sponsored Ejucashun.."
Please, point out to me where I can get some of the corporate money. It would be very nice to have some of the milions. Of course, if I wanted money I would be better of lying and promoting CAGW. Then I could have a bit of the billions!
bernie, if you give me a straight answer to where it has become unbearably hot due to AGW, maybe I will look at it. But only then.
Then all you need do is trace back every lie and distortion that constitute your 'knowledge' of AGW to it's source, all of which has been devised to further the interests of corporate entities. Multiplying it by your native stupidity may or may not be the effect they were looking for, but you'd have to ask them about that.
Nobody "promotes" AGW, it's the aggregate findings of thousands of researchers across the world, most of whom earn less than the headmaster of your local neighbourhood secondary school.
"Promote" is what corporate PR do, ideally to morons like you who suck it up like an over-revved Dyson..
PentaxZ: "I claim that the weather and the climate change as it always has. You claim CAGW [sic]."
So you claim the warming we're seeing is just normal variation, is that right?
"Please, point out to me where I can get some of the corporate money. It would be very nice to have some of the milions"
No, Pentax, even YOU are too dumb for them. They try and get deviously intelligent people to join their ranks, not numbskulls. You wouldn't even make their grade.
As for the billions, I'd like to see some evidence of this. It is never procured; simply put, said enough times by the willfully ignorant, it becomes another of their 'facts' that in reality is pure and utter fiction.
pentax
Still waiting.
When are you going to admit that you were wrong to claim that fitting linear trends to climate temperature time series is "totally pointless"? You are, after all, totally wrong.
HadCRUT4, GISTEMP, UAH TLT; annual means 1979 - present; OLS linear fit
* * *
When are you going to admit that your repeated claim that there has been no warming over the last 17 years is false? You have seen the data which flatly contradict you, so where's you admission that you were wrong?
HadCRUT4, GISTEMP, UAH TLT; annual means 1996 - present; OLS linear fit
Come on. You were wrong on both counts, so have the the common decency to admit it.
You seem to think you can just lie like fuck then walk away without acknowledging the reaction - eg #64.
Wrong-o.
Bla bla this, bla bla that. But still no single one of you can answer where it has become unbearably hot due to AGW.
And you will continue to wait. There hasn't been any warming the last 17 years. The "projections" and the hard facts diverge more for each day passing. Deal with it, zealot!
Define 'unbearably', moron. Then you'll discover it's a subjective term, which will make it very difficult for you to locate the IPCC reference for it. (Hint - it doesn't exist, except as a shiny diversion for the cretinous. Which is you.)
Oh look, I managed to tweak it to your opposite, bbd. Ain't it fantastic what you can do with wood for trees?
PentaxZ:
You're engaging in a child's level of logical fallacy.
The temperature of the planet does not need to become "unbearably hot" for global warming to be profoundly serious.
Do you actually believe otherwise?
Now, your turn. Answer those questions. And in doing so explain why your comment above:
is a clear-cut demonstration of ignorance of even basic scientific analysis. In particular, answer the question - "what would mean long-term minimum rate of warming need to be in order to detect a signal from noise over a period of 17 years"?
Then how is the arctic ice melting in record amounts? Where is the increasing heat coming from? Surely even a moron like you can see the disconnect between what your preferred liars are telling you and real events out in the real world?
Or perhaps that's it, you've retreated from the real world into a fantasy land where you're the smart kid on the block.
LOL, as they say.
Stop fucking lying.
Dealt with this horse-shit already. Read the words:
Who has *ever* said that it should be “unbearably hot due to AGW” anywhere on Earth NOW? Who? This is one of the most blatantly stupid strawmen I have ever seen. Truly moronic.
Now, instead of repeating your lies about no warming for 17 years, look at the evidence that disproves your claim and admit that you are wrong:
HadCRUT4, GISTEMP, UAH TLT; annual means 1996 - present; OLS linear fit
This pentax idiot is unbelievable. How can *anyone* be so childishly, stupidly dishonest as to keep repeating the 17 year lie in the face of the actual data?
Even by buttock-stupid denier standards, this is a new low.
No link, fuckwit.
That's the denier method - repeat, repeat and repeat again. Perhaps do a little dance and visit an echo chamber web site for reinforcement, and repeat again. That'll surely make it come true, if you only have the faith to persist and damn the inconvenient facts.
That PantieZ hasn't structured an argument, let alone a coherent one, since kindergarten doesn't help either.
Repeat the lies.
It won't do, chek. Not at all. I can't be doing with all this dishonesty and bad faith. Makes me want to kick an arse.
I understand that BBD, but when there's no intelligence, no honour, no common decency and not even basic social graces, I don't know what's to be done other than what our masters at 10:10 planned. Oh dear did I type that out loud?
;-)
Todaya is June 24, and I see that there are still many comments of mine 'in moderation' (meaning delay) from june 21 and onwards. In my own thread. Tim L must have a very low opinion of what the climate faithers here can take and handle ...
May that is to be expected. Climate faithers usually are incapable of handling debate ... and it doesn't even require my presence to prove that.
pentax
Come on. Get on with it:
- Admit that you were wrong to claim that fitting linear trends to climate temperature time series is “totally pointless”.
HadCRUT4, GISTEMP, UAH TLT; annual means 1979 - present; OLS linear fit
* * *
- Admit that your repeated claim that there has been no warming over the last 17 years is false. Here is actual data flatly contradicting your lies presented using WfT - apparently your own preferred data visualisation tool:
HadCRUT4, GISTEMP, UAH TLT; annual means 1996 - present; OLS linear fit
How long is this going to take FFS?
Come on./b>
Fitting linear trends to temperature time series IS totally pointless since climate variarions are never linear. Allthough it's a convenient way to hide the decline so ones CAGW faith doesn't get demolished. And a practical tool for alarming the public and politicians.
You zealots claim that a rise in temperature less than 1 deg C in a century is manmade and catastrophic. Yet no one of you can provide any facts to support that claim. Model scenarios from unvalidated GCMs are NOT scientific proof of anything. The models and reallity diverge more and more for every day. When are you going to admit that they are pretty much useless? And where has it become unbearably hot due to AGW? Where are all the millions of climate refugees? Where are all the islands supposed to be drenched in the Paciffic? Why are there more polar bears than ever splashing around at the north pole? Why has the earth gotten greener the last decades? Why don't the Earth and nature comply with the CAGW hypothesis?
And you clowns don't realize you are the worlds laughing stock? Unbelievable. Really unbelievable. And hilarious.
Argument by assertion. Argument from ignorance. Contradicted by standard practice. No supporting reference.
In a word, bollocks.
Admit that you are wrong instead of repeating your lies.
Conspiracist ideation. You sound like a crank.
More assertion, ignorance and bollocks. There is a wall of evidence. Pretending it does not exist is being stupid and dishonest in equal measure. Get a grip.
Oh fuck the rest of your tripe. It doesn't even merit a response. It's only a distraction tactic anyway. You are trying to avoid admitting your errors and lies and it won't work with me.
Time to face up to your own miserable behaviour on this thread. Admit your lies instead of repeating them. Start with lie about linear fits, then the lie about no warming for 17 years. Come on. Stop trying to skip past the problem.
How low will you go FFS?
Come on.
There's so much *rubbish* in your comment I managed to miss this:
No, you dishonest buffoon. POTENTIALLY catastrophic if there is no policy response to AGW. Yet another very crude strawman from you.
Stop it.
Where has it become unbearably hot due to AGW? Where are all the millions of climate refugees? Where are all the islands supposed to be drenched in the Paciffic? Why are there more polar bears than ever splashing around at the north pole? Why has the earth gotten greener the last decades? Why don’t the Earth and nature comply with the CAGW hypothesis?
Any answers?
Not until you admit your errors and lies.
Start with lie about linear fits, then the lie about no warming for 17 years. Come on. Stop trying to skip past the problem.
"There is a wall of evidence"
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
30 years of data massaging, cherrypicking, ignoring contradictory research, tweaking computer games to fit a belief and lying through the teeth. And you call it "a wall of evidence"? Priceless, absolutely priceless beyond belief!
"POTENTIALLY catastrophic if there is no policy response to AGW"
Help politicians, please save the world from the evil CO2 devil.
Please stop before I get a laughing spasm.
You haven't admitted to your lies.
Start with lie about linear fits, then the lie about no warming for 17 years.
<Hahahaha etc. etc. etc..
@chek
"world’s scientific community"
you mistake methodologically rotten "climatology" with "world’s scientific community"
are you insane or otherwise out of bounds ill?
"Freddy", only fuckwit deniers have a problem with climate science. The global scientific community does not.
I haven't yet heard of a single National Academy of Science disassociating itself from the IPCC, and neither have you. What you've got instead is the usual denier smear, innuendo and zero produced by fuckwits, for fuckwits.
@chek: "I haven’t yet heard of a single National Academy of Science disassociating itself from the IPCC, and neither have you"
are you an idiot or do you just try to imitate an idiot?
"climatology" is NOT THE center of science at all. opinions about weather and climate of scientists from other disciplines, eg a brain research scientist, are TOTALLY IRRELEVANT
you must learn this lesson, as you are totally mistaken by your climate church guru who deny standard scientific methodology. you true science deniers should first lean what real science is, as you consider science as means to enforce your nasty green-socialist world riot. you climate church acoytes suffer from severe conspiration theory syndrome that decent citizens with a sense of realism oppose your warming hallucinations which will never become realliy in thousands of years. everybody except you knows this
Keep pounding that table Freddy. Like all deniers, your own worthless, hand-me-down, uninteresting opinion is all you've got.
PantieZ might be impressed though. He goes all googie eyed and wets himself over empty rhetoric.
chek
"I haven’t yet heard of a single ... "
That's probably true, since you miss out on most essential details, or just ignore them and/or invent som convenient factoids instead .. like so many others here.
But neither have you ever seen, read, or even met anybody who knows of that alleged science behind that infamous AR4 claim. In spite of this obvious lack of (existing) information, however, you keep on pounding that it should be believed anyway. Why is that, you think?
You say you don't know " a single National Academy of Science disassociating itself from the IPCC" and that's probably true too, since there is not really much you do know about any such matters. But do you know any single national acadamy which has properly polled i's constituency for a properly stated position about anything wrt climate/IPCC?
No, you don't know that either. Point in case: You just don't know. Hence your inane droolings here, afraid of engaging even with the few non-faithers around ...
chek, you science denier and climate pagan will bite your table when you face the solutiin of your life lies. your opinion is completely irrelevant since you are unable to admit that global temp and co2 are not correlated.
YOU ARE A PRIMITIVE REALITY DENIER IN PREFER TO LIVE IN YOUR FALSE VIRTUAL REALITY
poor. idiots
Fucking hell. Another bozo.
...with the same old shit.
And argument by capitalisation - likely even stupider than PantieZ.
Check out Betty on the other thread. He's trying to claim that what he does isn't lying. I've pointed out that intellectual dishonesty takes various forms, but we can call it "lying" to keep things simple.
bbd, i agree totally with you: check is really another bozo and fuckwit science denier without intellect and knowledge
thank you for your valued support.
#18 - Now that's what I call grade 'A' fuckwittery.
freddy, your #14 would embarrass a pig. Don't even talk to me.
climate education for denier check:
noaa admitted that 2013 so far is by far not the hottest year. therefore global temp is not increasing since more than 15 years
WHAT A CATASTROPHIC RESULT FOR WARMING HYSTERICS
hahaha, you have lost your deceiving lobbying
what will you do in the future. are you trying to lead a decent life with real work?
Oh read the fucking thread moron. Your stupid lie disproved:
HadCRUT4, GISTEMP, UAH TLT; annual means 1996 - present; OLS linear fit
Freddy, do two things before you embarrass yourself further.
1)Find where the IPCC claims that CO2 is the sole climate driver and global temperature will rise monotonically. Hint: you won't.
2)Check out signal to noise ratios which may (or likely won't in your case) enlighten you as to why thirty year periods are required to see the climate signal.
What you fuckwits do - and it does impress other fuckwits, no question about it - is analogous to claiming global cooling because this evening is cooler than this afternoon. Congratulations on collecting your utterly useless global community of fuckwits
bbd, chek trolls: do have an idea why you always lose the argumention with true scientists like me:
BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT SCIENCE IS, YOU ARE 5th-ROW FOLLOWERS OF YOUR CLIMATE RELIGION GURUS WITHOUT INTELLECT, INSPIRATION AND SUCCESS IN LIFE.
bbd, you should urgentky improve your language skills, as it is nearly impossible to understand your junk
Ah yes, the one true scientist who speaks in all caps.
Moron.
freddy
Your stupid lie disproved at #22. Read the fucking words moron.
God, and I though pentax was bad...
"Not until you admit your errors and lies."
Ah, a convenient way for you not to have to answer to questions you don't have any answer to since you damn well know I won't admit to the thruth being a lie. You know, a hammer is a hammer, despite you calling it a rose.
