Time for more thread.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Time for more thread.
Time for more thread.
Time for more thread.
Time for more thread.
Advertisment
Time for more thread.
John Mashey in the August Open thread wrote:
I have since obtained this book and am about a third of the way through, which is already a considerable bit of reading for it is indeed a big volume.
Here is an extremely apt theme which conveys the sentiment of my reaction to big tobaccos antics, a theme which also describes the outcome of using this industry's products.
The theme may be familiar to those who have watched 'Top-Gun'. It is a little known factoid that the USN Top-Gun course was heavily influenced by the tactics ensconced in the Royal Navy's Fleet Air Arm Air Warfare courses. The pilot who made his particular mark here later went on to reach the upper echelons of the South African Air Force.
This story has been well laid out by Rowland White in his book Phoenix Squadron which contains, in the hardback edition, a dozen or so of the photographs which I took whilst serving on 892 Phantom Squadron at the period of the book's story.
It was my service in the RN which brought me into contact with duty-free cigarettes. I had my last cigarette, only about 5 to 10 per day btw, on the day I collapsed with a massive heart attack which destroyed a part of my heart muscle. And I was only worried about, and watching for signs of, respiratory disease.
So thank you John Mashey for helping me find more information on how I had been conned by those messages of false doubt about smoking's deleterious health effects.
Oh! And with that Richard Siegmund Lindzen - I owe you one - here have a Camel.
Further on Lionel's recommendation above: points we could be discussing rather than engaging in an undignified intramural spat -
Eli's note on the interesting adventures of people who may perhaps need to inspect their in-trays a tad more thoroughly before claiming they'd not been offered the opportunity to provide grist for Prof Lewandowsky's mill: in the process, um, providing grist for Prof Lewandowsky's mill...
Dana's take on the new sea-ice record over at SkS. What's most amazing is that as I look at the sea-ice monitor IARC-JAXA chart it's still just going down down down...
Blew that last link.
So I'll take the opportunity to add the latest SIE chart, too
Get the popcorn. The conspiracy theorists from conspiracytheoristsRus are doing a very poor job of denying that they are conspiracy theorists.
http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/ccc2.html
I've noticed the denial-o-sphere is becoming less adept at drawing even a tiny fig-leaf over their ridiculousness.
Andrew bolts article "Twisting Rinehart’s word to damn them" (I refuse to link to it - in any case, the HS website is returning a server error) showed a quite hilarious lack of self-awareness. The Bolter whined that poor little billionairess ("billion-heiress"?) Rinehart's claim that the poor are poor because they can't be arsed going out and making a billion like she did has been misrepresented by those mean old jealous socialists...
Aside from the fact Bolt's whine is untrue (the representation has not been mis- at all), he conveniently forgets how he has misrepresented an endless number of climate scientists - Trenberth, Mann, Schneider, Jones...and allowed his winged monkeys to add to that in ways he wouldn't dare personally.
I wonder if Tim Flannery must be having a little chuckle about the irony of this, given how Andrew verballed him shamelessly for years.
Either way, I almost (almost, mind) admire the baldfaced cheek that you need for this kind of weapons-grade hypocrisy. Or pity the level of cognative dissonance that must rattle in his brainpan. Whichever...
"Billion-heiress" FTW.
I'd like to see that come up every time she advocates another policy that provides even more advantages to the very rich.
Meanwhile over at Climate Denial Crock of the Week we have just had Pippa the WeatherGirl Goes Rogue .
We await Joe Bastardi's riposte with interest.
I sympathize with Pippa the Weather Girl's frustrations. I honestly think what's happening is so big that most - and not just the Deniers - are simply refusing to take it in.
It's like an interesting suggestion I read the other day; if we pretend hard enough to still be having a debate about whether AGW is actually occuring at all - lock the whole issue away in a magical indeterminacy box with Schrödinger'scat, if you like - then clearly the Arctic melt isn't really happening, and has no economic, cultural, political, or biological meaning.
For most it is, indeed, a great BBQ Labor Day Weekend. And over here there's a new series of Doctor Who! Why worry?
@ Bill,
" I honestly think what's happening is so big that most.......are simply refusing to take it in" Yes, you're right Bill ,it's very big. It's a whopper. It comes out of the states where everything is big. It's a huge lie which stretches from 1972 to the present.
Hard to get your head around at your age so you "are simply refusing to take it in."
Has Pippa been swiping Joe's steroids again ?
The biggest news on the ice numbers - the anomaly for ice area is now a bigger number than the area in question. 2.4 million sqkm anomaly, 2.3 m measured ice area.
Mack, did you take in Prof Lewandowsky's research? Seems you're a Libtard conspiracy nutter. Who knew?
Mack, that must be the hugest of all the huge lies since 1972,eh? Meds?
See, bill, a libertard HAS to live in a conspiracy world. Their ideology is ABSOLUTELY PERFECT, just like Stalinism. And therefore, if all the evidence shows ANY imperfection in that ideology MUST be produced by someone lying. And if that requires the entire rest of the world including nature to join in that lie, then that requires a CONSPIRACY.
Therefore, by the blind faith in the absolute perfection of libertarian ideology in the minds of the libertards, they HAVE to live in a conspiracy world.
It is not possible for libertarians to be wrong.
Not that I ever visit her site (well not for several years anyway) but a commenter elsewhere drew attention to Codlin'Nova's ongoing rants about the 'Regulatory Class' curtailing her (their) 'freedoms', nacho in pursuit of an oppressive one-weld gummint.
I guess it requires a special kind of mindset to equate freedom from being environmentally poisoned or sold shoddy and unsafe goods or finding your home is now next to a gas turbine engine test facility as a diminishment of the possible life experiences available to the truly free person.
Speaking of Lewandowsky, I'm going to circulate the comment that J Bowers has designated as 'of the week' -
The irony of people over-reacting - though, of course, for them this is all 'normal' reaction - and giving said Prof rather more material to work with than a mere online survey might be expected to provide is truly entertaining...
Worth scrolling up at that link I provided above, incidentally.
And further to fellow Adelaid[y]an above, Neven now reports Arctic Basin SIA below 2 million Km2.
Ever ride the Mad Mouse? You know that bit where you've buckled in to the funny little car, been pulled almost to the top of the ride on the motorised chain, and are just on the brink of being flung - unconstrained and irreversibly - into the ride?
That's us...
Truly, 'conservatives' who passionately endorse conducting a radical experiment with the one atmosphere we possess are the nadir of the Human project.
"conservatives who passionately endorse conducting a radical experiment with the one atmosphere we possess" What bullshit you spout. Bill . Nobody in their right mind would passionately endorse that "experiment" irrespective of their political leanings
On Lewandowsky & the Circus I have just followed a link by J Bowers at Eli's where Stephen has hoovered up more self confirmation from the deniers with, is it really, Big Steve MacI chipping in.
Sorry but due to drought in the US there will be a shortage of popcorn H/T CP in 'Sept. 4 News: Sailboat Becomes First To Sail Through Northwest Passage, Becoming ‘Visual Of Declining Polar Ice’'
Mack.
That experiment is being conducted you ignorant dipstick. Do I have to source the relevant quote for you or can you find it all by your little self?
Thanks Adelady - I've been waiting for that little landmark, but as Bernard J mentioned somewhere (Tamino?), its all happening so fast you have to be quick to keep up.
Put another way, area is now less than half of the 1979 to 2010 average (which was itself below the 20th century average).
Chek, cheer up. At least Codling's just Randing away harmlessly in her own little echo chamber. If she still had her old job fronting the outreach program for the National Science and Technology Centre (aka Questacon), think how many impressionable young minds she might be poisoning.
Fortunately, that program is run by rather less ... well, insane ... people now.
Sure an "experiment " might be happening old fart. Did I say otherwise?
I'm calling it a day. It's simply bad for me to be here.
Solar forcing on the ice winter severity index in the western Baltic region
Abstract
The Sun is the fundamental energy sources of the Earth's climate and therefore its variations can contribute to natural climate variations. In the present work we study the variability of ice winter severity index in the Baltic Sea since the 15th century and its possible connection with solar activity, based in a new method for finding and measuring amplitude-phase cross-frequency coupling in time series with a low signal/noise ratio, we suggests that the ice winter severity index in the Baltic Sea is modulated by solar activity and solar motion in several frequency bands during the last 500 yrs. According to our model a strong coupling between the decadal periodicity in the ice winter severity index time series and the secular periodicity of solar activity is present. We found that the ice winter severity index is strongly modulated by solar activity at the decadal periodicity. We also found that the 180 year periodicity of the Barycentre motion modulates the amplitudes of the decadal periodicity of solar activity and the Ice winter severity index. This method represents a useful tool for study the solar-terrestrial relationships.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682612002167?v=s5
Interesting paper (at least, what isn't behind the paywall). I particularly noted Figure B1 and Figure B4. Based on these correlations, clearly we should be seeing more severe winters in the Western Baltic at the moment. And yet, we are actually seeing the worst sea ice conditions on record.
Karen still thinks arguing about Arctic sea ice helps her case. I still think thats funny.
Does Karen need repair work on her foot each time she posts, or does she just shoot through the same hole she made previously?
"It’s simply bad for me to be here."
Yes, having to face scary reality and justify your denial is quite bad for your ego.
"Abstract
The Sun is the fundamental energy sources[sic] of the Earth’s climate "
If that really IS the abstract verbatim, doesn't bode well when its grammar is wrong so early.
Right on cue Karen turns up.
Breaking news in The Australians War on Science.
Acording to Media Watch, the last remaining science reporter at The Oz has taken a redundancy.
The Oz wins!
Mack confuses himself/herself/whateverself:
wrote this,
then this weasely stuff,
You implied it you obfuscating toady.
But of course you cannot 'fart' yourself for that orifice is full of your head, but I bet your breath stinks. That tends to happen with the anally retentive.
From the discussion of Karen's paper:
"During the pre industrial and post industrial period the dominant forcing was the solar activity(Barycentremotion)and we recommend that this forcing should be considered in the climatic models in order to have an accurate climate reconstruction. However,anthropogenic greenhouse gas increases are needed to study the late 20thcentury".
Two points: first the minor one. The English is stiff and the paper needs some editing. Second, and more importantly, the authors, as expected, do not dispute the human fingerprint on the recent warming.
Its too bad that schmucks like Karen never read the full texts of the papers whose conclusions they distort. No wonder scientists get rightfully pissed off that their research is abused and twisted by the denialati.
OK Karen
Explain the meaning of these statements:
'...a strong coupling between the decadal periodicity in the ice winter severity index time series and the secular periodicity of solar activity is present.'
'...the ice winter severity index is strongly modulated by solar activity at the decadal periodicity. '
'...the 180 year periodicity of the Barycentre motion modulates the amplitudes of the decadal periodicity of solar activity and the Ice winter severity index'
or are you little better than a parrot?
High-volume and vituperative poster Smokey at Watts Up With That is the sock puppet of WUWT moderator David B Stealey (dbs). If you tune in quickly to 9/4 sea ice thread with a too-funny-to-parody title by Anthony, "has Arctic sea ice turned the corner?" you can catch Smokey/David Stealey talking out of both mouths. As moderator dbs he gets to delay or censor unwanted posts,
"[Snip. Policy. ~ dbs, mod.]"
while as pot-stirring Smokey he gets to name-call and toss insults freely with no fear of moderation.
Although the sock puppet has often proclaimed there's no censorship at WUWT, the moderator Stealey or his colleagues have censored me twice on this thread alone ... once for an on-topic post about sea ice, the second for a less polite (but still on topic) response when Smokey called me "crazy" for not believing his declaration that "Natural cycles fully explain all current observations."
Heck, half the time they never comprehend the abstract. I've lost count of the number of times someone like sunspot has posted a link to a paper claiming it supports claim C, only for someone to point out that it is obvious merely from reading the abstract that C is not supported (or even actively undermined).
MikeH, thanks for pointing me at
http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/ccc2.html
That is really too hilarious for words.
Yes, it turns out that for his research into people's acceptance of conspiracy theories, Lewandowsky *did* send the denialists survey invitations after all, BUT, the way he did it, the timing of the invites, the order of the questions, it was all a conspiracy!
Oh, and I am trying to check the following link for corrections/apologies/errata, but the entire site appears to be down:
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/08/lewandowsky-shows-skeptics-are-nutters…
Maybe the corrections/apology/errata are taking a long time to type up?
Graham Readfearn on the Lewandowsky 'conspiracy'.
Pure pocorn!
..er, popcorn. But you knew what I meant.
And just for lib-a-loon/conspiracy crank Duffer, should he still be around. Seems you may yet get to permanently whinge about absent Summers.
(Couldn't have happened to a more deserving bloke! Have a good wallow...)
What Duffer, and the troll collective in general, need to pay attention to:
Map of Global extreme weather events 2012 H/T TckTckTck at DesMogBlog</a.
Uh! Oh!
Map of Global extreme weather events 2012 H/T TckTckTck at DesMogBlog.
I swear that this board drops bits of tags at times.
There's a good poe at Roy Spencer's blog under the August anomaly. Also, his cubic or whatever polynomial fit doesn't seem to be going down at the end anymore.
'Skeptics' lose case against NIWA - NIWA awarded costs -
Oh, and Prof Lewandowsky is having a grand time rubbing it all in.
Indeed.
(The Fake Skeptic over-reaction also reminds me of those Christian Fundamentalist nutters - you know, the ones they soooo closely resemble? - who insist on making such an unholy fuss about some obscure 'blasphemous' cultural production that it becomes an instant global hit. You guys really cannot see yourselves from the outside at all, can you? And seem to actually a lack a functioning theory of mind with regard to others.)
Ah, September 2012 - not a grand time to be an idiot. Pity you've all done so much bloody damage already...
Gareth R on NIWA win.
Not that there should be even a shadow of a doubt about it (but you never know until it's over) and well done to NIWA!
It's really a shame about the number of man-hours likely expended in achieving a judgement that could never realistically have gone any other way in a sane world.
I only hope the legal fiction of the denial 'education trust' that brought the action (and was in itself a form of mudslinging) can be disregarded or loop-holed and the organ grinders behind it will be pursued for every punitive penny.
bill WRT that NIWA business. Priceless as is this
My emphasis.
Don't we know somebody else to whom this judgement could apply?
Brendan O'Neill has written an insanely ignorant and factually-challenged rant about "Peer Review" in yesterday's Australian.
"Outside of the ivory towers, peer review meant little, if anything, to Joe Public."
Yes, Brendan, and smearing "Peer Review" in order to justify non-academic pseudo-science has brought it to Joe Public's attention.
I assume Brendan *does* realise why he's been told to smear "Peer Review"?
O'Neill is truly inept. After reading his opinion piece, peer-review will still mean little, if anything, to Joe Public...
Apparently climate-change is not just a scientific issue ,but a political one,too. Who knew, Brendan? Ticks all the dumbness boxes...again.
Like Bolt, O'Neill champions anti-intellectualism because he knows that it appeals to the second and third rate minds that make up the bulk of Murdoch's readership.
"In public discourse, anti-intellectuals usually perceive and publicly present themselves as champions of the common folk — populists against political elitism and academic elitism — proposing that the educated are a social class detached from the everyday concerns of the majority..."
"Anti-intellectualism is a common facet of totalitarian dictatorships to oppress political dissent. The Nazi party's populist rhetoric featured anti-intellectual rants as a common motif, including Adolf Hitler's political polemic, Mein Kampf."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-intellectualism
It took me about three attempts to read his 500 words. I kept getting a couple of paragraphs into it and choking on my croissant.
"Peer Review" is to the eco-activists as the gospels were to the early christians.
The IPCC was riddled with errors.
Good #%@%ing grief, to think Murdoch runs that rag at a loss just to preserve a platform for this kind of stupidity. What kind of a world are we living in?"
Adelady (5 Sep) … The biggest news on the ice numbers – the anomaly for ice area is now a bigger number than the area in question. 2.4 million sqkm anomaly, 2.3 m measured ice area.
Are you sure? Sea-ice area is reported (8 Sep) as 3.72m sq.km
Mike Pope, that would be sea ice *extent*, not *area*, at 3.72 sq.km.
Joe Bastardi claiming that Arctic sea ice experienced a "rapid rebound" during the first week of this month:
https://twitter.com/BigJoeBastardi/status/243647934581862400/photo/1/la…
Almost looks impressive if you don't know what the map is actually of. Unfortunately for Joe, it's a map of sea surface temperature, not ice concentration:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/satellite/index.uk.php
Notice under "select parameter", it says "sea surface temperature".
This is the actual map of sea ice concentration (extent) from that website:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icedrift_anim/index.uk.php
It shows the same thing that every other agency is showing- record low ice extent.
Good Old Joe has been trumpeting this great "recovery" all week. He's either way too stupid to read a map, or he's deliberately pushing lies. Or both.
Thing is, there's absolutely no evidence anywhere of the deniers being right or AGW being false (or ending). Therefore the rank and file deniers have learned NEVER to look at any evidence to see if it's right. If it supports AGW it is wrong, if it is said to support denialism, it's right. And if it's said to support denialism but doesn't, then this is not looked into either.
They don't look because whenever you look, "AGW is true" is the answer.
Since this is not acceptable to the denier, they have learned NEVER to look.
That list in my TckTckTck post above expands as another event unfolds.
Climate sensitivity is low eh Lindzen?
We can adapt eh Tillerson?
This is down to natural variability eh Christy?
More CO2 is good eh Michaels?
PS.
The American Paddle fish Polyodon spathula is in trouble in the Missipi river system - not breading - too many dams causing troubles with spawning.
Another key species in terminal decline.
Uh Oh, 'not breeding' - silly keyboard!
Bastardi, we await your explanation for that East Coast event linked to in the above post.
Why trust peer review when one's right-wing ideology is more likely to give an agreeable answer? After all it's cooling/plateauing/warming but it's a natural cycle driven by the sun/cosmic rays/cellestial bodies/faries oh look over there it is cold somewhere.
If you have not seen this Balog, of Extreme Ice Survey, talk yet then go here:
James Balog: Time-lapse proof of extreme ice loss
I'll add a little missive that I dropped in to Greenman's blog:
I have been following the exploits of James Balog and co. through The Extreme Ice Survey for about five years now having heard of and obtained the National Geographic produced book 'Extreme Ice Now'.
I look forward to seeing more of this film having been a keen pro-am photographer for many years. Although no longer able to do extreme activities myself I especially look forward to narrative on the technical challenges overcome.
'Extreme Ice Now' is a superbly illustrated and designed book, rather over designed in my opinion by being presented in a very thick card slip case which itself is as superbly produced and printed as the many photographic images inside. A little over-resource hungry considering the ecological cost of such lavish production.
Having written that the narrative in the book is still as valid now as it was when published in 2009. The clever introduction over four pages is in the form of a 'cloze' exercise based on these statement with the inserted words in bold:
That truth in that last statement is now ever-so much clearer as the ice retreats faster than ever.
Now argue with that 'troll collective'!
We really ought to be touring and publicising the Balog Movie - due for imminent release.
This kind of thing is so compelling, it's even freed us of the plague of idiots!
Oh - and how many Deniers does it take to change a lightbulb? ;-)
Wakey, wakey...
I've been refreshing the August thread, completely oblivious to the change of month. That's what happens when one is busy, I guess.
To catch up on the goss:
1)
Poop. Ya leave out one slash, and...
