Source: Public perception of climate change and the new climate dice, Hansen, Sato, Ruedy (2012), which states (now read the words, Karen!):
“Climate dice,” describing the chance of unusually warm or cool seasons, have become more and more “loaded” in the past 30 y, coincident with rapid global warming. The distribution of seasonal mean temperature anomalies has shifted toward higher temperatures and the range of anomalies has increased. An important change is the emergence of a category of summertime extremely hot outliers, more than three standard deviations (3σ) warmer than the climatology of the 1951–1980 base period. This hot extreme, which covered much less than 1% of Earth’s surface during the base period, now typically covers about 10% of the land area. It follows that we can state, with a high degree of confidence, that extreme anomalies such as those in Texas and Oklahoma in 2011 and Moscow in 2010 were a consequence of global warming because their likelihood in the absence of global warming was exceedingly small. We discuss practical implications of this substantial, growing, climate change.
Did you get that, Karen? If not, go back to the beginning and read it all again until you have understood it!
Yup - giant, city-sized craters in the seabed off the New Zealand coast, east of Christchurch; the signature of massive methane release.
It's not yet clear when this occurred but I would hazard a bet that it could have been during the last deglacial phase.
Much-loved paleoclimatologist Jeremy Shakun has done more to wind up the denialati than co-author with Marcott. He also put a fatal bullet into the "CO2-lags-warming" meme last year with Shakun et al. (2012), a seminal analysis of the mechanisms operating during the last deglacial.
In summary:
- NH summer insolation increases from ~ 21.5ka
- By ~19ka, mid/high latitude NH temperature increase causes sufficient melt from NH ice sheets for freshwater flux to inhibit NADW formation and halt AMOC
- NH *cools* as equatorial -> poleward heat transport stops
- With the NH ‘heat sink’ turned off, the SH *warms*, as it must
- Deep water warming in SH causes release of carbon from ocean sediments. This strongly positive feedback globalises and amplifies the warming
"Cold weather delays sturgeon spawning in Minnesota, Wisconsin"
Then this: "Oh deary me, sigh, where has the CO2 gone ?"
Note the operative word. WEATHER.
Karen is profoundly ignorant - we all know that. But how many times does he/she/it have to be told about the difference between a short-term non-linear stochastic event and a longer term deterministic trend? Where on Earth is his/her/its understanding of scale? SCALE! I repeat, SCALE. Karen assumes - like Duffer - that every year must, in their kindergarten level understanding of climate and weather, be warmer than the one that proceeded it because atmospheric concentrations of C02 are increasing linearly. Every temperature data point at the yearly scale must, in their ignoramuses view, higher than the previous one. Why else would he/she/it write such utter piffle time and time and time again?
What it shows is that deniers like Karen have heads made of brick. They don't understand basic science, cannot understand the dynamics of scale and consistently resort to simpleton arguments that real scientists would ignore. I am a population ecologist and I am very well aware of the importance of scales and hierarchies in elucidating mechanisms and functions. I know that, as the temporal or spatial scale is reduced, then properties become more difficult to predict; only at appropriate scales can we make verifiable predictions. Its the same with climate. What Karen's comments show is that he/she/it has not even a basic grounding in science. He/she/it is corrected over and over again and yet in spite of this comes back with the same vacuous arguments over and over again. Either he/she/it is willfully ignorant, or else he/she/it couldn't care less about sound science and is using ti to camouflage his/her/its personal political beliefs. My guess is that both factors are involved.
BBD, you are beating your head against a wall. If Karen was a student of mine he/she/it would be booted out of the class, or be given a BIG fail. Karen is not interested in science because he/she/it repeatedly makes the same elementary and embarrassing gaffes. Karen won't listen, no matter how many times his/her/its garbage is debunked.
The word TROLL is a completely accurate description of people like our intellectually challenged Karen.
:What is fascinating is the homogeneity of the denialist mind.
A well proven phenomena, even when diametrically opposed!
Witness all those lengthy, oh-God-will-they-never-end ding-dongs between Karen 'ice age now' Spots and "Brad" ''warming, but very, very low sensitivity' "Keyes" - that have never, and will never happen..
Karen @85 on previous page thinks that slightly cool and extremely dry March in the US proves we are entering an ice age? (Well thats what she seems to think, if she's linking to "Ice Age Now".
Of course, Karen's demonstrated inability to tell Celsius from Fahrenheit deprecates the merits of her weather reporting, but hey, like the Honey Badger, Karen just don't care! .
I've been in a Sauna, therefore all this talk of potential dangers in the predicted spread of torrid zones is nonsense!
And that's really the level of 'understanding' we're dealing with here.
A lot of Denial resembles a species of ASD where the sufferer simply cannot parse complex interdependencies, is vaguely but deeply troubled by a sense that this may actually result from a lack on their own part, and hence they must reflexively dismiss all such complexities contemptuously and out of hand.
Indeed, I'd argue that we've seen that this is, indeed, what all these people have in common, be they bona-fide mouthbreathers or over-educated sociopaths.
Another day, another record. Melbourne just recorded its highest minimum for the 28th of April on record (except possibly since 1997). The last time a record low minimum for a date happened was the 22nd April 1992.
Sou, Hansen is definitely getting to be a seasoned media performer now; unflappable but punchy!
From this side of the Pacific 'Neanderthal' seems a pretty apt description of the Harper Govt. in this matter (though the comparison is doubtlessly unfair to actual historical Neanderthals and any putative descendents!)
(Do wish people wouldn't pronounce it as 'thal' rather than the original 'tal' since it's German and all, but, like most pedantry, that's doubtlessly a losing battle...)
Bill, I agree. The interviewer had to push Hansen about four times to before he could get a single word to snag for the headline (Neanderthal). Hansen's manner is nicely understated but firm. He uses words well.
Deniers see Hansen as exaggerating or worse, but they have nothing to base that on except their own "personal incredulity". Hansen is far from being "hysterical" or "raving" in his manner or what he says, contrary to what the fake skeptics say about him.
But, oh. yeah, you cretins have 'the second coldest start to Spring in US History', don't you? That's a bit like being the 3rd best Bassoon player in Luxembourg, isn't it? Anything interesting happen in the US weatherwise for the whole of last frickin' year, fer chrissakes?
How do you manage to drag your ridiculous selves through your sorry little lives, that's what I want to know.
Ignore Betula. He should be called Petulant. He runs a tree pruning business somewhere in the NE USA and forever tries to give the impression that he is some kind of environmental expert.
He isn't.
Moreover, after all of the lambasting Karen has gone through over her inability to understand scale, Petulant immediately posts in here showing that he also has a dumbed-down understanding of it. Early spring WEATHER this year in the USA? Pu-lease. He needed to get this in because it is warming up rapidly in most of the lower 48 states anyway, temperatures in many places expected to be well above normal. But that isn't the point. The point is that short-term weather events in no way signify that AGW is not happening. Well, with the simpleton exception of the denier mindset, that is.
"The point is that short-term weather events in no way signify that AGW is not happening"
Yet, Jeff believes short term weather events do signify that weather events are happening.
So which is it Harvey you tool?
Here's a comment from Jeff about his Algonquin trip:
Jeff: “On our trip we experienced climate change at first hand. It was 12 degrees warmer than average, with around -2 oC during the day and -10 at night.
And yes, this is same trip his partner Mark experienced frostbite. Two tools in the toolbox.....
This time last year, Betula and other credulous fools of his ilk were parroting the "Arctic Sea Ice Recovery" that was being advertised by that serially-wrong ex-weatherman climate-change-denier Anthony Watts on his crank blog.
One year on, it's good to assess exactly how this "recovery" has panned out:
Oops - had to update my article. Anthony's lost it completely. He's posted two nutty conspiracy theories in one day - Lysenko plus recursive fury! Watt a nutter.
Betula hasn't noticeably puppeteered socks, although his logic and understanding are sadly lacking.
Karen on the other hand used to post as 'Sunspot' until he was confined to an eponymous garbage thread. When he realised that Tim was too preoccupied by mundane matters to police the ban Spotty escaped his cage and posted as 'Mack' and as 'Karen', and I suspect that there may have been one or two other socks also. The amusing thing about KarenMackSunspot is that he had some very queer grammatical, formatting and usage tells, in addition to sock posting times that coincided outrageously, but he has steadfastly refused to admit his multiplied personalities. It took repeated pointings-out to induce KMS to tidy up the worst of his deficiencies, but his semi-literacy is still strongly in evidence.
Way back in the beginning of the Jonas infestation there were a few socks that popped up, but most of them evaporated when several of us called it. They were all highly supportive of Jonas, which leads one to wonder if there was a connection.
That's an appallingly toxic piece from Willard Anthony, even by his already low standards.
Even when he's forced to concede that the move to Bristol has nothing - by which we mean nothing whatsoever - to do with any of their complaints to UWA, he still manages to spin off on this note:
So while his move may cool the complaints raised at UWA, it seems that he’s simply “following the money”.
(Gee, Willard, what was all that stuff that came up about you in the Heartland papers again?)
Bona-fide academic - that's one who actually, um, completed his studies - makes a long in-train move to a more prestigious institution (sorry, UWA!); what a surprise!
Personally, I don't believe any public monies should be spent on defending individual homes: individuals should be personally responsible for their choice to buy low-lying land.
Those loudly touting some sort of Arctic sea ice recovery during the recent NH winter presumably were hoping to direct their audience's attention away from Arctic sea ice volume (e.g. here).
Meanwhile, as pointed out at Sou's blog the Heartland Institute has manufactured yet another piece of pap for Forbes. Haven't we seen most of these particular conspiracy theories before? I mean, not only Lyseknoism but the Oregon Petition, the NIPCC and the rest of the usual suspects?
And isn't it just ironic that the Heartland Institute is accusing climate science of Soviet-style Lysenkoism - whilst producing the kind of misleading propaganda that the Soviets produced in support of official Soviet policy? Does he think no-one will notice his projection? Or does he just not care?
Also, note that the Heartland Institute writer has ONLY "called out" by himself, thus highlighting his attempts to defend his piece in contrast to relevant criticisms.
Lotharsson - so ice volume has recovered to last year's levels then?
Good-o! Global warming is obviously a hoax!
On a slightly different note, I reckon this summer is going to be a good one - what are the bookies offering, I wonder?
Is it Tamino who runs a book each year?
For those with an interest, it's worth expanding the full set of comments on that Forbes article so that you can see what the author doesn't care to highlight, and see the author's responses in context.
He's dishonest, disingenuous, projecting like mad and ideating rather conspiratorially, even after a bunch of commenters point out blatant errors.
Sad to see our tree-pruner is back with his usual ad homs. I'd like to inform him that I recently gave a lecture in which I discussed the effects of climate warming on biomes, and especially at boundaries between different biomes. This is of course an important area of research in ecology and is getting more attention, given that biomes are characterized by their own above-ground and soil biota. How they will rapidly shift at transition zones is an interesting question.
But perhaps not for tree pruners, though.