No,, that's what you do PantieZ. All the rest of your nonsense is diversion and shoddy ignorance that you pick up from denier sites without any information that withstands scrutiny.
It does fool fuckwits like you and Freddy though.
Perhaps you could serve as a litmus test for garbage.
Admit your errors and lies and stop pissing around.
We'll move one once you demonstrate a bare minimum of good faith.
Start with lie about linear fits, then the lie about no warming for 17 years. Come on. Stop trying to slide past the problem with one childish misdirection after another.
And FFS get on with it.
@Jonas,
See some of your posts got thru ;) The rule seems to be they're allowed thru when that group of 100 posts comes to an end, i.e they dont appear on the current page (?). I mean, how "dangerous" can your words be Jonas? ;)
@Jonas
Keep posting, they're always worth a read.
;)
Jonas isn't dangerous, GSW. He's just a posturing, conceited clown and a pain in the arse. Nobody bar a few sycophants such as yourself is remotely interested in his content-free bloviations.
@BBD
I enjoy them BBD and who cares whether you do or not? Beats your endless whining.
;)
I don't whine. You however are a liar.
chek and bbd trolls are 4th class climate realism liars, scoundrels, deceivers:
even your utmost superior and high guruh pajauri, ipcc presi and indian railway specialist without climate background, surrendered to the truth that global warming has stopped for over 15 years, like your three warming apostles phil collins, jim hansen and tom karl. AND YOU IDIOTS, HAVEN'T YOU HEARD THE GOSPELS FROM YOUR CHURCH BOSSES. you illiterate brats dare to oppose your warming church bosses.
beware, you will be punished by them and thrown out of your pagan climate hystersm church if you don't comply to the truth that global warming stopped despite 400ppm co2
WILL THIS GO INTO YOUR FLAT BRAIN, YOU MORONS AND SMALL ROD FUCKWITS????
"freddy" is a trailer-park intellectual. He doesn't seem to understand the difference between people who achieve levels of education above Primary-level and himself, which leaves him confused about the relative worth of educated people's opinions as compared with his own completely worthless nonsense.
craigtroll, of all climate idiots here you are the one with the lowest intellect, by far
you are so terribly silly that yoz cn't even answer the following 3 questions :
a) did phil jones disclose which land temperature stations he has used to calculate a phil jones land global temperature 2012?
b) did phil jones disclose which sea temperature stations he has used to calculate a phil jones sea global temperature 2012?
c) by how many millimeters is the average sea level every year faked up by the climate church in order to deceive the public?
as you are by far the greatest climate idiot without any formation, knowledge and experience, you cannot answer my questions, YOU ARE A MORON WHO WASTES HIS TIME WITH CLIMATE FRAUD
a) Yes.
b) Yes.
c) nil.
Next.
"craig" moron troll
a) no
b) no
c) 2mm
fuckwits like you cannot pass any exam
The data do not lie freddy, so it must be you.
HadCRUT4, GISTEMP, UAH TLT; annual means 1996 - present; OLS linear fit
More charitably, perhaps the problem is ignorance of the basics of physical climatology. Let's sort out the mess:
- The rate of surface temperature warming has slowed, but not stopped over the last decade
- The rate of ocean heat uptake by the 0 - 2000m layer has slightly increased (OHC 0 - 2000m).
- There is no mismatch with theory.
- There is no "missing energy".
- AGW is not "falsified".
- There is no succour for climate change deniers, at least not those few who actually understand the basics of physical climatology.
bbd, so you dare to contradict your agw bosses?
FUCKWIT MORON!!!!!!!!!
bbd, agw is no theory you ignorant. only a hypothesis or speculation. moron
Why not just read what I wrote? It's perfectly clear. I know you are desperately confused and I'm trying to help.
No, it's a theory. You are really quite funny!
“Here come de heap big warmy. Bigtime warmy warmy. Is big big hot. Plenty big warm burny hot. Hot! Hot hot! But now not hot. Not hot now. De hot come go, come go. Now Is Coldy Coldy. Is ice. Hot den cold. Frreeeezy ice til hot again. Den de rain. It faaaalllll. Make pasty.”
Hilarious!
Well done pentax! You've learned to spell "hilarious".
I am *so* proud.
Now we need to deal with the, ahem, racist caricature and your avoidance issues. You still haven't mustered up the courage to admit to your errors and lies, which is a great disappointment.
Take it in baby steps. Start with lie about linear fits, then we can work up to the lie about no warming for 17 years. Once you get started, it will get easier and easier. Honest!
Care to show the alleged Pachuari quote?
It's OK Freddy - it's a trick question, because it doesn't exist.
But you have to show it to claim it, that's the way these things work when one ventures out of moronland.
bbd zealot says:
- There is no mismatch with theory.
Two faults in one centence. AGW isn't a theory, it's a hypothesis. Big difference. Second, http://www.klimatupplysningen.se/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/CMIP5-73-mo…
- There is no “missing energy”.
Really? No "predicted" hotspots? No warming detected from the ARGO bouies?
- AGW is not “falsified”
Correct. Something never validated can't be falsified.
Don'ty try and be clever in a second language you have poor grasp of PantieZ. AGW is a well supported theory.
Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge, in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative (which is better defined by the word 'hypothesis').
But as we already know you're a moron, you can't be expected to parse obvious differences in English.
Oh gawd - PantieZ @ #47 is trying the Monckton Manoevre.
I suppose it was just a matter of time before any available discredited junk shows up. God forbid he'd supply any acceptable science.
Oh dear.
No admission of your lies'.
Wrong about AGW *theory*.
The Christy misrepresentation.
A new lie about ARGO and OHC.
That one is skewered directly above, at # 40, second link. More real world facts for you. More data.
You don't actually read anything I write, do you?
"Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge, in contrast to more common uses of the word “theory” that imply that something is unproven or speculative (which is better defined by the word ‘hypothesis’)."
And there you have it, chek. finally you admit that the AGW "theory" is false. How does that feel?
How does it feel?
That you've confirmed you're an ignorant moron?
I lalready knew that, so no change.
bbd, there is no end to your lying and projections. I wonder, why so furiosly denie real world facts? Must be a zealot thing. There is help for you, men in white coats and padded rooms will certanely be of asistance if you ask gently.
“Here come de heap big warmy. Is big big hot. Bigtime warmy warmy. Plenty big warm burny hot. Hot! Hot hot! But now not hot. De hot come go, come go. Not hot now. Now Is Coldy Coldy. Is ice. Hot den cold. Frreeeezy ice til hot again. Den de rain. It faaaalllll. Make pasty.”
Hilarious! So on the spot.
AGW is neither unproven nor speculative. Any more than the laws of physics underpinning the terrestrial greenhouse effect are unproven or speculative. AGW is a theory, not a hypothesis.
Wrong *again* and still repeating your lies.
What about the ARGO lie that I nailed above? I need to update the lies-avoided list:
- the lie about linear fits
- the "17 year" lie
- the ARGO lie
- the hypothesis lie
Obviosly you don't have a god day, chek, if you even can't understand your own writing. Maybe the men in white coats can help you too.
# 53
That would be you projecting like a poisoned dog. I post graphs. I use real world data.
You lie.
And you are a fucking racist.
"AGW is neither unproven nor speculative."
Problem with not only comprehension but with graphs as well? Call the men in white coats.
"And you are a fucking racist."
And you base this accusation on what?
You really need help since you obviosly are mouth frothing.
# 58
No problem with comprehension nor with graphs. My graphs are repeatedly linked above. They demonstrate that you are a liar. Three times over.
# 59
Only racists think it is acceptable engage in cultural caricatures as you have done, incessantly, on two threads.
So, let me update my conclusion:
You are fucking liar *and* a fucking racist.
;-)
Oh, nearly forgot:
AGW is neither unproven nor speculative. Any more than the laws of physics underpinning the terrestrial greenhouse effect are unproven or speculative. AGW is a theory, not a hypothesis.
Wrong *again* and still repeating your lies.
Updated lie list:
- the lie about linear fits
- the “17 year” lie
- the ARGO lie
- the hypothesis lie
Let's have some sort of admission that you are resorting to serial mendacity because you have no scientific case whatsoever.
"Only racists think it is acceptable engage in cultural caricatures as you have done, incessantly, on two threads."
Hahaha, that's a projection monumental style. Calling others racist is usually a zealots last resort, when the arguments are depleted.
Sorry, but you haven't proven anything. Ecxept that you seriously need proffesional help.
"AGW is neither unproven nor speculative."
AGW is based on computer games. Ant they are NOT validated against reallity. So, how can you say "AGW is neither unproven nor speculative" without lying through your teeth? Especially since the projections and reallity diverge mor for each day? You really haven't all horses in the stable.
You are either having a laugh or you are insane. Either way, you are a fucking racist.
Do read the words. AGW arises from basic physics which has been understood for over a century and extensively validated by ground-based and satellite-based instruments over the last several decades. It is neither speculative nor unproven.
Only a liar or someone entirely ignorant of the basics - or both, as in your case - would make this claim.
Projections and reality aren't diverging. OHC, fuckwit, OHC.
You just don't understand how the climate system responds to a sustained and slowly increasing forcing. That's a mess only you can mop up. I cannot do it for you. Meanwhile, the real world facts can be reviewed in various graphs linked repeatedly above.
Ah, forcing. That word hasn't been heard for a long time now among climate mongers. Why? Perhaps because the co2 level is now above 400 ppm and the temperature refuse to rise.
Laughing stock, zealot, laughing stock. Hahahahahaha....
Repeating lies again and again does not make them true PantieZ.
You need to show verifiable evidence, as BBD does. Being a liar (and cherry picking is a form of lying too) is nothing to be proud of, yet you seem to be very proud of it. Curious - but then you certainly are a curiosity.
" Repeating lies again and again does not make them true PantieZ."
Exactly. Even 30 years of CAGW lying doesn't make the hypothesis right.
Very true PantieZ. What makes it right is nobody has successfully challenged it.
Not you, not Jonarse, nor Watts, not McIntyre, nor Curry, not Montford, not the Idso clowns, not Pat Michaels, not Bast and the Heartland Clwn Co., not CEI, not API, not GMI, not ICE. In short not any of the whole fucking circus you goons get your stories from and put your faith in.
Take you as an example - a fucking disgrace of a human being reduced to lying for strangers for a pat on the bum from Jonarse.
@Jonas
Your post at #14 got thru ;) On the current page as well, so I guess the theory at my #31 is wrong :| There's definitely a human element to it, somebody likes to play god over who's allowed to speak and who's not. A sort of "Blog Review", as opposed to "Peer Review", "gatekeeping" you might say- everything thing will be ok - as long as you limit exposure to all the data and all views ;) But the truth will out, it always does! Gatekeeping is a losing strategy in the long run, does more harm to the "cause" than good.
Yes, your #14, things that chek "doesn't know about" or "hasn't heard of", from his performances here, It's hard to believe the list isn't pretty extensive.
Do some more damage with those "words" Jonas!
Enjoy! ;)
... on a blog - not even that, on a blog basement comment section.
You really are small-time creeps grateful for any contact with the outside world, aren't you Griselda.
Still, I'm sure Jonarse appreciates your heroic efforts.
Indeed, enjoy every one of those infantile smiley face icons that highlight the grade of towering intellects you seek to cultivate Jonarse.
Every one of them lovingly tapped out in terms of endearment especially for you, big fella. Enjoy!
"...nobody has successfully challenged it. Not you, not Jonarse, nor Watts, not McIntyre, nor...yadayadayada."
In your deluded world that certainly is true. In the real world, you know, outside your padded room, it's a totally different story.
"...put your faith in."
Hehe. I'm not in any need of faith. The religious stuff is all you zealots thing. I thought we had settled that once and for all.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/12/jonas-thread/comment-page-62…
"No link, fuckwit."
Sorry about that, dependent. Here it is:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1995/detrend:1/mean:12/plo…
Isn't it nice. So, now you don't have to worry about CAGW any more. Perhaps your doctors can cut down on your medication now?
You really do live in a fantasy world completely described by your idiot echo chamber blogs, don't you PantieZ.
Otherwise you'd be able to reference all the retracted papers from all those scientists who got it wrong. But you can't, all you can do is bray ineffectually like a dumb donkey's asswipe. Which is at least very fitting and suits you to a tee.
Thus we get a glimpse of the world through the eyes of a moron. Except for the moron, the world really does go away when he shuts his eyes.
With that slope PantieZ, we'll be in an ice age by September!
chek, bbd, all other warming trolls:
you could not better have shown your infinite distance from real science as you don't know the difference between theory and hypothesis: agw is beyond any doubt a hypothesis.
i woud not have accepted anybody of you idiots to qualify as candidate for a thesis under my guidance, since you don't know even the most basic definitions of science.
MORONS!!!!!!!!!!!!! IDIOTS!!!!!!!!!!