And speaking of, that was "shut", not "shit", but in the end it matters little...
If anybody tries to give the media a free pass on helping to push us into agony then they should be countered fiercely.
One such example is Jonathan Leake (he well know hereabouts) with this post at CP: where he writes:
then the riposte can be found here:
A rising tide of climate sceptic disinformation .
H/T Spike a little way down that CP thread from Leake's little bit of self serving puffery.
Must go for a slash BJ,
-
-
-
-
I know its around here somewhere.
Jayzus, Bernard,
It's no disrespect to the Duffer to say no-one should want him to stick around until the Thermohaline Circulation shuts down. That has a transit time of 1600 years! Current conditions in the Arctic may or may not shut down the start of that conveyor, but it will be hundreds of years for that to ripple through to the Gulf Stream - the end of the conveyor and Britain becoming sub-arctic.
In fact, once land ice starts haemorrhaging off Antarctic, the meltwater will turbocharge the thermohaline-driven deep ocean currents in the Indian and Pacific oceans - these eventually feed back into the Atlantic as warm water, and keep Britain cozy. ETA for ice-free Antarctica is unknown, but probably in the thousands-of-years timeframe.
OTOH, there are much shorter-term processes that will do the job. Warmer Arctic temps are weakening the Polar Cell which, via its interaction with the adjacent Ferrel Cell, is causing the Polar Jet to become less stable. Over time it will whip about more and more, dragging Arctic freezes from the north, or setting up those blocking highs like the ones that generated the US heatwaves and drought this year.
The "temperate" latitudes are not going to be so temperate anymore. Hansen et al have shown that a given amount of warming produces not just hotter weather, but more hot days. Between 50 and 60 north (Britains latitude), the jetstream flapping makes big heatwaves all the more likely, on top of this effect.
Duffer wants a barbecue summer. Pretty sure that falls under "careful what you wish for".
wrt to your piont 2 - the billion-heiress provoke an amusing response in today's print version of the Telly, to the effect that if she is so sure she knows how to amek a billion from nothing, maybe she should give away the fortune she inherited and go make another from scratch. Any bets?
I LOLed until I wheezed...
(Yes, "wheezed", not "wee-ed")
And yes, perish the thought (the first one, not the second).
Meh.
Can't someone provide the link to the Arctic sea ice graphic animation that's been getting around recently? The rotated three-axis one...
Do you mean this one Bernard?
Just past by to find out what the woodentops were upto these days.
Not easy to follow the flow, but bernard comes across as a lot more agressive than he once was.
"global warming shits down the North Atlantic thermohaline circulation"
I know you believe the end of the world is nigh, but hopefuly not by shiting down (or up) surely.
And Lionel, who needs to go for a "slash BJ". Ehm.. Not sure what you mean and too painful to even visualize I would have thought, but whatever rocks your boat. Sticking plasters at ready!
Enjoy Woodentops!
Bob Carter must have had his irony meter removed when he made this statement to the NZ High Court.
"Applied science in any field must take into account the current state of knowledge as attested by the peer-reviewed literature. Any departures from established knowledge or authority must be noted and explained. If one disagrees with the established literature, then the remedy is to write a critical paper with full reasoning and have it published in a suitable journal."
Court Decision
Ah! Poor ol' GSW context is not your strong point is it nor idiom for that matter as displayed in your weak attempt at a drive-by put down.
Better trolls please.
Lionel A.
The animation I'm thinking of is on Youtube.
Bernard, there's this one, although I remember seeing a clearer version with just the polar plot and decadal averages in different colours.
GSW.
I'm sooo,/i> glad that you caught my typo. I missed it completely.
And no, not the end of the world. Just the approaching of the end of an ammenable climate such as we evolved to thrive in. Oh, and the small matter of the extinction of multiple thousands of species of both practical and intrinsic value.
I think that's something to be just a little bothered by.
Fuckwit.
I think Bernard might be looking for this one.
And here is the polar plot I was thinking of.
Remember, GSW is too busy to find his errors, he's far too busy trying to find *yours*.
Lewandowsky names 'the Uncontacted'!
As well as McIntyre - the man who chucked out allegations and then got round to actually checking his Inbox - it's:
Dr Roger Pielke Jr (he replied to the initial contact)
Mr Marc Morano (of Climatedepot; he replied to the initial contact)
Dr Roy Spencer (no reply)
Mr Robert Ferguson (of the Science and Public Policy Institute, no reply)
Lionel A:
How are you coming with Bob's book? Such as:
- freebasing
- Kent Micronite filters, with asbestos
- Polonium
-Climate connection
- Darrell Huff ("How to Lie With Statistics") turns out to hafve been cigarette shill.
or p.522: lung cancer and heart disease once described by B&W as :"unattractive side effects of smoking." Really?
People generally think heart disease causes more death than lung cancer ... but from a litigation perspective, the latter was easier to motivate in court.
Matt Ridley has turned his Northumbrian coal pit <a href='http://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com".into this bodacious Boudicca
James Balog - Time-Lapse photography of Greenland Ice loss:
http://youtu.be/DjeIpjhAqsM
It's a good talk, but if you only have time to watch 30 seconds of it, flick forward to 10:50. Now *that* is truly shocking.
Jo Nova is drooling over some kind of new crank paper by Jinan Cao.
I think she thinks he's put the final nail in the coffin of the hoax that is global warming. Or something.
Anyway, it would be nice if somebody who can count can have a look at it and tell her and her cult of group-thinkers where he's gone wrong.
It looks to me that he's trying to change the results of the Stephan-Boltzmann equation by excluding the bulk of the mass of the atmosphere using the excuse that most of it isn't radiating. He seems to be saying that CO2's heat content is independent of the molecules surrounding it. But as I'm no good at counting, I'm not sure if this is correct.
Ferguson of SPPI (Monckton's home away from home in US):
1) SPPI is not a real organization, Ferguson is an employee of Craig Idso's Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.
2) Among other things, Charles Koch helped fund SPPI by supposedly giving it to CSCDGC, but at Ferguson's address. So dod L&H Bradley and DONORS CAPITAL.
3) Actually SPPI is a PO Box in a UPS Store in walking distance of Fergusons' house, so maybe there was no room for email.
See Fake science,..., Appendix K.
Oh dear, Pielke's forgotten how to think again:
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2012/09/07/a-provocative-new-stud…
"Prof Wadhams calculates this absorption of the sun’s rays is having an effect “the equivalent of about 20 years of additional CO2 being added by man”"
"If his calculations are correct then that means that over recent decades the melting of the Arctic ice cap has put as much heat into the system as all the CO2 we have generated in that time."
Um, der - Pielke imagines that ice melting in 2012 changes the Earthy's albedo in 1992.
Honestly, some mothers *do* have'em.
Lotharsson, September 10, 10:25 pm.
That's the one. Much obliged.
Thanks chaps ;) you're a constant source of amusement. Pop back every now and then for a laugh and you seldom fail to deliver. Mashey's off on his latest "conspiracy theory", which according to Lew is solely a denier "trait" I thought.
More fun to come from you all I'm sure. "Slash BJ", a mental image that will haunt for some time.
;)
Surely you are more amused that John McLean and Roy Spencer's predictions of the coldest year since 1952 have proven so very, very wrong?
Vince, at:
.
It's enough to make one cry. At least, anyone who comprehends the implications.
.
Ewww, icky! You'd send people for whom you have respect over there?! To one of the shameless purveyors of demonstrable lies, nonsense, and conspiracy theories? That one's battier than Bradman, and not in the good way!
.
Someone needs to recall the fellow's testamurs.
Somebody needs to acqaint the owners of scienceblogs.com with the concept of pointing their servers at an NTP server.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_Time_Protocol
So, GSW, are you willing to enter into a bet with me about the future trajectory of Arctic sea ice? I'll even give you better odds that I was offering Jonas et al, and I'll bring forward the landmark dates so that you don't have to wait too long - but be warned, I'll be upping the amounts involved...
Big time.
Bernard, we've done that.
Nobody is interested in making bets with loons(that's you) on the internet.
Didn't someone offer to take you up on a bet on precipitation forecasts? how did that go, you chicken out?
;)
Poor ol' GSW.
Between his native stupidity and poor comprehension skills it's no wonder he sides with the cranks and can't understand what Drs. Mashey and Lewandowsky's *evidence* means.
Back to knee-jerking off with you, Griselda.
Topical:
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/science-technology/neil-armstrongs-d…
Well, it seems my most recent foray at the mentally brittle Joanne Codling/Nova's blog is definitively over.
She's censored all my posts despite them being about 1,000,000 X less offensive and about 1,000,000 X more factual than the dross her swarm of lobotomites have to offer.
Would you believe it, her blogged response to Lewandowsky's internet survey has now reached 5 looong and pointless parts?
Would you believe she has written her 4 further parts without apologising for the mistakes and false accusations that were in her Part 1? Of course you would - if there's one thing a denialist just can't do, it's to admit it when they are caught being totally wrong.
GSW.
I'm interested in Arctic sea ice trends for one very specific reason - their trajectories are directly and intimately tied to global warming. My offers of wager were very earnest, and I would very happily have used a mutually-acceptable and well-known figure as an escrow intermediary.
That no-one on your (crazy, denialist) side of the fence had anything remotely resembling any cahoonas simply serves to demonstrate that you really, deep-down, do not believe what you spout.
I have no recollection of precipitation-forecast bets, but if they were offered I'd want some really specific conditions, and some very specific science with which to refer. See, you're comparing apples with oranges: we know that warming the planet will melt the ice, but we're much less able to say a priori how precipitation in particular areas will be affected.
This is in no way a refutation of the fact of 'greenhouse' gas warming of the atmosphere however, and to say otherwise is to engage in logical fallacy in order to wriggle out of the fundament point - do you have the guts to put your money on evidence that the planet is either warming as the physics of global warming dictates, or on your fantasy of a magical world where the laws of nature are suspended, especially when this would concur with your ideology?
So, if 'greenhouse' gases warm the planet as I and many professionals claim, the Arctic ice will melt essentially as I have projected in my wagers. Are you prepared to bet that you are right, and that I am wrong?
A simple "yes" or "no" will do. That's enough to show us how much you believe your own waffle.
Come on you chickenshit little fuck. Take me up on one of my bets. Better still, here's my new wager, structured to be more kind to you:
I'll put down two hundred grams of gold for your 500 grams of the same gold (who can trust dollars of any denomination over then next few years?) that the PIOMAS one-day arctic sea ice volume will fall below 1000 km3 before 2020. Remember, you don't believe that humans are warming the planet, and I'm calling the bet, so your faith in your claim is supported by your higher risk.
And to be entirely fair, I'll point out that if one considers just the last three years of ice volume decrease (if such is actually occurring as a result of this 'non-existent' global warming), the 2020 PIOMAS one-day arctic sea ice volume would be in the range of 800 km3. My offer is valid for 24 hours from the time of posting.
Are you up for it?
Tick, tick, tick...
It's been a pretty bad year fro the deniers like GSW - protracted record warmth in the United States, Arcitc Iced measured at an all-time low and even near the basal end of IPCC predictions etc. So all they have left is to accuse their opponents of producing comspiracy theories and the like. At the same time, its hardly shcoking news that many, if not most of the denier with blogs, are not driven by the quest for scientific truth but in using science as a beating stick to bolster their political and economic idealogies.And those are of course laissaz-faire capitalism and deregulation. This is hardly conspiracy level stuff but plain, hard fact.
As for GSW - recall his puerile discussion of polar bear demographics and global amphibian declines. Pretty appalling ignorance there, but par for the course with the D-K denier mob.
On the Balog TED talk, keep in mind that happened back in 2009. Yes it was shocking then but still we had all the BS from the likes of the now exposed, again, Moranos and Pielke Jrs of the world.
I wonder if all these have some escape plan somewhere, not to escape the wrath of Mother Nature, from SkS because they would fail with that but to escape the wrath of the world's people when they are fully outed as the deluded or shills they are.
John Mashey
I suppose that I should be old enough and ugly enough to not be surprised by the level of deception and corruption that is exposed by this excellent book, a must read for all those who have been smokers and still manage to live, just in many cases, or those who have smokers amongst family and friends.
Having written that I am astonished at the fact that all the enablers of this dreadful trade - the PR firms, lawyers and media shills at the head of the queue have not been hounded by litigation. Until that is I have considered how the tendrils of this animal run through the 'system' like mycelium through cheese.
Of course the tobacco growers were at the base of the industry and we all know about one of those.
I am only just under half way through (I am reading titles on maritime history and nuclear power too at the moment) and have resisted the temptation to look ahead to the obviously interesting looking points that you raise in your September 10, 11:20 pm
Is Jo Nova still all tied up about tungsten impregnation in gold bars? I mean, not that she's conspiratorially minded, or anything... and the preservation of our vital bodily fluids is doubtlessly important...
Goose Says 'What?' is not getting any smarter, it seems
How clever men can become silly old men is clear in this clip where David Bellamy talks nonsense about thickening Arctic sea ice and growing glaciers .
What do you say now David? Bellamy that is not Duff but you are both silly old men.
David Bellamy makes me sad.
When I was a boy, he was one of my hero-Davids triumvirate, which these days has sadly devolved to a biumvirate.
How the mighty good can fall...
Oh, and Attenborough and Suzuki, in case anyone was wondering.
I had guessed.
Bellamy's, 'Measurements, show me where those measurements are...' (at 06:05 in clip) reminds me of Wendy Wright's insistence that Dawkins shows her one evidence [sic]. Oh what depths for a one time scientist to plumb, try to measure those depths and you would lose your 'lead'.
Meanwhile the Stephan Lewandowsky show, sideshow though it is by distracting from the bigger story of Arctic ice, has become extremely illuminating but the 'roaches still haven't twigged.
David just doesn't understand why he isn't employed at the BBC any more.
He *knows* it must be because he said something that "the man" doesn't want said. Originally, this was told as his attacks on John Major (then PM). This garnered no attention. He then found out by retconning his statements against AGW as being *before* (as opposed to the real time line where it was *after*) he was given the boot as the reason for his lack of work.
More depressing to me is Johnny "Think of a Number" Ball is apparently a denier.
Nearly as bad is Patrick Moore (Astronomer) is a denier too. And that dude KNOWS that the saturated gas argument is incorrect, since otherwise you wouldn't be able to see how much of an element stars or planets had without going there and taking a sample.
Are you sure that Sir Patrick Moore, the astronomer, is a denier. There's another Patrick Moore who seems to be.
Lionel A
At the halfway point, you have much more to come, and I would suggest that, unlike many books, it is well worth skimming the notes, 55. 563-665, as quite interesting material is there, not just the references.
For example, see p.565, note 16.
or p.571 about cigarette placements, sometimes using fictional brands, like Llama, that happened to look like Camels.
Unfortunately so, Turbobloke.
Sir Patrick Moore also is a member of Nigel Lawson's clique.
Somewhere in the past I did a little comparison of Patrick Moore signatures. Frustratingly I can't find the posts, but it was quite interesting...
Is anyone a cleverer searcherer than I?
Lionel - you're wondering what the lunatics and liars are going to do to escape people's wrath: I know what their plan is: Series 5 of Pop Idol with phone-in voting should distract them sufficiently. We share this planet with a large number of morons.
David Bellamy is also a supporter of homeopathy:
http://www.celebhomeopathy.com/
There are 2 Patrick Moores - the astronomer and the former environmental activist - and both are deniers but the latter gets more exposure because of his environmental credentials.
Patrick Moore the astronomer has stated:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wea.38/pdf
"If I do turn out to be wrong and rising sea-levels mean that
waves come lapping up Selsey High Street and flooding our cricket ground, please accept my apologies in advance."
And how the hell is this supposed to be of help?
"I really apologise if it turns out I actually AM too drunk to drive and run over your wife...".
I mean, really.
"I may be wrong, in which case I've killed your grandchildren. Sorry about that".
It's a sad testament to this celestial Patrick Moore that upon arrival I'd assumed you were responding to another faux-jovial inanity from Duffer...
The last remark by Moore is utterly contemptible. Essentially, he does not understand the concept of collapsing ecosystems, fraying food webs, the loss of vital ecosystem services and the dire effects on human civilization. The problem is that Moore clearly understands nix about systems ecology so, like many of the deniers, he assumes that Homo sapiens is largely immune from our continued assault on natural systems. Bellamy ought to know better, but his embarrassing performance in his debate with George Monbiot two years ago suggests, in my humble opinion that he is 'losing it'.
Sadly, Astro-Moore's commentary is genuine.
Back when I first posted about it (I still can't remember where), I compared the signature attached to an anti-warming item with a documented Moore signature. They were the same.
If Carl was alive now he'd probably have quite a lot to say to Patrick.
Given his withering criticism of Plimer's book Heaven and Earth, I find it very difficult to believe that
Kurt Lambeck said what is being implied by "The Australian". Has anyone sold their soul and bought the paper or subscribed to the paywall and is able to summarise the article?
GSW:
What do you care where easy money comes from?
Bernard J. on September 10, 2:33 pm wrote:
I appreciate that this one has already been answered but Joe Romm has a new article up at CP which provides more context.
I particularly like this statement within a comment there by Andy Lee Robinson the creator of the video:
Yes, this one should go viral along with the video.
Joe Bastardi, still claiming that the Arctic ice is "rapidly recovering":
https://twitter.com/BigJoeBastardi/status/245500879933952001/photo/1
He's still showing the map for sea surface temps, not ice. I emailed someone at the DMI/COI and they (Jacob L. Hoyer) confirmed that the light grey areas that Bastardi thinks is ice is really SST below -1.7*C:
"Hi Robert,
I admit it can be difficult to see, but actually the light gray color is in the colorbar, in the triangle to the far left.
This means that all temperatures (including sea ice) below -1.7 are marked light gray.
Hope this helped.
Best wishes,
Jacob"
I've tweeted Bastardi that he is wrong, but no response. I assume he gets a lot of tweets and could have missed mine. He keeps digging his hole deeper and deeper the longer he makes his absurd claim. I think he'll blame the people at DMI/COI for his mistake; he's that kind of guy.
While you all have been cheering the loss of sea ice in the Arctic the Antarctic has been kicking goals, for warming to be Global the Antarctic would have to melting at a similar rate.
Oooops sorry it's gaining MASS you silly dumbcoffs.
hahaha, hehe, barnturd wants a bet, hehe, what I want to know is where does a simple scientist, and I really do mean "SIMPLE", get A$1,000,000 to fritter away on a long shot ?
Spit it out barnturd, where are you getting the doe ? I think you have been gazing into your crystal ball and playing with your runes a bit to much.
Melting of sea ice in the Arctic only confirms that long term weather patterns are in play, so I would suggest that any person thinking about taking a wager with the barnturd would also have to include the melting of the Antarctic in succession with the Arctic.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/10/icesat-data-shows-mass-gains-of-t…
OK, spots, any examples of "use" cheering the loss of Arctic ice?
I guess since the predictions of catastrophic loss of arctic sea ice has been too conservative, you're unable to call it "alarmism" any more, huh?
PS it's "dummkopf" and in Germany, it's rather a complement, rather on the lines of "Oh, you scamp, you!".
PPS you still have this problem with realising the earth is round rather than flat. You really need to work on that... Wasserkopf.