Betual clearly has not kept up with Karen's inane posts, otherwise he would have refrained from making a complete arse of himself by suggesting that one month of cool weather in the United States somehow negates a huge volume of empirical evidence that supports AGW. He would also have learned that data sets do not have to show yearly increases, as these time scales are too short to elucidate trends due to stochasicity at the time scale concerned. Only when longer term data sets are views do we see significant trends, as one would expect at the scales we are discussing.
Scale, as usual, is left out of Betula's arguments, as it is from just about every denier who write in here. They clearly don't understand it or its relevance here. That's why the lot of them are an army of idiots. And that is being kind.
Reading the ridiculous comments about Lewandowsky - and I'll pause, yet again, to point out that while his original 'Moon Landing' paper certainly seemed a little-less-than-overwhelming to many, the Denier reaction has vindicated it to the nth degree, an irony that they simply cannot recognise (see the thread!) - it's clear that what they really despise, ironically, is success.
Yep, what all these Foaming Friends of the Free Market™, the entire ratty and Rand-y pack, really hate is a Tall Poppy!
Stinky Bill, the flatulent old taxi driver, gave me a link to one his favourite websites a couple of weeks ago, I just popped is for peek and found an encouraging tidbit for you all.
New paper finds IPCC models predicted decrease in Antarctic sea ice, which is currently near record highs
A paper published today in the Journal of Geophysical Research - Atmospheres finds "most climate models from the [IPCC] archive simulate a decrease in Antarctic sea ice area over the recent past," however, "average Antarctic sea ice area is not retreating but has slowly increased since satellite measurements began in 1979." Further, the authors find the latest generation of IPCC climate models "have not improved" over the prior generation, and "show an unrealistic spread in the mean state that may influence future sea ice behavior."
The paper, co-authored by Climategate co-conspirator Susan Soloman, attempts to save face for the models, claiming the increase in Antarctic sea ice is still within natural variability. With Antarctic sea ice currently near 'unprecedented' high levels, how long can this IPCC model flimflam persist?
"You are 100,000,000,000 times more likely to die from a terrorist attack than to die from Global Warming (that is natural by the way)"
Try telling that to the 50,000 plus people who died during the massive heat wave that hit Europe in 2003, or the similar number that died in Russia in the 2010 heatwave. There's certainly evidence that there has been a significant increase in weather-related disasters over the past 50 years, which, in combination, completely shred your (as usual) flippant argument.
Karen, beaten mercilessly by other posters here, keeps wading back with more pure bilge. And she keeps reading the same shitty web sites for her worldview.
Karen, we know how ignorant you are but do you ever give up? You are intellectually bankrupt. Go away, will you?
You can't even spell 'numpty', you numpty! And what frickin' data, stuff pulled straight from a much abused lower colon, such as your invented statistic?
What year is it, Karen? Can you tell the difference between degrees Celsius and Fahrenheit yet? Or is that one of those incalculable mysteries for you, like the tides for Bill O'Reilly?...
Yup, models wrong. Wrong about Arctic ice loss too. This is encouraging how, exactly?
We are only just now beginning to get a handle on what is going on in Antarctica and it is deeply worrying.
I have already posted this link on this thread, but you seem purely intent on trolling rather than actually reading anything. That's a shame. If you read the links, you would learn interesting things and you would understand better how liars like Hockeyschtick misrepresent and deceive.
When are you going to start getting angry with the people who have conned you, Karen? How can you be so placid about being hoodwinked? Me, I'd be furious; looking for blood.
Without 100% unequivocal proof of a process, there is no problem. This trick of the hand has been used to downplay links between acid precipitation and effects on freshwater and terrestrial ecosystems, other forms of pollution and the health of ecosystems, and now on the link between atmospheric C02 concentrations and GW - as well as on extreme forms of weather that, when combined over many years, suggest that there may be a very strong link between these parameters.
It doesn't matter how much the climate changes in the coming decades, and how much changes in extreme weather events that have societal implications can be inferred from that. There will deniers like Karen saying that the proof is not absolute - therefore no absolute proof means no proof at all = no problem.
I have dealt with so many ignoramus anti-environmentalists over the years that it becomes easy to see how their mindsets operate. Its easy to make a direct link between a terrorist bomb and the death of civilians, but directly linking a complex process like GW to human welfare is muc, much more difficult. Therefore, no problem.
Karen is predictable because they ALL do it. This is straight from the anti-environmental handbook. Its kindergarten level stuff, really, but they always go back to it. Its easy to debate these morons because their tactics are so simple. The problem in debating them is that they routinely lie whereas honest scientists do not. And the vast majority of honest scientists are NOT climate change deniers. The deniers have nothing to lose by lying because they are not interested in the truth.
– You are 17,600 times more likely to die waiting than find something correct at WTFUWT
– You are 12,571 times more likely to wish to contract eyeball cancer than read another Goddard article
— You are 11,000 times more likely to invent a spurious statistic than calculate a correct one
— You are 1048 times more likely to throw yourself under a car than get an intelligent answer from KarenMackSpot
–You are 404 times more likely to die of unadulterated boredom before seeing an intelligent point from KarenMackSpot
— You are 87 times more likely to drown in your own lip sweat before wondering what the hockeyschtick thinks about anything
— You are 100,000,000,000 times more likely to die from a rogue planetary attack than to expect KarenMackSpot to give up with the unending stream of persistent nonsense.
The senior author on the presentation Karen cites is Mojib Latif. Here is what Professor Latif says about AGW:
"...after being asked whether he was a climate sceptic, he explained that "If my name was not Mojib Latif, my name would be global warming. So I really believe in Global Warming. Okay. However, you know, we have to accept that there are these natural fluctuations, and therefore, the temperature may not show additional warming temporarily."
Karen obliterated again. Distorting the views of scientists to promote her own agenda. What else is new. Moreover, an increase in ice at the Antarctic IN NO WAY disproves AGW. The Antarctic is the world's coldest place. Even a massive increase in temperature there would still mean that its usually well below freezing. At the same time, changes in precipitation could actually lead to an increase in the amount of ice: a critical point that in no way contrdicts AGW theory. At the same time, a recent study found that the rate of melting there is faster than at any time in hundreds of years.
Karen, you've posted that fascinating presentation before, and seem to be at a loss about what it means, as ever.
"lol..the "presentation" wasn't about global warming.."
Actually it is about the Southern Ocean at 50 to 70 degrees S ,possible long natural variation modes and influence on global warming. The presentation offers an influence on the pace of global warming,if the centennial mode and the proposed mechanism that powers it are real
The band at lats 50 to 70S show little surface air warming over the last thirty years while further south and the whole planet northwards does. [there is an error in one of the graphics,the wrong sector is isolated by a colour band,but the text is right]
SLR has risen and the ocean has warmed over the last few decades.
Westerly winds in that zone have strengthened over the last few decades.
A centennial mode is suggested by paleo work. Then mechanisms and locations of oceanic warming and heat transport with time frames are discussed.
Antarctic sea-ice may continue to expand in winter extent,slowing the pace of global warming during the next few decades. By how much? After that, Kaz?
Well Karen, others have kindly clarified your understanding of your own link for you while I've been away. Let's mind our manners and thank them for their efforts:
Thank you Jeff Harvey and Nick!
Remember, they probably have better things to do with their time than correct your nonsense, so you should be properly grateful!
Now fuck off and read the link I provided for you. Learn something, you cretin.
If the Heartland Institute, instead of bandying the term "Lysenkoism" about in ways that indicate they have a complete disregard for the truth, wanted to actually discuss political control of science they might care to point out GOP desires to apply political pressure to the NSF grant process.
Nick - some good points there, but I have my doubts about: "Antarctic sea-ice may continue to expand in winter extent,slowing the pace of global warming during the next few decades."
Increased sea ice can slow warming only by increasing average albedo (reflecting more radiation out into space). But winter sea ice extent has no albedo effect, since there is no sunlight. If anything, increased winter sea ice adds to warming - its insulation effect traps heat in the ocean that would otherwise radiate out into the bitter Antarctic night.
Increasing spring-summer extent does slow warming, but the upward trend for the three months straddling the summer solstice is less than the overall trend, which is relatively slight anyway, so its impact is very limited.
Contrast with the situation in the Arctic where the greatest negative anomalies coincide with the maximum insolation, ensuring the dark ocean soaks up far more heat than would otherwise be the case.
Sea Ice variation, taken globally or regionally, is not the deniers friend. Karen's pathetic attempts to say otherwise have a 100% failure rate. This is no exception.
Heh - a colleague has just disabled our entire workspace by sending us a screen shot of the latest moronicness at the "Jo Nova" crank blog - some amazingly dimwitted "sceptic" crank calling himself "Crakar24" is convinced abiogenic oil is real:
crakar24
April 29, 2013 at 3:28 pm · Reply
KK,
I still have trouble understanding how a dinosaur could lie 11K’s below the surface and turn into oil?
Surely oil is abiotic or a majority is.
and
crakar24
April 30, 2013 at 10:25 am
For the love of F*&^%$%G God Margot, i asked a simple question…..if the deepest well is over 11Kilometers deep then how in the hell did the dead animals get there?
You dismissed this idea by claiming that the wells were not that deep and rather this was the length of the well drilled at an angle (great way to avoid facing up to and responding to those pesky questions). Since then you have posted rant after rant.
However i will not allow you and your fellow Troll the pleasure, so i ask again how did the dead animals get all the way down to that depth and keep in mind there is a lot of oil at these depths which means a lot of dead animals.
Hahahaha - Jo Nova's fans, as usual, never fail to please in the "absurd things to read after lunch" category.
#85, Frank, I was just sketching out the presentation's points for Kazza. That potential continued expansion claim was in the work.
It's a good read,particularly the deep ocean water mechanisms. It's a cautious account of research in progress. They suspect that the latitudinal band discussed will continue to lag in air temp increase for a while...this suggests to me that steepening temperature and pressure gradients between it and the tropics will make southernmost populated parts even more subject to dramatic weather. Whatever comfort Kaz saw in it of course is a product of mental frailty...and it's the usual commonplace example of research into natural variability that puts the lie to idiot claims that NV is ignored by researchers.
It seems there's an entire crank-friendly army out there equipped with 'braderised super-logic' which is completely unencumbered by any grip on, or knowledge of, reality.
Harvey at his best....
He goes on a 1 month trip and "experienced climate change first hand" because it was 12 degrees warmer than average while on that trip (yet they still froze their asses, even getting frostbite)
Jeff: “On our trip we experienced climate change at first hand. It was 12 degrees warmer than average, with around -2 oC during the day and -10 at night."
So Jeff, you experienced climate change "first hand" based on a 1 month scale? Jeff, it seems that you are making a complete arse of yourself by suggesting that one month of above average temperature in Algonquin is somehow climate change "first hand". Do you always base "first hand" climate change experience on such short scales, or just when you want to embellish?
Note: Some of the above words are Jeffs own words (see #59). I just used them here to show what a hypocrite he is....it's quite simple really.
Also note: Jeffs response to this will not be an answer to the question, but rather that he gave a class somewhere, followed by talking about himself for several paragraphs and finally ending with a comment about how nobody can know what he knows...