"i woud [sic] not have accepted anybody of you idiots [sic] to qualify as candidate for a thesis under my guidance"
Good Lord, Freddy, none of us would want an illiterate loon like you to supervise our thesis. You clearly aren't qualified in any field, with the possible exception of buffoonery.
Given that the most likely time for that to ever happen is the day after the sun becomes a red giant, I don't expect anybody here gives a fuck what you'd accept. And with the massive damage you're exhibiting to your um ...communication skills, I'd say it's time to get your special coat on again, "Professor"
jeff, bbd, chek: bullshit fuckwits without any substance, just nasty morons
you have never create jobs, you don't have money, you are ugly, nowhere really successful, just mediocre nobodies about which the world laughs
hahaha, haha, they don't even know the difference between theory and hypothesis, you assholes
Those pesky post doc language skills are never there when you need 'em, are they Prof? Anyway, thanks for the peek into your shrivelled psyche, I'll bet it matches your shrivelled face and ballsack perfectly.
Do be sure to call in again next millennium.
chek
AAHOLE, go home sweaping to mommy, small boy
you disqualified for a decent discussion due to continuing incivility and stinking
and remember: NO CORRELATION BETWEEN GLOBAL TEMP AND CO2
what blow to your old bones
You already tried that tired old meme and were blown out of the water. It must suck to have to repeat yourself and hope for a different outcome.
"you have never create jobs, you don’t have money, you are ugly, nowhere really successful, just mediocre nobodies about which the world laughs"
Old Freddy is a first rate loony.....
@ # 74 pentax
Fascinating analysis, professor. But you leave me baffled. Can you explain why you have detrended all time series and linear fits?
If one eschews inexplicable detrending, you get this:
HadCRUT4, GISTEMP, UAH TLT; annual means 1996 - present; OLS linear fit
Why the detrending? Please explain.
bbd, you do cherrypicking to fit your ideology
when until 2100 will the temps jump upwards to reach +4C from now? between 2090 and 2095, because then you are dead and cannot be shown how silly wrong you were?
# 86
At last, a sensible observation. I have nowhere argued that GAT will reach +4C by 2100. I don't see how it could.
But +2C or thereabouts with a continuing increase to ~4C by the mid-C22nd, that I can see without squinting:
If ECS/2xCO2 = 2.8C then for CO2ppmv = 800
dT = 2.8ln(800/280)/ln(2) = 4.2C
If ECS/2xCO2 = 3.0C then for CO2ppmv = 800
dT = 3ln(800/280)/ln(2) = 4.5C
... and with BBD's calculation, I'm sure that if you were to ask Jeff and Bernard nicely - nicely, mind! - they'd be happy to provide a broad outline of what such changes would mean for our biosphere. Y'know, the only one we (by which I mean all life on Earth), that we live in and are 100% dependent on.
Freddy screamed:
Hmmm...
A wise person once said that it's better to shut up and be thought a fool that to open one's mouth and remove all doubt. In freddy's case not only did he open his mouth, he sprayed the vacuous, foolish festering contents for all to see.
The problem for you freddy is that basic mathematics show your error for the egregious claptrap that it is.
I took the latest GISSTempt data and regressed both the monthly and the yearly temperature data against time.
For the period 1880 to present the monthly regression coefficient (R2) was 0.63, and the yearly regression coefficient was 0.76.
For the period spanning the last fifty years the monthly regression coefficient was 0.69, and the yearly regression coefficient was 0.82.
If freddy hasn't yet seen the brick that's hurtling straight between his eyes he might want to consider what first year undergraduate students (and indeed even high school students) are taught about the interpretation of correlation coefficients:
0 - 0.2 = weak
0.2 - 0.4 = modest
0.4 - 0.6 = moderate
0.6 - 0.8 = moderately strong
0.8 - 1.0 = strong
I will leave it to the reader to decide if freddy is correct when he says there is no correlation, or if he is in fact no more than a raving nutter who borders on the pathetically psychotic.
Freddy's only consolation is that he is so bloody stupid that he won't ever know that his brains have been dashed from his skull by school-level mathematics - the difference to his intellectual capacity before and after such blunt-force lobotomy is effectively unmeasurable...
"A wise person once said that it’s better to shut up and be thought a fool that to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt."
And yet you speak? Bernie, the master of own goals!
bbd, I know you are fond of straight lines. So I maked some. Not happy? Ask your doctor for some more happy pills.
jeffie, have you created any jobs (exept for your self)?
bernard-troll: you regressed faked temp data from phil jones???
FUCKWIT MORON!!!!
learn to be a decent person who is not willing to deceive the public
MORON!!!!!!!!!!
pentax
You have responded to a clear, correct graph with deliberate, considered misrepresentation. This should horrify you.
Does it? If not, why not?
Aren't you sickened and ashamed by what you have done?
If not, why not?
bbc troll
all your "straight lines" point directly to your asshole bcos there its warmer than around co2
a new hypojesus, proof it, fuckwit
I think you should go now, freddy. You are making a sad spectacle out of yourself.
Take this with you for bedtime reading: Shakun et al. (2012) Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation.
Paleoclimate is the key to understanding future climate. Learn, instead of posting deranged shite on the internet.
Wrong. This is just another smear campaign which you think is fact but isn't. The most noticeable thing about all the global temperature record series - even the sceptic approved BEST study - is how much in agreement they are.
That the Earth's temperature is rising is no longer in dispute, except of course amongst uninformed hard-core fanatic nutcases.
It's great to see so many deniers utterly unconcerned with appearing to be ignorant, know-nothing, lying morons.
Their impact on any uncommitted but intelligent observers must be extraordinary.
GAT vs forcings.
Evidence vs insane frothing by online nutters.
Nutters lose every time.
chek # 98
Oh yes. The frothy fringe of lying fuckwits are a rationalist's best friend and finest tool for persuading the waverers.
Nutters lose every time.
"Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation."
Really? Was there really SUVs back then? Oh, and you convenient forget that in long perspectives co2 lags behind temperature rise with a factor of 800 years? What a zany you are.
"Why the detrending? Please explain."
I just picked here and there to get a trend I liked. Just like you do. Linear trends in climate research are worth nothing, climate NEVER changes linear. Claming they are just show how shallow your understanding of the science is. What a joke.
During deglaciation, GHGs are one of a chain of feedbacks to orbital forcing. The much-vaunted time lag is a consequence of the chain of causality. Read the paper instead of posting ill-informed tripe on the internet.
You faked a graph because you are a liar. You assert nonsense because you are a liar. I have done neither of these things, so the joke - such as it is - is on you.
These are the data and the trends. Your original - and demonstrably false - claim was that there has been no warming for 17 years.
HadCRUT4, GISTEMP, UAH TLT; annual means 1996 - present; OLS linear fit
You have repeated this false claim yet again, despite repeated correction.
You are a liar.
PentaxZ said:
PentaxZ, the relationship between time and CO2 concentration is almost perfectly linear, with an R^2 regression coefficient of 0.99. I'd have thought that you would be able to extrapolate from that, but I see the problem with giving you the benefit of the doubt.
Never mind, I can do this directly, but I hope this doesn't complicate it too much for you. Regressing temperature at time tx against atmospheric carbon dioxide at time tx gives a coefficient of 0.86.
Tell me now - is carbon dioxide in your opinion not correlated with temperature?
Strawman. You are arguing that linear fits can only be applied if the data points all line up neatly. This is so obviously stupid it doesn't need further comment. Except this - stop being such an arse.
No you fucking well didn't. You detrended the data. I asked you why you did this and you have not answered the question.
Why did you detrend? Come on, explain yourself.
Look at this man. A liar who fakes graphs then denies that he is a liar who fakes graphs with the evidence sitting right there, in full public view?
This is a pathology. We see a diseased mind at work.
Freddy screams (as is his wont):
Um, GISSTemp isn't Phil Jones. It's NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Phil Jones is with UEA's CRU.
So who's the moron? I'll give you a clue, it isn't me...
But pick whatever temperature record you prefer with which to regress with CO2. You'll still get a correlation. Even Roy Spencer's satellite dataset, with all of its instrumentation and other issues and with its ongoing corrections, still gives a coefficient of 0.52. And that instrumentation is not even measuring temperature per se!
So, once more unto the breach...
Freddy and PentaxZ. Are global temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration correlated, or are they not?
If you believe that they are not, how did you perform the analysis that indicates this? Can you show your working?
Or is all this mathematistics stuff just too difficult for you?
"the relationship between time and CO2 concentration is almost perfectly linear"
Yeah, to about 2000. And before 1900 there wasn't much correlation either. After 2000 the correlation is nill. And as you should know, correlation doesn't equal causation.
"GHGs are one of a chain of feedbacks to orbital forcing."
May be so, allthough I doubt they play any significant role. But one thing you managed to get right, "GHGs are one of a chain of feedbacks". GHGs are nothing but minor feedbacks, never any major forcings.
Radiative physics.
Reference? The mechanism of deglaciation under orbital forcing *requires* a globalising GHG feedback. It doesn't work without it. You cannot remove GHGs and their climatological effects from paleoclimate.
What you "doubt" is sublimely irrelevant. You are both a liar and ignoramus. More formally, your argument is from ignorance and incredulity and is therefore two kinds of logical fallacy.
Reference? GHGs are*major* feedbacks to orbital forcing (Shakun et al. 2012). You again fall into the dual logical fallacies of argument from ignorance and from incredulity.
Incomplete comment at # 13:
But we have a well-established physical mechanism in the radiative properties of CO2.
You are arguing from ignorance and by assertion against well established physics. Which is another way of saying that you are spouting bollocks again.
Tighten it up.
Why did you detrend your graph?
Answer the question.
Golly gee, Pentax, you are such a scientific whizz kid; so why aren't you employed by a major university or research institute, and why isn't the theoretical or empirical literature full of your studies? Are you a regular on the lecture circuit? Where can I find your TED lectures on Youtube?
Back to reality, our resident whizz kid thinks linearity operates at very short time scales.He clearly does not understand the concepts Bernard has been throwing at him such as 'noise' and 'signal'. He clearly does not know when or at what spatial and temporal scales a stochastic process becomes more deterministic.
This is all hardly new for the Dunning-Krugerite army of deniers who think they know much, much more than they actually do. It also explains why they are consigned to blogs. In a scientific arena they would be laughed into oblivion. They are into ritual humiliation on blogs as well, but they get away with it, because they are anonymous and can endlessly get comments pasted on discussion forums no matter how innane they are.
"And as you should know, correlation doesn’t equal causation.
But we have a well-established physical mechanism in the radiative properties of CO2."
The last decade and a half, there is no correlation between co2 and temperature. The hypothesis that co2 is "warming" earth is therefore wrong or grossly exaggerated. It does not matter that you hide behind trendlines, that's facts. But you are propably so soked in CAGW dogma that you can't grasp that. Therefore I urge you to get more help from the men in white coats.
Only for you, jeffie. If the withe men let you read it:
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supportin…
Oh for fuck's sake. How many times have I told you now:
The troposphere ≠ the climate system.
You are arguing from false equivalence. You either do not understand or are deliberately misrepresenting the way energy is *actually* accumulating in the climate system as a result of radiative imbalance caused by increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2.
Look at the ocean heat content data.
OHC 0 – 2000m
Most (>90%) of the energy accumulating in the climate system as a consequence of radiative imbalance is in the oceans (Levitus et al. 2012).
Here is a pretty picture which illustrates this very clearly.
A recent, minor increase in the rate of ocean heat uptake has slowed the rate of atmospheric warming temporarily. That's all there is to it. Try to understand the facts instead of making up a nonsensical, unphysical, reality-warping denialist narrative.
This shit will now get the treatment it deserves:
Stop repeating lies. All this rubbish has been dealt with, *repeatedly*, in early comments.
Re-iterating shit doesn't transmute it into truth.
It is still just shit.
PentaxZ said at #11:
Really?!
With reference to these data and any statistical analysis that you might care to use (not that you've ever done so to date...), please demonstrate why there is nil relationship between time and CO2 concentration.
As to the period before 1900, you're wrong on that count too.
Proxies demonstrate that the increase has occurred since the Industrial Revolution. Before that time though you're correct - atmospheric CO2 was remarkably stable for millenia... which is in direct contradiction to those Beckites amongst your knuckle-dragging crowd who think that over the course of mere decades CO2 wiggles up and down by dozens, if not hundreds, of parts per million.
You do excel at one thing PentaxZ - you manage to be almost perfectly wrong whenever you offer your commentary. That takes a great amount of antiskill.
Your mother must be so proud.
bernard-trolls
"... ... bla bla bla... proxies ... bla bla .... "
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
"... ... bla bla bla... proxies ... bla bla .... "
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
"... ... bla bla bla... proxies ... bla bla .... "
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
only complete idiots rely and believe on proxies
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Jeffie, Bernard, BDD, chek and the others ...
I think Wow nailed it .... at least he nailed something. Don't you think?'