Karen, you ignoramus,
See if you can spell correctly, first:it is 'dough' not 'doe', you twerp;
Second, I wouldn't believe a shred of information from WUWT if my life depended on it. Essentially, the denial ship is spouting leak after leak as they desperately try and explain away every climate-related event that is a result of AGW. Heat waves, droughts, extreme rainfall events, rapid ice loss, these dolts have their work cut out for them.
Given that the current changes are often exceeding even the worst predictions of the last IPCC report in magnitude, no wonder Watts and his right wing acolytes are gettng more and more shill. As the water laps up around their necks, expect them to be screaming, 'Believe us!!!!!! 'louder and louder... until they go under, vanquished by the sheer volume of empirical evidence. What a bunch of shits they are.
Indeed, it has now sustained more direct torpedo hits than HMS Royal Oak and only the sheer amount of cork being pumped in by the like of the Kochs (no note Cokes) are keeping this Enterprise
And Karen you are one ignorant wazok and I doubt your ability to source a convincing article on Antarctic gaining mass. The Antarctic as a whole is not experiencing an ice mass gain trend.
BTW Nadelkopf, we do not celebrate the rapid disintegration of Arctic sea ice for WE understand the implications.
Here you are Nadelkopf Karen:
Is Antarctica losing or gaining ice?
and
Antarctic Ice Melt .
Just when you think deniers can't be any more daft...
Karenmackspot, the point of the polar ice isn't to be able to say to some passing alien "woohoo we have x GTonnes of ice on our planet. Aren't we great?"
No, your wittering about antarctic sea ice only demonstrates that you don't understand (and your handlers don't want you to understand) that it's 'albedo' (look it up) that's affected.
Because obviously the cold depths of space being reflected back into the cold depths of space space in winter isn't what happens. It's the ice during the summer months that reflects incoming radiation back out into space. Except now it doesn't because it's rapidly diminishing year on year. Your fancilful, nincompoop concept of some sort of 'balance' is idiotically ignorant.
Stick to scratching your arse and voting for X-Factor Idol or whatever else it is you do, because it's painfully and embarrassingly obvious you know nothing about climate or its drivers.
Karen: spam.
Did you look at temperature changes around the Antarctic?
/cRR
I quite like that typo ;-)
I see that Karen won't put his/her money where his/her mouth is and take up one of Bernard's "long shot" bets, and I bet that no change of mind will be forthcoming either.
Even Karen doesn't appear to have the conviction of Karen's claims.
Glowbull worming eh !
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/an…
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997/plot/hadcrut3vgl…
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/antarctic.sea.ice.interactive.h…
Sorry nuffies, your only seeing a bit of warm weather in up north, you all can stop your exuberant rejoicing about a bit of melted ice.
It was only two years ago Karenmackspot was heralding the new ice age and the "COLD CLIMATE" (his capitals).
Now his argument is "it's warming, so what?"
That must be well away from those parts of the Antarctic Peninsula that µWatts claimed only the other day are being heated by a UHI effect then... ;-)
Seriously, 'Karen', it doesn't seem that even you really believe this crap.
Notice how few of you there are remaining, incidentally? It's just the hard-core of absolute nutters lingering on...
Karenmackspot, you seem to mistake our concern at the unfolding catastrophe that you yourself ridiculed the very idea of not that long ago - that is, declining arctic sea ice - with your joy at a single cold winter where it snowed a bit and was allegedly "proof" of the collapsing scam etc etc. How's all that working out for you?
Why does ice keep melting?
Why do temperatures keep rising?
Even your tiny brain recognises deep down that you are wrong. But this isn't about science, this is about your fringe extreme right-wing free market ideology.
As I've pointed out before, the crux of your argument is climate is weather and cold disproves global warming. So, by that argument, hot weather proves global warming.
We have won.
Come on Karenmackspot, you lightweight. Tell us all about the global cooling faith you so fervently devoted yourself to.
Tell us about how the US drought wasn't as bad as the 1930's but leave out the bit where agricultural science improved exponentially. I mean, imagine handling this year's drought with depression-era technology! That is what you believe farmers did.
birdbrain dill, this blog not so long ago was absolutely rampant with nutters like yourself, where have they gone ?
Most of them have changed their tags and are now over at wattsies place.
Have you noticed a change in the weather ? http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=e5UxAAAAIBAJ&sjid=RmkDAAAAIBAJ&pg=…
check out that jeff, hehehe, he really shoooden talk about bad spaaling, anybody can go back and look at his atrocious mis mash posts.
umm....while I'm at it dopey, doe is a vernacular for money in Australia, it most likely evolved out of the term "the bread winner".
I see little Jonny is playing pocket billiards again,
"Have you noticed a change in the weather ? "
Huh? What does a flood in China in 1931 have to do with anything?
"doe is a vernacular for money in Australia, it most likely evolved out of the term “the bread winner”."
It's spelled "dough" you moron. A "doe" is a female deer.
KarenMackSunspot (the below-averaged-IQ numpty with the recalcitrant punctuation problem) says at 10:57 am on 12 September 2012:
Oh dear. Here we go again - another graceless display of boundless innumeracy. One would think that USKMS would have learned from the debacle that was the Timezone Affair.
KarenMackSunspot, go back to my post on this thread at 9:55 am on 11 September 2012. I said:
Pay attention to the link; it goes directly to goldprice.org, which indicates that the current spot gold price is about $56.05 per gram.
I bet 200 grams.
200 grams of gold at $56.05 per gram = $11 210. That's eleven thousand two hundred and ten dollars. US dollars.
That is AU$10 676. In case that escapes USKMS, that's ten thousand six hundred and seventy-six dollars. Australian dollars. As of 12 September 2012.
Seriously, Spotty works it out as a million bucks?! The unable-to-count bozo is exaggerating the size of my bet by two orders of magnitude - which is one hundred times for the innumerati such as he. Or, if one wants to be pedantic, by 93.666 times.
Who's the simple one, eh?
Yes, for me that is an extremely large sum, but I'm happy to lay it on the line to prove a point.
And if any of you climate change denying shits actually have the courage to stand by your claims and enter into a legally-binding wager with me, I will win AU$26 690 (500 grams of gold's worth) in today's terms (with all the tumult of future financial crises adjusting that figure) by 2020.
Of course, if the denialists are correct and I am wrong, they will scoop up AU$10 676. But apparently they don't trust their own propaganda enough to fleece me of this money.
So Karen 12:08 post two graphs depicting global temperature but will not have us look at temperature trens of the southern hemisphere or even more southerly regions.
What is Karen hiding? No decline, I'd surmise.
"Tell us about how the US drought wasn’t as bad as the 1930′s but leave out the bit where agricultural science improved exponentially."
Obviously Spots believes that Agri Business is just a big scam. That they don't increase yields despite the billions they rake in.
Karen wibbled:
Uh! What do they use to make bread you numbskull, it sure isn't venison?
As for We-Use-Wishful-Thinking post about Antarctic Sea ice - that isn't the basis of calculations for Antarctic ice mass you dummy. Back to your meat-loaves you idiot.
PS You still have not answered the question how much heat energy is required to raise the temperature of 1 gm of water through 1 degree C, and how much heat energy is required to melt 1 gm of ice?
No go figure why temperature changes only inform on sensible heat and think of the implications.
Tick, tick. tick.
Fark, Bernard, that's just about calculus you're doing there! Karen has demonstrated repeatedly here that she has no idea of the significance of the sign of a number (her Svarlbard "argument" relies on two negatives summing to a positive), or of place value (the Antarctica area anomaly of +200,000 = Arcticarea anomaly of -2,000,000).
She couldn't have followed your gold calculations without reading aloud, pen and paper, and a numerate adult standing by to explain the workings....
This is going straight to the pool room.
Karen's nothing more than a typical example of the kind of brainless idiot who feebly dabbles in science to support their far-right political views. Beats me why schmucks like Karen-Mack-Spotty hate government so much, but they do. So they see a leftie conspiracy behind every government regulation.
Frankly, the Karen's of this world are an embarrassment. They don't do science, but they think they know a lot about various fields of science (we've been over this before, with the D-K discussions). And they clearly spend too much of their sad lives wallowing in the right wing blogs that tell them what they want to hear.
Earth to Karen: Watts is not taken seriously by the scientific community. Neither is McIntyre. Or McKitrick. Or most of the others on the academic fringe who wear their ideaological views on their sleeves. Science has moved on. This year has been devastating to the deniers. Many of their arguments are being annihalated empirically. Like the Arctic ice, their numbers are shrinking. I am sure that the Flat Earthers went through this same process several hundred years ago. I for one, am sad that it is taking the planetary climate system to show the Karen's of this world for what they are. I just hope that by the time the problem is fully acknowledged - and we are getting closer every day - it won't be too late.
Karen meat-loaf cop a load of this and think, if you are capable that is:
Arctic warning: As the system changes, we must adjust our science which was linked to by Gail at CP under 'Arctic Death Spiral: The Video' by Joe Romm
"Beats me why schmucks like Karen-Mack-Spotty hate government so much"
Because they failed to be as stupendously successful as the know themselves to deserve.
Therefore there must be SOMEONE keeping them down.
The GUBMINT!!!
If it weren't teh gubmint, they'd have to consider it was something wrong with them. And that's unpossible.
"This is going straight to the pool room."
It's also wrong again, doubling down on the dumb.
Dough is slang for money. Doe isn't. It is still a female dear.
Spots is like a blind and crippled doe: still no idea.
@Anthony David: Just Google "Kurt Lambeck The Australian" and a link to the article will appear.
It doesn't appear Kurt Lambeck has said anything revolutionary and in this instance The Australian isn't going beyond stressing the uncertainties. They're not actually misquoting anybody or inserting editorial disguised as fact, as they usually do.
It is still a female dear.
[bites lip]
Yes, Wow, punctuation fail.
A doe is still a female, dear.
And while we're having popcorn at shapingtomorrowsworld (one wonders how Steve McIntyre feels it appropriate to continue to make demands for information after failing to apologize and continuing to malign Lewandowsky on climateaudit, and, of course, trying to set up FoI requests to badger Lewandowsky), in Germany a working group that was supposed to look at adaptation to climate change had all its climate scientists leave the group.
Information unfortunately only in German
here
The short story: Acatech, notably the German Academy for Technical Sciences (warning: engineers) makes a workgroup, and in all its wisdom makes Fritz Vahrenholt one of the chairmen of that workgroup. Result: loads of talk about adaptation, but don't even dare to suggest that CO2 is the main driving force for the observed climate changes. It's equally likely the sun! Or volcanoes! Or something!
Comment by von Storch on Klimazwiebel is of interest,
as he deep down admits that building bridges with these (ideological) pseudoskeptics is not really possible - but he'll continue trying anyway.
7:08.
Doh.
:-P
Though it's clear from the context that he, "Karen", meant the breadmix kind of "dough", the "undoubted" fount of wisdom that is the Urban Dictionary does list "doe" in definition 11 as
So, credit where it's not due... maybe.
I should add that definition 11 also lists "doe" as
Now I do feel "endearing" would be overstretching that definition's application to "Karen", but I think perhaps an exception can be made.
And I, like others here, suspect "Karen" is not a "doe" in any sense of the contents of definition 7:
Did you know? The counterfeit variety of the slang dough is definitionally duff. And duff can actually be a dough (flour mix). [SOED] Ain't the English language peculiar?
... Which leads me on to...
Anyway, "Karen" has duff/dough for brains whichever way you look at it, and I ain't talking money.
At some point in the very near future scientists have to stop engaging with the denialati as if they (the denialists) have any point. We're long past the point where there is even a pretend reason to 'debate'.
For mine, the line in the sand will be AR5. After that any scientist lending any legitimacy to the contrarian inactivists, by engaging them as if there is any doubt about the fact of human-caused global warming/climate change, is doing a disservice to humanity.
de Freitus strikes again and gets a few slaps in the comments.
But don't despair Karen there is a numpty by the name of Ross Nixon who speaks your language, which is not idiom but idiotum easily spotted by such as:
Par for the course this one, Ross may as well have a sign on his forehead 'Bigoted Ignoramus'.
Oh so that is why all that Arctic ice is melting oh but wait
Another whack-a-mole job here, Ross should get out more a trip to the far south would be advised.
"We have had global cooling for the past 10 years…"
So what stopped the UHI effect? Or are we knocking down cities now..?
make denialist heads spin with a discussion of models...of mind. This is in the context of their educational (and frequently snarky) series of posts about that paper.
I've been waiting for them to take on the presumption by many of their detractors that their survey results hinge on a small number of responses faked by "scammers", if only because (a) the presumption clearly needs more justification than has been provided by the "skeptics" thus far, and (b) faked responses could just as easily skew the results the opposite way.
From the article:
Touché!
I guess it would help if I remembered the link.
P.Lewis,
As in "plum duff" - it had never struck me before, but its quite interesting if etymology is your thing. There are many ways to pronounce -ough, and if you pronounce the bread precursor like "tough", then of course you get...
Since "duff" is also mouldering leaf litter, I'm not sure which definition you are using with regard to Karen's cerebral capacity, but it seems almost any will fit ...
From Lothersson's olink:
"... it must be noted that climate “skeptic” Ian Plimer relies on Manuel’s bizarre theory, that the sun is largely composed of iron, in his principal work of fiction Heaven and Earth.
Bam! Lewandowsky FTW!
I've been watching Lewendowsky's ongoing and excellent postings with much interest and amusement. He's let the detractors hang themselves from their own very long ropes, and he's nowhere finished yet.
But so far I've seen no-one who's attacked Lewendowsky's paper either land a hit, or apologise for their Dunning-Kruger affectation. And that goes for both sides of the fence...
As a trivial aside, poster Brad Keyes, with his "sensu lato" and "passim", is obviously an acolyte of Monckton, which makes the latest thread at Lewendowsky's all the more delightful. Stephan must be delighted at the quality of the data that's piling in on his site, and elsewhere.
To be clear, by "And that goes for both sides of the fence…" I'm referring to Stephan's detractors on both sides of the climate change kerfuffle, and not to denialists versus Stephan.
@ Bernard J.
I saw you looking for a scene from Dune over at Lewandowsky's site. I felt a reply over there would have been way off-topic. You'll find the relevant excerpt at my blog.
Some of the (limited) criticism coming from 'our' side over there is a bit rich. For a start, where are these masses of 'skeptics of good-will' who might stand on the brink of reformation were it not for the Prof's unkind mockery? Certainly not on the blogs, which is what this is all about.
And Lewandowsky has been putting an exemplary amount of effort into actually meeting the challenges of his detractors - rather than adopting the selective deafness strategies of the handful of skeptic 'scientists', or the hand-waving and moving-on-to-the-next item in the Gish Gallop maneuvers of the likes of Monckton.
And he's clearly winning. I don't think I've ever seen so many people fall over themselves for the chance to look stupid. And to demonstrate that they didn't really read the paper in the first place.
Expecting some species of saintly, restrained perfection from a man who is actually taking the time to respond to the small number of actually substantive issues raised by his aggressive - and often libelous - detractors is f'ing ridiculous; the worst form of tone-trolling.
Put simply: there's nowt wrong with ridiculing the ridiculous. Get over it.
Speaking of ridiculing the ridiculous - Stefan Rahmstorf on the world-shaking revelations of that expert-for-all-seasons Fritz Vahrenholt. (Auto-translation slightly ropey, but you'll get the idea.)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/sep/13/less-arctic-sea-…
"Here, possibly only 50% of the sea is covered in ice. Yet the data is telling the scientists that there is continuous ice cover at this latitude.
That's why Julienne Stroeve, ice expert from NSIDC the folk expected to flag the record minimum ice extent record in a few days' time – has been filming the ice conditions every few hours."
It really is a spectacle to behold: http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/
The "Climate Realists" website has republished Bastardi's claims about the "rapid recovery" of Arctic sea ice this month, along with his picture. Even after I pointed out the picture was not what he claimed it is, the site moderator yelled "Squirrel!!" and changed the subject, but the picture still stands. They really don't care if it's correct or not, as long as it says what they want it to say.
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=10209
I am having trouble with a page at Climate Progress:
Decades Of Deception: The Coal Industry Has Advertised ‘Clean Coal’ Since At Least 1921
All I see is a black blank pane and an tab indicator (Firefox):
There appears to have been two replies to this article. So what is afoot.
I seem to have recent comments get held up in moderation for no apparent reason too and I am only being helpful to Mike Roddy with his 'Frozen Planet' planet problem.
Ho! Hum!
Try Internet Explorer, Lionel.
I've been having a lot of trouble posting here; it says it's posting then nothing happens. Firefox too; I'd hate to have to use IE. Let's see if it works now...
OK, the above worked, but when I tried to post an earlier post that didn't go through (with changes so it wouldn't look like an exact duplicate), it didn't work. I'll try from scratch.
"Climate Realists" is pushing Bastardi's claims that Arctic sea ice has made a big recovery this month, and they don't care that the picture he's using is of sea surface temps not ice.
{Edit: I tried posting the above with a link to the Climate Realists page and it didn't go through. Let's see if the link is what was stopping it...]
OK, I can't post links. That sucks.
A 1x1 GIF is called a bug. Like a bug used by spies to track you.
Marketers don't like to stop abusing your trust and therefore try desperately to track you, else they lose any semblance of utility.
(Robert, two links generally will not go through. Try one at a time).
bill, thats a wheeze - Herr Doktor Rahmstorf is a lot sarkier in his native tongue.
"Until now it was assumed that Venice is between 9 and 12 Century developed into a city-state and a major maritime power..."
LOL.
"Robert, two links generally will not go through. Try one at a time"
I was only posting one. I switched to IE but still no go. My knowledge of computers mostly ends with "Press button turns on machine, makes computer go." Maybe I need to make a sacrifice to the Internet Gods to appease them.
There are no less than 14 scripts running on Think Progress / Climate Progress(!), and I note I've had to allow all but 3 of them over time to get the bloody site to work!
I've not had any recent problems here or anywhere else in FF. Is it all updated? I'm running NoScript and Adblock constantly - I'm also constantly alarmed if I do use IE to see all the crap I'm missing out on accordingly. But sometimes if a site really won't load properly in FF...
I've already done so on his blog, but I'd like to thank Bluegrue (September 13, 10:15 pm) for his posting of the quote I asked about at Lewendowsky's.
It's an itch I've been trying to scratch for a while, and I'm so pleased to have the answer! It was the mid 80s when I read the book, so my recollection of the phrasing was sufficiently out that I couldn't hit it with a search.
And for those of you who've been hiding under a rock and haven't read Dune, try it. It's a bit of a paperweight (boom tish) but worth the effort. At least, I thought so.
The movie, not so much. Although the director's cut makes much more sense...
Try Internet Exploder - no way.
As for 1x1 GIFs I used to use them as padding or something in the old days of mandraulic html creation. Not so bad once you have a set of templates that can be adjusted. But then that was all before CSS etc. I like the basic nuts & bolts approach because then you know that there isn't anything else going on which was certainly not the case with MS FrontPage - always a good laugh to use the Tools>Web Devolper>Page Source feature and see who has used FP and note all the extra verbiage at the top of doc.
My site was started in those good ol' days and I see little reason to change as most of it still loads fast enough for a dial-up modem.
Oh dear, Lionel.
You seem to have this internet thing and especially HTML all wrong.
You are using the web page as if it were a poster. You're defining the size, defining how it will be read and on what physical size too.