Consider the role of Joseph Bazalgette who thought he had solved a problem. Sadly although many times more clever than you, he failed with the bigger picture and that is precisely where your little mind fails.
Consider that recent studies have shown that sea levels are now rising faster than ever in recorded history and that more superstorms are being generated as we continue to warm the planet.
The sound like two bricks clunking together could be Betty's still functioning neurons trying to formulate a concept that AGW must never actually manifest itself in the real world.
Somewhere for Betula to learn stuff Jeff Masters' Wunder Blog, somebody still engaged in science (unlike Lindzen eh Keyes of the Kingdom). Pay particular attention to this:
And let’s not forget…
Cold weather is just weather, hot weather is climate….
Not if you can show multi-decadal change in extreme hot weather events. And we can. And I have pointed you at a good reference at least twice now. And you still haven't bothered to read it. So you are lazy and ignorant as well as a denialist, which must be awful for you but is bad enough for those around you.
“Climate dice,” describing the chance of unusually warm or cool seasons, have become more and more “loaded” in the past 30 y, coincident with rapid global warming. The distribution of seasonal mean temperature anomalies has shifted toward higher temperatures and the range of anomalies has increased. An important change is the emergence of a category of summertime extremely hot outliers, more than three standard deviations (3σ) warmer than the climatology of the 1951–1980 base period. This hot extreme, which covered much less than 1% of Earth’s surface during the base period, now typically covers about 10% of the land area. It follows that we can state, with a high degree of confidence, that extreme anomalies such as those in Texas and Oklahoma in 2011 and Moscow in 2010 were a consequence of global warming because their likelihood in the absence of global warming was exceedingly small. We discuss practical implications of this substantial, growing, climate change.
Betula is singularly obsessed with my trek across Algonquin Park more than a year ago. Glad that someone still remembers it. Thanks, tree pruner for your unbridled support.
The thing is, Betula couldn't debate his way out of a wet paper bag where science is concerned. Like deniers, he sinks his teeth into one tiny, insignificant thing (a web article written by someone where I work after I returned from a winter crossing of the park) and won't let go. For their part, the last stand of climate change deniers for the most part over the last decade has been Mann et als. hockey stick. Entire denial web sites have been set up CA, Hockeyschtick) to smear Mann and that single study. Again, the denier mind set is simple (hardly surprising since the vast majority of them are morons). Focus on one thing and leave out a huge empirical base.... if they think they can debunk one area, then they think that everything else will come down with it. Creationists do it as well. They are deniers in their own right.
Thanks heaven Betula is too busy shearing branches off of trees to venture in here most of the time. He doesn't know the difference between weather and climate; doesn't understand the concept of time lags for large scale systems; hasn't got a clue about the importance of scale in the Earth and environmental sciences. But he sure as hell doesn't like someone saying that climate change will unravel food webs and undermine ecosystem functions (big words that probably go over his head). And he cannot stand someone suggesting that life-zone boundaries will have to shift as it warms rapidly. This was what I wanted to say in the now infamous press release last year.
Note to ianam: this is precisely what i was saying when I said that I have to take truckloads of shit from people like Betula for waiving anonymity. Betula, Jonas, 'Karen' and their acolytes can spew out any garbage they like and get away with it. By saying who I am, Betula, Olaus and others expend their energies trying to dig up any dirt they can to smear me... and all they can come up with is some flimsy web link on our site in which I said that climate change effects are being manifested at the boundaries of ecological life zones. If Betula wants evidence, then look it up in the empirical literature instead of hounding me. Its there, but you are not interested in that; your primary aim is to hound me like many are hounding Michael Mann.
- You have the balls to post under your real name, for which you deserve respect
- Your commentary here about the effects of rapid climate change on ecosystems has opened my eyes to something not sufficiently discussed in the blog wars, for which you have my thanks
- I know what the buggers are trying to do, so my guess - no, it's more than a guess - is that so does everyone else
Climate Change Means Rising Seas, More Sewage Overflows
Sewage treatment plants are usually placed near water in low-lying areas so that sewage can be piped to the plant via gravity and treated sewage can be easily discharged into receiving waters. These key factors in plant locations make them especially vulnerable to storm surges and coastal flooding. Compounding the inherent risk of their low-lying locations, many treatment plants have expansive, underground labyrinths of pipes, holding tanks and pumps that can remain waterlogged and incapacitated long after floodwaters recede. They also typically discharge their treated wastewater through large underwater pipes, which can cause facilities to flood from the inside as waters rise, long before the surface water levels overrun the outside of the structures.
Nice - I hadn't thought of things in that way before....I guess it makes no difference in places like Bangladesh where the sewage is all around you anyway.
Thanks BBD. Your comments and knowledge here are also very much appreciated.... I learn a lot for your posts and want to thank you for also standing up to the disinformation spewed out by the deniers.
"— You are 100,000,000,000 times more likely to die from a terrorist attack than to die from Global Warming (that is natural by the way)", #62
Really, blóóóndie? You know, one single heatwave killed more people than all terrorist attacks of the world and its history combined. 55.000 dead in just two months.
Russia, 2010.
The dimbo dumbos of the 'nobody at home brigade' Karen, OP, Betula, etc being paid up members of should grok this article taking down a recent by Roy Spencer (him and Christy being '...the twins ting-a-ling, the twins ting-a-ling, the brass bands play as they stroll along...') Roy Spencer's Catholic Online Climate Myths. These people are getting downright tedious.
We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history.
We believe abundant, affordable energy is indispensable to human flourishing, particularly to societies which are rising out of abject poverty and the high rates of disease and premature death that accompany it. With present technologies, fossil and nuclear fuels are indispensable if energy is to be abundant and affordable.
We believe mandatory reductions in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions, achievable mainly by greatly reduced use of fossil fuels, will greatly increase the price of energy and harm economies.
We believe such policies will harm the poor more than others because the poor spend a higher percentage of their income on energy and desperately need economic growth to rise out of poverty and overcome its miseries.
WHAT WE DENY
We deny that Earth and its ecosystems are the fragile and unstable products of chance, and particularly that Earth’s climate system is vulnerable to dangerous alteration because of minuscule changes in atmospheric chemistry. Recent warming was neither abnormally large nor abnormally rapid. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous global warming.
We deny that alternative, renewable fuels can, with present or near-term technology, replace fossil and nuclear fuels, either wholly or in significant part, to provide the abundant, affordable energy necessary to sustain prosperous economies or overcome poverty.
We deny that carbon dioxide—essential to all plant growth—is a pollutant. Reducing greenhouse gases cannot achieve significant reductions in future global temperatures, and the costs of the policies would far exceed the benefits.
We deny that such policies, which amount to a regressive tax, comply with the Biblical requirement of protecting the poor from harm and oppression.
Yikes! This is pure insanity. For instance: "We deny that carbon dioxide—essential to all plant growth—is a pollutant".
What utter nonsense! Carbon is certainly not a limiting nutrient for plants - nitrogen and phosphorus are. This is kindergarten level science. If Spencer is one of the 'luminaries' in the climate change denial camp, then that lot are in deep, deep trouble.
And the political mumbo jumbo about taxing the poor? Good grief, its a small elite minority who profit from the profligate use of fossil fuels. What a smokescreen these fruitcakes try and create.
A group of elderly JFK conspiracy theorists were comparing notes when one of them suddenly had a heart attack. After going through the whole tunnel light scenario he finds himself facing God. He asks “Oh Lord, who really killed JFK?” And God replied “It was Oswald acting alone.”
At that point the EMTs were able to jolt him back to life. Later in the hospital with his co-theorists he said in a low voice “The conspiracy is bigger than we thought.”
"The more moderate and conservative participants preferred to bear a long-term financial cost to avoid purchasing an item associated with valuing environmental protections," the study said.
And there's an endlessly recursive loop! A large group of people who won't participate in fixing any problem they deem politically incorrect* if they're made aware they're fixing it. How the hell do you get out off that?
Against stupidity the Gods themselves contend in vain.
Schiller.
*Contrary to their equally perverse myth-making, in reality PC is a pervasive phenomenon of the Troglodyte Right; most notably in their aggressive - indeed, frequently hysterical - assertion that their confident ignorance is the equal of yer fancy-schmancy book lernin' any day. I agree with the discussion that holds that in this respect Lysenkosim is a very close cousin of Denial, not science...
And there’s an endlessly recursive loop! A large group of people who won’t participate in fixing any problem they deem politically incorrect* if they’re made aware they’re fixing it. How the hell do you get out off that?
Against stupidity the Gods themselves contend in vain.
Schiller.
*Contrary to their equally perverse myth-making, in reality PC is a pervasive phenomenon of the Troglodyte Right; most notably in their aggressive – indeed, frequently hysterical – assertion that their confident ignorance is the equal of yer fancy-schmancy book lernin’ any day. I agree with the discussion that holds that in this respect Lysenkosim is a very close cousin of Denial, not science…
In fact, there is an enormous amount of projection on display.
From their ludicrous "global warming religion/high priests" aimed at the secular activity that is science research or the "follow the money" nonsense aimed at all those stupendously smart science academics who are pulling in $60k/year, to this latest garbage about Lysenko: they are transparently trying to pin their sins onto everybody else.
What have Cuccinelli and McDonnell been hiding?
By Brian Devine on May 1, 2013 10:37 AM
Bob McDonnell and Ken Cuccinelli's relationship with Star Scientific and its CEO is making headlines across the Commonwealth and generating questions about conflicts of interest and ethics violations. The story is complicated, with numerous gifts, vacations, flights, and law suits. To make sure you understand just what Cuccinelli and McDonnell have been up to, ProgressVA has put together this timeline to shed light on the lucrative relationship between one company, the Governor, and Attorney General of Virginia.
From free flights, to wedding gifts, to FBI investigations, ProgressVA wants to help you see, understand, and then share with others, the extent of their exploitation and what McDonnell and Cuccinelli believe is acceptable.
Some extracts from Beisner's book, Resisting The Green Dragon:
The Green Dragon must die…[There] is no excuse to become befuddled by the noxious Green odors and doctrines emanating from the foul beast...
***
This slimy jade road…is paved with all kinds of perverted and destructive behaviours, leads to death itself, and finally, to the pains of hell forever…No Hollywood celebrity bunnies draped over its foul form can deny its native evil...
***
It is no coincidence the rise of environmentalism as a significant political entity tracks the rising political clout of modern feminism...
***
The fruits of the Green Dragon are not good, but evil…Humans are urged to surrender as many liberites as judged fit to save the world, which is pretty much all liberty that makes life worth living...
***
Christians must resist Green overtures to recast true religion, nor allow themselves to be prey for teachers of pagan heresies...
Yes children. THIS is what Spencer is endorsing. It is, as they say, worse than we thought.
For an invaluable resource for debunking those who parrot Spencer's scientific trickery, see here.
I notice there's a certain level of - entirely justified - schadenfreude going on over at Mike Mann's twitter feed; justice may yet turn out never to have been quite so poetic!