;-)
bernard-trolls “… … bla bla bla… proxies … bla bla …. ”hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha“… … bla bla bla… proxies … bla bla …. ”hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha“… … bla bla bla… proxies … bla bla …. ”hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha"only complete idiots rely and believe on proxieshahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
I'd have though only the most dire cretin would sit there tapping out all those 'hahahas' for people who aren't going to read them.
The sheer know-nothingness of the one semi-intelligible phrase (a complete sentence requiring more and likely too much skill and effort in construction) requires no further comment for those who parade their ignorance as a badge of denier honour.
Take a tip Freddy and PantieZ.
Fuckwits like you are never going to influence the world or anybody in it. God only knows what you *think* you're achieving, because you're not..
" Before that time though you’re correct – atmospheric CO2 was remarkably stable for millenia"
Ant yet the temperature varied even more than today ( if you aren't a religious hockey stick believer, that is). As I said, correlation doesn't equal causation.
Take a look at this graph. A really, really good look. And then tell me why all the models diverge so capital from each other if they all use the same data. And why they totally diverge from reallity. Is the models or reallity flawed?
http://www.klimatupplysningen.se/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/CMIP5-73-mo…
It's worse than ever. With the CAGW mongers that is. There simply isn't any CAGW to be found anywhere, it's a bladt from the past.
Mainly precessional forcing which predominantly warmed the NH, fading from ~6ka. There was the 8.2ka event - also NH and centred on the N. Atlantic - but that was almost certainly abrupt proglacial lake drainage temporarily halting the AMOC.
You are still denying the physical mechanism by which CO2 *must* cause warming. You are denying essential physics (see # 20). You are ignoring the way the climate system really works (see # 20). All this is absolutely diagnostic of advanced crankery.
# 27 in response to:
The Christy misrepresentation is meaningless. It's just the latest version of an old trick Christy and other arch-deniers Singer and Douglass tried out several years ago. So stop waving it around.
Admit to some of your lies instead.
You may be losing track, so here's an updated but not exhaustive list of your lies:
- the lie about linear fits
- the “17 year” lie
- the ARGO lie
- the AGW-isn't-a-theory lie
- the "I'm not a racist" lie
- the detrended graph lie
- the CO2 = minor feedback lie
- the pretend-OHC-doesn't-exist lie
one of the reasons why intelligent people detest "climate science" is that it's central message is of utmost primitivity
"it's getting warmer"
what sensational relevation!!
if you look at the achievements of other science disciplines and compare to "it's getting warmer" you can only laugh
the complexity of logical content of "it's getting warmer" is at the level of "i clean my asshole", "tomorrow is thursday", "his mother is in the hospital"
great science: "it's getting warmer"
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, HA!
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, HA!
science for mainstream idiots who want to be deceived by climate scoundrels: "it's getting warmer"
@chek self-description
"Fuckwits like you are never going to influence the world or anybody in it. God only knows what you *think* you’re achieving, because you’re not"
for once i agree to your self-reflexion, but i have to add that your descendants will curse you to hell because of the shame you have brought to your families: fuckwits
Wanton self-deception seems to be a denier trait .
Did POTUS spout any of your denier myths yesterday? No.
Does any government or University in the world? No.
Self-deceiving word games are the upper limit of your achievement Freddy Fuckwit.
Freddy, if you had an ounce of brain in your tiny head, you'd realize that scientists are investigating what the longer term consequences of warming are on both managed and natural ecosystems. Species within them are adapted to respond to variation within certain limits, but beyond that there are likely to be metabolic trade-offs on different functions and this will affect a range of behavioral, physiological and biological processes as well as intra- and interspecific interactions. Scaled up, we are seeing the potential unraveling of food webs and a reduction in systemic resilience, resistance and stability.
The kinds of changes humanity is inflicting across the biosphere are not trivial. Climate change also exacerbates other anthropogenic stresses, including habitat loss, invasive species and various other forms of pollution. Nature already has a reduced capacity to support man. Humans have greatly simplified vast swathes of the biosphere and climate change adds to that.
You are one of the minions who thinks that humans are exempt from the laws of nature. Most climate change deniers are, given their understanding of environmental science is virtually non existant.
So all you have in your puny intellectual arsenal are smears and innuendo. Any real scientific discourse is absent.
I wonder if our freddy thinks that man was "given dominion over" the world and everything in it?
Is that what you think, by any chance, freddy?
Teh Stupid says:
And it is getting warmer.
HadCRUT4, GISTEMP, UAH TLT; full series; 5 year running means
The science of physical climatology provides detailed explanations of the mechanisms that explain why. This is far from trivial, as anyone who has ever pondered the line by line radiative transfer equations will tell you.
This unhinged paranoid conspiracist ideation is puzzling. What makes you think this way? Are you a free-market fundamentalist unable to accept that climate change represents the greatest market failure the world has ever seen?
Or is it even more fundamental than that? Does climate change represent a threat to your belief system?
Let's examine why you feel as you do. It may be more productive than listening to your views on the science of physical climatology.
bbd troll: ".... radiative transfer equations will tell ... bla bla ..."
radiative transfer equations ARE TOTALLY IRRELEVANT, the only thing which counts is TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS, stupid
you are unable to think logically and have no clue what a scientific proof is, you immoral fuckwit
bbd troll
only a stinking arsehole communist can say what you excrement:
"This unhinged paranoid conspiracist ideation is puzzling. What makes you think this way? Are you a free-market fundamentalist unable to accept that climate change represents the greatest market failure the world has ever seen?"
NO MARKET FAILURE, YOU LOSER AND DECADENT DOOMER
Teh Stupid rants:
Radiative transfer within the atmosphere determines radiative balance, which ultimately determines OHC and GAT. What you have just said is unbelievably, hilariously stupid and not even wrong.
Teh Stupid continues:
Ah. So it is free market fundamentalism with you, is it? Not Jeebus? Denying that climate change represents the greatest market failure the world has ever seen actually indicates that your grasp of economics is as tenuous as your grip on the basics of physical climatology. In other words, you have absolutely no idea what you are frothing about. You are just frothing.
I'm also wondering how old you are. At present, I'm thinking mid-teens with a very poor school attendance record. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Interesting BBD - I'm thinking mid-fifties, also with a pretty piss-poor record all round.
bbd, chek: ask your computer models, you idiots
"radiative transfer": all your "radiative" bla bla is part of your hypothesis that it has something with your pledged warming, BUT IT IS NOT THE PROOF OF WARMING, YOU IDIOT. THE PROOF OF WARMING IS DONE BY READING THERMOMETERS AND REPORT THE RESULTS OF THIS IN A PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE, YOU ASSHOLE.
since you are so unfamiliar with scentific principles you merit the distinction: "GREATEST UNDERPERFORMER OF TODAY"
congrats
Fuckwit freddy
What the fuck does this look like to you?
HadCRUT4, GISTEMP, UAH TLT; annual means 1979 - present; OLS linear fit
And I repeat, since you are buttock-stupid, atmospheric absorption and re-radiation of IR is what is making it get warmer. Something science has defined and quantified using the radiative transfer equations.
You are way beyond normally stupid. Way, way beyond.
bbd troll, cherrypicking by warmists, you take the time interval which you like, take the temperature manipulations which you like most (jones, hansen) and then you think that this junk has any scientific value.
i experienced on blogs like this that it is completely useless to discuss with morons like you of how a scintifically valid methodological setup should look like to explore the validity of the warming hypothesis. but you unintelligent non-scientific warming assholes are by far too limited, fanatic. stubborn and ideologically driven to understand.
what you want is not science but a socialist revolution and harm to western societies.
"what you want is not science but a socialist revolution and harm to western societies"
Just what I said earlier. Freddy is a right wing wacko. A pseudo-fascist fruitcake. Certainly a Tea-Party member or former member who was booted out for being too stupid. And that is saying something.
"What the fuck does this look like to you?"
And what the fuck does this tell you, zealot?
http://www.klimatupplysningen.se/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/CMIP5-73-mo…
What does it tell you about computer games and reallity? What does it tell you about the games been validated? Sorry, but I don't see any reason at all to say amen to the holy CAGW church. My life isn't based on hysterical, fanatic beliefs. I stick to empirical data.
"Freddy is a right wing wacko."
You know, I'm not born in Sweden, but in a communist country. And I must say, I really can't grasp why in the hell your preferred utopia is so communistic? Are you totally brain dead? Rest assure, that's no path a sane human willingly will go. Except wacko greenies who dream of a world governance. Damn stupid idiots!
PentaxZ,
Grow up you silly, silly fool. Is one a communist if they oppose the rantings of someone on the far end of the political right? Someone who appears to spew out nonsense that would be hard at a Tea Party shindig? Who on Earth said that utopia is a communist country? You appear to think that unregulated, unlimited corporate capitalism is the only system available other than communism. Good Lord, are you that naive or just plainly ignorant?
I'll answer that: BOTH. In the limited world view of PentaxZ, if one isn't a gun-toting, corporate axe wielding, right wing capitalist zealot, they must by definition be a 'wacko greenie' who 'dream of world governance'.
There is no middle ground for dopes like PentaxZ. Either you support the Sarah Palin's or Michelle Bachman's or their right wing acolytes of this world or by definition you are a communist.
Its precisely this kind of insidious stupidity which makes we wonder why I waste my time with the Freddy's and PentaxZ's et al who are as thick as two planks. A waste of space.
#44 pentax
It looks like a trick. Can't you fucking read? Or are you so dishonest that you read my responses and deliberately ignore them?
Try again:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/12/jonas-thread/comment-page-64…
Fuckwit @ 42
So Roy Spencer - vocal sceptic and critic of the IPCC - is producing bent satellite data at UAH is he?
Look at the graph, you utter moron. Go on. Now. Look at the trend for GISTEMP and for UAH. The same. Identical. Exactly identical.
Where does this leave your idiotic tripe about "Hansen and Jones"? In the shitcan is where.
Let's just cross out Teh Stupid shall we?
There. That's better.
I repeat, you are in a stupid class all of your own.
pentax
No you don't you lying sack of shit. You deny it. Over and over again. And you fake graphs. Your hypocrisy is sickening.
Empirical data:
HadCRUT4, GISTEMP, UAH TLT; annual means 1979 - present; OLS linear fit
Empirical data:
HadCRUT4, GISTEMP, UAH TLT; annual means 1996 - present; OLS linear fit
Empirical data:
HadCRUT4, GISTEMP, UAH TLT; full series; 5 year running means
This is really what motivates these morons, and is why they don't care, or in most cases even realise that they are made to look absolute fools when they attempt to argue against the science case that demonstrates AGW is occurring.
They're also pitifully blind to the requirement of global solutions to global problems, but again in most cases this is not simply stupidity but also the repeating of received ideas from the political push by the right to liberalise and maximise capital.
What the morons here seek to obscure in their babble about global governance - a phrase it's pretty obvious would never otherwise be contained in the vocabulary of Prof. Freddy F. Fuckwit or PantieZ here without being planted there - is that global capital already operates a globalised system solely for its own benefit in privatising the profitability of its global enterprises, and socialising the costs. as it's doing with every form of pollution it can get away with, from sinking toxic waste off Somalia, to breaking ships on Bangladeshi beaches, to dredging the life from the oceans, fouling the Niger delta, the Canadian tar sands, rural and urban rivers streams and water supplies worlwide and of course carbonising our atmosphere. For free.
What it doesn't want by any means is a global system of governance to regulate it from a position of equal or better than equal terms. Being able to play national governments off against each other as things currently are, is far more effective in maximising that privatised profitability.
The irony is that had it owned up to its responsibilities and dealt with the messes created, the pressure to regulate it would be much less. As things are, it's demonstrated it can't to be trusted to do the right thing for anybody except it's own investors (and even that can be a moot point) and so the consequences will surely follow.
chek @ 39
I think you're right about freddy's age. Older. Kids don't go around calling people, what was it now? Oh yes:
Here, according to Teh Stupid, is my agenda:
This mouth-breather probably won't read, let alone understand what you say at # 51, which is a shame.
@all warming apes
1. THERE IS NO ATMOSPHERIC GREENHOUSE EFFECT AS CONVECTION IS POSSIBLE
2. CARBON DIOXDE PROVIDES COOLING OF THE ATMOSPHERE SINCE CO2 EMITS PHOTONS TO SPACE IN HIGHER ALTITUDES OF THE ATMOSPHERE
you cheks, bbd, bernards, you are all so uninformed that you don't even know this elementary pieces of physics!!!
FUCKING MORONS!!!!!!!!
go and learn what convection is!!
@all warming apes 1. THERE IS NO ATMOSPHERIC GREENHOUSE EFFECT AS CONVECTION IS POSSIBLE 2. CARBON DIOXDE PROVIDES COOLING OF THE ATMOSPHERE SINCE CO2 EMITS PHOTONS TO SPACE IN HIGHER ALTITUDES OF THE ATMOSPHERE you cheks, bbd, bernards, you are all so uninformed that you don’t even know this elementary pieces of physics!!! FUCKING MORONS!!!!!!!!