HTML and the internet do not work this way.
You give meta information on the meaning of the content and the browser displays it AS THE VIEWER SEES FIT. If they want to view it as ASCII text (necessary for the blind who will use text-to-speech), if they want to view it with 20pt font (as the visually imparied will) or on a screen 2 inches wide (as someone on a mobile phone will), they will request the browser show the content and stuff your demands for pixel accuracy.
If you want pixel accuracy, make a PDF.
But if you think for one second you should be telling the viewer how they must view "your" content, get a different job.
(abuse of web page and viewers really grabs my wagger, you may be able to tell)
Robert Murphey
Could it be your internet connectivity? If that is a possibility look out a bit of software called PingPlotter which is a kinda Traceroute with bells and whistles. It can be used to plot latency and drop outs across nodes and keep a record from which is displayed a graphical read out which looks like this one from a time when I was having trouble with my provider- I had the evidence to beat them with. The software runs in the background with an icon in the Tray from whence the graphic display - still active - can be called up at a click.
Wow.
Maybe, maybe not.
Practices change over time, if you pick up a book on HTML from about 14 years ago (I have one here 1996) you will discover a different world.
I do know that things have moved on and frankly after a double heart attack 11 years ago I just carried on in the same vein. I am too old and tired to make sorting this a priority. Besides the OS that I used to start off (Hint not any form of Windows) is now moribund, that computer is kaput along with the HTML editors I used then.
So WOW I don't have it all wrong you just didn't know the history.
PS Wow.
As for getting a different job I am retired and have mobility issues. You need a new attitude.
No, if that 14 year old book is going on about absolute placement, they're not talking Web. They're talking old-school designers who had a poster and placed every single spot precisely.
Since you do not control the viewer nor the device the page is being viewed on, if you are using HTML and web pages to replicate PRECISE placement, Ur Doin It Wrong.
NEVER was HTML nor the Web intended to dictate the viewer's interpretation. NEVER was it intended that the designer have pixel perfect placement. It is antitheical to the entire structure. It isn't a damn book or poster. You don't know of the page is going to be viewed in 640x680, 1024x768 or 1960x1080, nor on a screen 2" across or 20ft across.
The HTML is markup. It is ONLY a hint. the HTML renderer has final word about what it will do and it WILL disregard your requests.
The same old-school printer designer that wanted to force the web to ape the poster world demanded pixel placement and, in being told to eff off, brought on the abomination that is Flash.
HTML5 doesn't change a thing. YOUR web page can ONLY hint at what you want. The renderer can display it however they want, because only the rendered can tell what your page is being rendered on.
*I* need a new attitude? WTF???
So your demand that you get pixel perfect rendition on YOUR PC and "eff you" to the person you're *supposed* to be informing who may have nothing like your system is because of ME???
Jesus christ, you have a massive sense of entitlement there, and playing the gimp card there isn't going to make you any less wrong.
Wow. You are not listening.
In the bad old days no two browsers would display a page the same even if the html was perfect because of quirks in the systems and so techniques were developed to overcome this. And let us not go into the area of Javascript and J-Script - another can of worms thanks to the would be dominance of a certain outfit in the shadows of the Cascades.
Sure things are different now with a plethora of devices that are web enabled and to be honest I have neither the time nor money, or need for that matter, to use these later devices.
I have been exploring what tools are available to enable me to convert my site to later standards but one I had been using for years which started out as a vector graphic application and morphed into a very capable graphic creator which could handle both vector and raster (well you know what I mean - not strictly black and white) had web creation extensions built on. I tried this but all I could get was porridge.
Now you have your view of this world but don't fly at people for having other ideas based upon how the world works for them. This is where you need a new attitude.
Now further discussion on this best be taken to email. I am sure a person of your calibre would know where to go next.
Lionel, YOU aren't listening.
If you're tring to be a web designer but are being a poster artist, YOU SHOULD BE PRODUCING POSTERS, NOT WEBPAGES.
Got it?
HTML WAS NEVER to be displaying two web pages the exact same.
A header for one person might be *bold*. Another might have it in BIGGER FONT.
The Acid test isn't to test your web page renders pixel perfect, it's to show that the HTML renderer obeys the standard when told to.
Really, you are the entire reason web pages spend 25 years being absolutely crap because you were treating them like they were the old technology of paper and ink you were used to using as designers.
Everything, to you, was the same old nail you hammered in before.
Tim
If what I have heard is true - so sorry.
No Wow, you are not listening.
I do appreciate how things should now be done.
Fini. On here anyway.
No, I listened. It was BS.
"having other ideas based upon how the world works for them"
Clue tip for you: if you're a web designer, you are not supposed to write a web page designed for YOU, YOU are not the customer.
And if you're using HTML and demand pixel perfect positioning, ur doin it wrong. End of story.
You can hammer a nail in with a spoon, but you're doing it wrong there too.
You can get splinters out of your finger with a stanley knife. Guess what: wrong again.
Why is it wrong to do what you insist on doing? Because you do not and should not demand that someone looks at your web page on specific equipment.
"Best viewed at 800x600" or "Designed for Internet Explorer" held back the web for abled and disabled alike for well over 10 years.
Because web designers thought they saw a nail.
I have to say it: I also used '1×1 GIFs ...as padding or something in the old days of mandraulic html creation.'
I don't believe this is because of any inherent fascism in my approach to design, but it's because it's how the world used to work back in the days I was running a site aimed at chucking mining company number one out of a National Park. Tables - and it was all tables pre-CSS and flash - used to collapse without them; in fact, the old Macromedia Dreamweaver used to insert them by default. Which was a relief.
(And Frontpage - my first theoretical WYSIWYG editor - was, indeed, a dog's breakfast that wrote awful code!)
Therefore I find this lecture directed at Lionel, who was merely recounting his own - not atypical - experiences, to be totally misplaced. I cannot imagine how the leap was made to concluding Lionel's worldview - late alone such a negative one - and attitude to 'customers' from this short passage.
I also find this tendency to stridently defensive outbursts to be totally misplaced. It's bad enough that it doesn't seem, unfortunately, that we can hope to have Tim actively here anymore to supervise; this is the kind of thing that will turn people off from the site. In fact, it probably is doing so.
'There are no less than 14 scripts running on Think Progress / Climate Progress(!), and I note I’ve had to allow all but 3 of them over time to get the bloody site to work!'
Could you elaborate?
"I don’t believe this is because of any inherent fascism in my approach to design"
Its valid design.
It's INVALID in HTML. Unless you are going to go round everyone's home and buy them the same monitor you have, you CANNOT make it pixel perfect. Heck, even then, you won't manage with those with disabilities.
Those design paradigms are useful for non-web print work and intranet (where you have bought the kit for everyone, though it's still damn pointless since you shouldn't be demanding pixel perfect positioning anyway. If your work requires it, you need to redesign).
But your fixation on THE WRONG METHOD merely because you thought in old-school ways is why you don't like the lecture.
Web isn't print.
You're like the steampunk people putting paddle steamer paddles on the back of flying boats because it makes it look victoriana. An engineer would look at it and go "Are you frigging MAD!!!".
el gordo - i have NoScript. It tells me how many sites are running processes on any given page. Only 5 on this one - 17 scripts - but I'm rather wary of doubleclick and I see no need to allow addthis. TP is 14 sites (including the host) to be more accurate, all but 3 of which I've had to allow to get video etc. to work over time, and 52 scripts.
wow - i'm not talking about web design, i'm talking about inappropriate assumptions and an even more inappropriate manner
bill, that's what I've been complaining about!
Inappropriate assumptions (pixel perfect placement) and an inappropriate manner ("how it works for me").
Graphic designers becoming web designers but NOT throwing away the inappropriate "lets treat this as a poster" meme is why web for the disabled has been held back for 15 years at least.
That is the very point my dear chap.
When I started back in about 1994-95 the only way of viewing web pages was using a desktop computer with a CRT monitor. The LCD (lowest common denominator) portables would not have had the wherewithal to use a dial-up connection. Heck I still have one like that here that runs MSDos and Wordstar etc in text only modes.
And those CRT monitors were generally small with 800 x 600 resolutions, thus web browsers such as they were kept pages to be displayed in totto at those resolutions and didn't even support Tables let alone frames and CSS.
Also constructing web pages for many using such monitors and connecting via dial-up modems necessitated lean code and small file sizes for any images. I was lucky enough to be using a Sportster 28k8 modem when many were using 14k4 or slower - particularly in schools. Oh and BTW I was using a computer system which was the first to be based on the ARM chipset.
Furthermore mobile devices and Brail readers were way in the future, and the former were as rare as rocking horse droppings for a long time. Besides my website was intended as a vehicle for images, where Brail is less useful, with the barest of explanatory text.
I am sorry that I had a life changing experience which has created for me issues in keeping up with the times and caused you so much angst.
I am fully aware of shortcomings under today's conditions and have been taking steps to try to rectify this. But I have yet to find a satisfactory path for re-designing my existing site, created under very different conditions and for a very different technological playing field, considering the constrictions of my life where I am unsure that I will be able to wake up the next day.
Now if you still cannot grasp this the sadly there is little more I can do.
Wow might wish to ponder the concept that padding != pixel-perfect placement, and hence that on occasion (at least in the past if not the present) valid reasons may exist to use the former whilst not seeking to achieve the latter.
"I am sorry that I had a life changing experience which has created for me issues in keeping up with the times and caused you so much angst."
Don't be sorry, Lionel. These days it seems a thread isn't complete unless Wow's gone all ALLCAPS!!1!! at someone. Last month was Ianam, this month its you*. Personally, I usually find it impossible to discern a point through the quantity of bile vented...
*Oh, yeah..3...2...1...
Yeah frank. ALLCAPS. Bollocks.
"padding != pixel-perfect placement"
1x1Gif. That's one pixel, right? Now, either you wanted pixel perfect positioning or you're using it as a web bug. Neither of which make you anything other than a stain on web development.
And Wow, you are creating a stain on good manners and sensible debate.
Now I know why your moniker is Wow, because sooner or later those engaging with you think, 'Wow what a xxxx....'. Fill in with an expletive of choice.
I was going to add to my last with the observation that the way you derail threads is sad and here is another once informative and useful thread that you have sent off into the weeds. Now that is very sad.
'here is another once informative and useful thread'
I have noticed the sceptics are unhappy about the ice loss in the north, but at least they can claim Antarctica is still intact.
It's probably the 'saw tooth' effect.
OK, where have you been Lionel?
Your fake outrage and pissant attitude are, really, quite false when you talk on here with the evidence seen.
When you stop hyperventilating, get back to me.
PS histrionics doesn't suit you.
I very much doubt Lionel's outrage is 'faked'. Mine certainly isn't. You might also notice the other negative reviews you're garnering; but, by all means, carry on and learn nothing from the reactions of your peers.
Tim, I'm sorry it has come to this.
Can we at least agree that gorebull worming has stopped and its a travesty.
El Gordo, I think we're all agreed that such statements are the work of cranks.
Hi Vince, its been awhile.
'gorebull worming has stopped and its a travesty.' And this guy isn't a Poe?
I am sure you are smart enough to work out where the fallacy in that claim lies.
But due to other factors, I am not at all convinced that you will.
You're repeatedly jumping to emphatic conclusions and failing to take on board even gentle hints that (a) you may have missed something that undermines the certainty of your conclusions, and that (b) your interaction style demotivates anyone predisposed to help.
As I have better things to do I consider that I have contributed enough to this line of discussion.
Poe's Law Rules
I demand smiley faces...
Well when lional whines about how I dragged yet another thread into the weeds on **DELTOID** where Duff KMS and GSW appear regularly indicates that there's something other than my lack of grace at the dispticks who ruined web development for the disabled for nearly a human generation involved.
I reckon GSW et al all make such ludicrous statements that they don't really latch on, but there is more than a grain of truth to what I said and that hurts.
"I am sure you are smart enough to work out where the fallacy in that claim lies."
I'm sure that if there was one that was defensible you are smart enough to realise that putting it down in writing would be of much more use than alluding to some unsaid property.
Then again, I'm sure there isn't.
Wow, you seem to be taking lessons from the Anthony Watts textbook on how to bully and intimidate. But with me you fail as I have experienced far worse in reality and dealt with it and thus your comments do nothing more than expose your own insecurities.
As for histrionics - the evidence here is clear a classic case of projection once again from the denier play-book. It is you who appears to be in auto-rotate and having lost your tail rotor at that.
Now this is quite enough on this sorry theme.
Wow's a bit liked that.
I tend to come on here to admire the elegant expert refutations of denier-bullshit by the likes of Jeff Harvey and so on.
I'm not so sure reams of emotionalising about 1990's web development is doing much for me. If that's what it's about. Hard to tell really. Pretty sure I'm drinking my red slower than Wow2's been drinking his.
ANyway, El GOrdo, where have you been?
And why are you suddenly sounding like you're making fun of your previous convictions?
Are we witnessing a U-Turn here?
These days I hang out at The Daily Trash (we laff a lot) and I also spend time at Cafe Whispers.
They are essentially left wing blogs, but Trash is more open to different views.
Coming here was a shock...only a month ago Deltoid was robust and amusing.
I also savour the enlightening comments from Jeff Harvey and thank him for his input.
I will most definitely not be responding to any more of Wow's rants so that Deltoid can preserve its good reputation amongst all those interested in truth and countering the lies and distortions from 'the usual suspects'.
I note that you still couldn't manage to find the fallacy in that statement, Vinny.
Is it possible you were incorrect, or that the only gaps required special pleading?
When BPW turned up here and went all "oh, why don't you all come up with some reasonable and sensible ideas rather than swear and be childish", the wave of "TONE TROLL ALERT!" responses abounded.
Yet many of those doing so then are doing a BPW now.
Me? I'm not a hypocrite. I accorded BPW had cause to note swearing but that this wasn't reason to discard the discussion.
But here you are, doing a BPW and insisting that there is never anything being said by someone who uses robust language.
Tone troll alert indeed...
The weirdest thing just happened.
Seventeen hours ago Steve McIntyre posted a blog article entitled "Lewandowsky's Pogrom".
In the hours since the article and URL have been renamed (to "Lewandowsky's Cleansing Program"). Surely McIntyre couldn't be comparing the actions of Dr. Lewandowsky to a murderous regime?
No, of course he is.
Apparently the use of the word "pogrom" is a-ok because we use "denier", a word which in the context we use it in has nothing to do with the holocaust.
What a sad, desperate man McIntyre has become since his humilation at the hands of the villainous Lewandowsky.
Welcome back El Gordo! Hey, remember three years ago when you claimed the planet would cool by 1.5 degrees in ten years?
By my calculations the global average should have gone down by nearly 0.6 since then. It hasn't! Instead we had the hottest year on record (it was a scorcher!), the warmest La Nina year on record (it was a blinder), the US has had its worst drought in history, arctic ice extent has bottomed out to a record low and dagnabbit, now we're heading back into an El Nino event that, I'm reliably informed, is unlikely to achieve the climactic conditions you heartily predicted.
Looks like I was right and you were wrong. Tough to swallow, eh? Hey, I'm sure it will snow soon and you can crow about that til your jolly little heart's content.
'remember three years ago when you claimed the planet would cool by 1.5 degrees in ten years?'
Patience...there is a lag, I expect to see a tipping point within a couple of years.
David Archibald has a couple of posts up at Watts on the approaching cool spell.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/clip_image012.gif
No, you expected cooling within four years. You blamed the sun and babbled on about coming ice age catastrophes.
That would give us one more year that, shucks, is widely predicted to be an El Nino fueled scorcher.
Yes Gordo, I know your Archibald prediction will work out as well as these former claims:
I think you have missed a message or two, perhaps you don't understand the implications of this years record Arctic ice melt. Here are some clues.
And cue for the near future calls that the planet is cooling because somewhere in the Northern Hemisphere gets more snow this coming winter. Will there be enough for Inhofe to build another igloo, I wonder?
Ice blogger Neven now joins in lambasting Bastardi (his name popped up whilst creating my last post) about his Rookie Mistakes in 'Joe Bastardi found a cherry'. Well that cherry turned out to be more of a lemon IYSWIM.
"David Archibald has a couple of posts up at Watts on the approaching cool spell."
OK, are you talking about *winter* here, or is this yet another Groundhog Day "Oh, it'll cool down any moment now... Any day... Just watch it.. It'll cool... Any moment, it'll become cooling... Just watch... Any minute... Really, trust us... Just after this peak, it'll be cooling... Any.... moment... now... OK, not yet, but soon...".
It was supposed to be cooling ever since 1998. Still hasn't happened.
"Patience…there is a lag, I expect to see a tipping point within a couple of years."
What a bizarre belief.
What expert advice are you basing it on, precisely?
It can't be solely David Archibald who inspires such certainty in you, because his paper was rubbished and it turned out the rubbishers were correct: Archibald's predictions have turned out to be complete nonsense.
I get it - El Gordo's face-saving strategy is to pretend he was trolling the whole time.
Who are you trying to kid?
Steady on, I'm not a professional troll.
'It was supposed to be cooling ever since 1998. Still hasn’t happened.'
Even as CO2 continues to rise...temperatures have remained flat...
"Steady on, I’m not a professional troll."
Yet it does seem to be your calling.
Robert...politically I'm from Labor's left faction and I voted for joolya at the last election. When she stitched up a deal with Brown to bring in that fkn tax (so that she could remain PM) I walked on a single issue.
Just because I have a different perspective on the science of CC is no big deal, the broader electorate share my belief and labor will be punished.
My statement didn't depend on your political leanings.
"Even as CO2 continues to rise…temperatures have remained flat…"
Is that just trolling, or do you need us to explain why that is a spectacularly stupid statement?
Just give me a reliable graph, Vince, I don't have much time for words at the moment.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif
Do you have time for thinking? Or is that being a bit hopeful?
"Steady on, I’m not a professional troll."
Purely amateur status, then?
Hey, if you "knew" it had been cooling, how come you don't know what the temperature trend is?
Or are you just a mouthpiece for whatever convenient meme strolls by?
The NASA graph shows temperatures have flattened over the past decade.
This 'ice age is coming; no, really' stuff cracks me up!
Speaking of cracking up, here's a whole collection of graphs for you, Mr. Broader Electorate; now, what do they all say?
Cheer up; this may well result in dismal non-summers in Britain - I know, it's hard, isn't it? not Talkback-radio shouty 'commonsense' at all! never mind, you can always punish the thinking people at the polls! - for many years to come, and buffoons can then merrily claim that means it's an Ice Age. No, really...
playing the gimp card
[Bites lip harder.]
'....you can always punish the thinking people at the polls! '
Not sure, have you seen the latest boost in joolya's poll numbers and all because of a big trawler?
"Joolya"?
You're no more left wing than is Alan Jones or Andrew Bolt.
And you stretch the truth just as much as they do.
'I was one of you' / 'more in sorrow than in anger' tone-trolling. Boring.
1998 was in the last decade. You learn something everyday from el gordo.
With a 50-50 preferred in a latest poll, they're obviously going to get punished. Sure, if you say so, el gordo. Let's have Mr Wall Punch.
Frieler et al have published a paper that says what I and many of my ecology colleagues have been saying for several years now:
Free to access.
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1674…
The projected 'underlying global warming rate is ≳0.2°C/decade', except if El Nino remains relatively quiet for a decade.