Admittedly I didn't know this until someone showed me, but Political Correctness' only connection to the "left" and communism was that Marx said that "PC" complaints would be used to silence critics and would be used *by the right* to shame people into staying silent rather than speaking.
The right refuse to acknowledge this, though. If complaining about PC is something they and the rest of the right do, IT CANNOT be something that communist thought complained about. In their minds, they have NOTHING to do with communism and are the exact opposite.
Oddly enough, in many things, they are 360 degrees opposite...
Parallel to their forthcoming paper the SkS team are looking for people to do a survey that involves reading several (short) abstracts of papers and then rating the extent to which they confirm/endorse the AGW hypothesis (or otherwise.)
I see on WUWT that someone's fleecing deniers for $$ to make a short video with the nutters. It's going to feature - wait for it:
His Highness Viscount Lord Christopher "birther and not a member of the House of Lords" Monckton
Jo "gold bug" Codling/Nova and partner
Anthony "hide inconvenient data" Watts
James "interpreter of interpretations" Delingpole
and others from the fake skeptic menagerie.
Apparently the film is going to try to persuade people it's going to be cheaper to have more and worse floods, cities submerged by rising seas, heat waves, water shortages, horrendous bushfires and droughts than it is to stop global warming.
It's going to be based on Monckt(ec)onomics! I imagine with lots of upside down charts, dollar signs and swastikas if his presentations to date are anything to go by.
They *want* a climate emergency so they can go back to the good old days of 1941 where production took a front seat to unions, wages, and regulation of all types.
Apparently cherry-picking 6 thermometer records (all in Europe) and one longer-term record (specifically chosen for its fit with the thermometer records), and then manufacturing 6 imaginary "cycles" to fit the data is all you need to do to disprove climate change.
What's excellent about Lüdecke et al is that it makes very clear predictions of the expected temperature trajectory over the next 10-15 years. The fit is close enough that if their hypothesis is incorrect, the divergence will be apparent within a few years*.When the divergence is statistically significant, there will be an opportunity for Nova's chetters to demonstrate their skepticism by publicly rejecting the Ludocycle hypothesis. It will be excellent to see skeptics to prove their skepticism.
And yes, I believe in fairies! I do, I do, I do! Why do you ask?
:D
* I'm pretty sure it would already be apparent, if Lüdecke et al had used the last decade of data. I wonder why they didn't...
Lüdecke can already talk, apparently, otherwise what an ingnorant bunch. http://www.knmi.nl/klimatologie/daggegevens/antieke_wrn/index.html
Labrijn, continuous to 1706 (we also got some stretches of instrumentals back to 1634). In Britain one can go even further back in time, when, according to Lüdecke et al earth temperature stood at like 10 degrees higher than now and dinosaurs were pets.
Why don't universities kick out cranks like this?? Why??
Do you think it's a strategy? Triumphantly flourish the paper only after the level of debunking has cooled, and hope that the real world has moved on sufficiently for the - ahem - 'skeptical' fan-base to lap it up without their sensitive souls being exposed to untoward refutation... ;-)
Why don’t universities kick out cranks like this?? Why??
Perhaps even more to the point, given the complexities of tenure and employment law and freedom of academic thought, why do journals publish flawed studies?
Zorita's role in the decision at CP to publish is what disturbs me most.
'Freedom of academic thought', my you-know-what! There is no ffing freedom in thinking about the '2' in inverse square laws, or the (ir-)rationality of Pi, or the fact that CO2 is a GHG, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
"what you argue would lead to academics being dismissed *for being mistaken*"
Or worse. Of course. Mathematicians going on quadraturing the circle ought to be kicked out of any university. People denying that CO2 is a GHG (all climate revisionists belong to this group) have to be booted - it is not even necessary to give a reason for that.
One professor Blacquière of Wageningen University, he 'studies' bees, is a fraud who needs to be let off. Why? Because he not only dogmatically will not research anything to do with certain pesticides, he forbids his student explicitly to do so. That's because this guy is a fraud: he works for Bayer. This has been known for years and guess what - he's a government advisor.
Ffing Alice in Wonderland.
Journal referees/editors should reject cranky papers, yes, but the real consequences have to be taken by the academia. Publishing well known artefacts (without even bothering to try for any physical explanation for found 'periodicity') should result in the sack the moment de academia lays eyes on such a paper.
I'd even suggest those authors should pay damages for being the nuisance they are.
If there is clear evidence of fraud, academic misconduct or paid advocacy for vested interests, then dismissal should be automatic, yes. Of course. Along with a bar against future employment in a teaching capacity. Students must not have their potential careers blighted because of "bad" professors.
So long as the evidence is *clear*. I wouldn't want to live in a world where academics were afraid to publish contrarian papers that run the risk of being mistaken. Then science stops dead.
I think we probably agree but have blog interface problems ;-)
BBD, we do agree ('blog interface problems', that's a useful phrase :) ).
But there is a difference between, let us say, 'contrarian' and 'quadraturian', then. There is a reason I make use of the term 'climate revisionism' for garbage that is more usually called too neutrally 'contrarian'.
(incidentally, when I hit the free speech advocates of WUWT re censorship of the d-word, I instantly coined 'climate revisionism').
Problem with Lüdecke et al is that one could also surmise the level of that work is far below academic, it's high school experimenting at best. I have to agree with you that this kind of thing should be sorted out by the journals themselves.
Unfortunately, with climate revisionism I consider authors guilty until proven naive or demented. Including Lüdecke.
Oh yes, no free pass for Lüdecke. But no free pass for Zorita either. He is at least as culpable. To be honest this whole thing gave me a strong case of the WTFs. CP is most certainly not E & E.
Just been reading Bob Tisdale's explanation of how his brain works. He admits that sees things in 'bits' and can't seem to connect the different bits, which stops him from seeing the whole picture. But then we knew that already.
Anyway, it got me to look at how people 'see' things. A few people on WUWT managed to say what they see in a surface temperature chart from WMO, before RichardSCourtney bit their heads off. I drew it in pictures. Interesting if you like that sort of thing.
What happened to Marcott et al. In the 20th century ?
The tell me that bit is entirely made up, from a very few selected data points , giving a strong visual impression of an uptick, but with no evidential robustness whatsoever .
But as I sauntered by the tide
I saw a something at my side,
A something green, and blue, and pink,
And brown, and purple, too, I think.
I would not say how large it was;
I would not venture that because
It took me rather by surprise,
And I have not the best of eyes.
Should you compare it to a cat,
I'd say it was as large as that;
Or should you as me if the thing
Was smaller than a sparrow's wing,
I should be apt to think you knew,
And simple answer, "Very true!"
Well, as I looked upon the thing,
It murmured, "Please, sir, can I sing?"
And then I knew its name at once -
It plainly was a Cumberbunce.
And, as most of us realise, it isn't only global warming that humans are causing but disruption to ecosystems by transport of invasive species. Of course this has been going on for years with e.g. horticulturists not always appreciating the consequences of their actions.
The 'organic food causes autism' chart made me laugh out loud, but the anti-vax brigade (often a strongly-intersecting set with the organic consumers*) is not a laughing matter.
I have no doubt, however, of Internet Explorer's capacity to induce homicidal rages.
Such things cause me to recall recently encountering Neil de Grasse Tyson's suggested response to folks who think the 'if a tree falls in the forest...' question embodies some profound and timeless wisdom - 'How do you know it fell?'
*And I say that as a devotee of the organic and minimum spray stalls at the local farmers market.
Almost too much happening in one day even for this tough old bird. I had a stoush with WUWT over Anthony's recycling of a lynch mob attack on Peter Gleick.
Tony's mob of conspiracy theorists are a constant source of amazement/amusement.
Here's a highly-recommended great little video I just found at Climate Crocks.
The dim-bulb and pseudo-intellectual count around here has never been lower. Has epistemic closure finally become absolute? Has the gravity of The Stupid become utterly inescapable? You guys know Hawking demonstrated that black holes all evaporate eventually, right? ;-)
Great video, Bill. It's a must do post for HW in the next day or so. Thanks.
I really don't know if it's gotten worse everywhere. The WUWT rabble seem to be reduced to name-calling of individual scientists and the general public en masse. If you're game, have a look at some of the comments on the $$ for video thread on WUWT. "Alarmists are mass murderers" and worse - ad infinitum.
I say keep the pressure on and make sure every sane person is aware of the problem, as well as show up the Dismissives for what they are.
"researchers resolve one of the biggest uncertainties"
"We now have a good estimate of what's going to happen in the next 100 years"
"Now we know for sure"
"looking at the changes from the last 10 years and extrapolating them is wrong," she said. "It's not science."
"The study predicts"
"One 2008 study, a worst-case scenario"
Sounds like they now know for sure they have a good estimate of their prediction that will likely resolve one of the biggest uncertainties involving a worst case scenario.
Of course, betty had to forget that the claims are:
We’ve had SEVERAL Hot Summers in a row: that’s climate.
We’ve had ONE Cold Winter: that’s weather.
So the first hot summer was considered weather until the second hot summer changed it to climate, followed by one cold winter, which is weather, and a very cool spring which is also weather (bordering on climate). Now, if we get one cool summer, it's not weather, but rather a changed climate even though it's just one summer.
Betula, why don't you read the link at the beginning of this thread?
Summer hot weather trends are now decades old and very much climate. I keep on pointing you at the relevant information over and over again but you just won't read the words.
Betula says, "Sounds like they now know for sure they have a good estimate of their prediction that will likely resolve one of the biggest uncertainties involving a worst case scenario."
Got to love how these fake "sceptics" place so much belief and trust automatically on *some* exercises in computer modelling, while rejecting *others*.
Of couuse, their discrimination has nothing to do with understanding, analysis, and rational thought - Betula likes the results of this computer model because some crank site on the internet has told him to like it.
Poor ol' Betty grabs both feet of his comprehension and swings it around like he's holding a cat with a 2m radius within the 1m radius of his comprehension.
He knows (from his visits here) that the average global temperature is rising inexorably but with non-linear local effects, just as the trees he prunes don't grow absolutely uniformly.
But he beats the shit out of that cat because 'murcan 'publicanism values herd-following stupidity above all else - it's their one growth industry - and so even though he fully comprehends non-linearity in his everyday work, Betty's happy to pretend that he means something as long as it's not what those gummint eggheads think about climate change.
Thus down the tubes of history went American Thinking.
Betty, even by the standards of Deniers, you continue to astonish.
Gee, they've used confident words, and I'm choosing to believe what they're saying helps my cause, so they must be right. However wherever authority and confident language combine in a message I don't like I simply reject or ignore it. No matter how many times the same conclusion is reached.
And, yep, like all the other dills you don't get the distinction between weather and climate. Climate is where you get the warmest decade in recorded history, and probably for 10000 years. Weather is where we had a lot of snow last Wednesday.
And, seriously, one winter grading into spring is 'climate'? It's like you're a cartoon!
You ought to be ashamed of your astonishing level of ignorance, and your equally shameless barging in on matters you clearly do not comprehend. But that's impossible.