Well, well a skydragon is in the house. A brand of anti-science loony (and the all caps style is only one of the giveaways) so toxic nether Williwatts nor Curry will allow it house room even in their own madhouses..
Indeed you should Professor F.. And were there a reliable mehod I'd challenge you right now to nominate the other two methods of heat transfer without cribbing Wikipedia As it is, I already dealt with your piss-poor attempts already when I said at #51
"This is really what motivates these morons, and is why they don’t care, or in most cases even realise that they are made to look absolute fools when they attempt to argue against the science case that demonstrates AGW is occurring.
mentally impaired climate tourists travel in thosands to "CLIMATE CONFERENCES" (durban, cancun, doha, etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc) thereby spoiling their rotten ideology with extremely harmful personal carbon footprints: ARSELICKS!!!
at these "reunions" the climate assholes waste taxpayers money with pagan drinking bouts, sex excesses and other disgusting scandals
Professor Fuckwit, I understand the modern world is a confusing and scary place to you - but then that's how you like it - being the paranoid arsewipe you are.
I guess you've never actually been part of the process, but while video conferencing is useful, it doesn't completely replace actual physical presence. Of course if you live your life through a TV or computer screen you won't know this, but humans are social animals and what creates bonds and understanding can't always be transmitted electronically. So we still need to convene in groups at a single location to intermingle, socialise and get stuff done. The value of the work done hopefully makes the carbon expenditure worthwhile.
Now that's been explained to you as simply as possible, the rest of your superstitious envy-cloaked fantasies are too funny for words. Although you might want to look up Bohemian Grove and find out that there is some basis to your rant. I don't think you'll find any 'Greenies' have ever been invited there though.
Freddy.
Do you think that God will let you into Heaven with a lying potty mouth like yours?
And what's with the homophobia?
Teh Stupid continues his rant:
So why doesn't surface temperature drop to ~-15K at night?
And why is it getting warmer as GHG concentrations increase (see graphs at # 50)?
You have also ignored the adiabatic lapse rate and the downward transport of heat from the top of the convecting cell to the surface. Oh, and the top of the convecting troposphere is *not* the TOA. You missed out some atmosphere!
* * *
CO2 absorbs and re-radiates in all directions equally. Your statement is entirely wrong because it is crucially incomplete.
Fail.
Go and do your homework, loon.
"Is one a communist if they oppose the rantings of someone on the far end of the political right?"
Of course. You claim by default realists being "on the far end of the political right" with no facts to support it with whatsoever. Don't you tolerate your own medicine?
But wait, you greenies want a world governance, for "nature's" sake. You want to micro manage every humans live, for "nature's" sake. You greenies think you have the problem formulation monopoly, for "nature's" sake. Your colour is green, the communism is red, but the ideology is exact the same. So yes, you green activists are communists. In other words, watermelons.
"It looks like a trick."
Sure about that, moron? Sorry to upset your cirkles. It's facts. Computer games vs real worls measurements. Lick it up!
Oops, a typo for you to hang on to. It's on me, zealots.
# 60
If you are (as I suspect) too stupid to understand what Christy and chums did, then you will be fooled. Try reading the RC article *carefully*.
If that all proves too much, look very closely indeed at these supposed "real world measurements".
Tell me what you see. Start with the "satellite data". Tell me *exactly* what it is.
PantieZ, stop spewing up what you've been fed. Reducing carbon entering the atmosphere is not a political act per se.
It becomes political because the suppliers of that source of carbon are riding a gravy train producing riches the like of which the world has never seen before and likely won't again. And they don't want any interruptions preventing that.
So - as has been the case since at least the days of FDR - out come the communist smears. Which you morons repeat, repeat, believe and repeat again.
It's you nutbags who've made it political in an attempt to marginalise opposition to the gravy train, but all that doesn't prevent the world from continuing to warm dangerously.
As I pointed out before, you're a fucking disgrace of a human being lying for other people and about something you have not even less than zero knowledge of, but actively and carefully crafted disinformation.
@bbd fuckwit
so you asshole contend that co2 emits photons to space, thereby COOLING THE ATMOSOHERE BECAUSE THOSE EMITTED PHOTONS LACK, LACK, KACK, LECK, LACK IN THE ATMOSPHERE, THEY ARE GONE, GONE, GONE, GONE, GONE, GONE, TO SPACE, TO SPACE, THIS COOLS THE ATMOSOHERE YOU FOOL, THIS COOLS THE ATMOSPHERE YOU FOOL:: STINKING MORON
your other stupid question, devoid of any knowledge in the empty brain of an agw idiot: why does temp not sink to -15degC during the night: SIMPLE, STUPID, BUT FAR ABOVE YOUR LEVEL OF COMPREHENSION:
BECAUSE THE SUN HAS HEATED THE AIR, YOU KNOW THE AIR, THE GAS MIXTURE OF THE 99.9+% WITHOUT CO2. NITROGEN, OXYGEN HAVE BEEN WARMED BY THE SUN, YOU IDIOT AND LOSER, THATS THE REASON WHY THE WARMTH IS CONTAINED IN THE AIR OVERNIGHT.
IT IS SAD THAT ONE HAS TO EXPLAIN THESE SIMPLE FACTS TO THE INSANE CLIMATE IDIOTS, THE BBDS, ETC.
MORONS!!!!!!!!!!!
Professor Fuckwit, forgive me for asking, but is it the case that your central hypothesis is that in order to create new realities, all one has to do is to describe them in all caps format?
Normally I'd respectfully request references for your extraordinary understanding of atmospheric physics. But then it occurred to me that they'd likely be in regular text, and therefore lack the forthright, all caps authority of your version.
check small: you resist to learn the education i have given to monkers like you!
co2 emits photons to space thereby cooling the atmosphere. if you arselick don't believe me, ASK KEVIN TRENBERTH, he will tell you the same
But, "freddy", CO2 emits photons downwards, thereby heating the Earth.
Or do you contend the CO2 molecule understands the difference between "up" & "down" and only wants to re-radiate upwards?
It does seem likely the sort of thing *you* and other braindead trailerpark trash could believe.
craigh, co2 emits photons in ALL directions, not only downwards.
"out come the communist smears. Which you morons repeat, repeat, believe and repeat again."
Again, a hammer is a hammer. You can't argue with the truth.
PantieZ, it is immediately obvious given the context of Craig's post that he's correcting Freddy Fuckwit who claims that it only emits upwards into space.
Or did offering that fragment of redundant information make you feel all sciencey for a few seconds?
Only for you, zealots.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ROw_cDKwc0&feature=player_embedded
"Try reading the RC article *carefully*."
You moron really think I care to read anything at all at one of the most CAGW alarmistic sites around? Idiot. I have better use for my time.
check stinking arselick
"That the Earth’s temperature is rising is no longer in dispute"
bullshit, there are faked up temp series from warming hysterics and green activists (jones, hansen)
AND BY FAR TOO INSUFFICIENT DATA FROM WIDE PARTS OF THE GLOBE (oceans, southern hemisphere)
the methodology to calculate a global temp, on which you idiots depend, is a joke, pure scientific junk. only in a dirt science as "climatology" this can happen: CLIMATE FRAUDULENTS INTENTIONYALLY DECEIVE THE PUBLIC WITH FAKED EARTH AVERAGE TEMPERATURES BASED ON MISSING DATA
FUCKWITS!!!!! MORONS!!!!
You silly little dupe. Where's your intellectual pride?
@ 65
You were wrong as I explained at #58.
CO2 radiates in all directions NOT JUST "upwards" into space. If you stopped bawling and thought about this for a moment, you would see that it fucks up your "analysis" completely.
The atmosphere would cool very rapidly were it not for the absorption and re-radiation of IR by the GHGs it contains. This is why surface temperatures don't fall well below freezing at night. You don't need to take my word for it - check in any climatology/atmospheric physics textbook. Go on, I dare you.
* * *
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about and you are - apparently - insane. This doesn't make for fruitful discussions.
PantieZ, you can't argue at all.
Assertion according to your whacko belief system is what you do.
Prof 'Freddy' Fuckwit, like PantieZ and a vast majority of deniers, you make grand claims about scientific misconduct that you're totally unable to substantiate.
How do all the different temperature series - even the 'sceptic' ones - all substantially agree if their measurements are not objective?
There are two possible answers - my guess is you'll instinctively choose the looney-tunes one.
Sorry - just catching up and the coffee hasn't hit properly yet...
Teh Stupid foams:
Now this is annoying. I pointed out at # 49 that the satellite data are in very close agreement with the surface temperature reconstructions despite being synthesised from MSU measurements rather than measured by direct thermometry.
Here - again - is what I said:
"So Roy Spencer – vocal sceptic and critic of the IPCC – is producing bent satellite data at UAH is he?
Look at the graph, you utter moron. Go on. Now. Look at the trend for GISTEMP and for UAH. The same. Identical. Exactly identical.
Where does this leave your idiotic tripe about “Hansen and Jones”? In the shitcan is where."
Surely that left no room for misunderstanding? So why the fuck are you repeating rubbish claims? Why?
Here, again, is UAH (satellite) lower tropospheric temperature vs HadCRUT4 and GISTEMP (Phil 'n' James). See for yourself.
Look.
UAH vs HadCRUT4 and GISTEMP, 1979 - present
Chek says:
You... you mean they got to Roy as well??
"You silly little dupe. Where’s your intellectual pride?"
It's my intellectual pride that prevents me from reading on such propaganda sites, you stupid zealot.
"But wait, you greenies want a world governance, for “nature’s” sake" et al ad naueseum.
PentaxZ (Penty) here is some unbridled truth: you are crackers. A fruitcake. Bonkers. Nuts. Loony.
Need any more appropriate epithets or metaphors? Clearly, one downside of living under communism (and there were many) is that many people - like you, Penty, as is evident from your wacky posts - emerged from that bankrupt system to embrace another bankrupt system (unregulated corporate capitalism) as if this is a Manna from heaven. Anyone who opposes the wholseale appropriation of resoruces and capital for profit to benefit a very small minority is deemed a 'greenie, commie, Marxist' who wants 'world government.
I don't know whether this is just some form of paranoia or outright insanity, but you certainly reveal traits of both, Penty. Sadly, I have met a number of people who grew up under communism who have this warped view of the world, one in which any form of government regulation is viewed with panic and considered to be 'communism'. I am sure that Penty thinks Obama is a communist (David Duff alluded to such a crazy notion once, but we all know how far out he is). Obama, if truth be told, is as embellished in the corporate establishment as Bush and the Republicans are. His policies appeal to the corporate-state power brokers.
But I may as well be discussing this with a kindergarten child. Penty's discourse is that banal and simple. It would be funny if it weren't true.
A pathetic excuse. But anticipating such dishonesty, I gave you an alternative option. See # 63.
You have dodged my question. Why is that?
PantieZ handlers and inspirers ensure that any real, actual science from real, actual scientists is kept well away from fragile flowers like PantieZ.
Much better to have faith in self-appointed, corporately sponsored fake experts. 'Symbol of Free West!, to quote Alexei Sayle's memorable Eastern Bloc character Jerzei Balowski.
Tell me about the satellite data as presented by Christy Pentax.
I bet you haven't even looked at the labels on this confected non-evidence, have you? Yet you think it "falsifies AGW". You accept it utterly, without the faintest trace of scepticism. Gerbil-witted prat that you are.
Now, go and look at the pretty picture again. Tell me about the "satellite data". What *exactly* is shown?
Tell me.
It's gone very quiet in here...
So quiet...
bbd fuckwit
do something to improve your rotten education and learn what truth is:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/22/ipcc-railroad-engineer-pachauri-a…
you agw morons need to be educated
bbd fuckwit, are you intelligent enough to catch the wisdom:
"The entire AGW conversation battens on the fact that the climate has warmed by quasi-oscillatory happenstance. Climate models are made to make happenstance look like CO2-driven causality"
from wuwt
AGW FUCKWIT MORONS LIKE YOU, JEFF, BERNARD ETC. MUST LEARN TO THINK AND BEHAVE HONESTLY AND DECENTLY
Who runs WUWT, freddy? A scientist? Or is it run by a university dropout who worked as the TV weatherman for a few years?
vince troll, who has asked you??
Professor Fuckwit, what you'll notice is that Williwatts quotes The Australian paraphrasing Dr. Pachauri. But can't actually quote Dr. Pachauri.
Why do you suppose that is? The standard answer - because that's what liars do - is only part of the answer.
Question to all:
How many of you (still) arent aware of and don't know that 'dendroclimatology' never had any place in real science?
vince fuckwit, you don't like this
"“The entire AGW conversation battens on the fact that the climate has warmed by quasi-oscillatory happenstance. Climate models are made to make happenstance look like CO2-driven causality”
because it is from a source you don't like
ASSHOLE CHERRYPICKER AND UNTRUTHFUL WOMBAT
Fellas, is Briffa's new Yamal non-stick taken from Climate Audit?
http://climateaudit.org/2013/06/28/cru-abandons-yamal-superstick/#comme…
;-)
Of course not, you dumb fuck repeater.