"The NASA graph shows temperatures have flattened over the past decade"
Try explaining that to many of the species inhabiting the Arctic, where ice extent has reached a record low, or elsewhere across much of the temperate world, where they are responding to your 'it hasn't warmed in a decade' by continuing to expand their ranges polewards or to higher elevations, experience much higher rates of winter survival (in the case of thermophilic insects), to initiate reproduction significantly earlier in the season, to persist longer in the season, and to experience phenological disruptions as a result of species-specific responses in tightly lined trophic interactions. This is just a snippet of what's happening in the natural world as a result of 'no warming since 1998'.
Typical of el Gordo to eventually return here with his brand of willful ignorance.
Warming has stalled, presumably because of the cool PDO.
Species suffering from CC have to adapt, as they did during Medieval warming, Roman warming etc etc. And the same goes for the GBR, it will have to migrate south to cooler waters or perish.
Do you reckon it would be possible to train a monkey to repeat these 'talking points'? And is this actually what we're dealing with here?
Dull - unless, of course, you really are a chimp, in which case your remarkable skills are being exploited, Bubbles...
At the LGM our corals blended nicely with New Guinea and obviously during warmer times they moved further south than Brisbane.
The assertion, "warming has stalled" is completely stupid. Nobody who is mentally competent could possibly conclude such a thing from the data which is available.
Data which shows this decade you mention is the warmest ever measured.
The warmest decade in history, and your conclusion is that "warming has stalled"?
You're a moron.
There's yet another idiot newly found the scienceblogs. Over at Starts With A Bang and A Few Things Ill Considered kai is currently displaying all the bad things about homeschooled teabaggers.
He's not even amusingly inventive.
Be careful out there.
'The warmest decade in history, and your conclusion is that “warming has stalled”?'
Ocean temperatures are a better indicator of climate change.
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/figure-10.png
"The projected ‘underlying global warming rate is ≳0.2°C/decade’, except if El Nino remains relatively quiet for a decade."
Since El Nino is not a source of energy, the unerlying trend continues even if El Nino deepens, it's just that the addition of the OSCILLATION OVER A DECADE that is the PDO (guess what the D and O stand for, lipstick) will make the temperature graph display a lower trend.
Then, when the OSCILLATION turns the other way and puts extra warmth in the atmosphere, the tenperature graph will display an even higher trend.
Meanwhile the deniers will insist that there is nothing going on.
"Ocean temperatures are a better indicator of climate change."
Prove it.
'Prove it.'
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2012/09/10/sea-level-accele…
No, all youve proven is that the sea isn't measured throughout its depth and that it isn't warming as fast as the air.
You haven't proven your assertion that it is a better indicator of climate change.
PS you may want to look up "latent heat capacity" and compare the masses of the ocean to the atmosphere. This will help you understand why the oceans lag the atmosphere.
Actually, the graph isn't even showing temperature.
Did you forget somthing? “Ocean temperatures are a better indicator of climate change.” ring a bell? Notice the words "Ocean Temperature" in there?
There's a good boy. Fetch!
Is that statistically significant?
At a guess, I'd say the North Pole will probably be accessible by ordinary boat when the Arctic Ocean sea ice gets down to 2 million sqkm extent. That won't be many years now.
re: el Gordo's Bob Tisdale link - Tisdale was making an interesting point about the behaviour of the oceans over the medium term.
Fatboy has just thinks its a new way to climb the escalator the wrong way...
Anyway, didn't el Gordo get banned here years ago? Taking advantage of the host's absence to steal the spoons is frowned upon....
Pearls of 'wisdom' from the swine
If you think the science of climate change depends upon political perspective ideology then you are an ignoramus of the first water.
This quote from Richard Feynman puts it succinctly, albeit within the context of the space shuttle Challenger disaster:
So please find sources of peer reviewed literature that supports these astonishing assertions.
Note the differences between the MWP (MCA) and the Romanic period warming, hint geographical area and chronologies of evidence for. Also consider how quickly, or not, species can adapt against the rapidity of the current warming trend. Consider also the other required environmental factors, including geology and pH, necessary for the evolution of coral reefs.
So why are you here at all?
You seem, to me, to be a drive by time wasting troll who doesn't appear to consider the old maxim, paraphrased, that, 'it is better to stay quiet and be thought a simpleton than project ones thoughts and remove all doubt'.
'The Sea Surface Temperature anomalies of the East Pacific Ocean, or approximately 33% of the surface area of the global oceans, have decreased slightly since 1982 based on the linear trend.
'And between upward shifts, the Sea Surface Temperature anomalies for the rest of the world (67% of the global ocean surface area) remain relatively flat. As discussed in my book, anthropogenic forcings are said to be responsible for most of the rise in global surface temperatures over this period, but the Sea Surface Temperature anomaly graphs of those two areas prompt a two-part question: Since 1982, what anthropogenic global warming processes would overlook the Sea Surface Temperatures of 33% of the global oceans and have an impact on the other 67% but only during the months of the significant El Niño events of 1986/87/88, 1997/98 and 2009/10?'
Bob Tisdale
The link to Tisdale's graph doesn't even have global ocean temperatures.
I don't even want to know the error bars on that trendline either.
'Fatboy has just thinks its a new way to climb the escalator the wrong way…'
Yep, that a warm PDO, now its about to come down.
What part did Deltoid play in the Lewandowsky Affair?
"What part did Deltoid play in the Lewandowsky Affair self-embarrassing, all-star crank survey"?
Fixed that for you El G.
"Species suffering from CC have to adapt, as they did during Medieval warming, Roman warming etc etc."
Where to begin dismantling this unscientific childish gibberish?
First of all, the MWP and LIA are only acknolwedged as major events in comparison to the current warming amongst the denialati. And the vast majority of those in the denialati are not statured scientists, or are on the academic fringe. Most mainstream scientific debates on AGW - held at conferences, workshops, etc. - don't consider the MWP and LIA to be major events. Mostly its schmucks like EG that do (who. as was pointed out above, was banned from Deltoid for his stupid assertions once before but has once again slipped the net).
As for ecological effects, the surface of the planet has been dramatically altered by Homo sapiens over the past 8,000 years, but especially so over the past 100. Trust a brainless boffin like EG to so flippantly dismiss the effects of AGW on biodiversity with a simple 'it wil have to adapt'. And if much of it doesn't? As I said, AGW is but one (albeit a major one) of a myriad of huma- inflicted stresses inflicted on complex adaptive systems that generate conditions that sustain and permit human survival. The human approach to the biosphere over the past century has been largely a slash-and-burn/clear-cut/drain/dam/douse in synthetic pesticides/eutrophicate/biologically homogenize/alter the chemical composition of the ait and water/plough/pave approach.This while gaining more and more knowledge of how natural systems maintain conditions that underpin human civilization.
Against this background we have a bunch of idiots who don't mind playing economic business-as-usual roulette with nature. The EG's of this world think apparently that humans can continue the current assault with few or no real ramifications for our short to middle term welfare.They are, of course wrong. But when I read comments like those of EG, it makes me realize the depth of the human dilemma: if his/her views are widespread, then our species is well and truly screwed.
John Cook of Sceptical Science is a cartoonist.
'...then our species is well and truly screwed.'
Unlikely...but I respect your views as you are probably the only scientist here.
Just remembered something to counter those who still whine on about how Venus' runaway greenhouse effect is solely because of its atmospheric pressure.
Titan has a denser atmosphere and higher pressure than Mars. Yet the surface of Mars is much warmer.
If PV=nRT is the entire and sole reason for a surface temperature, then this is impossible.
(ps el gordo is an idiot)
'Taking advantage of the host’s absence to steal the spoons is frowned upon….'
I'm sure Tim won't mind me hanging around for awhile, 'you lot' need someone to abuse otherwise this place will self destruct.
He daren't mind. If he did boot you like T Watts does at his blog to people who disagree with him, you and your ilk would be whining incessantly and using it as "proof" that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas or something.
You are a waste of your daddy's DNA.
Fatso.
All of your warming-denying mates run away when I ask them to give me their hard-earned money, so maybe you'll have greater courage of your convictions.
Back on September 11, 9:55 am (page 1) I offered USKMS a wager. Now it's your turn - same terms, 24 hours to decide.
I don't care with what distortions of science you might want to delude yourself. I'm simply interested in whether your guts are large enough for you to actually stand behind your blather.
el gordo's line there sounds a lot like the religious nutters who go round killing people (e.g. Tony Blair). "If I've done wrong, then God will punish me. Since he hasn't, it must be what He wants".
I bet they are not.
Lotharsson.
In which case, he should style himself 'El Poco Gordo'.
Karen was nice, but since her departure this place is dead.
el gordo,John Cook is a cartoonist with a physics degree. Snarky old Bob Tisdale forgot that. Bob thinks that because the oceans are warming noisily,AGW and ACO2 have nothing to do with it. That's the 'depth' of his analysis,wrapped in 500 pages of diversion.
I'm still going with the monkey...
'Bob thinks that because the oceans are warming noisily,AGW and ACO2 have nothing to do with it.'
True dat.
And while I'm at it...the monk is a member of the denialati.
“The fact that we have had if anything cooling global temperatures over the last decade, not withstanding continued dramatic increases of carbon dioxide emissions, suggests the role of CO2 is not nearly as clear as the climate catastrophists suggest.”
Tony Abbott, PM in waiting.
Abbott thinks this is a fact: "... we have had,if anything,cooling global temperatures over the last decade...." Well,if anything,that's not a fact,it's a fiction.
The clearest 'ideas' about the role of CO2 actually come from rejectionists: there is no role for CO2,please. Please.
Did you know that the US has reduced their CO2 emissions back to 1992 levels? Fracking has played a big part in this reduction and it didn't require a tax on a harmless trace gas.
>By popular request. Comments from El Gordo and folks arguing with him are cluttering up more useful discussions. All comments by El Gordo and responses to comments by El Gordo should go in this thread. I can’t move comments in MT, so I’ll just delete comments that appear in the wrong thread.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/16/el-gordo-thread/
guffaw
Just reading over David Archibald's work, and I think I've discovered an inadvertant mistake he has made:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/03/quantifying-sea-level-fall/
Check out the graph for Fort Denison.
(He has accidentally forgotten to number his Figures. It is Figure 7.)
You will see that he has accidentally changed the data by accentuating the peaks and reducing the troughs.
This accidentally modified data allows him to accidentally assert that, "The trend is 0.5mm per annum". This is unfortunately not true.
You can contrast David Archibald's data with the results of a competent analysis here:
http://www.coastalconference.com/2011/papers2011/Ben%20Modra%20Full%20P…
Which correctly finds a trend of 0.9mm/year.
I'm sure Anthony Watts would love to know about this mistake appearing on his website so he can correct this mistake and thus make his website slightly less mistaken, but unfortunately comments on that article are closed.
Maybe somebody could email him?
Sorry, let through an incomplete sentence,
Should say,"...he has accidentally changed the pre-'40s data..."
So this is wrong?
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/image7.png
DaveR: I second that. Since el Gordo can't apparently tell a mole cricket from a giraffe, and his posts seem to imply that humans are essentially immune from the continued war we are waging against natural systems, he belongs, like Jonas N, in his own little corner.
"“The fact that we have had if anything cooling global temperatures over the last decade, not withstanding continued dramatic increases of carbon dioxide emissions, suggests the role of CO2 is not nearly as clear as the climate catastrophists suggest.”
How many times must we go over this crap? It hasn't cooled over the past decade. Biological responses are proof positive that it is still warming, particularly in temperate biomes. Moreover, for a deterministic system operating at the global scale, 10 years is certainly not a long enough time period to make proper estimations. Stochasticity in many processes can only become deterministic at the proper temporal scale. In terms of global climate control, we are talking about 30 years or more.
Climate scientists recognize this even if the denialati do not.
el gordo generously wants to remind us that delusion never dies, it just becomes more delusional.
I'm not sure, El Gordo, what that is that you are linking to.
It certainly doesn't show the Fort Denison sea level data nor does it show the trend from that data.
As for the unexplained (and inexplicable) forecast...well, Archibald's last forecast fell flat on its face, so the odds of him being right about another one have lengthened to and even longer length than their previously already very long length.
Are you saying, El Gordo, that despite the obviously doctored data Archibald presents in the link provided by my overly-diplomatic colleague, Craig, that you still trust Archibald as a source for information of any sort?
You *do* know what the opposite of "sceptic" is, don't you?
"el gordo generously wants to remind us that delusion never dies, it just becomes more delusional."
An inevitable result when someone is in denial because they think they know better. The more things show them wrong, the more they have to deny.
Facing up to personal imperfection is impossible for them.
"So this is wrong?
http://wattsupwiththat.files...."
Yes.
Craig, at 4:28 am 18 September 2012.
You might be interested in an exchange I had - or rather, tried to have - with David Archibald about Fort Denison over at WWWT.
The guy ran away without saying anything substantive, and leaving his discrepancies and mistakes in the cloud of dust.
Good effort BJ and they closed the thread down....admit it, you're just a troublemaker.
Further to the Archibald nonsense.
A large part of the motivation behind it (and I think that Carter was involved too) was to sway the State Government with respect to the controls that local councils are attempting to put on to future coastal developments.
Archibald's lobby group was successful - a couple of weeks ago the NSW environment minister moved to remove the need during development assessment to consider IPCC sea level rise figures.
If there was any justice, people affected in the future would be able to sue the estates of anyone who willingly and willfully promotes benefit for the rich against the best scientific advice, and at the expense of those people who will otherwise have to pick up the bill in the future.
Just for deniers like el Gordo:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/sep/17/arctic-collapse-sea-i…
On the matter of the Arctic, it's salient to recall Peter Sinclair's summary from a few years ago about what was happening with the walrus in the Arctic:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaXDzOl6Iog
This year will be unimaginably worse.
I no longer have any patience for the pathological denialism of the self-indulgent libertarians and ideologues who do want to have to be responsible. Frankly, in most cultures that sort of behaviour would be socially unacceptable if it were conducted in any other context, and it would attract anything from a birch or a strap to a stoning.
It's time to call them what they are - genocidal and biocidal maniacs.
"This collapse, I predicted would occur in 2015-16 at which time the summer Arctic (August to September) would become ice-free. The final collapse towards that state is now happening and will probably be complete by those dates".
At least we have a clear date for the warminista tipping point.
We certainly have the denier tipping point in 2015. That's when you now claim temperatures are going to plunge by 1.5 degrees in four years.
Why are you such an alarmist Gordo?
Bernard J,contrary to the impression given in The Oz's article on PM-HC's coastal strategy,more than half the properties affected by the zoning are less than 9m above sea level,and have much less than 60-70m of coastal reserve between them and the sea. Northern part of the zone is perilously close to the sea,you could spit over the reserve onto the sand.
But,for Ean Higgins and editors, it's more important to beat back the UN's one-world-government extremists than get actual and factual.
'That’s when you now claim temperatures are going to plunge by 1.5 degrees in four years.'
I don't think so, you're just making shit up. A couple of years ago I said we have a decade before we reach those depths... so its 2020 vision.
I'm channelling Archibald.
el who cares:
No problem then.
'No problem then.'
Species will be saved through human ingenuity (where necessary) or suffer at the hands of natural selection.
It is now simply an academic exercise to see if its continued warming or a mini ice age...and its happening on our watch.
The northern hemisphere is where we would expect to see a build up of snow and ice.
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_anom.php?ui_set=1&ui_region=…
"or suffer at the hands of human ignorance"
FTFY.
lol.... so much for gwowbull warming :)
Cmon fella's, I need a good laugh, pray tell what are your ridiculous excuse's for the icecapade's down south ?
Why aren't the canary's dropping dead both sides of the ecuator. ? hehehehe
Here is some more info the dumbtiod nuffies.
Antarctic sea ice reaches record high while IPCC models predicted the opposite
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_stddev_timeser…
Journal of Climate 2012 ; e-View
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00068.1
An Initial Assessment of Antarctic Sea Ice Extent in the CMIP5 Models
John Turner, Tom Bracegirdle, Tony Phillips, Gareth J. Marshall, and J. Scott Hosking
British Antarctic Survey, National Environment Research Council, Cambridge, UK
Abstract
We examine the annual cycle and trends in Antarctic sea ice extent (SIE) for 18 Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 5 models that were run with historical forcing for the 1850s to 2005. Many of the models have an annual SIE [sea ice extent] cycle that differs markedly from that observed over the last 30 years. The majority of models have too small a SIE at the minimum in February, while several of the models have less than two thirds of the observed SIE at the September maximum. In contrast to the satellite data, which exhibits a slight increase in SIE, the mean SIE of the models over 1979 - 2005 shows a decrease in each month, with the greatest multi-model mean percentage monthly decline of 13.6% dec-1 in February and the greatest absolute loss of ice of -0.40 × 106 km2 dec-1 in September. The models have very large differences in SIE over 1860 – 2005. Most of the control runs have statistically significant trends in SIE over their full time span and all the models have a negative trend in SIE since the mid-Nineteenth Century. The negative SIE trends in most of the model runs over 1979 - 2005 are a continuation of an earlier decline, suggesting that the processes responsible for the observed increase over the last 30 years are not being simulated correctly.
") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ")
The Kraken awakes - well would be good if it did.
Kraken picks a cherry for it only to turn into a lemon, here have a look at this numpty-dumpty:
Sea Ice Index Animation Tool
Animate Monthly Extent, Concentrations, Anomalies, and Trends, now what do you notice?
Play back through the months and years Krakenpot.
Whatever, you do realise that the Antarctic continent is losing ice mass year on year just like Greenland do you not? And yes the phases are different its called seasons you ignoramus or obfuscater - you chose.
Way past time to being polite to you louts when the ecology of the globe is falling apart faster than the ice.
This deserves publicity. Roger Helman, member of the European parliament and successor to Monckton as UKIP climate change spokesperson, tweets:
https://twitter.com/RogerHelmerMEP/status/248038830425378816
:-))
Helman should be tried for crimes against the human gene pool.
Bernard J on Helmer
seconded. Now for the vote.
Which is similar to my reply to prokaryotes over at CP with this story: False Balance Lives: In Worst Climate Story Of The Year, PBS Channels Fox News where Watts is allowed to get away with murderous actions.
Way past time to be playing mister nice guy with these soulless jerks.
I need a good laugh, pray tell what are Karen's ridiculous excuses for the icecapades up north?
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeser…
Karen deploys her "special" maths again to suggest that plus-2 standard deviations in Antarctica outweighs minus-6 standard deviations in the Arctic.
Anyway, her ridiculous "question" has been answered before. Did she not understand? Perhaps the answer used words that were a bit big for poor widdiw Kawen's bwain...
"‘Black Solar PV panels absorb sunlight and get hot.‘"
And internal combustion engines burn coal and get VERY hot.
I'm "making shit up"? Suffering from a bit of projection there old buddy?
You claimed that your big freeze would kick off immediately. In four years it would be obvious to everyone, you said.
You prediction failed (I am in shock). You changed the start date of your big freeze to 2015, meaning you only have four years for the claimed 1.5 degree plunge which, I should point out, is impossible short of perhaps an asteroid hitting the planet.
The more edifying option here is you're a troll who babbles crap to get a reaction. I'll go with that one, chum.
'you’re a troll who babbles crap to get a reaction'
That's simplistic, like you I'm trying to warn people of the dangers ahead...its not a 'look over there' thingy to upset my old comrades here.