"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." - John Stuart Mill
"[Greenland] is still losing a lot of ice," she said. Just not as much as some of her peers had feared: "The last ten years it's losing mass twice as fast as the ten years before. But in the next ten years it's not going to be four times more."
Gosh, Betty, so if several tonnes of all this snow you've been having was poised to slide off a mountain onto your house, and the amount of snow accumulating had recently doubled, if you found out the rate of pile up wasn't likely to increase to anything greater than that there wouldn't be a problem at all! Right?
Graham LLoyd at The Australian quoting from an interview on the "skydragon" website with nutter Habibullo Abdussamatov.
"Abdussamatov said a new "little ice age" would start this or next year and hit a low around 2040, with a deep freeze that would last for the rest of the century."
I can't comment at Peter Gleick's for some reason, so I can't respond to the idiot who brought up Lindzen as a counter-authority to reality as we know it.
While not as egregiously misleading as previous Graham Lloyd efforts, one had to wonder what this article is actually meant to be about, seeing as its headline is obviously a bit of made-up nonsense, its reference to Russian crank theories is just a waste of time and space, and the rest of what it presents contains nothing new and nothing interesting beyond a deliberate attempt to confuse the scope of CO2-related forcing with the far, far smaller scope of solar variability forcing.
At least Lloyd won't have to issue a correction in relation to this one.
Still warrants a spot on the checklist of The Australian's War on Science, though.
Last time this happened (several sites) I cured it by enabling the "accept third-party cookies" option in the innards of my browser. It is well worth checking to see if this is on or off as it is a common cause of mystery "lock-outs" from comments.
I keep hearing about Abdussamatov. Doubtless he is Crank of the Month at various chumming sites - and now The Australian. Doubtless coming to The Daily Mail and The Telegraph soon.
Always interesting to watch the climate liars spread misinformation from their blogs that finds its way up the media food chain into the MSM.
Then listen to them whine that they are just a tiny, uninfluential minority crushed beneath the massive weight of "state-sponsored climate science" blah blah blah.
Ha ha ha. Silly me. The Abdussamatov fiction made it into the Daily Mail almost two weeks ago!
Forget global warming – the Earth may soon be plunged into a 250-year cooling period, scientists have claimed.
Russian climate experts believe that every 200 years the Sun’s activity temporarily wanes and it emits less heat.
They believe this ‘cooling period’ could cause the earth’s average temperature to fall by several degrees.
Interestingly, Abdussamatov was not mentioned by name, but the noise is coming from the the Pulkovo Observatory, so it's him again. He's been at it for years (at least since 2007) - I hadn't realised.
Notice the misleading description of these clowns as "climate experts" by both "newspapers"? They are astronomers of some sort or other. Calling them "climate experts" is like calling Kevin Trenberth a solar physicist - flat-out wrong.
Here are some more words for Karen (I'm keeping these comments short because I know she has reading comprehension issues).
Regional weather
Regional weather
Regional weather
(Apologies to those with normal reading comprehension).
BBd don't you talk to me about your "Polar vortex" you sicko.......
Look what poor Sou had to contend with.
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/p/the-mens-playground.html
No, nobody would remember that since it never happened, but rewriting history is all part of the denier toolbox.
April Yields Snow, Cold Records
Canada
995 daily snowfall records have been broken during the month so far
http://weather.aol.com/2013/04/24/winters-last-gasp-april-yields-snow-c…
Oh deary me, sigh, where has the CO2 gone ?
And Australia holds far more hot records for the recent six weeks, for example.
Apparently you don't know what the difference between weather and climate is, but Olap isn't here to deride you for it.
More evidence of a failed CO2 hypothesis
Cold weather delays sturgeon spawning in Minnesota, Wisconsin
http://www.twincities.com/outdoors/ci_23095962/cold-weather-delays-stur…
FFS Karen
Are you blind?
since you are waving temperature records around, let’s look at the bigger picture. The contiguous US is less that 2% of the Earth’s surface area. This is the frequency increase of extreme summer (JJA) hot events (NH, land) 1951 – 2011. Click this link and look at the graph Karen!
Source: Public perception of climate change and the new climate dice, Hansen, Sato, Ruedy (2012), which states (now read the words, Karen!):
Did you get that, Karen? If not, go back to the beginning and read it all again until you have understood it!
# 1
Stop your stupid, childish denialist yatter and read the words.
Disrupted polar vortex = cold NH mid-latitude weather.
Regional weather ≠ global climate.
Get it yet?
Ye gods Teh Stupid is a terrifying thing to behold, sometimes.
As an antidote to Karen's imbecilic wittering, here's an interesting snippet from a couple of weeks back:
a href="http://www.gns.cri.nz/Home/News-and-Events/Media-Releases/Scientists-fi…">Scientists find mysterious giant pockmarks on Chatham Rise
Yup - giant, city-sized craters in the seabed off the New Zealand coast, east of Christchurch; the signature of massive methane release.
It's not yet clear when this occurred but I would hazard a bet that it could have been during the last deglacial phase.
Much-loved paleoclimatologist Jeremy Shakun has done more to wind up the denialati than co-author with Marcott. He also put a fatal bullet into the "CO2-lags-warming" meme last year with Shakun et al. (2012), a seminal analysis of the mechanisms operating during the last deglacial.
In summary:
- NH summer insolation increases from ~ 21.5ka
- By ~19ka, mid/high latitude NH temperature increase causes sufficient melt from NH ice sheets for freshwater flux to inhibit NADW formation and halt AMOC
- NH *cools* as equatorial -> poleward heat transport stops
- With the NH ‘heat sink’ turned off, the SH *warms*, as it must
- Deep water warming in SH causes release of carbon from ocean sediments. This strongly positive feedback globalises and amplifies the warming
- NH melt resumes, fully engaging strongly positive ice albedo feedback
- Deglaciation accelerates until largely complete by ~11.5ka. Holocene interglacial begins
There's an informative discussion of S12 by Chris Colose at RC which provides the detail. Recommended.
(With apologies to those who've heard all this before).
Eh, I've had a *terrible* run of html snafus recently. The first link again:
Scientists find mysterious giant pockmarks on Chatham Rise
"Cold weather delays sturgeon spawning in Minnesota, Wisconsin"
Then this: "Oh deary me, sigh, where has the CO2 gone ?"
Note the operative word. WEATHER.
Karen is profoundly ignorant - we all know that. But how many times does he/she/it have to be told about the difference between a short-term non-linear stochastic event and a longer term deterministic trend? Where on Earth is his/her/its understanding of scale? SCALE! I repeat, SCALE. Karen assumes - like Duffer - that every year must, in their kindergarten level understanding of climate and weather, be warmer than the one that proceeded it because atmospheric concentrations of C02 are increasing linearly. Every temperature data point at the yearly scale must, in their ignoramuses view, higher than the previous one. Why else would he/she/it write such utter piffle time and time and time again?
What it shows is that deniers like Karen have heads made of brick. They don't understand basic science, cannot understand the dynamics of scale and consistently resort to simpleton arguments that real scientists would ignore. I am a population ecologist and I am very well aware of the importance of scales and hierarchies in elucidating mechanisms and functions. I know that, as the temporal or spatial scale is reduced, then properties become more difficult to predict; only at appropriate scales can we make verifiable predictions. Its the same with climate. What Karen's comments show is that he/she/it has not even a basic grounding in science. He/she/it is corrected over and over again and yet in spite of this comes back with the same vacuous arguments over and over again. Either he/she/it is willfully ignorant, or else he/she/it couldn't care less about sound science and is using ti to camouflage his/her/its personal political beliefs. My guess is that both factors are involved.
BBD, you are beating your head against a wall. If Karen was a student of mine he/she/it would be booted out of the class, or be given a BIG fail. Karen is not interested in science because he/she/it repeatedly makes the same elementary and embarrassing gaffes. Karen won't listen, no matter how many times his/her/its garbage is debunked.
The word TROLL is a completely accurate description of people like our intellectually challenged Karen.
Jeff Harvey
What is fascinating is the homogeneity of the denialist mind. From the barely literate to the Bradley, the song remains the same.
:What is fascinating is the homogeneity of the denialist mind.
A well proven phenomena, even when diametrically opposed!
Witness all those lengthy, oh-God-will-they-never-end ding-dongs between Karen 'ice age now' Spots and "Brad" ''warming, but very, very low sensitivity' "Keyes" - that have never, and will never happen..
..and yes, I am aware phenomena is a plural - but there are two of them, even if they have a singular purpose.
e pluribus unum
;-)
Karen @85 on previous page thinks that slightly cool and extremely dry March in the US proves we are entering an ice age? (Well thats what she seems to think, if she's linking to "Ice Age Now".
Of course, Karen's demonstrated inability to tell Celsius from Fahrenheit deprecates the merits of her weather reporting, but hey, like the Honey Badger, Karen just don't care! .
Better trolls, please.
Someone on WUWT wonders 'where have all the 'warmists' gone' :D
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/04/long-time-passing.html
Hey Jeff, Brunning knows polar bears can't be in trouble because he's seen one in Taronga Zoo...
Bill, I saw men walking on the moon. That means we won't have any trouble living on the moon once earth gets too crowded or hot.
People enjoy scuba diving, so I guess we won't have to relocate coastal cities. The city folk can all live under water after the seas rise.
I've been in a Sauna, therefore all this talk of potential dangers in the predicted spread of torrid zones is nonsense!
And that's really the level of 'understanding' we're dealing with here.
A lot of Denial resembles a species of ASD where the sufferer simply cannot parse complex interdependencies, is vaguely but deeply troubled by a sense that this may actually result from a lack on their own part, and hence they must reflexively dismiss all such complexities contemptuously and out of hand.
Indeed, I'd argue that we've seen that this is, indeed, what all these people have in common, be they bona-fide mouthbreathers or over-educated sociopaths.
James Hansen has been awarded the Ridenhour Courage Prize: http://www.ridenhour.org/prizes_courage_2013.html
Good.
Another day, another record. Melbourne just recorded its highest minimum for the 28th of April on record (except possibly since 1997). The last time a record low minimum for a date happened was the 22nd April 1992.
Second coldest start to Spring in U.S. History..
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/04/26/second-coldest-start-to-s…
Oh bugger. Betula's back. Same garbage, different sock.
One certainly must be clueless to postnanything from Goddard.
Did you know that wood is a fossil fuel? And do you know how fire was invented/created? A: by burning wood!
Plus a Hansen interview;
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/04/hotwhopper-of-day-wood-is-fossil-fue…
Der Speigel - Switzerland becomes a 'land of lakes' as its glaciers melt.
Sou, Hansen is definitely getting to be a seasoned media performer now; unflappable but punchy!
From this side of the Pacific 'Neanderthal' seems a pretty apt description of the Harper Govt. in this matter (though the comparison is doubtlessly unfair to actual historical Neanderthals and any putative descendents!)
(Do wish people wouldn't pronounce it as 'thal' rather than the original 'tal' since it's German and all, but, like most pedantry, that's doubtlessly a losing battle...)
"Second coldest start to Spring in U.S. History.."