Dear chek, cursing isn't an answer.
:-)
Yamallah akbar! ;-)
# 87
The truth? At WTFUWT?
Grow up, fred-fred.
Radiative physics is "the truth", or as close as we get. Forget Willard Tony. He's just a paid liar.
The 'cursing' (sic) wasn't the answer, you dumb fuck.
But of course pretending it was is all you can do.
Why has Pentax run away, I wonder?
I was so looking forward to a chat with him about those satellite data that Christy averaged together for his pretty picture.
We could have had a lovely giggle over that little trick. But Pentax has gone.
:-(
Mixing with we 'zealots' is dangerous. The mind is a porous thing, and maintaining ideological purity likely became difficult even for a dumber-than-dirt third rate repeater like PantieZ. He may avoid reading RealClimate, but its presence becomes much less abstract the longer he dallies here.
:-)
The new Yamal looks very much like Steve's audit. Glad that we can agree on that. Or perhaps it is the other way around, as suggested by a commenter: Steve plagiarised Briffa's Yamal of 2013 as early as 2009! ;-)
:-)
Very poor reading comprehension, Olaus.
Who cares? Denier fake controversies are irrelevant.
Read the words.
'Looks like' is all it takes to fool a denier moron like Olap et ilk.
Perhaps that's why they keep backing donkeys, which sort of look like race horses, if you know less than fuck all about horse breeds.
Testing testing ...
A couple of my comments have disappeared now.
As seeminly commenter hero-troll Wow ..
BBD still thinks 'denier' and 'cause I said so' are arguments. He even thinks that makes him a 'player'.
It's quite entertaining what the believers will argue to defend their faith:Now Briffa et al 'tells us nothing we didn't know already'. Apart from that McIntyre was right all along, and therefor it must be nonsense ..
Yoou couldn't make this up.
Another blurp from BBD:
"Bernard J, like Jeff Harvey, brings expert knowledge to the table. I have no doubt that many here are grateful for the opportunity to learn something"
It is really really funny to watch him trying to pass off as someone knowledgable, but nowadays mostly frequents alarmist sites where the regulars are like here. Perhaps because those are the only ones he can still 'impress' (and get some flatter from.
And as Jeff says: Support here, for his position shows how right his opinion must be, he is arguing the Detloid consensus now .. That's getting close to Cook and Lewandowsky.
And if those guys are on your side ... what could possibly go wrong!?
:-)
Yes, another comment (allegedly 'in moderation') has now disappeared.
That too of course is needed to assert the correctness and righteousness of believing in CAGW ....
bbd asshole, ahhh, only the prophecies of your holy church count
poor faithful moron
Why is it that deniers who can't write English, don't read any source material, and don't even understand the chum they regurgitate from their favourite kook blogs can't put finger to keyboard without mentioning religion?
craigtroll, very good self-description of one of the mentally impaired climate twerp bonkers
you are a lost case: shit whatever you " write " in poor english
Could it be that it strikes a chord with their exact approach to climate science?
Hysteria and projection, handed down stories, myths, interpretations of interpretations etc. etc. It all comes across as quasi-religious to me. Irrational at the very least.
chek, you excel for once in describong the climate scientology church with its countless superstitions, hallucinations, myths, delusions, and you are one of its low-gifted pupils without any knowledge in meteorology
"I gave you an alternative option."
Really? I didn't know there was room for any alternative opinions in the ipcc church.
"Why has Pentax run away, I wonder?"
You know, here in Sweden we have legal right to five weeks payed vacation each summer. You really think I bother much about this zealot blog, especially during my vacation, dumb ass?
"Who runs WUWT, freddy? A scientist?"
Owngoal of the year! Who runs ipcc, vw? A scientist? Or is it run by a ecofascist wannabe who worked as a railway engineer for a few years?
"....can’t put finger to keyboard without mentioning religion?"
Because a realist knows that the whole CAGW dogma is built on pure belief and nothing else. If you don't see that you truly are an idiot big time.
"Hysteria and projection, handed down stories, myths, interpretations of interpretations etc. etc. It all comes across as quasi-religious to me. Irrational at the very least."
Do you realise that you just described the religious CAGW dogma? Good work!
"It’s gone very quiet in here…
So quiet…"
Yes, it has. Only auto posted open threads. I wonder why tim doesn't have anything to write about. Must be hard to beat real world facts with dogma fantasy.
PantieZ, own goal indeed in believing your own myths.
It's obviously never been pointed out to you that the IPCC was previously run by a scientist, until the Bush administration pressed for someone who wasn't to administer the organisation.
Unfortunately for them, Dr. Pachauri took his job seriously and the rest as they say is history. Not the alternative history you brainless oiks invent to grease your religious beliefs and myths.
@Jonas
Hi Jonas, I know you don't venture over to realclimate (or at least don't post there), so you may not have seen the recent rasmus "contribution".
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/06/a-new-experiment-…
They've put together a new paper "Agnotology: learning from mistakes" for Earth System Dynamics. The journal is somewhat unique in that it invites on-line reviews which are here.
http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/4/451/2013/esdd-4-451-2013-disc…
As far as I can gather the paper's been rejected by two other publications and they're trying to get it thru here. It's co-authored by the some of the sks crowd and very much at the bleating, lewandowsky, end of the market; science is never settled unless the majority say it is, in which case everybody else is supposed to fall into line, rasmus refers to the "usual suspects", and there's lots of handwaving (grand statements without substantive evidence, as we're used to here) and counterfactual claims from the authors. It's impossible to work out whether one (rasmus) or all the authors are mathematically illiterate - the definition of what a "Bounded function" is was breathtaking.
The reviews/comments are quite entertaining Jonas, I particularly liked the one from the Norwegian mathematician who described the paper as a "cultural production of ignorance". But there's lots of others, worth a read thru.
;)
Looks like the climatescam clubhouse is dead if the troll collective are using this place as a lost and found board.
Pentax
The silence I was referring to - as you know perfectly well - was yours following my question on the previous page.
Let's enjoy the sound of silence again.
Tell me about the satellite data as presented by Christy.
I bet you haven’t even looked at the labels on this confected non-evidence, have you? Yet you think it “falsifies AGW”. You accept it utterly, without the faintest trace of scepticism. Gerbil-witted prat that you are.
Now, go and look at the pretty picture again. Tell me about the “satellite data”. What *exactly* is shown?
Tell me.
Pentax?
Oh, so CO2 is a pollutant? Only rea idiots believe that.
http://www.itwire.com/science-news/climate/60575-rising-co2-level-makin…
bbd, you just can't accept real world facts. There is no warming the last decade and a half-ish. You are like a worm on a hook. Tragic.
PantieZ stop thinking like a little totalitarian thug who's been told what to think and LOOK at the fucking data.
LOOK at the fucking news reports.
Then LOOK at your own stupid beliefs based on stupid fucking blogscience.
"LOOK at the fucking news reports."
So news reports is science? Idiot.
Interresting indeed:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/03/great-news-from-greenland/
Pentax
Eyesight problems as well as the IQ of a gerbil?
Try again:
Tell me about the satellite data as presented by Christy.
I bet you haven’t even looked at the labels on this confected non-evidence, have you? Yet you think it “falsifies AGW”. You accept it utterly, without the faintest trace of scepticism. Gerbil-witted prat that you are.
Now, go and look at the pretty picture again. Tell me about the “satellite data”. What *exactly* is shown?
Tell me.
I'm waiting...
OHC, OHC, OHC.
You are a climate illiterate gerbil.
Why can't we talk about that Christy graph that you linked at least twice if not three times earlier on this thread?
Specifically, about Christy's handling of the satellite data.
I want you to tell me what he did with the satellite data presented in the graph you keep on waving in my face.
Get on and answer the question.
PantieZ because you morons are such faithful little repeaters who don't take a blind bit of notice anyway, I'll just repeat this again from another thread:
And seriously arsehole, there no point in leaving an authoritarian regime if you still carry its ways inside your head.
Or maybe you believe that 'the free west' was only ever about consumer goodies. Which wouldn't surprise me, you do present yourself as being that shallow.
The European floods, the US wildfires, the Australian drought, the record Indian monsoons etc. etc. are events, and events inform science. Events can even inform you, if you take the trouble to inform yourself away from denier comic-book blogs, idiot.
@Jonas,
Is this a new record for moderation? your posts from June 29th(?) and July 1st just come thru. Unbelievable!
;)
GSW
It's worse than that. This morning, comment from June 26 was still 'in moderation' ... Thats two whole weeks! And labelling it 'moderation' is a mockery of meaningfull language.
Further, some comments where deleted (i.e. seen and acted upon more than a week ago, while the others were left hangning ...
:-)
But hey, this is Deltoid, and the crowd here 'demands' this kind of 'protection'. And their words and arguments are the same kind of mockery of language and reason. And science has no place here, most of the regular don't even know what it is (some think that a academic position, a CV or a publication also is 'science' ... but little do they know)
BTW GSW
I looked through the comments at ESDD, and Benstad et al's attempted smug musings are just yet another example of intellectual featherwheight jabbings ... just like Cook, Lewandowsky, Anderegg and what they manage to get in print ...
Essentially they are trying to escape the requirements of real science by replacing it with pseudointellectual waffle. Most of the time completely unaware of the weaknesses of their own beliefs ..
But then, what else to expect when you take the tupes of Nuccitelli and Cook onboard
(The RC-thread again does not provide any insights at all, just heavily censored self-confirmation)
"...and LOOK at the fucking data."
Yes, look at the actual data, zealots!
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/06/global-warming-in-a-few-s…
@Jonas
Moderation policy is really bad, any idea why some posts were deleted? Foul language seems to be tolerated, just censorship of "dangerous ideas", an on-line Goskomizdat.
"Essentially they are trying to escape the requirements of real science by replacing it with pseudointellectual waffle."
Yes, I think the Norwegian mathematician had it right, a "cultural production of ignorance” or, put another way, seeking to legitimize ignorance by parading it as "science" (it's in a Journal and everything!), as Jeff here does.
The review comments for the paper were entertaining, the "believers bubble" meets reality.
;)
About that satellite data, Pentax? Answer the question please.
Nobody here needs "protection" from a content-free, reference-free blowhard like you Jonas.
You are, however, tedious, and being boring is a high crime. Perhaps that is why you are now being moderated.
One can but hope.
It is kind of ironic how much know-nothings like Jonas, GSW and PentaxZ make a big deal about how insignificant Deltoid is yet they write here as if their lives depended on it.
The reason is simple: in the big world of science these people are hapless wannabes. Blips so small that they are invisible. They don't do science, they don't publish scientific papers and they don't attend workshops and conferences where these issues are debated and discussed amongst the people who actually do scientific research.
So that leaves them as veritable nothings sniping away at the sidelines, desperate to get any attention they can. I have asked many, many times when we can expect Jonas to submit his groundbreaking, Earth shattering tome that will change the way in which AGW is viewed. Heck, let me throw in GSW, who also thinks he is a whizz, and Pentax into the pot. When are these self-professed geniuses going to publish their seminal artricle? I assume it will be titled, "Why AGW is unproven poo-poo" by *Jonas Nincompoop, Panties Xylophone and Gormless S. Wanker, to be submitted to "Journal of Self-Righteous Denial", impact factor 0.000000000000000000001.
*Correspondence author. Address: Somewhere in Sweden.
And what is the consistent response of these three wise men? To attack me as being 'not a real' scientist, and other usual smears, accompanied by more self-righteous chest pounding and more smears. I have to admit that these guys are a real hoot. And their fellow brorthers and sisters in denial on other threads - Betula, Karen and Rednose are not much better.
If these people represent the foundation of 'intellectual discourse' amongst those in society who downplay or deny AGW, then no wonder that lot is in so much trouble.
Well BBD
Do I need to remind you of your 'energetically insufficient' argument regarding UHI? Or that you (for a while) believed that the winter to summer temperature difference proved the high sensitivity to CO2?
Or that if the term 'oscillation' occurs in the description of an phenomenon, its effect must amount to zero over arbitraryly chosen time periods?
Or that you argued 'does not contribute any additional energy' in a thread where you wanted to attribute extra energy to CO2?
I think the list is longer BBD, and contained much more waffle and examples of you not understanding even the simpler parts of hard sciences.
And that isn't even the point. Being poorly informed, insufficiently educated, even wrong at times when you should have known better is not particularly serious or bad. However, if you don't even understand why your arguments are not valid efter it has been explained several times, and by others (obviously far) mor knowledable than you ..
That reveals muych more. It shows that you are just an eco-chamber of copied or memorized talkning points and phrases you somehow hope make your case.
GSW
I think it is really a sign of severe (and proably even to them dawning) weakness that they have to resort to Lewandosky-style fake science to reinforce their crumbling base and including schmucks like Cook or Nuccitelli in those attempts.