Anyhoo...we should see Archibald's theory starting to come good by 2015 and from memory we can expect a decrease of 1.5 degrees in New Hampshire not Delhi.
And for those among you worried about species extinction, should we save the humble fruit fly?
'Many species of fruit fly lack the ability to adapt effectively to predicted increases in global temperatures and may face extinction in the near future, according to new research.
'In a study published today in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences....'
Watts has the story.
Bubbles still burbles...
He also seems to deliberately miss the point.
And he has a bunch of completely Dunningly-Krugered armchair 'professors' spouting off about something about which they have no clue. Richard Courtney - industry shill as he is for fossil fuel billionaires - especially leaps into the vat of logical fallacy.
I have a lot more to say about this, but I'm a bit pressed for time so it will have to wait. I'm sure that Jeff has a few thoughts on the matter too, so perhaps he might like to comment.
Oh, and Fat-Head, if it were a crime to knowingly and with aforethought spread disinformation about science that has serious repercussions for the future integrity of the biosphere, you'd be hanging from a gibbet or smoking in an electric chair.
As would Willard and many of his self-interested cronies.
el gordo:
We're already aware that you're delusional about the cause of this.
'We’re already aware that you’re delusional about the cause of this.'
How do you account for it?
Sunspots. Definitely sunspots. And the UHI.
Sorry, I'm genuinely at a loss as to why anyone is allowing this patent fool to jerk them around willy-nilly.
That having been said "a bunch of completely Dunningly-Krugered armchair ‘professors’ spouting off about something about which they have no clue" dums up (intentional mis-spelling) the Denier lumpenintellectual experience perfectly.
Whereas the winged monkey here is just their useful idiot... fly my pretties...
I'll deal with Watts and his completely asinine behavior with respect to fruit flies and climate change later. I am off to work soon.
With respect to Archibald, I checked up his publication list on the web of science. Predictably, its thin. VERY thin. Indeed, I could only come up with his Energy and Environment screed. No wonder he's reduced to guest slots over at Anthony 'weather man' Watts' crapola corner.
Its been said many times, but it is worth repeating: very, very few of the so-called prominent climate change deniers are statured scientists. What I said about the academic fringe the other day sums them up more with every passing day. Should Archibald's stuff be therefore taken seriously? In academic circles, the answer of course is a resounding 'no'. But in denier circles anything goes, so long as the answer remains the same.
But...but.... I thought we were organising a bet on 2015 AD, will the NH be snow free or snowed in?
Bill seems nice.
I am. I'm a real sweetie. Not a big fan of time-waster trolls, though...
"Sorry, I’m genuinely at a loss as to why anyone is allowing this patent fool to jerk them around willy-nilly."
We're troll baiting.
el-g meanwhile is probably jerking around his own willy-nilly...
"You changed the start date of your big freeze to 2015, meaning you only have four years for the claimed 1.5 degree plunge which, I should point out, is impossible short of perhaps an asteroid hitting the planet."
How about el-g state how certain he is. Given that lives are on the line if we do nothing, will he put HIS life on the line if his prediction is wrong?
We shall have to know who and where he is so we can watch him suicide (his choice of method) in 2015. Or chicken out because he will.
El Poco Gordo.
I offered you a very tasty wager on the previous page, at time stamp September 17, 12:06 pm.
You were too gutless to accept it, so you have no moral high ground from which to cast bets at anyone else.
Like a stinky fart you are all wind and no substance - how very typical of the denialist position. And if perchance there is ever any substance, it's always just a skid mark to the bottom. Again, typical of the denialist position.
I painfully waded into Judith 'I have seen the contrarian light' Curry's den of iniquity yesterday and the discussion of the precipitous decline in Arctic ice. Let me say that it was a painful experience. The D-K mob thrives over there. One guy was honestly arguing that its been cooling since 2000, so whay the decline in ice? SERIOUSLY. Forget the critical aspects of scale and time lags.
Curry of course downplayed the current data, and then said that she would discuss the ecological implications of the decline in a future posting. I wait with baited breath for her pearls of wisdom in that field of endeavor.
With respect to Watts and his puerile smearing of the fruit fly study, what can one say? As Bernard said, the D-K mob is out in full force on that one. Many of these dolts are ridiculing the paper's findings, even though it was published a very prestigious journal (PNAS). Common taunts over at WUWT are to the effect that insects are 'expendable' as far as humans are concerned (totally and utterly wrong: its actually the other way around as far as the health and vitality of natural systems is concerned) and similar flippant remarks.
There is a large and growing data base showing clearly how the recent warming is harming biodiversity, and not only at the taxonomic or species level, but more importantly at the level of species interactions. We are witnessing phenological disruptions, and differential physiological/behavioral responses of species in tightly interacting food webs. The consequnces of these effects are likely to be borne out in terms of unraveling or fraying food webs, a reduction in systemic resilience and resistance and ultimately local ecosystemic collapse. More worrying will be the loss of critical ecosystem services that nurture and sustain humanity.
Fruit fly responses are merely just another symptom of the global experiment. And of course fruit flies are also integral parts of food webs, harboring their own guilds of natural enemies and being intimately involved in a myriad of biotic interactions. Next thing you know, the WUWT brigade will be mocking nitrogen fixing bacteria in the soil, leguminous plants that fix nitrogen, or marine phytoplankton. After all, these are all tiny organisms, right? They aren't important as far as humans are considered. Or are they?
I would be interested to know what Watts and his merry band of idiots thinks about the loss of wild bees across much of the temperate world as a result of intensive agricultural practices (as well as other anthropogenic stresses). Heck, many of these wild bees are tiny critters, so we don't need 'em do we? This is the prevailing mentality on denier sites, as well as amongst a few unwanted strays that come over here like Karen, Betula, Mack and el Gordo. Forget that our crop production hinges critically on pollinator servcies carried out industriously by these bees and some other tiny seemingly unimportant critters. No, the D-K armchair brigade think that sitting in a warm room in an urban house somewhere whilst being insulated from any aspects of the natural world is a given. They lead their material lives, divorced from the nuanced reality that their existence - from the gases we breathe to the food we eat and clean water we drink to the materials that build our homesand cities - all depend on a stupendous array of biotic interactions occurring over quite different scales of space and time across the biosphere.
Venturing into denier sites is a painful exercise for me. I try to avoid it. There are enough idiots from those sites wandering over to here on occasion to give me severe heart burn without me having to spend time amongst the purveyors of ignorance in their weblogs.
'....will he put HIS life on the line if his prediction is wrong?'
Its the tipping point year, there is nothing to do. If you are correct then we can expect a massive methane release in the next decade and the end of the world as we know it.
On the other hand, if Archy is right, we can expect longer ski seasons.
There might be some mild dislocations, but generally there shouldn't be mass starvation...food security is of the utmost.
'I would be interested to know what Watts and his merry band of idiots thinks about the loss of wild bees across much of the temperate world as a result of intensive agricultural practices (as well as other anthropogenic stresses). '
He said it was a virus and his merry men were relieved.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jun/07/honey-bees-virus-varr…
On the wild side, all is well.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=hive-and-seek-domestic…
A par from that link...
'A new paper, published in the Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society, offers a ray of hope for native bee species. In this research, Droege and his colleagues compiled a list of 770 species that are historically native to the eastern U.S. They sent this list to a network of bee experts, asking them to note which species they had found within the past 20 years. The survey revealed that 95 percent of the bee species that lived 150 years ago have not gone extinct. Thirty-seven species were nowhere to be found, but the researchers pointed out that those bees had been rare to begin with and were often subject to taxonomic confusion. The paper offers "a clarification to the 'all pollinators are going to hell' point of view," Droege says.'
About David Archibald: the following is copied from Climate Institute
David Archibald
Credentials: BSc in 1979. Archibald is described as a scientist operating in the fields of cancer research, climate science, and oil exploration. After graduating from Queensland University in 1979, Archibald worked in oil and then joined the financial industry as a stock analyst. Archibald has been CEO of multiple oil and mineral exploration companies operating in Australia. In oil exploration, he is operator of a number of exploration permits in the Canning Basin, Western Australia. He has not published any scientific articles on climate change or its impacts in peer-reviewed journals.
Some time ago I challenged a claim in the CADA website that Mt Pinatubo emitted more carbon dioxide than the total emitted in the whole history of human burning of fossil fuels. I was asking them for their reference which they obviously could not find, so they passed me on to Archibald, one of their consulting experts. Here is his complete reply:
"I am a geologist and a climate scientist. Natural things cannot emit pollution.
Therefore Mt Pinatubo cannot have emitted pollution.
For your interest, please find attached my last lecture on climate and energy security."
It is an argument that does not even rise to the level of a non sequitur. Mind like a steel trap - rusted shut. "Cancer researcher", Climate scientist", adviser to the likes of Rinehart, IPA and Alan Jones all on the basis of a BSc in Geology. What can they possibly be thinking - or smoking?
Oh......I see Jeff thinks we hate bee's sheeezzzzzz, lol what a dippie.
Also you have quite a few spelling mistake's there again Jeffery, hehe I'm still amazed that all the critters made it past the Holocene :)
Just die, trolls. Die in a horrible accident with all your family supurating their internal organs around you.
You deserve no better.
Hat Mr Gordo, nice to meet you :)
The bunch of B's in here are shakin' in thier boot's at the thought of a confrontation with a varroa mite, it could mean the extinction of the alarmist cult, hehe
err, sorry
Hello Mr Gordo, nice to meet you :)
Gordo, not so keen to defend your failed predictions?
I believed you buddy. I believed the planet was about to plunge into an ice age and that you were the only one brave enough to tell us the truth.
Now you turn out to be another false prophet peddling ideologically-driven nonsense.
I am deeply disappointed in you, son.
"On the other hand, if Archy is right"....
Consideing that IMHO the guy's a crank, one might as well go to a witch-doctor, palm reader or astrologer who probably have about as much expertise as Archibald.
To reiterate, a dearth of relevant qualifications sums up many of the so-called prominent deniers quite well.This is why they are to be ignored.
Karen: you and your brethren in the ignoranti don't hate biodiversity; you just take it for granted, as well as the conditions that allow you to exist (sad thought, that) that are generated and emerge from natural systems (ecosystem services).
The climate change deniers, by-and-large are anti- environmentalists, and its hardly a surprise that many of those denying human effects on the climate are also deniers of other human-induced stresses on the naturasl economy and their attendant effects. As Lewandowsky also showed, the climate change denail blogosphere is littered with pundits on the far right end of the political spectrum. Again, this sordid bunch typically hate science that produces results suggesting more, not less, regulation of corporate activities is required.
On the wild side all is certainly NOT well, El dummo. There is certainly profound concern over poillinator declines as a result of intensive agriculture. In western Europe wild solitary bees are declining. I was recently in Hungary where extensive agricultural methods are still in common use and I was amazed at the huge diversity of insects I observed in flowering meadows. Many species of butterflies, for instance. Here in Holland, aside from 3 species of pierids, its hard to find any wild butterflies in large numbers. A colleague of mine is studying wild bee populations and he asserts the concern of regional population declines that may have implications for pollinator services. And bees are not the only insects providing important service functions that are in trouble, as I said above. Climate change is also causing asymmetric shifts in the distributions of some specialist herbivores and their food plants. Dipsticks like El Gordo sit in front of their computers, find one of two studies, then arrogantly assert that 'all is well'. Sorry, fatty, but it does nto work this way.
Karen, the time you mouth off about dippies may I suggest you take a good, long hard look in the mirror. You'll be staring at a mega-dippie right in the face.
“On the other hand, if Archy is right"
There are nearly an infinite number of wrong answers.
The chances of Archy being right are, appropriately, astronomical.
What if the IPCC are right?
Hi Karen, nice to meet you too.
'As Lewandowsky also showed, the climate change denail blogosphere is littered with pundits on the far right end of the political spectrum.'
:-) Lew
Anyway its not true, I'm of the political left and walked on a single issue...AGW and that fkn tax.
Hasn't someone cleaned the earth of your infection yet, El-G?
"and that fkn tax."
So you object to paying to clean up any mess you cause?
You sure don't like personal responsibility, do you.
Wow has his poodah switched on 24 hours a day and he thinks that by paying more for his electricity he will save the world, lol
There are psychologists who would just LOVE to know where that "idea" came from, spots.
It is the mother and father of all segues. Completely divorced from any conceivable prior.
This article,and the references therein, sums it up and pretty well demolishes El Gordo's feeble exercise:
http://unaf-apiculture.info/presse/dossier_Gallai_2009_EcolEcon_68_810…
That statement of Jeff's should be emblazoned on the forehead of 'the crackpot' brigade here. But heck I doubt that they understand what you are on about Jeff - 'Phenotype what's that? I hear grinding in their little grey cells. They cannot cope with more than one variable at a time so the thought that two species, maybe from different branches of the tree of life and geographically seperated, could become developmentally disjointed by one reacting to a change in temperature and the other by the timings of changes from day to night and back again.
Throw in the additional problems of migration caused by changing wind and weather patterns and the barriers erected by humans and you have an entire ecological web under stress. Then there are the issues of over-harvesting, pesticides, neonicotinoides - think of tobacco dangers thereof -etc.
Something else that should be emblazoned on the foreheads of the jerks are these epithetes:
'I must learn about latent heat and heat capacities.'
'I must find out about ocean and atmospheric circulations and how they can become disrupted.'.
'I must learn about ocean and atmospheric chemistry and physics.'
'A study of oceanography would be a must for me'.
'I need to study ecology and the known facts about the evolution of life'.
But of course all that takes time and effort and the negotiation of difficult texts containing many new and big words. Indeed considerable effort would need to be expended by the likes of the nuts that show up here - they are starting from a very low base.
Lionel: excellent post.
And to follow on from El Gordo's 'wild pollinators are fine' nonsense:
Still more evidence of a global decline in pollinators...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120904101128.htm
I could provide ample evidence also for declines in species and guilds involved in a range of other vital ecological processes. It is profoundly frustrating when D-K acolytes try and give the impression of competence in areas they have never studied and of which they know virtually nothing. But the weblogs are full of self-educated wannabes who think they know more than scientists who have spent decades studying various fields. The climate change denial crowd is dominated by them. Every skeptical web site is chock full of 'experts' who have never published a paper, or who have never been close to a science lab, workshop or conference in their lives.
The only thing that has not been falsified.
Well known Denier, friend of Heartland, and all-round Wing-nut Cory Bernardi has just resigned as fellow Denier and all-round Wing-nut Tony's Parliamentary Secretary over his poisonous ravings about gay marriage.
This buffoon is an embarrassment to South Australia, and the Liberal Party here really ought to be ashamed for dishing up such an unrepresentative extremist as their no. one Senate candidate. The man was born on the wrong continent: he belongs in the Tea Party.
Wow
10:57 am
The carbon tax was introduced as a way to force users to reduce power consumption and that in turn will (supposedly) reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by .00000000005 ppm within 3624 years and save the bee's.
So Wow...........why haven't you reduced your electricity consumption ?
Has anybody in here ?
NO NO NO would be the answer !
See..........the carbon tax doesn't even make the alarmist's reduce their power usage, I reckon that would indicate that none of you are serious about this CO2 thingo.
Um.......how did the flowers get pollinated during the holocene ?
Why weren't we all dead before we were born :)
So birdbrain dill, you live in South Australia !
No wonder you believe in gwowbull warming so ardently, you live in the dessert, lol, hehe, lol
RE: insidious stupidity: please see Karen's 2 most recent posts above.
If many pollinators had become extinct during the Holocene, you moron, then most flowering plants would have followed suit. Without flowering plants, there would have been massive and widespread ecosystem collapse acorss much of the biosphere. Most plants are pollinated by other species - with insects perhaps the most important - and not passively.
The vast majority of species extant today have been around 100,000 or more years; many have been around for a million or longer. Insects in particular have long shelf-lives under normal circumstances. Your Holocene argument is therefore complete and utter tosh. Please find some reference to suggest that there was a mass extinction event of invertebrates during the Holocene. Like many self-taught pundits, your attempt at dabbling in paleoecology is showing us all here how vacuous you really are.
ALARM ALARM ALARM
DING DING DING
Hehehe, your a bit (read allot) slow orf the mark Jeff, lol
SEE!
PROOF the deniers are ALARMISTS.
"The carbon tax was introduced as a way to force users to reduce power consumption "
No it wasn't. It was to pay for the externalities of the mess you made that you don't want to take responsibility for.
Kraken stop behaving like you have had a lobotomy and consider that there are an awful lot of people who are not laughing because of the climate impacting on their lives such as to destroy their homes, their living or even their families.
You are becoming increasingly supercilious in a malicious and cold hearted way. Here are some areas where many are not laughing Interactive Wildfire Map Shows Outbreaks in Real-Time.
Have you no intimation of how serious events such as this are. When the glaciers that feed the watercourses in those areas are gone they will have nothing with which to fight the fires. Permanent evacuation will be the only option, plus extinction for most species.
But any time soon, as rising ocean waters cause tectonic stresses on coastlines then the whole Cascade fault system could slip into motion with off shore submarine landslides and earth movements that could cause tsunamis that will make the 2004 Boxing Day event in the East Indies seem like a ripple in the bath.
You really have no idea of the dangers we face.
"Kraken stop behaving like you have had a lobotomy"
This is like asking someone who is drunk not to act like they're drunk.
Oh, the irony...
I offered you a legally-binding contract taht would be completely impervious to any mental deficiency that you might perceive on my part, and the intercession of an impartial third party to hold the funds in escrow so that neither party could take advantage.
All that was required of you is that you stand by your claim that the Arctic is not melting at an unprecedented rate. You soiled yourself and ran away.
To date not a single global warming denier that I've challenge to put their money where their mouth is has had the balls to do so. And you know why? It's because you're all a bunch of jack-booted, lily-livered, self-indulgent, biocidal maniacs with no functioning intellects to speak of, and an extreme distaste for applying the same rules to yourselves that you seek to apply to others.
The usual suspects still regurgitating the usual obsessions I see
:-)
So, are you better off than four years ago? Or five (if we refer to the last IPCC report)? Are things coming around and finally going your way? Anything catching up with the predictions yet? How far behind schedule is the promissed global mean temperature by now? What chances for it to catch up once more? Or that this trailing is nothing but a temporary and natural fluctuation disguising the real trend?
It's been over a year fellows. So how are these alleged and large positive feedbacks coming around? Still there? In all the simulations? Has anybody yet figured out what Jeff H meant by 'doing something about it' wrt to glaciers melting? Or about any arctic summer sea ice minimum for that matter?
Just wondering ...
:-)
"It’s been over a year fellows. So how are these alleged and large positive feedbacks coming around?"
Given the sea ice at the north pole has been on the news everywhere as collapsing even faster than expected, rather odd you should have missed it.
I guess for you, ignorance is not only bliss, it is the only option.
As if the PBS special with Muller rolled out and Watts given far too much latitude there is another Muller story kicking about and this time Deep Climate digs into Muller's CBC broadcast.
Some while back either here or on another blog I posited that Muller is less trustworthy where opinions on climate scientists are being offered along with a number of other worries. Well colour me stupid but there is Muller supporting the Kochs. Well I'll be damned!
For those not with the UK idiom that last expression is an alternative to, well I am not surprised!