So you're saying that it's warmer now than it was before?
Fair enough.
Bill, I agree. The interviewer had to push Hansen about four times to before he could get a single word to snag for the headline (Neanderthal). Hansen's manner is nicely understated but firm. He uses words well.
Deniers see Hansen as exaggerating or worse, but they have nothing to base that on except their own "personal incredulity". Hansen is far from being "hysterical" or "raving" in his manner or what he says, contrary to what the fake skeptics say about him.
Ooh, lookie: more hockey sticks.
But, oh. yeah, you cretins have 'the second coldest start to Spring in US History', don't you? That's a bit like being the 3rd best Bassoon player in Luxembourg, isn't it? Anything interesting happen in the US weatherwise for the whole of last frickin' year, fer chrissakes?
How do you manage to drag your ridiculous selves through your sorry little lives, that's what I want to know.
# 26 Betula
Read the words.
bill # 31
Agreed wrt Neanderthal! You are not alone... but probably correct that this is another losing battle.
BBD @35
Sounds like you're starting to unravel....it's just a matter of time.
# 37
In your dreams. Try venturing a science-based argument and we will see who unravels first.
Read the words.
On Socks:
Is there a consensus :-) on the taxonomy? A brief summary by a veteran would be helpful to me as a newcomer here.
BBD,
Ignore Betula. He should be called Petulant. He runs a tree pruning business somewhere in the NE USA and forever tries to give the impression that he is some kind of environmental expert.
He isn't.
Moreover, after all of the lambasting Karen has gone through over her inability to understand scale, Petulant immediately posts in here showing that he also has a dumbed-down understanding of it. Early spring WEATHER this year in the USA? Pu-lease. He needed to get this in because it is warming up rapidly in most of the lower 48 states anyway, temperatures in many places expected to be well above normal. But that isn't the point. The point is that short-term weather events in no way signify that AGW is not happening. Well, with the simpleton exception of the denier mindset, that is.
You are opining from personal experience of course.
Delusional Harvey @ 40 states...
"The point is that short-term weather events in no way signify that AGW is not happening"
Yet, Jeff believes short term weather events do signify that weather events are happening.
So which is it Harvey you tool?
Here's a comment from Jeff about his Algonquin trip:
Jeff: “On our trip we experienced climate change at first hand. It was 12 degrees warmer than average, with around -2 oC during the day and -10 at night.
And yes, this is same trip his partner Mark experienced frostbite. Two tools in the toolbox.....
http://www.nioo.knaw.nl/en/node/2137
Betula.
You are wittering.
Forcings vs GAT.
Early days.
And you still need to read the words and say something substantive.
"Yet, Jeff believes short term weather events do signify that weather events are happening."
Wrong.
But then that's your ground state, isn't it, betty.
This time last year, Betula and other credulous fools of his ilk were parroting the "Arctic Sea Ice Recovery" that was being advertised by that serially-wrong ex-weatherman climate-change-denier Anthony Watts on his crank blog.
One year on, it's good to assess exactly how this "recovery" has panned out:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
So, how does it feel to be wrong again, Betula?
Sorry, that should have read,
"...serially-wrong ex-weatherman climate-change-denier Anthony Watts on his crank blog, WUWT"
And lookee here, Betty...
And all as if paleoclimate never happened and physics operates according to our beliefs, ushering in an age of magic.
OMG - Tony's a complete nutter - now he's promoting whacky paranoid conspiracies of the Lysenko kind.
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/04/anthony-watts-has-gone-lysenko.html
What a fruitcake.
Oops - had to update my article. Anthony's lost it completely. He's posted two nutty conspiracy theories in one day - Lysenko plus recursive fury! Watt a nutter.
BBD.
Betula hasn't noticeably puppeteered socks, although his logic and understanding are sadly lacking.
Karen on the other hand used to post as 'Sunspot' until he was confined to an eponymous garbage thread. When he realised that Tim was too preoccupied by mundane matters to police the ban Spotty escaped his cage and posted as 'Mack' and as 'Karen', and I suspect that there may have been one or two other socks also. The amusing thing about KarenMackSunspot is that he had some very queer grammatical, formatting and usage tells, in addition to sock posting times that coincided outrageously, but he has steadfastly refused to admit his multiplied personalities. It took repeated pointings-out to induce KMS to tidy up the worst of his deficiencies, but his semi-literacy is still strongly in evidence.
Way back in the beginning of the Jonas infestation there were a few socks that popped up, but most of them evaporated when several of us called it. They were all highly supportive of Jonas, which leads one to wonder if there was a connection.
That's an appallingly toxic piece from Willard Anthony, even by his already low standards.
Even when he's forced to concede that the move to Bristol has nothing - by which we mean nothing whatsoever - to do with any of their complaints to UWA, he still manages to spin off on this note:
(Gee, Willard, what was all that stuff that came up about you in the Heartland papers again?)
Bona-fide academic - that's one who actually, um, completed his studies - makes a long in-train move to a more prestigious institution (sorry, UWA!); what a surprise!
Not to mention that anybody moving from Australia to the UK at the moment is almost certainly taking a pay cut.
I'd be *very* lucky to get 70% of my current salary were I to move over there now.
A colleague of mine recently moved over there for 50%.
In other words, nobody competent at basic research and maths would claim that Lewandowsky is "following the money".
But then - nobody has accused the person who runs the crank blog, WUWT of being competent.
It's a cack to witness the panicked response by deniers to the reality of global warming in the form of sea level rise:
http://www.theherald.com.au/story/1462661/poll-lake-houses-demolition-p…
Personally, I don't believe any public monies should be spent on defending individual homes: individuals should be personally responsible for their choice to buy low-lying land.
Those loudly touting some sort of Arctic sea ice recovery during the recent NH winter presumably were hoping to direct their audience's attention away from Arctic sea ice volume (e.g. here).
Meanwhile, as pointed out at Sou's blog the Heartland Institute has manufactured yet another piece of pap for Forbes. Haven't we seen most of these particular conspiracy theories before? I mean, not only Lyseknoism but the Oregon Petition, the NIPCC and the rest of the usual suspects?
And isn't it just ironic that the Heartland Institute is accusing climate science of Soviet-style Lysenkoism - whilst producing the kind of misleading propaganda that the Soviets produced in support of official Soviet policy? Does he think no-one will notice his projection? Or does he just not care?
Also, note that the Heartland Institute writer has ONLY "called out" by himself, thus highlighting his attempts to defend his piece in contrast to relevant criticisms.
Lotharsson - so ice volume has recovered to last year's levels then?
Good-o! Global warming is obviously a hoax!
On a slightly different note, I reckon this summer is going to be a good one - what are the bookies offering, I wonder?
Is it Tamino who runs a book each year?
For those with an interest, it's worth expanding the full set of comments on that Forbes article so that you can see what the author doesn't care to highlight, and see the author's responses in context.
He's dishonest, disingenuous, projecting like mad and ideating rather conspiratorially, even after a bunch of commenters point out blatant errors.
Sad to see our tree-pruner is back with his usual ad homs. I'd like to inform him that I recently gave a lecture in which I discussed the effects of climate warming on biomes, and especially at boundaries between different biomes. This is of course an important area of research in ecology and is getting more attention, given that biomes are characterized by their own above-ground and soil biota. How they will rapidly shift at transition zones is an interesting question.
But perhaps not for tree pruners, though.
Betual clearly has not kept up with Karen's inane posts, otherwise he would have refrained from making a complete arse of himself by suggesting that one month of cool weather in the United States somehow negates a huge volume of empirical evidence that supports AGW. He would also have learned that data sets do not have to show yearly increases, as these time scales are too short to elucidate trends due to stochasicity at the time scale concerned. Only when longer term data sets are views do we see significant trends, as one would expect at the scales we are discussing.
Scale, as usual, is left out of Betula's arguments, as it is from just about every denier who write in here. They clearly don't understand it or its relevance here. That's why the lot of them are an army of idiots. And that is being kind.
And the HI guy at Forbes claims that Lindzen cited Miskolczi's "paper" in support of Lindzen's position.
That would be quite something if verified.
Reading the ridiculous comments about Lewandowsky - and I'll pause, yet again, to point out that while his original 'Moon Landing' paper certainly seemed a little-less-than-overwhelming to many, the Denier reaction has vindicated it to the nth degree, an irony that they simply cannot recognise (see the thread!) - it's clear that what they really despise, ironically, is success.
Yep, what all these Foaming Friends of the Free Market™, the entire ratty and Rand-y pack, really hate is a Tall Poppy!
– You are 17,600 times more likely to die from heart disease than from a terrorist attack
– You are 12,571 times more likely to die from cancer than from a terrorist attack
— You are 11,000 times more likely to die in an airplane accident than from a terrorist plot involving an airplane
— You are 1048 times more likely to die from a car accident than from a terrorist attack
–You are 404 times more likely to die in a fall than from a terrorist attack
— You are 87 times more likely to drown than die in a terrorist attack
— You are 100,000,000,000 times more likely to die from a terrorist attack than to die from Global Warming (that is natural by the way)
:)
lol.....I see that barnturd has got his head buried in the toilet again, could someone push the button please :)
Stinky Bill, the flatulent old taxi driver, gave me a link to one his favourite websites a couple of weeks ago, I just popped is for peek and found an encouraging tidbit for you all.
New paper finds IPCC models predicted decrease in Antarctic sea ice, which is currently near record highs
A paper published today in the Journal of Geophysical Research - Atmospheres finds "most climate models from the [IPCC] archive simulate a decrease in Antarctic sea ice area over the recent past," however, "average Antarctic sea ice area is not retreating but has slowly increased since satellite measurements began in 1979." Further, the authors find the latest generation of IPCC climate models "have not improved" over the prior generation, and "show an unrealistic spread in the mean state that may influence future sea ice behavior."
The paper, co-authored by Climategate co-conspirator Susan Soloman, attempts to save face for the models, claiming the increase in Antarctic sea ice is still within natural variability. With Antarctic sea ice currently near 'unprecedented' high levels, how long can this IPCC model flimflam persist?
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2013/04/new-paper-finds-ipcc-model…
What. A. Moron.
"You are 100,000,000,000 times more likely to die from a terrorist attack than to die from Global Warming (that is natural by the way)"
Try telling that to the 50,000 plus people who died during the massive heat wave that hit Europe in 2003, or the similar number that died in Russia in the 2010 heatwave. There's certainly evidence that there has been a significant increase in weather-related disasters over the past 50 years, which, in combination, completely shred your (as usual) flippant argument.
Karen, beaten mercilessly by other posters here, keeps wading back with more pure bilge. And she keeps reading the same shitty web sites for her worldview.
Karen, we know how ignorant you are but do you ever give up? You are intellectually bankrupt. Go away, will you?
"— You are 100,000,000,000 times more likely to die from a terrorist attack than to die from Global Warming (that is natural by the way)"
As usual from the denier idiots, a completely made up and patently ridiculous claim.
cough up the data numtie
Leaving aside the issue of the typically sordid and gratuitous skidmark left on the thread above, here's how the Bristol University is reporting Lewandowsky's award from the Royal Society.