It also reveals the Jeffie-style attitude: 'If we manage to get it into print, it must be believed, because that makes it science, and even the truth'
The whole IPCC endeavor is a sign of scientific weakness for the same (but not quite as bad) reasons.
The whole idea of trying to officially rubberstamp a belief or even a sound scientific hypotheses (which it most definitely is not) is futile and shows, that the rubberstamping is the main objective. Not the oursuit of knowledge and understandning.
And hence, we see huges hordes of rubber-stamp-repeaters flocking around the issue. Shouting and pointing at their official looking stamps
PS I noted as you, that one notorious and seemingly compulsive serial poster suddenly has gone quiet, and that comment simply disapperaed quickly ...
GSW
You lot have no bloody idea, never mind "dangerous ideas".
Self-aggrandising prat.
Look at it this way boys, being moderated in the basement comment section of what is now almost a prehistoric thread of a blog from the far side of the world at least proves you're alive, doesn't it?
I know it's all you've got, and anybody else with any dignity would have fucked off elsewhere a long, long time ago, but if you'll just take what you can get however demeaning, it's hardly gonna get any better, is it? Thought you chickens would at least understand that.
Chek ...
Ancient, you say? Well, I too would say that claims from the 2007 IPCC AR4 claim are 'ancient' by now. And had been taken on faith, and still are in some quarters, because they've never been checked or even asked for openly by anybody you know.
But as demonstrated here over the past 2+ years, learning and progress are slow among the believers. And demeaning is a mild word describing what the believers here have put forward: ' Intellectual self mutilation' is a more apt description.
But even this has not really gone close to any science and contentious issues there. Instead the few challenges here have been about 'statistics' or 'confidence and likelihood' or over simpler physics and the laws of nature etc. Some attemepts to discuss what science and the scientific method means in the real world (and for the real and hard sciences). But for most of you, already that was too taxing.
And I believe you. I have seen the level at which you guys are able to argue any stance (if you at all are able to formulate any such concisely). And the definite impression one gets is that you really have no clue how scientific (real ones, hard science) issues are tackled, and how understanding and knowledge is advanced. My imrpession has most often been that you guys don't even understand the question, the issue. Many times unable to distinguish between causeation and just observation (not even correlation) or between warming GW and the possible A-signal. Or between noise and signal.
Most often you guys are just ranting. Especially you chek. You try the childiest name-calling and arent even good at that.
But as I said from early on: Those who throw around terms like 'denier' or 'idiot' och Dunning-Kruger hoping it wins the argument, without exception have nothing to contribute wrt the issues. Most often don't even understand you 'own side's version' of them.
And no, I don't think you will come out of this with any faces saved. But I see you are all still hoping desperately .. for some grand temperature rise come-back in the near future!
;-)
Because of the roaring consensus, the bona-fide-CV-scientists, because of the multiple multiple lines of evidence, and the 10-thousand peer reviewed publications and all the national academies, and the UN, and all the 'experts' and the firm belief among all those ...
That's shy you know that teh future will do something completely different than it has so far, isn't it chek? A grandiose come-back of the thremageddon threat!
That is what you have left chek ... one or even two decades later, you are hoping for the models to have gotten it right after all, after all the failures of both for- and hindcasting.
But I'm telling your: You are pinning an aweful lot of hope on some very faint (and quickly fainter getting) chance!
But why change your hopes now? You are already commited, and that the only chance left for you!
But hey, that's the price for making unsubstantiated claims ... they'll come back and haunt you in the future, and from there even further away
Hoping for a grand recovery, and meanwhile 'denial' is your best bet left.
How does that feel?
@Jonas #42
Nice post Jonas, a good summary of benestad, lewandowsky, cook and hangers ons' work.
"The whole idea of trying to officially rubberstamp a belief or even a sound scientific hypotheses (which it most definitely is not) is futile and shows, that the rubberstamping is the main objective. Not the oursuit of knowledge and understandning."
Yes, it's rubberstamped, in a journal, it's science, must be true! is an odd strategy for legitimizing one's prejudices. If nothing else, it shows a total contempt for Science itself from the authors. No pursuit of knowledge and understanding; just viewed as a platform/means to convey the "message", as you've pointed out. I think one reviewer referred to it as being nothing more than a "blog post" chancing its arm. From memory, he didn't mention sks directly but the reference is not hard work out.
Glad you're back being able to post close to real time. Keep up with the "dangerous ideas" though.
;)
PS I didn't realise wow's comments had been deleted. Long overdue in my view.
PPS Jeff doesn't change does he? still moaning and whining about things playing out differently in his head than the real world. Can't remember which numpty it was now, Bernard? stu? but someone will no doubt want to see "error bars" for jeff's "0.000000000000000000001" figure, otherwise it's not their kind of science.
;)
"If we manage to get it into print"
Yeh, Jonas and GSW, that is clearly something neither of you two numpties will ever achieve. So instead you are stuck on blogs, where you are forever anonymous.
Thank heaven for small mercies.
# 41 Jonas
I recall you doing a lot of blustering about oscillations and UHI while failing to make an argument that could actually be defined as an argument.
I'm happy to bet that this hasn't changed. I'm also happy to bet that you are a self-aggrandising bluffer who avoids substantive debate because, well, because you are bluffing. Seen it all before, Jonas. Don't need to see it again.
Is there nothing that your pig-ignorance doesn't fully equip you to tackle?
Jonarse found his natural level with PantieZ, Griselda and Olap.
Of course he likes to think he's superior to all of them, but only in much the same way as Beavis feels superior to Butthead.
And whose 'natural level' is comprised in the term 'Jonarse'?
If you were a credible debater, this would not happen.
BBD, that is true. You failed to understand even the simpler concepts at hand. I even had to read word by word, the content of papers you linked. And explain what they said, why and how. And what it meant. And of course: What they didn't say but what you thought they showed. And almost always, you didn't understand.
But hey, this is to be expected from somebody who has no grasp of the hard sciences. And that's why you are here, and not among the grown-ups anymore.
Well Jeffie, chek, Bernard and all the other bozos here who've unsuccessfully tried to challange me about that (in)famous IPCC AR4 claim fråm 2007.
Here is Richard Lindzen some weeks ago saying exactly the same thing at the Oxford Union, just some months ago.
Starting (with that claim repeated) at 4:00 in this video, you will hear the obvious once more arond 5.00 (which I've told you for more than two years now)
But I am curious, especially among those here who pride themselves of intelligence and even independent thinking: Do you still put your hopes or beliefs to the opposite?
Odd choice of reference for a serious argument. Lindzen has no credibility on matters concerning climate change. He is not taken seriously by climate scientists, only by lesser contrarians like you, Jonas. Those whose understanding of the science is so weak and partial that they can easily be fooled by rhetoric and misrepresentation. Whatever Lindzen is claiming will be a distortion - it invariably is. And all his distortions have been debunked many times. So as I said, an odd choice for a reference for anyone seeking recognition as a credible debater.
BBD, you are making my point for me. And your incessant attempts to dish out teh 'credibility'-label also gives it away.
You are unable to make judgements regarding the science by yourself. Hence, this is what you resort to.
But it's worse than that. What Lindzen said is perfectly correct. You 'mates' here have spent two years proving me wrong on that particular issue. Failing miserably, even spectacularly.
But that of course must have been caused by Lindzens lack of (your) credulity ...
I rest my case.
@Jonas
Hi Jonas, what did you think of the Lindzen program as a whole? I didn't think it was too bad. Main issue was the 3/4 hour format, lots of issues touched on then forgotten as other points came up. Mehdi Hasan was all over the place with the questioning, but then he only had limted time, so maybe not entirely his fault.
As well as Lindzen, there was Myles Allen( I suppose the mainstream Climate Scientist), Mark Lynas and David Rose.
Some of Myles points; the 97% figure is "irrelevant", "that's not how science works" (Deltoid regulars take note, we've discussed this many times) , as is the Big Oil argument (Exxon have paid for his flights too apparently), current policies (windfarms/renewables etc) are "futile" and not likely to do any good.
;)
Lindzen got his points across quite well I thought, despite Mehdi's interruptions, which didn't really help the flow. Anything else stand out for you Jonas?
@Jonas
Luboš review here if you haven't seen it Jonas.
http://motls.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/richard-lindzen-vs-aljazeera-gladia…
He refers to Al Jazeera as being "politically correct", which he tries not to be.
"The host is offended that Richard is relaxed instead of hysterical – every good person should be hysterical which is also why the host's near countrymates demolished some skyscrapers in New York 12 years ago."
Also,
"Someone asked whether the IPCC's message to policymaker is pure junk or it contains something usable."
The "someone" was Andrew Montford (Bishop Hill) which I thought he would have known.
Worth a read.
;)
GSW
I think it was, on the whole, a good show. Mehdi Hasan could have used half as many words, and still said the same thing, but probably felt that he needed to appear 'knowledgable' ..
It must have chocked some of the believers (here, if they'd ever dare to watch it) to hear without any reservation that the oil-funded, and 97%-consensus memes are utter rubbish. Which it of course is.
One thing that struck me was the daftness of the alarmist questions from the audience. They not only were stupid, some had been addressed extensively already, and thus looked as rehearsed or from a cue-card.
Noticable is also BBD who seemingly wants to remain ignorant, or believe the opposite, or doesn't even understand the issue. And all this based on his notion that Lindzen "has no credibilty"
It's hard do even imagine the ignorance behind and revealed by #(p65)55 (*)
That's yet another bozo believing to talk for the 'climate scientist' without being able to comprehend even the simpler aspects of what they work with and present. And an angry ranter at that. Him too!
:-)
(*)which is actually comment #6455 in t his thread)
What did Lindzen say Jonas? In your own words. I'm not going to waste time watching a video of a lecture or a debate or whatever it was. Please summarise.
Thanks.
I don't see how, unless your point was that your credibility is damaged by referencing Lindzen. Which someone with your supposedly vast intellect really should be able to work out for themselves.
Anyway, get off your arse and do some work for a change. What did Lindzen claim?
There's no telling just how deep this whole rabbit hole conspiracy goes. Fuckwit.
BBD, wasting your time seems to be your favourite pastime, and in the grander scheme of things: Climate hysteria is probably the biggest organized waste of time and resources so far in human history
BTW criticizing, even dismissing statements you haven't even heard is another way of wasting (your own) time. You seem to have been doing a lot of that ...
Either summarise what Lindzen says or don't. But I'm not wasting my time listening to that old liar.
As usual, you shy from any kind of substantive engagement. This will be because you are in fact just a posturing blowhard with no actual argument.
Sic probo!
Too stupid to figure out how to link? Or too lazy?
Demonstrably too lazy to write down what you actually disagree with and explain why. But that would be because insinuation is a cover for your ignorance and dishonesty. As we all know from painful experience. You do not - cannot - play a straight game because you are a posturing blowhard with no argument.
This is why you are a wast of time, Jonas.
BBD Lindzen said exactly the same thing I have said here about 100 times (no kidding!). There is a link, and timestamp, in #(64)54.
Demonstrably too lazy to read, or even just click on a link. Funny you'd bring that up, BBD.
But yes, you have been doing exactly that: Wasting time with your ignorant posturing about what you think climate and science is about. Aven without my help pointing this out.
"Energetically insufficient ... "
Even after it had been explained repeatedly! My oh my ...
Still saying nothing. Rhetoric and posturing don't constitute an argument.
If you've written this up about 100 times here you should have no trouble linking to the relevant previous comment(s). Unless you find linking challenging and/or hard work.
If you cannot even click on provided link ... I don't think I can help you with the slightly more complicated things either. As we've already establsihed.
UHI is energetically insufficient to heat the troposphere. The real fuckwit here was the bozo who couldn't grasp that agreement in trend between the surface temperature reconstructions and the satellite TLT constrained UHI very tightly and demonstrated its minimal effects on the accuracy of the surface temperature record.
That bozo was you, Jonas.
You are a very great deal less intelligent and scientifically literate than you pretend to be. In fact you are a posturing bluffer with no argument. Did I already mention that?
You can't "help" me with anything Jonas, because you have nothing to say. No argument. Nothing but hot air and posturing, which I have seen ad nauseam before.
Just look at you now - a miserable little bundle of spite and evasions.
You are nothing, Jonas.
Yes BBD, two years later and you still have no clue whatsoever .. None!
Here is BBD displaying how clueless he is about the issue:
And even the moronic waffle about 'credibility' ...
But we have your word for that you are 'something!?
:-)
Well, I'd rather not spell it out then
Here is Jonas, displaying how clueless he is.
UHI is energetically insufficient to heat the troposphere. The real fuckwit here was the bozo who couldn’t grasp that agreement in trend between the surface temperature reconstructions and the satellite TLT constrained UHI very tightly and demonstrated its minimal effects on the accuracy of the surface temperature record.
That fuckwit was you, Jonas, and still is you.