'MULTI-BILLION-DOLLAR subsidies for solar rooftop panels would be dumped under a plan by some of Australia's biggest industrial power users, who warn they face an explosion in costs for a federal renewable scheme favouring intermittent wind and solar electricity technologies that only provide part-time electricity supplies.'
Annabel Hepworth in the Oz
Wow
So you believe it has been established that it is CO2 and those alleged large positive feedbacks that have caused the somewhat lower arctic ice summer minimum?
Well, if that has been in the news I did in fact miss it completely.
BTW, what is 'collapsing sea ice' anywhay? Sounds like Gore-speak to me ...
Yes and yes, Joan.
And I would suggest you get a dictionary.
And a teacher.
"Annabel Hepworth in the Oz"
So what she's reporting on is alarmism from industry leaders.
Why tell us?
'All that was required of you is that you stand by your claim that the Arctic is not melting at an unprecedented rate.'
The melting is not unprecedented, but its hard to verify one way or another.
The Guardian article gave a clear indication that Arctic waters will be free of ice in the summer of 2015 and that's a worthwhile bet....something which can be easily verified.
"The melting is not unprecedented, but its hard to verify one way or another."
Then how do you know it is not unprecedented?
I would suggest you and Joan get together to buy a dictionary and hire a teacher for remedial classes.
"The Guardian article gave a clear indication that Arctic waters will be free of ice in the summer of 2015 and that’s a worthwhile bet"
You've already been asked for a bet on something verifiable.
'You’ve already been asked for a bet on something verifiable.'
We need a definitive winner and in this two horse race the 2015 deadline is clearcut.
No, you needed something verifiable.
That is all you wanted.
Or at least that's what you SAID.
I guess you lied.
'I guess you lied.'
Joker.
Care to bet on a freezing winter in the UK?
Oh lookee - it's Jonarse back with his second language ("somewhat lower", read: record) word-play.
It can only be a matter of time before his accompanying quotient of remedial-requiring numpties turn up to worship every syllable from the Arse of Jon and take advantage of Tim's current infirm status. Because that's the kinda people they are.
"Care to bet on a freezing winter in the UK?"
So you weren't even interested in the arctic ice, then?
And odd that you're not even willing to bet on YOUR prediction of 1.5C increase in global average temperatures by 2015.
'...take advantage of Tim’s current infirm status.'
Its news to me and I'm sorry to hear it.
'And odd that you’re not even willing to bet on YOUR prediction of 1.5C increase in global average temperatures by 2015.'
Do try and keep up, its 1.5 decrease in New Hampshire around 2020....that's what Archy said.
We should see some signs by 2015, so let the cherry picking begin.
So Jonarse seeks to pretend that satellite observations since 1979 are the sum total of what's known about arctic ice cover.
No wonder he and his ilk are so malleable.
Gee, all the chimps are here for their Tea Party.
Nice fellow-travellers you've got, supposed 'lefty' Bubbles.
If you had any decency, if you really had to return you'd stay in your respective enclosures, and then anyone who wished to while away the hours 'debating' you would, at least, be doing it voluntarily, and you wouldn't be taking advantage of our hosts infirmity.
That's a very big 'if'.
Meanwhile back in the real world Oberauer and Lewandowsky land some very palpable hits on 'expert' McIntyre.
Karen:
You didn't get very far at all before saying something wrong (as usual). The primary purpose of the carbon tax is to shift energy production away from carbon-emitting sources and toward non-carbon emitting sources. If it reduces consumption then that helps but it's not necessary.
Another day, another misrepresentation.
Global warming is good for biodiversity, so global cooling is probably not.
http://theconversation.edu.au/competition-warming-and-its-effect-on-bio…
A step change in solar indices around 2005.
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/281
Trust fatso to cherry pick Peter Mayhew's latest study to draw his own conclusions. And also trust him to ignorantly ignore dozens of other studies that draw different short-term conclusions. Science does not work by consensus Gordo. But it does work on the basis of probabilities. And there is an ongoing debate in the scientific community (myself included, since some of my empirical research overlaps with the models Peter is producing) as to the effects of the human experiment on biodiversity over different scales.
Several points: Peter is a friend and colleague and in no way would he ever argue that AGW is beneficial in terms of its effects on the planet's complex adaptive systems. His models are certainly open to discussion for the simple reason that they appear to rely heavily on certain parameters - lie metabolic rate, temperature induced stress etc. whilst ignoring others, such as broader phenological processes and non-linear effects on system dynamics. They also don't pay enough attention in my view to rates of change in temperature, precipitation and other abiotic characters that are invariably important as well. The model also ignores effects of warming at biome edges, as well as on interactions between soil and above-ground biota. No doubt his paper will generate debate but is it the bottom line? Of course not. Deniers like Gordo think that they can pluck a single study from the theoretical and empirical literature and then say it trumps everything else. I am certain that Peter would be pretty dismayed that D-K people like Gordo (and Jonas, who has waded back here with his arrogant brand of willful ignorance) would (ab)use his study to bolster their own short-term political agendas.
One might say that clear cutting a forest increases local biodiversity in terms of species that thrive in disturbed habitats or habitat edges but is this a good thing? Moreover, is the rate of ice loss in the Arctic unprecedented? Of course we can't say for sure but the fact that 2/3 of it has disappeared in just over three decades is of profound concern. Given that this is the blink of a temporal eye, it would require some massive external forcing to account for it. Its too bad that uneducated boffins like the deniers who contaminate this site are all non-scientists who do not have a clue about the importance of scale and of the difference between a stochastic process and a deterministic one.
New paper shows Canadian temperatures as warm or warmer many times over past 785 years
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/new-paper-shows-canadian-t…
chek, Jeff H and Chris O'Neill ...
Still not even reading what is actually said?
Jeff H ...
Still in the belief that mentioning D-K is an 'argument' in your favour?
I even notice that some here think mentioning Lewandowsky does the same trick.
Hilarious!
Back on the payroll again, Joan?
"Do try and keep up, its 1.5 decrease in New Hampshire around 2020"
Which bit of New Hampshire.
And from what period is this shift asserted?
And you STILL haven't said that you're willing to bet on it.
If you can't keep up with your OWN statements, how can anyone else be censured for failing?
"Wow, have you seen the ice cubes ‘collapse’ in your drink"
Yes.
Are you under the impression that the entire ocean fits into a glass tumbler?
Are you saying that there is ABSOLUTLY NO ICE on land?
"Mine just melt … but just maybe yours do collapse."
So there was no collapse of the stock market five years ago?
Or are you just uneducated and unaware of the use of the English language?
"Still not even reading what is actually said? "
You missed out the "I am" at the beginning there.
'Science does not work by consensus Gordo.'
Really? What about the 97 percent of atmospheric scientists who believe in AGW?
What about them?
Just because science doesn't work by consensus, doesn't mean consensus cannot happen or is indicative of nothing.
97% of scientists didn't get round and agree that AGW was real then made it.
97% of scientists got round to the evidence and disovered AGW is real.
You really are a retarded little oik, aren't you?
And what about the 100% of deniers who believe AGW is wrong?
Are you going to say that they aren't doing science? Or that they're wrong?
'And from what period is this shift asserted?'
It has already begun and I'll be keeping a close eye on the NAO and AO index this winter.
"It has already begun"
That isn't a date. It is in contravention to the fact that you've been bleating on about this for years.
Michael Mann on the LIA...just so we know what to look forward to.
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/shared/articles/littleiceage.pdf
'That isn’t a date. It is in contravention to the fact that you’ve been bleating on about this for years.'
Climate change is a slow process, yet by joining the weather dots we might see what is happening more clearly.
A par from that link....
'The increased variability of the climate may have led to alterna- tions between unusually cold winters and relatively warm summers. A severe winter preceded the hot summer that precipitated the Great Fire of London in 1666. A harsh winter followed by a warm summer may have added to the discontent of peasants who stormed the Bastille in Paris during the summer of 1789.'
Damn... the weather blows hot and cold.
Here is a bit of info for the numpties that think Antarctica is losing mass
GRACE satellite data shows Antarctica is gaining ice mass
Antarctica is home to 90% of the world's ice mass. Although Antarctic sea ice is currently at a record high and recent research predicts Antarctic land ice will continue to grow during this century, some warmists continue to believe that Antarctica is melting down. Additional evidence shows that the "most vulnerable" portion of Antarctica, the Antarctic Peninsula, has gained up to 45 meters of ice over the past 155 years. Gravitational data from the GRACE satellites also show that the vast majority of Antarctica is gaining, not losing, mass. Trend plots from the GRACE data browser, using all available online data, show that Antarctica has continued to gain mass since the beginning of the mission in 2001:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/grace-satellite-data-shows…
Gwowbull warming ain't Gwowbull :)
"Climate change is a slow process"
So why do you keep wittering on about "cooling in the past 12 years" or whatever when you're trying to prove something about the change in climate, you buffoon?
"GRACE satellite data shows Antarctica is gaining ice mass"
Says a denier site...
“cooling in the past 12 years”
Plateaued before the tipping point.
The fact that Antarctica is gaining mass while the Arctic is losing it ...suggests the 'saw tooth' is operating normally.
I see the idiot undeducated denier brigade is trying to take over Deltoid. What a travesty.
The latest comes from Karen's cutting and psting of b* from a denier blog, and, as usual, not from the primary literature. Thus it is to be patently ignored. The scientific community will, even if idiots like Karen wallow in this bilge.
Then from El Fatso:
"Damn… the weather blows hot and cold." Try then explaining why there are several times as many warm temperature records being broken relative to cold temperature records at present. Its at a ratio of more than 3 to 1 now. So its blowing mostly hot.
What's embarrassing speaking as a scientist is to see so many idiots pontificating as if they have the same skills in the field as researchers who studied climate science at the undergraduate, doctorate, post-doctoral and tenured academic levels. When I make one of my rare forays into a denial blog (or reluctantly engage with the cartoon-level brigade here) what strikes me is that they think they know a lot about fields in which they are imbeciles. This is why the Dunning-Kruger stduy is so appropriate in describing them. When he was confined to his own sad little thread we had Jonas pleading over and over with the weasel words that 'he knew what he was talking about'. That he knew more than anyone else on Deltoid about climate science. That he could tell a 'real' scientist from a fake, and that he could adjudicate on the status of scholars like Trenberth, Mann, Hansen, Schmidt and others (including me). When asked what his special qualifications were in any scientific field: SILENCE. AVOIDANCE. The same applies here to Karen, El Gordo and the other self-proferssed experts who can't tell their asses from their feet. They aren't interested in science that they know nothing about. Its all about politics. Lewandowsky's study has made such a spalsh amopngst deniers for the simple reason that it's true.
Another of el Gordo's idiotic response to my psoting:
"Really? What about the 97 percent of atmospheric scientists who believe in AGW?"
Fatty, there is difference between science and public policy. The fact that well over 90% of climate sciedntists agree that humans are forcing climate is remarkable. In very few fields of endeavor would there be such strong agreement. The only reason that any controversy exists is because measures to deal with climate change will affect the way we do business. It will mean that major changes will have to be made to the ways people live in the rich overconsumptive world, as well as affect the profit making capacity of a suite of transnational corporations. Hence the hostilty aimed at climate science and scientists for producing conclusions that are at odds with a prevailing tenet of our rapacious economic system. But the point is for a dingbat like you (because you can't see the wood from the trees) is that public policy cannot be diluted: it must be based on consensus.
Aside from this, its heartening to go to conferences and to discuss these issues with acadmeics who know what they are talking about, not dolts like Karen and el Gordo who think they know a lot. El Gordo makes a flippant remark about the state of pollinators. He does a cursory search on google,. finds one study in an innocuous journal that draws cautious conclusions. He ingores this, and then paints broad conclusions on the basis of it. I log into the Web of Science and can find sozens of studies showing negative effects of various human activities on the abundance of pollinators.
The the silly twerp makes a flippant remark about biodiversity benefitting from climate warming. This, on the basis of a single modelling study by Peter Mayhew. Again, log into the Web of Science and check out the number of studies showing negative effects on species and species-interactions as a result of climate change. There are many hundreds. And bear in mind that Peter was not making a point about climate warming being a good thing - this is a conclusion drawn from the reader who has a pre-determined world view. This isn't science.
Karen is a master of that. (S)he pastes a study up here without actually reading it, except for a few snippets from the abstract. The papers often state that human-induced warming is an unambiguous reality somewhewre in the discussion. This kind of distortion and mis-interpetation of the work of scientists is something the denier/anti-environmental crowd is good at. Lomborg did it. C02 Science does it. The deniers on Deltoid do it. Perhaps because none of them have any relevant expertise and have never been near a science lab in their lives, combined with their pre-determined views of the field, they think that it fine to cherry-pick data, to misquote scientists and to distort the findings of their work to bolster their own views. The truth is that this kind of behavior is reprehensible.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/arctic-storm.html
If that cyclone hadn't smashed the sea ice to bit's then no doubt the area of ice melt would have been less than 2007. If only they could produce an actual ice melt graph, lol
Many many times Jeffery you have been given links to studies that prove that the planet has been warmer in the past, has warmed quickly in the past and also you have been given peer reviewed papers that demonstrate that the warming we did see up until 1998 cannot be proven to be anything other than natural.
read this http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S003358941200110X
Now put all of your crappy papers on a nail in the dunny, they will serve a useful purpose there. :)
"Plateaued before the tipping point."
Whenever you get a local maximum, you have a decrease.
You're STILL wibbling on about something too short for climate.
Apparently you don't understand a word you say. Just trotting out stock phrases from your masters.
"The fact that Antarctica is gaining mass"
No such fact exists.
"links to studies that prove that the planet has been warmer in the past, has warmed quickly in the past"
You haven't yet managed to do that once.
"peer reviewed papers that demonstrate that the warming we did see up until 1998 cannot be proven to be anything other than natural."
And you've been given dozens that prove that the warming we did see up until 1998 cannot be proven to be anything other than human caused.
http://www.ipcc.ch
I have written to the author of the paper that was discussed on the denier blog Katen posted. My guess is that she will distance herslef from those abusing science to promote their onw agendas.
As for Karen's links, they don't exist. Most proxies support Mann's results, hence why the NAS has supported the IPCC position. What Karen does here is to either paste links to climate change denial sites misinterpreting (or selectively citing) the results of study, or else pastes only the abstract, where the conclusions as written by the scientists who did the study generally differ profoundly from her interpretation.
Karen writes as if the scientific community, by-and-large, is indifferent to the empirical evidence for AGW. Only someone typing away in a closet or in their basement could write such twaddle.
"peer reviewed papers that demonstrate that the warming we did see up until 1998 cannot be proven to be anything other than natural.”
.. except that is was predicted decades before by Revelle and Keeling on the basis of increases in atmospheric C02 levels, as well as in a congressional study commissioned by the Johnson adminstration in 1965.
Just more inconvenient facts that the deniers ignore. They write as if AGW just jumped intot he academic arena after 1998.
Remember, Jeff, to the libertarians and far right, truth is an acceptable casualty if it is sacrificed to ensure that liberals, lefties and people who have long hair are made out to be wrong by lying.
Here is the latest Jeffery dear, this clearly tell's you that what you are seeing today has happened before.
You are in denial, you just can't face the fact that climate is cyclic and you can't see any further back than your last pay cheque.
Abstract
Most glaciers in the British Columbia Coast Mountains reached their maximum Holocene extent during the Little Ice Age. Early- and late-Little Ice Age intervals of expansion and retreat fluctuations describe a mass-balance response to changing climates. Although existing dendroclimatic records provide insights into these climatic fluctuations over the last 400 yr, their short durations prohibit evaluation of early-Little Ice Age climate variability. To extend the duration of these records, submerged coarse woody debris salvaged from a high-elevation lake was cross-dated to living chronologies. The resulting chronology provides the opportunity to reconstruct a regional June–July air-temperature anomaly record extending from AD 1225 to 2010. The reconstruction shows that the intervals AD 1350–1420, 1475–1550, 1625–1700 and 1830–1940 characterized distinct periods of below-average June–July temperature followed by periods of above-average temperature. Our reconstruction provides the first annually resolved insights into high-elevation climates spanning the Little Ice Age in this region and indicates that Little Ice Age moraine stabilization corresponds to persistent intervals of warmer-than-average temperatures. We conclude that coarse woody debris submerged in high-elevation lakes has considerable potential for developing lengthy proxy climate records, and we recommend that researchers focus attention on this largely ignored paleoclimatic archive.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S003358941200110X
Last I saw, at least in the US, this year was running at 10:1 but I haven't checked again lately.
And "loading the climate dice", if it increases variance (as it seems to) can increase the probability of extreme low events as well as extreme highs.
Wait, wait, don't tell me - you have a model that's accurate enough to determine that?
Pray tell, what does your super-accurate model tell you about the distinctly negative multi-decadal trend and the future prognosis for Arctic sea ice?
And given that you have such a super-accurate model, but are not taking Bernard's bet, why should anyone believe that it says anything other than what Bernard says about the future of Arctic sea ice?
'You’re STILL wibbling on about something too short for climate.'
Could we agree at this juncture that a decade is climate, as opposed to the standard 30 years so loved by the warmists?
"Most glaciers in the British Columbia Coast Mountains reached their maximum Holocene extent during the Little Ice Age."
And if this is supposed to tell us that the retreat of THESE SPECIFIC glaciers is due to "we're coming out of the Little Ice Age", then what was their extent before the LIA?
Because a RETURN to pre-LIA lengths is all you would get if the retreat is ONLY because the glaciers extended during the LIA.
PS given the Arctic Ice wasn't anywhere near this reduced for measurably 14,000 years and the LIA was a lot more recent than that, your proposition is proven false.
An aerial view of 80 years of climate-related glacier fluctuations in southeast Greenland
"Furthermore, the recent retreat was matched in its vigour during a period of warming in the 1930s with comparable increases in air temperature. We show that many land-terminating glaciers underwent a more rapid retreat in the 1930s than in the 2000s, whereas marine-terminating glaciers retreated more rapidly during the recent warming."
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n6/full/ngeo1481.html
"Could we agree at this juncture that a decade is climate"
No.
You're like saying "OK, how about agreeing that THREE rolls of the dice can show whether it's loaded or not?".
You are completely clueless as to how to determine statistical significance and additionally clueless about electrical (or other engineering) signal to noise ratio consequences.
HINT: Why do you think that in a noisy 2.4GHz environment your WiFi point drops down to a lower data rate?
"An aerial view of 80 years of climate-related glacier fluctuations in southeast Greenland"
This, now, is the world? I thought it was ONLY Central England.
Or USA!USA!USA!
Now, apparently, it's a small part of Greenland.
PS what does greenland have to do with arctic ice?
To eliminate year-to-year variations they chose 30 years as climate...I thought with the new technologies we might be able to fast track.
Why on earth did you think that better measuring technology would change the signal to noise ratio in the weather???
Karen confuses 'intervals' for 'cycles'....not relationship whatever technically, K....you might keep searching for papers. Look for the one on Canadian glaciers that demonstrates that they are at the lowest level in 5-7000 years- that is,since the Holocene climate optimum. Or similar on NW USA glaciers. Or similar on European ice.
Give us a real literature review,dimwit.
Dunderhead or dissembler. I figure both.
What do you think a 30 year, a 17 year or any other period <=10 is used?
Whatever that is not what defines climate. A I indicated above follow those tenets that I suggested should be stamped on your forehead.