You can't even spell 'numpty', you numpty! And what frickin' data, stuff pulled straight from a much abused lower colon, such as your invented statistic?
What year is it, Karen? Can you tell the difference between degrees Celsius and Fahrenheit yet? Or is that one of those incalculable mysteries for you, like the tides for Bill O'Reilly?...
hehehe, I'm sure I seen stinkiee Bill's dummy hit his monitor :)
Karen
Yup, models wrong. Wrong about Arctic ice loss too. This is encouraging how, exactly?
We are only just now beginning to get a handle on what is going on in Antarctica and it is deeply worrying.
I have already posted this link on this thread, but you seem purely intent on trolling rather than actually reading anything. That's a shame. If you read the links, you would learn interesting things and you would understand better how liars like Hockeyschtick misrepresent and deceive.
When are you going to start getting angry with the people who have conned you, Karen? How can you be so placid about being hoodwinked? Me, I'd be furious; looking for blood.
Bernard J. # 50
Many thanks for this. Most helpful.
Unfortunately, it seems the old, country superstition may be correct: naming calls!
;-)
This is how the denier mindset operates:
Without 100% unequivocal proof of a process, there is no problem. This trick of the hand has been used to downplay links between acid precipitation and effects on freshwater and terrestrial ecosystems, other forms of pollution and the health of ecosystems, and now on the link between atmospheric C02 concentrations and GW - as well as on extreme forms of weather that, when combined over many years, suggest that there may be a very strong link between these parameters.
It doesn't matter how much the climate changes in the coming decades, and how much changes in extreme weather events that have societal implications can be inferred from that. There will deniers like Karen saying that the proof is not absolute - therefore no absolute proof means no proof at all = no problem.
I have dealt with so many ignoramus anti-environmentalists over the years that it becomes easy to see how their mindsets operate. Its easy to make a direct link between a terrorist bomb and the death of civilians, but directly linking a complex process like GW to human welfare is muc, much more difficult. Therefore, no problem.
Karen is predictable because they ALL do it. This is straight from the anti-environmental handbook. Its kindergarten level stuff, really, but they always go back to it. Its easy to debate these morons because their tactics are so simple. The problem in debating them is that they routinely lie whereas honest scientists do not. And the vast majority of honest scientists are NOT climate change deniers. The deniers have nothing to lose by lying because they are not interested in the truth.
– You are 17,600 times more likely to die waiting than find something correct at WTFUWT
– You are 12,571 times more likely to wish to contract eyeball cancer than read another Goddard article
— You are 11,000 times more likely to invent a spurious statistic than calculate a correct one
— You are 1048 times more likely to throw yourself under a car than get an intelligent answer from KarenMackSpot
–You are 404 times more likely to die of unadulterated boredom before seeing an intelligent point from KarenMackSpot
— You are 87 times more likely to drown in your own lip sweat before wondering what the hockeyschtick thinks about anything
— You are 100,000,000,000 times more likely to die from a rogue planetary attack than to expect KarenMackSpot to give up with the unending stream of persistent nonsense.
"We are only just now beginning to get a handle on what is going on in Antarctica and it is deeply worrying."
Be very carefull making statements like that in here BBd, they all have enough trouble sleeping, due to the booooggyy mann lol
Oh.. BBd you must of missed this sweety :)
http://www.tims.ntu.edu.tw/download/talk/20120917_2280.pdf
Hug your teddy bear if it helps.
The senior author on the presentation Karen cites is Mojib Latif. Here is what Professor Latif says about AGW:
"...after being asked whether he was a climate sceptic, he explained that "If my name was not Mojib Latif, my name would be global warming. So I really believe in Global Warming. Okay. However, you know, we have to accept that there are these natural fluctuations, and therefore, the temperature may not show additional warming temporarily."
Karen obliterated again. Distorting the views of scientists to promote her own agenda. What else is new. Moreover, an increase in ice at the Antarctic IN NO WAY disproves AGW. The Antarctic is the world's coldest place. Even a massive increase in temperature there would still mean that its usually well below freezing. At the same time, changes in precipitation could actually lead to an increase in the amount of ice: a critical point that in no way contrdicts AGW theory. At the same time, a recent study found that the rate of melting there is faster than at any time in hundreds of years.
Karen: shot down again.
Loser.
What study Jeeeffferie ?
"Karen: shot down again.
Loser."
lol...the "presentation" wasn't about global warming JeFFeRy
Karen, you've posted that fascinating presentation before, and seem to be at a loss about what it means, as ever.
"lol..the "presentation" wasn't about global warming.."
Actually it is about the Southern Ocean at 50 to 70 degrees S ,possible long natural variation modes and influence on global warming. The presentation offers an influence on the pace of global warming,if the centennial mode and the proposed mechanism that powers it are real
The band at lats 50 to 70S show little surface air warming over the last thirty years while further south and the whole planet northwards does. [there is an error in one of the graphics,the wrong sector is isolated by a colour band,but the text is right]
SLR has risen and the ocean has warmed over the last few decades.
Westerly winds in that zone have strengthened over the last few decades.
A centennial mode is suggested by paleo work. Then mechanisms and locations of oceanic warming and heat transport with time frames are discussed.
Antarctic sea-ice may continue to expand in winter extent,slowing the pace of global warming during the next few decades. By how much? After that, Kaz?
Well Karen, others have kindly clarified your understanding of your own link for you while I've been away. Let's mind our manners and thank them for their efforts:
Thank you Jeff Harvey and Nick!
Remember, they probably have better things to do with their time than correct your nonsense, so you should be properly grateful!
Now fuck off and read the link I provided for you. Learn something, you cretin.
Karen - physical climatology basics:
Natural variability about long-term average does not create a long-term trend.
For that, you need to force the system.
If the Heartland Institute, instead of bandying the term "Lysenkoism" about in ways that indicate they have a complete disregard for the truth, wanted to actually discuss political control of science they might care to point out GOP desires to apply political pressure to the NSF grant process.
Yeah, right.
Nick - some good points there, but I have my doubts about: "Antarctic sea-ice may continue to expand in winter extent,slowing the pace of global warming during the next few decades."
Increased sea ice can slow warming only by increasing average albedo (reflecting more radiation out into space). But winter sea ice extent has no albedo effect, since there is no sunlight. If anything, increased winter sea ice adds to warming - its insulation effect traps heat in the ocean that would otherwise radiate out into the bitter Antarctic night.
Increasing spring-summer extent does slow warming, but the upward trend for the three months straddling the summer solstice is less than the overall trend, which is relatively slight anyway, so its impact is very limited.
Contrast with the situation in the Arctic where the greatest negative anomalies coincide with the maximum insolation, ensuring the dark ocean soaks up far more heat than would otherwise be the case.
Sea Ice variation, taken globally or regionally, is not the deniers friend. Karen's pathetic attempts to say otherwise have a 100% failure rate. This is no exception.
Heh - a colleague has just disabled our entire workspace by sending us a screen shot of the latest moronicness at the "Jo Nova" crank blog - some amazingly dimwitted "sceptic" crank calling himself "Crakar24" is convinced abiogenic oil is real:
and
Hahahaha - Jo Nova's fans, as usual, never fail to please in the "absurd things to read after lunch" category.
#85, Frank, I was just sketching out the presentation's points for Kazza. That potential continued expansion claim was in the work.
It's a good read,particularly the deep ocean water mechanisms. It's a cautious account of research in progress. They suspect that the latitudinal band discussed will continue to lag in air temp increase for a while...this suggests to me that steepening temperature and pressure gradients between it and the tropics will make southernmost populated parts even more subject to dramatic weather. Whatever comfort Kaz saw in it of course is a product of mental frailty...and it's the usual commonplace example of research into natural variability that puts the lie to idiot claims that NV is ignored by researchers.
Perhaps read the link at # 73?
;-)
Vince, Google on 'Oil is Mastery' and see what turns up. Pure 'magic'.
But Denial is not disproportionately composed of cranks, nutters and conspiracy theorists, of course.
Lionel - that's very funny in a scary kinda way.
It seems there's an entire crank-friendly army out there equipped with 'braderised super-logic' which is completely unencumbered by any grip on, or knowledge of, reality.
Harvey at his best....
He goes on a 1 month trip and "experienced climate change first hand" because it was 12 degrees warmer than average while on that trip (yet they still froze their asses, even getting frostbite)
Jeff: “On our trip we experienced climate change at first hand. It was 12 degrees warmer than average, with around -2 oC during the day and -10 at night."
So Jeff, you experienced climate change "first hand" based on a 1 month scale? Jeff, it seems that you are making a complete arse of yourself by suggesting that one month of above average temperature in Algonquin is somehow climate change "first hand". Do you always base "first hand" climate change experience on such short scales, or just when you want to embellish?
Note: Some of the above words are Jeffs own words (see #59). I just used them here to show what a hypocrite he is....it's quite simple really.
Also note: Jeffs response to this will not be an answer to the question, but rather that he gave a class somewhere, followed by talking about himself for several paragraphs and finally ending with a comment about how nobody can know what he knows...
http://www.nioo.knaw.nl/en/node/2137
OK Betula adapt to this:
Hurricane Sandy’s Untold Filthy Legacy: Sewage but best avoid getting caught up in situations like this SS Princess Alice (1865).
Consider the role of Joseph Bazalgette who thought he had solved a problem. Sadly although many times more clever than you, he failed with the bigger picture and that is precisely where your little mind fails.
Consider that recent studies have shown that sea levels are now rising faster than ever in recorded history and that more superstorms are being generated as we continue to warm the planet.
Expect more sewage with your breakfast.
And let's not forget...
Cold weather is just weather, hot weather is climate....
Chris @ 25..."Another day, another record. Melbourne just recorded its highest minimum for the 28th of April on record (except possibly since 1997)"
http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2013/04/29/cold-snowy-spring-weat…
bill,
if oil were truly abiogenic one should ask why the US Navy is trying to produce jet fuel from seawater.
The sound like two bricks clunking together could be Betty's still functioning neurons trying to formulate a concept that AGW must never actually manifest itself in the real world.
If that's what you want to believe, Betty, go ahead.
So, Betty, it's not possible to know what climate is according to you.
So you're denying climate changes.
Watch this while you can. The Exxon barf that they don't want you to see.
Somewhere for Betula to learn stuff Jeff Masters' Wunder Blog, somebody still engaged in science (unlike Lindzen eh Keyes of the Kingdom). Pay particular attention to this:
Unusually cold spring in Europe and the Southeast U.S. due to the Arctic Oscillation,
and stop your nonsense.
Betula
Not if you can show multi-decadal change in extreme hot weather events. And we can. And I have pointed you at a good reference at least twice now. And you still haven't bothered to read it. So you are lazy and ignorant as well as a denialist, which must be awful for you but is bad enough for those around you.
Read the words. Go on. Do it.
Don't just come back here repeating the same bullshit over and over again.
Since the cold weather bullshit keeps on coming, I will repeat this comment once again.