Aren't you embarrassed? If not, why not?
Since you evidently can link, what is this Lindzen thing that you have written up here at least 100 times?
You can link mine me, but not yourself? How... obviously the work of a shithead.
BBD ..
You really aren't capable of reading simpler written language even, are you?
All your moronic points have already been addressed, even repeatedly. It's all still there. While you however, haven't understood what the issue is/was.
Well, this is hardly a new observation. The same thing happened when we touched upon other topics: Moronic ramblings, but no understanding of what it means.
And the link to Lindzen is still there. As are all my previous comments. I don't expect you to have anything intelligable to say, though.
As you probably are aware of and remember, I will repeat my question to you which I have asked many times before:
Have you yet understood why the 'energetically insufficient' is entirely, and I really mean completely irrelevant to the question about any UHI effect?
Because so far you have avoided to give any intelligable answer. And after all, you not only brought it up, you are still repeating such nonsens as if it ever had anything to do with it!
PS All the answers are available in the link I gave above (#71). Understanding even the simpler parts of an inssue however is maybe too difficult!?
OK you cluless bozo, I'll give you a hint. Since you obviously are to thick to read what has already been explained in detail. I'll explain it once more:
Nobody, absolutely nobody has ever argued that the UHI-effect is or could be "energetically insignificant" and thus " climatologically [not] negligible" wrt to the heat content of the lower troposphere!
Did you get that BBD? Nobody has ever argued anything like that. Most certainly not me (as I explained in detail back then):
Did you get it this time, BBD?
There was one commenter, however, who out of the blue brought this up as an argument, and made the claim that:
And I just wonder why anybody would bring up such a moronic amd revealing strawman? Well, I guess BBD is the answer. As is his language ...
@Jonas
"One thing that struck me was the daftness of the alarmist questions from the audience. They not only were stupid, some had been addressed extensively already, and thus looked as rehearsed or from a cue-card."
The alarmist questions weren't particularly coherent or serve any real purpose either.
From memory, there was an American lady that thought Lindzen was advocating wanton consumerism "Should my brother just go out and buy a hummer(?)" as if in some way that was the logical conclusion of what he was saying. Lindzen in his seventies has never really struck me as being a "gonna Party like it's 1999" kind of guy. ;)
A thirty something that thought "Big Oil" was the problem, not CO2 levels as they go up and down(?) apparently. Not a fan of "Big Oil" by the sound of it, I'm sure she would attribute most of the ills in the world to "Big Oil" if she'd had more time.
I don't know if they were scripted/cue carded and I read somewhere else that the Q&A session was quite heavily edited, maybe those were the best questions.
I think, if anything, the alarmist questions were probably quite representive of the breed. As we've witnessed on deltoid, a combination of prejudice, ignorance and an inability to actually follow what's been claimed/said, repeatedly!
Mark Lynas was a little subdued and Myles Allen's a bit of mainstream maverick, I'm not convinced there would be much in the way of support for his appearance on the show.
Glad you're still keeping up with things.
;)
GSW #76
That's a good point. The Q&A was edited and shortended quite a bit. And yes, it could be that those were the best alarmist questions that came up. Another (not contradicting) possibility could be that the questiones were heavily leaning towards skeptic positions, and that they due to a 'balanced appearence' needed to use whatever they had from the alarmist side, and accordingly pick only some of the more skeptic questions ..
But by 'cue-card' I meant that they were written/memorized beforehand, since the obviously didn't heed at all what had already been said and discussed ..
Since, there has been a grilling (at the BBC of all places) of Ed Davey about his 'climate science' understandning. Another (albeit small) step forward, if you ask me.
The wind is not as fierce and steady as it used to be ....
So, GSW, what was Lindzen's argument? Jonas can't/won't spell it out, so perhaps you would be so kind?
See Jonas #54 and at least a hundred Jonas reiterations on this thread. None of which he can find, apparently.
BBD #78
What's the matter with you? Afraid to click on a link to find out? All the other bozos here too know what I have been telling them for more than two years! Maybe they are afraid too .. of telling you!
Spoonfeeding you is what is required, isn't it. And then you still end upp like above (thinking that 'energetically insufficient' is the 'debunking-argument')
Poor sod ...
Still saying absolutely nothing, Jonas. This would explain your nickname here.
You credulous tool.
Another demonstration that you are essentially clueless.
You are stupid. Really, really stupid. Either that, or you are just being a prick on purpose.
What I gave you and the other idiots who think UHI significantly affects the reliability of the surface temperature gridded reconstructions is a simple demonstration that it does not.
What is on show here - again - is the fact that you apparently cannot understand this simple demonstration that a denier meme is bollocks. Either that, or you are, as I said earlier, being a prick on purpose.
Either way, you are saying nothing. It's just a noise, Jonas. Like the one you get from kicking an empty dustbin.
What you always miss is the point. The point was SIMPLE. It was that *because* UHI is energetically insignificant it *cannot* influence the TLT multi-decadal trend and *therefore* it is valid to compare TLT to surface to see if UHI is having a significant effect on the trend over several decades.
It isn't.
End of.
Jonas
Read #83 until you understand what is being said.
No, never. And I told you so on many occasions. You, however, clung to this... what was it? Oh yes, "moronic amd revealing strawman" and do so still.
It's called "projection". A classic tell of the denialist mindset.
Get it sorted out in *your* head, Jonas. Get your muddled shit out of the way and pay attention for once. You are spouting bollocks at right-angles to the discussion and always have been. You are not as smart as you think you are.
Sorry BBD, I am not the one spouting nonsense. That would be you amd your friends of late here ...
So if you (now) claim to be aware of that nobody ever thought or argued that teh UHI-effect heats the entire lowere troposphere (albeit being 'energetically insufficient' to do that), why did this nonsense pop up? Why is it repeated here again, almost two years later?
And why, if what you now claim is so obvious, were you unable to answere the pretty simple and straight forward questions to that effect back then?
Sorry old chap, it looks like you once more are attempting to rewrite history. But it's good that you finally agree with what I said the entire time:
The 'energetically insufficient' is a really stupid attempt at dismissing whatever problems there are with the UHI-effect.
BTW, you are still making that idiotic 'argument' in #83. Even if you there are trying to muddle the issue by bringing in the comparison over the last decades. Of course also already addressed in detail. Two years ago!
So I take it (as with many of your other ignorant memes) that you really don't know what the issue is with the UHI. Since you only are capable of repeating the stupid activist memes about 'reasonable agreement since 1979' ..
Of course also already addressed.
Well BBD ... you have been going on like this for quite some time now. And since you rarely ever are capable of understanding even the simplest physics involved, I believe you. You just don't understand them. You just repeat your beliefs and rudimentary understanding of what you think you have read.
But find consolation in that most of the ranters on your side know little more than you. Because otherwise, they wouldn't be ranting. They wouldn't bring upp stupidities like 'energetically insufficent' or 'since it's called an oscillation .. '
Physics just never was your thing. And that seemingly is true for almost all of you here ...
Right, that's it. Bed beckons and I'm off on holiday tomorrow. If you come up with a supported scientific argument that overturns the scientific consensus on AGW jot down the key points here.
I'll be back in a week.
Jah love.
:-) :-)
#81
Are you kidding me, BBD
Are you referring to Dana Nuccitelli (of SkSc) in his Guardian-blog defening his own nutty paper(*) about the equally nutty 97%-agree-consensus-meme!?
Nutty activis Dana, the serial liar at SkSc ... !?
Yeah, that's probably the right level for you. Get your 'facts' over there, Read the silly summaries there about 'What the science says' and memorize them. Coming here (and elsewhere? At least formerly?) repeating them and claiming you possess some knowledge? Gimme a break ...
What a joke!
(*) Here is a link (with a video) to cartoonist-turned-climate-scientist John Cook pushing for his (and Dana's) consensus-nonsense ... only nutters believe consensus anything to do with actual science. And that's one way of spotting them
Ha! While I was typing the above post, you confirmed the stupid 'consensus'-notion about how science is supposed to function, according to the believers.
But sorry kid, before you can argue any science, first you must understand what your own (nah, rather the one's you are hoping to believe in) actually do and claim and how their works tries to establish the hypothesis they want to further. You need to understand both the hard sciencens involved, and properly, and how this is used trying to build a case on some data/calculations/observations/etc.
You also need to understand the limits of what they are trying to do, ie what they did not, cannot demonstrate or what conclusions cannot be drawn from such work. Ie you need a basic grasp of logic too.
Once you get there (and you have never been anywhere close as what I have seen), the next step would be to understand what others may be saying about the same work. If its interpretations and inferred conlcusions are valid, or limited, restrictied to certain preconditions, or intrinsically relying on other claims, how certain all those may be etc.
Since you aren't capable of the first condition (properly understanding your own side's claims) you of course ar totally clueless wrt handling with any objections. It's no wonder then that your bring up 'energetically insufficinet' wrt to UHI contamination for instance.
All you have is phrases you repeat. And even simple points where you missunderstand things (even regarding your 'own side') cause you to lose it. Often totally, reverting to the same mouth frothing spewings as the rest of the gang here. No wonder BTW that 'consensus' is at the forefront of your argument.
It is almost as revealing as the use of the 'denier term'. Only those who can't argue even their own position use that.
Wait, Jonas, you say we don't know physics? Are you saying you will finally tell us what your educational background is?
Enough physics to look through the empty posers here Stu ... as you've experienced yourself!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/22/dana-nuccitellis-vested-interest-…
Hahahahahahahahaha.....
Jonarse is still wanking away I see pushing the fallacy that the science is decided by consensus, rather than the consensus being the result of the science.
What a moron.
And PantieZ doesn't check his sources, believing any old watsscrap.
Ahaha etc. etc.
Chek ... I don't think you've ever had any substance to contribute here. None! Wanking and at rubbing Jeffies legs (for whatever reason one would like to do that?)
Funny that you pretend to be talking about science. When neither you nor any of the others even understand what is discussed.
"consensus being the result of the science"
Empty phrases is what you can manage .. not even knowing what 'the science' is .... much less says or at what hypothesis it may try to support.
Well, at least some of the climate lunacy is coming to a much deserved end.
chek BBD Jeffie and all the other bozos
You propably haven't been pying attention, and that's why your comments have been so markedly detached from anything relevant. But I am glad to see that climatscientists now are starting to openly make the very same points I have been making from quite som time. Here, only the last two years. But hey:
"If Mohammed will not go to the mountain, the mountain must come to Mohammed"
Slowly slowly is the message getting through and some of the worst 'nonsensus' is being called out! Mike Hulme, climate change professor at Univ East Anglia,
Or, Mike Hulme has gone over to the dark 'denialist' side, and been boght off by the evil fossil fuel and tobacco industries!? Your 'choice'!
;-)
Jonas #86
This is disappointing. You don't acknowledge that you misunderstood the argument. Instead, you continue to plough on at right-angles as if nothing had happened. It won't do, Jonas.
Nor did you respond to #87:
If you come up with a supported scientific argument that overturns the scientific consensus on AGW jot down the key points here.
I’ll be back in a week.
Jah love.
Should I have added: "pretty please with sugar"?
You still aren't saying anything.
BBD, there is not much misunderstandning any arguments from yoru side by me. Most often they are well known, and I have heard them from others, and better stated before
The UHI is of course enegetically insufficient, as everybody who cares the slightest knows already. Therefore, no one argues that the UHI is a non-issue based on its energy content. No one except (two years ago) a three-letter signature at Bishop Hill.
Also the comparison to satellite data anda how it is relevant, and what cannot not be assessed by such a comparison were delat with back then.
It is good that you are trying to reposition your 'argument' now, saying that this rather was about comparison among data sets. (And nobody argued the sixe or significance of any such effect. Except you: You claimed it was irrelevant, debunked bla bla bla ..)
Because it is true (as already noted) that since 1979 the possible UHI effect is constrained within those differenceses. At leasts broadly speaking: The lsurface station assessments still suffer from poor sampling over large areas (a different problem) which could conceal a UHI effect. And there is still a notable difference among the temp-series.
However, the issue is mor than that difference. As has been explained before. And you (with your link) once more show that you still not understand this issue (either) which you wanted to dismiss with inappropriate arguments and ill-used words.
As also with other topics! The blathering about 'overturning the consens' is just stupid. Science is not argued that way, and 'the consensus' is not even a proposition. At best it is the mean of a fairly large nuber of selkected (and mutually no-agreeing) GCM-models.
I.e. not science. Not the real version of it at least. (But it maybe qualifies as climate pseudo-science)
Either you are actually more stupid than I suspected, or just dishonest.
I have changed nothing. You, I suspect, have only just realised how badly you failed to understand what I was saying. And so now the lying and the projection begins.
Jonas, here's the thing: you aren't by any means as clever as you think you are. You don't fool me or anyone else here into believing that you understand the science at some higher level than the rest of us. Far from it. Instead, it is painfully obvious that you are a posturing blowhard who is still saying nothing.