The hot money is on an early winter in the US...read the natural signs along with the models.
http://blog.sfgate.com/ski/2012/09/13/bird-migration-forecasts-early-wi…
So you don't know why you think that better instruments reduce the noise in the weather systems which are UNAFFECTED by the instruments used to measure it?
I take it then that you agree to use 30 years.
Didn't you just say yesterday that it was the UK going to have a cold winter? And by the USA, you DO know it extends quite a long way. When the last snowstorm was making headlines along the west coast, the east coast was roasting their nuts off. Remember that?
Overall, even though the headlines were all on about how cold it was in Florida, the average temperature for the USA that winter was higher than the 50 year average around 1970.
He just can't help himself.
I wonder why people bother buying expensive thermometers when they can get a pigeon instead and use that to measure the temperature...
Jeff Harvey
10:10 am
"Karen is a master of that. (S)he pastes a"
Hey Jeffery, when are you "coming out"?
and I don't mean with me :)
So, having gotten nowhere with false claims of having given any proof at all of AGW being false, you return to chatting up your betters?
What a bimbo...
woW this is yooooo :)
http://farcanal.biz/catalog/images/WM2844.gif
lol
No.
Is it you?
no doubt you use tweezers, lol
I don't have tweezers.
What is your obsession about now?
Karen,
For all I know you're a hermaphrodite. Certainly a shape-shifter. One thing is for certain: you aren't particularly intelligent. Deceptive yes, as you are pretty good at distorting the conclusions of a few peer-reviewed studies, but lacking in acumen whan it comes to reading the entire studies to the end. Especially the parts where the authors acknowledge the human fingerprint over the recent warming episode.
But don't fret. Most science-hating climate change deniers aren't the brightest bulbs on the Christmas tree. What is ironic is that they THINK they are clever. But it takes a lot of gall - or stupidity more like - for people who have never studied a particular field at all to honestly think they've mastered it. And even more gall or stupidity to think they have stumbled onto something that has eluded the scientific community writ large. You see, that's what you, El Fatto, Jonas and your sad lot have in common. The belief that your wisdom trumps the scientific community including people with many years of pedigree in the field of climate science. That you all know more as individuals than Ben Santer, Michael Mann, Kevin Trenberth, James Hansen, Phil Jones, Gavin Schmidt, and hundreds of others who have invested years in their professions. I suppose that you may be a dedicated blogger, or have read a few books by Plimer, Milloy and Carter, but I am afraid that if you were to apply for an academic position at a university or research institution, your application would be summarily dismissed. Of course it would, because you've not done the mileage (any mileage, as it turns out). But this doesn't stop you and the other deniers from wading into the blogosphere like silverback gorillas pounding your chests with confidence of your knowledge and wisdom. Jonas may hate the truth, but this is the perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger phenomenon.
Thankfully, science by blog is more of a forum for discussion than a platform for deniers to be taken seriously. Certainly Watts, McIntyre and others who don't do primary research have an audience amongst the faithfully deluded, unfortunately including people with power and priviledge. This is because, as I have said, their message resonates with a small but powerful lobby which despises any form of government regulation that might just limit their profit-making capacity. But most scientists worth their degrees don't listen to them or take them at all seriously. If the blog-deniers would get off their backsides and do some of their own primary research they might make a bit of a splash, but instead, like creationists who are challenged empirically, their only strategy is to sit behind their keyboards and to try and pick holes in AGW theory.
Its too bad that corporate PR has been successful enough in taking some of the general public along for the ride.
"If that cyclone hadn’t smashed the sea ice to bit’s then no doubt the area of ice melt would have been less than 2007. "
Perhaps Karen could explain how that is possible when 2012 was 500,000 sq kms below 2007 before the storm formed, but lost ground to 2007 during the storm? 10 days afted the storm first hit, 2012 was only 300,000 sq km's below 2007. That storm helped stop 2012 breaking the record by even more, that much is obvious.
"If only they could produce an actual ice melt graph, lol"
So what is Karen saying, that this ice that the cyclone "smashed to bit's" [sic] didn't melt, but just ... I don't know... vanished?
I mean, if it did melt thats what the graph is showing. And if it didn't melt, what happened to it? NASA need to distinguish melting ice from magically disappearing ice, is that what Karen means? Belongs in the same bucket as all Karens other notions about maths and science...
Here are links for the Dunning Krugerites who think Antarctica is gaining mass:
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/grace20120208bot.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/GRACE-and-glaciers.html
"So what is Karen saying, that this ice that the cyclone “smashed to bit’s” [sic] didn’t melt, but just … I don’t know… vanished? "
Sank.
Obviously, it sank. Or was dragged down by the polar bears who are in on the whole AGW scam so they can eat libertarians for lunch in their New World Order.
I think this is the most revealingly clueless comment el gordo has come up with (although there have been many other close contenders). El gordo: you are a shrimp with aspirations to be a shark.
Karen: warmer temperatures --> more moisture in the atmosphere --> more precipitation --> more snow if the temperature is low enough --> more ice in Antarctica. You've been told this many times. Do you suffer from Alzheimer's?
Karen if you have a shred of intelligence then the SkS article that Ian pointed to above (thanks Ian I was looking for that too):
'Satellites find over 500 billion tons of land ice melting worldwide every year, headlines focus on Himalayas
should frighten you silly.
Ooops! Was forgetting. You are already silly. Perhaps I should have written witless, but heck you beat me to that too.
Don't worry Jeff, with every post these idiots make they make themselves look progressively more thoughtless in more senses than one.
The stupid is very strong in this one though.
"The stupid is very strong in this one though."
It is definitely testing Einstein's theory of Universe vs Human Stupidity quite effectively.
It's definite. The blog owner can reroute comments from users to /dev/null automatically.
The appearance and continued existence of the trolls is therefore due to the owner of the blog letting them.
They may not be pulling the trigger, but they're giving the shooter tea and biscuits and a helpful little stand.
Wow
I have a feeling that the blog owner has other more important things on his mind right now. I don't know any of the details but there was a message of sympathy from:
joni
September 14, 4:31 pm
See page 2.
I'm not saying that this is more important (unlike if he were spending his time posting under the nom de plume of karen, for example), but that this system does allow dumping of posters and that we can hope that the karens can be got shot of.
I don't hold much hope because of the differing psychologies and self-perceptions in the current neocon right and right-leaning left paradigm ensures that (much as in the old days among the EXTREMELY wealthy and old families), the rightwing trolls will be given much more leeway to "prove" that the owner isn't a bad guy, whereas the right give short shrift to "the enemy" and banhammers away knowing that they're doing the "right thing".
Didn't you lot just insist that some "proof" of AGW being over should be accepted because of the author's CV?
I take it that CVs are only acceptable if you use it to prop up the facist libertarian ideals, right?
"You really really really want to believe this, don’t you"
You really really really want to believe it's false.
Except you can't. Deniers have been unintentionally proving the premise.
Do you know what I've just realised is really weird about the Muslim rioting over depictions of Mohammed?
Despite this being an attack (and moreover an attack with NO OTHER PURPOSE than to attack) religion and a god that is THE EXACT SAME GOD as the christians believe in, they don't complain about this attack against religion.
Indeed they insist that the outrage these few muslims feel is wrong and indicative of how broken and incorrect their faith is.
Yet they complain loudly about atheists and secularists attacking christianity (alone. For some reason they think that islam is not treated so because of fear of reprisal, the closes they get to approbation of the rioting).
And when it comes to the imams exhorting with inflamed rhetoric and loaded words to kill infidels and/or become suicide bombers, the christians (like most of the west) say that this is wrong and that these men are the cause of the riots by their words. Yet the same people (most of the US, really) insist that hate speech being banned is evil and wrong, that the exhorttions, inflamed speaches and loaded rhetoric of the Hannitys, Becks and so on are NOT responsible for the deaths that result, but that these people were acting alone and no blame should be apportioned to the rightwing nutjobs telling these dumb sheep that Obama is out to take their guns and kill their grandmothers so that the Black Panthers can take their money.
Channelling the Bolter...
Record ice melt in the Arctic - 5040 mentions in Google News overnight.
Record ice in the Antarctic: 962 mentions.
'I take it then that you agree to use 30 years.'
That's fine, it was merely a technical suggestion before the game begins.
'And by the USA, you DO know it extends quite a long way.'
West and central west will be cooler and longer.
'Indeed they insist that the outrage these few muslims feel is wrong and indicative of how broken and incorrect their faith is.'
Wow, drop into TDT and we can have a discussion on the subject...doesn't seem appropriate at Deltoid.
http://thedailytrash.wordpress.com/2012/09/16/carry-on-muhammad/#commen…
El G,some simple reasons why the Arctic gets more interest than the Antarctic: the effects of polar amplification are being felt there,as predicted,more rapidly than in the south. And more rapidly than modelled. And hundreds of millions of people are in reach of weather system perturbation facilitated by the massive change of net ice presence.
Arctic has lost 75% of its sea ice volume in 30 years,50% of its summer extent,and 15% of its winter spread. Shows decline in all seasonal areal averages. Massive rapid change in albedo,ocean temperature and Arctic shoreline erosion is widespread. Polar jet stream is flapping around like a fire hose. Big consequences for northern agriculture,and infrastructure.
Antarctica sea ice by contrast pretty much trendless.
So Bolt can compare two events in terms of google counts?
He's bright,isn't he?
Jonarse said:"I mean you are really pinning all your hopes to that Lewandowsky’s study is real science and holds any and at least some tiny bit of water!?
The really really azmusing part (though obviously not from you and your fellow cranks perspectives) was that Lewandowsky’s study started off holding, sa,y a notional litre of water. But by the time the all-superstar crank denier team had added their collective penniesworth it had grown to a veritable Olympic sized swimming pool. Of course, confirmation bias will prevent you from ever recognising that.
But rest assured, we know it's there. It's been self-demonstrated multiple times by McIntyre and on down.
"West and central west will be cooler and longer."
Than what?
'Polar jet stream is flapping around like a fire hose. Big consequences for northern agriculture,and infrastructure.'
It's natural, Nick. Its why we get these 'cold air outbreaks' (CAO) over Europe.
The Bolter is simply illustrating confirmation bias, which keeps the masses ignorant and compliant. Excellent propaganda, congrats.
'Than what?'
Than otherwise may have been the case in a warm PDO.
So that would be four floodleduffers or six?
Jeezus, can you get any more content free?
"It’s natural, Nick. Its why we get these ‘cold air outbreaks’ (CAO) over Europe."
Of course it's natural. The Weather Organisations don't have weather satellites that make the weather like they depict in Superman 2.
However, why is it happening? And why so long? Everything has a REASON, Elge.
The reason for this one is the warming of the arctic.
Caused (naturally) by CO2 pumped into the atmosphere by humans (naturally).
'However, why is it happening? And why so long?'
Its natural and there is nothing we can do about it.
The fact is that it's the natural consequence of AGW.
Naturally, you resist this acknowedgement because you cannot let those hippies win.
"Antarctica sea ice by contrast pretty much trendless"
While the deniers are busy squirrel spotting, Tamino does the analysis.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/09/20/poles-apart/
Absolutely. These idiots, like the fundamentalists they so closely resemble, managed to turn a relatively minor paper, saying something no-one on either side of the debate - if they're honest* - was surprised by, into a cause célèbre, in the process confirming its findings to the nth degree.
*again, this is a very big 'if'.
'deniers are busy squirrel spotting'
It's a game, relax and enjoy.
Does anyone know when we can expect to see icebergs off Margaret River?
On January 2, 1868 the 1326 ton clipper "Mermaid" arrived in Lyttelton after an 89 day passage from GB and it was reported that, " When in the vicinity of Cape Leeuwin, Captain Rose and his officers had an anxious time avoiding 30 huge icebergs."
Natural variability rules.
And Wow manages to find an equivalence between the spittle-flecked calls to murder by imams at Friday prayers world-wide that regularly lead to many murders, with the derisory nonsense emitted by shock-jocks to wind up the cranky pensioners and which have perhaps been linked to the odd murder here or there by people mistaking correlation for causation.
You were the appeasers in the 1930s. Will you stick with the same term for the 21st century or find a new one?
It didn't matter how nice some Germans were in the 1930s and it doesn't matter how nice some muslims are now - ignoring the conflict that exists between our values and the unacceptable values of those who oppose us does not solve the problem and never has.
Stupid troll stupidly misrepresents study methodology and draws stupid "conclusion".
News at 11.
Anti-Muslim flaming is OT. There are plenty of other places to rabbit on about it. Seriously.
So invention of micrometers made mountains flatter?
The trolls are imbeciles, Wow is an ass, and Vince is channelling Terry Jones. At least people like Loth, Bernard, Lionel, and Jeff are always worth reading.
Assuming CO2 doesn't cause warming, natural variations could be accessed earlier, but I'm not unhappy with 30 years.
"...but I’m not unhappy with 30 years."
OH! That is comforting news, Gordo. If a sage of wisdom like you is comfortable with 30 years, then our species can collectively breathe a sigh of relief.
Really now. Since when are you in any position to pass a meaningful judgment on any aspect of Earth or environmental science? Since when have you been in the position to elucidate upon the importance of scale? We all know the answer to these questions. You aren't. But, in the true tried-and-tested D-K fashion, you think you are. You try to give the impression with every post that you understand exceedingly complex areas of scientific endeavor.
I am exhausted asking the same question to the climate change deniers who contaminate the internet, but I will ask you Gordo: what are your professional scientific qualifications?
We all know the answer to that one, because it won't be answered. The same question that has been routinely ignored by Jonas, Karen, Mack etc. It means they are 'self-taught'. No formal education necessary.
Sheesh.
'...in the true tried-and-tested D-K fashion'
Can't resist bringing up D and K, but you're wasting your breath. The Bish has something to say about Antarctica.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2012/9/20/antarctic-ice.html
Antarctica hasn't been warming.
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/wksst/5.gif
I see Jonas is trying to insert his usual brand of insidious stupidity into this thread. Sigh.
This clown once accused me of not being a scientist. I provided proof - via my web site and CV that I very much am a scientist. The Jonas gets all huffy and puffy and claims that I am waving my CV is his face. He's been running with this crap every since. Its his only recourse from the fact that he hasn't got a CV to wave. And, more importantly, it shows what an utter hypocrite he is.
Several times from his own padded cell (from which he has temporarily escaped) Jonas told us all here on Deltoid that he is an expert who knows what he is talking about. That he knows certainly more than anyone else here. Then in the next breath he goes back to accusing me of waving my CV. This from a guy who clearly has no professional scientific qualifications at all. A guy whose sole purpose apparently in life is to haunt the blogosphere, inserting what he perceives as his own genius into various sites. He refuses to share this self-taught wisdom with the broader scientific world. He refuses to submit articles to peer-reviewed journals or to attend conferences and workshops where these issues are debated and discussed. He's never explained that, either. But the reason is clear, or should be. Same goes with the other denier dolts who write in here who similarly are stuck behind their keyboards. Because on the internet, they can swell their tiny egos up, say what they like, and never be exposed for their garbage in front of a broader scientific audience. They are anonymous. In a journal or at a professional conference they would be exposed for the dimwits they are. So they will continue to hide and maintain their hit-and-run tactics.
Gordo is no different. He writes above about 'natural variability rules' without the slightest understanding of the importance of scale and the gradient between deterministic versus stochastic events. This is critical if we are to evaluate the rapid reduction in ice cover in the Arctic that has occurred over the past 33 years in which it has been measured. The truth is, that any scientist worth his or her degree realizes that some major, external forcing would be required to result in such a precipitous decline in ice cover in such a short period of time. There's no way at all that, given the time scale involved, this can be attributed to 'natural variability'. None. Scientists, at least most of them, understand this. Lay en don't. They think that 30 years is a long, long time. BNut in the contest of largely deterministic systems, it is not. It is a fraction of a second. Humans have evolved as a species to respond to what we perceive as instantaneous threats to our welfare: an earthquake, tsunami, hurricane, landslide, or a predator on the path in front of us. Changes we perceive as gradual or incipient are not in the case of large-scale systems. Brian Maurer has written about this in my field (ecology). He tackled the aspect of teasing apart processes that shift from unpredictability to determinism in ecological systems as the spatial and temporal scales increase. Its too bad that the D-K brigade do not understand this at all.
Gordo,
I wish you'd bugger off. BH is not a science web site. Its a travesty. Let's see the primary literature.
And yes, you are a prime example of D-K. Or, as Charles Darwin once said, "Ignorance begets confidence more often than knowledge". You've joined the club. Congratulations.
"Antarctica hasn’t been warming."
My gosh. How could that be true:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/phase.html
Oh, that's right. Science. It works, bitches.
"Assuming CO2 doesn’t cause warming, natural variations could be accessed earlier"
No it couldn't, the effect of CO2 on climate change has nothing to do with the need for 30 years.
Do you have ANY idea what "Decadal Oscillation" means?
It means, every roughly 10 years there is a cycle. So, unless you want to measure the variation in the decadal oscillation, you need a few such oscillations included in your dataset to average that out.
You were wibbling on uneducatedly about PDO, so you know they exist.
But did that make you unhappy?
It should, since that's the reason you need 30 years.
"with the derisory nonsense emitted by shock-jocks to wind up the cranky pensioners"
Yes.
Because they're the same. Inflammatory rhetoric to ensure that you have deniability for your culpable involvement in any subsequent crime.
PS was it a pensioner handing out anthrax letters? Or who shot a Democratic senator at a public meeting? Or shot two police officers because he thought they were coming to confiscate his guns? Or any of a hundred other offenses..?
"Natural variability HAS rules."
FTFY.
They don't just appear. They have causes.
And the natural cause of this variability is AGW.
'The Bish has something to say about Antarctica' ....handwaving is all it is. The only 'interesting' thing about your link,El G,is it shows 'the Bish' is too gutless to directly challenge Steven Goddard's foolish assertion,so clearly stated in 'The Bish's own link, about equivalence in northern and southern sea ice trends.
All the oily Bish ever does is attempt to place himself in some kind of real discourse with science and scientists. It's pretentious and delusional.
‘The Bish has something to say about Antarctica'
So does my dad.
A mate of mine says he visited there.
They both have something to say about Antartica.
'...It means, every roughly 10 years there is a cycle.'
Best check your facts wow, its 20 to 30 years but you raise a good point. The PDO fits in very nicely with what we regard as climate.
'...attempt to place himself in some kind of real discourse with science and scientists. It’s pretentious and delusional.'
No, he's a writer expressing a point of view. There are only kitchen scientists on Deltoid and the arrogance is stultifying.
Only kitchen scientists? Patiently dealing with your questions dressed as assertions, and caringly expanding your knowledge is 'arrogance'? Aw,sweetie...
"Best check your facts wow, its 20 to 30 years"
Yup, 10 year average between up and down.
So, you realise that LESS than 30 years and you're cherry picking.
So are you no longer unhappy?
"No, he’s a writer expressing a point of view"
And this doesn't mean it's correct.
'And this doesn’t mean it’s correct.'
True, so attack his words and not the man, go on his blog and question the post.
Nick would never go there because the Bishop is 'pretentious and delusional'.
'Only kitchen scientists?'
Well... Jeff may rank among the elite.
He does.
Bishop Hill not only isn't a scientist, not even educated about science, not even interested in the truth about science, but also isn't a Bishop.