This is the frequency increase of extreme summer (JJA) hot events (NH, land) 1951 – 2011 (figure only). This is where weather becomes climate - in the record of sustained, multi-decadal change.
Source: Public perception of climate change and the new climate dice, Hansen, Sato & Ruedy (2012):
Betula is singularly obsessed with my trek across Algonquin Park more than a year ago. Glad that someone still remembers it. Thanks, tree pruner for your unbridled support.
The thing is, Betula couldn't debate his way out of a wet paper bag where science is concerned. Like deniers, he sinks his teeth into one tiny, insignificant thing (a web article written by someone where I work after I returned from a winter crossing of the park) and won't let go. For their part, the last stand of climate change deniers for the most part over the last decade has been Mann et als. hockey stick. Entire denial web sites have been set up CA, Hockeyschtick) to smear Mann and that single study. Again, the denier mind set is simple (hardly surprising since the vast majority of them are morons). Focus on one thing and leave out a huge empirical base.... if they think they can debunk one area, then they think that everything else will come down with it. Creationists do it as well. They are deniers in their own right.
Thanks heaven Betula is too busy shearing branches off of trees to venture in here most of the time. He doesn't know the difference between weather and climate; doesn't understand the concept of time lags for large scale systems; hasn't got a clue about the importance of scale in the Earth and environmental sciences. But he sure as hell doesn't like someone saying that climate change will unravel food webs and undermine ecosystem functions (big words that probably go over his head). And he cannot stand someone suggesting that life-zone boundaries will have to shift as it warms rapidly. This was what I wanted to say in the now infamous press release last year.
Note to ianam: this is precisely what i was saying when I said that I have to take truckloads of shit from people like Betula for waiving anonymity. Betula, Jonas, 'Karen' and their acolytes can spew out any garbage they like and get away with it. By saying who I am, Betula, Olaus and others expend their energies trying to dig up any dirt they can to smear me... and all they can come up with is some flimsy web link on our site in which I said that climate change effects are being manifested at the boundaries of ecological life zones. If Betula wants evidence, then look it up in the empirical literature instead of hounding me. Its there, but you are not interested in that; your primary aim is to hound me like many are hounding Michael Mann.
Fuck 'em Jeff.
- You have the balls to post under your real name, for which you deserve respect
- Your commentary here about the effects of rapid climate change on ecosystems has opened my eyes to something not sufficiently discussed in the blog wars, for which you have my thanks
- I know what the buggers are trying to do, so my guess - no, it's more than a guess - is that so does everyone else
- so as I said, f----
Nice - I hadn't thought of things in that way before....I guess it makes no difference in places like Bangladesh where the sewage is all around you anyway.
Changing the subject, a few years back there was a spoof paper knocking around in which Catweazle was listed in the references.
Does anyone know to which 'paper' I am referring?
Thanks BBD. Your comments and knowledge here are also very much appreciated.... I learn a lot for your posts and want to thank you for also standing up to the disinformation spewed out by the deniers.
Still compiling that other list, blóóndie?
"995 daily snowfall records have been broken during the month so far"
More precipitation. Aha. Imagine the future snowfall records resulting from open sea Arctic :)
"— You are 100,000,000,000 times more likely to die from a terrorist attack than to die from Global Warming (that is natural by the way)", #62
Really, blóóóndie? You know, one single heatwave killed more people than all terrorist attacks of the world and its history combined. 55.000 dead in just two months.
Russia, 2010.
And, of course, even if we assigned all non-AGW deaths as due to terrorism, the idiot's invented 'statistic' is falsified - for all time - by just two of those deaths; and this leaving aside the obvious point that the most people existing terrorists could hope to kill in their wildest dreams is a mere 7 billion!
I think spots was being very VERY alarmist.
I wonder, though, why those deniers whinging about "alarmists" making up shit are hiding...
The dimbo dumbos of the 'nobody at home brigade' Karen, OP, Betula, etc being paid up members of should grok this article taking down a recent by Roy Spencer (him and Christy being '...the twins ting-a-ling, the twins ting-a-ling, the brass bands play as they stroll along...') Roy Spencer's Catholic Online Climate Myths. These people are getting downright tedious.
Dana also takes on another aspect Spencer's interview in The Gruniad this morning.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/201…
Roy Spencer is a nutcase:
http://www.cornwallalliance.org/articles/read/an-evangelical-declaratio…
Credibility = nil.
Vince,
Yikes! This is pure insanity. For instance: "We deny that carbon dioxide—essential to all plant growth—is a pollutant".
What utter nonsense! Carbon is certainly not a limiting nutrient for plants - nitrogen and phosphorus are. This is kindergarten level science. If Spencer is one of the 'luminaries' in the climate change denial camp, then that lot are in deep, deep trouble.
And the political mumbo jumbo about taxing the poor? Good grief, its a small elite minority who profit from the profligate use of fossil fuels. What a smokescreen these fruitcakes try and create.
It gets even worse:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornwall_Alliance
Check out some of the signatories of their 'declaration'... in addition to Spencer its some of the other usual suspects.
Horrendous.
Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornwall_Alliance
"Protection of the poor"
Wiki would be thoroughly entitled to add "Rank, sickening hypocrisy" to its 'category' lusting.
... or even better, its category listing.
The signatories are here:
http://www.cornwallalliance.org/blog/item/prominent-signers-of-an-evang…
I notice Dembski in there, D'Aleo, and McKitrick as well
So those three are happy to put their names to A big pile of Creationist bullshit.
Dangerous loons.
I'd rate it as manipulation of a mother lode of otherwise harmless loons by a cadre of far from harmless lunatics..
Yep - and this is quite literally the best Denial can do.
Then about 6 ranks below them we have the mouth-breathing Fundies that haunt this blog. Baby Jesus loves the Innumerates, right, SpamKan?
This is very funny:
http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2013/04/17/conspiracy-theorists-are-j…
This is (ahem) illuminating.
And there's an endlessly recursive loop! A large group of people who won't participate in fixing any problem they deem politically incorrect* if they're made aware they're fixing it. How the hell do you get out off that?
Hmmm...
And there’s an endlessly recursive loop! A large group of people who won’t participate in fixing any problem they deem politically incorrect* if they’re made aware they’re fixing it. How the hell do you get out off that?
Schiller.
*Contrary to their equally perverse myth-making, in reality PC is a pervasive phenomenon of the Troglodyte Right; most notably in their aggressive – indeed, frequently hysterical – assertion that their confident ignorance is the equal of yer fancy-schmancy book lernin’ any day. I agree with the discussion that holds that in this respect Lysenkosim is a very close cousin of Denial, not science…
In fact, there is an enormous amount of projection on display.
From their ludicrous "global warming religion/high priests" aimed at the secular activity that is science research or the "follow the money" nonsense aimed at all those stupendously smart science academics who are pulling in $60k/year, to this latest garbage about Lysenko: they are transparently trying to pin their sins onto everybody else.
Some good news:
http://www.progressva.org/2013/05/what-have-cuccinelli-and-mcdonnell-be…
# 20 chek
The whole thing is a particularly pernicious front, funded by the usual mix of fossil fuel vested interest and right-wing twisters.
Details here.
Read all about the Cornwall Alliance's crazy and repellent founder Calvin Beisner.
Some extracts from Beisner's book, Resisting The Green Dragon:
Yes children. THIS is what Spencer is endorsing. It is, as they say, worse than we thought.
For an invaluable resource for debunking those who parrot Spencer's scientific trickery, see here.
I notice there's a certain level of - entirely justified - schadenfreude going on over at Mike Mann's twitter feed; justice may yet turn out never to have been quite so poetic!
(It'll be like he's been cut-down by the HHRIJ!)
And 'Star Scientific'? Oh, the irony... ;-)
Admittedly I didn't know this until someone showed me, but Political Correctness' only connection to the "left" and communism was that Marx said that "PC" complaints would be used to silence critics and would be used *by the right* to shame people into staying silent rather than speaking.
The right refuse to acknowledge this, though. If complaining about PC is something they and the rest of the right do, IT CANNOT be something that communist thought complained about. In their minds, they have NOTHING to do with communism and are the exact opposite.
Oddly enough, in many things, they are 360 degrees opposite...
Parallel to their forthcoming paper the SkS team are looking for people to do a survey that involves reading several (short) abstracts of papers and then rating the extent to which they confirm/endorse the AGW hypothesis (or otherwise.)
The survey can be taken here - http://survey.gci.uq.edu.au/survey2.php.
As usual the range of papers is very intriguing. Contrarian blogs have been asked to post the link, too. Expect recursion...
Ah - it seems you'll have to go from one of the site links, so here's the SkS page - http://www.skepticalscience.com/Participate-survey-measuring-consensus-climate-research.html.
That might make for a more interesting measure of the affect of preconception on comprehension... ;-)
I see on WUWT that someone's fleecing deniers for $$ to make a short video with the nutters. It's going to feature - wait for it:
His Highness Viscount Lord Christopher "birther and not a member of the House of Lords" Monckton
Jo "gold bug" Codling/Nova and partner
Anthony "hide inconvenient data" Watts
James "interpreter of interpretations" Delingpole
and others from the fake skeptic menagerie.
Apparently the film is going to try to persuade people it's going to be cheaper to have more and worse floods, cities submerged by rising seas, heat waves, water shortages, horrendous bushfires and droughts than it is to stop global warming.
It's going to be based on Monckt(ec)onomics! I imagine with lots of upside down charts, dollar signs and swastikas if his presentations to date are anything to go by.
Ha ha - the you tube video is about this incomprehensible fiddling with decimals.
Lead balloons!
That is a Lomborgian argument. Didn't know Monckton was an advocate of recycling.
They *want* a climate emergency so they can go back to the good old days of 1941 where production took a front seat to unions, wages, and regulation of all types.
Here's a fun survey, from John Cook:
http://survey.gci.uq.edu.au/survey.php?c=1R9YT8YMZTWF
The nutters at Jo Nova are drooling all over a new junk-science paper:
http://www.clim-past.net/9/447/2013/cp-9-447-2013.html
Apparently cherry-picking 6 thermometer records (all in Europe) and one longer-term record (specifically chosen for its fit with the thermometer records), and then manufacturing 6 imaginary "cycles" to fit the data is all you need to do to disprove climate change.
#38,new? Ludecke's cyccle fitting has no pants,removed back when it came out...but of course for Nova,it's perfect.
WRT the Lüdecke nonsense, Eli was quick to strike ;-)
See here and here.
What's excellent about Lüdecke et al is that it makes very clear predictions of the expected temperature trajectory over the next 10-15 years. The fit is close enough that if their hypothesis is incorrect, the divergence will be apparent within a few years*.When the divergence is statistically significant, there will be an opportunity for Nova's chetters to demonstrate their skepticism by publicly rejecting the Ludocycle hypothesis. It will be excellent to see skeptics to prove their skepticism.
And yes, I believe in fairies! I do, I do, I do! Why do you ask?
:D
* I'm pretty sure it would already be apparent, if Lüdecke et al had used the last decade of data. I wonder why they didn't...
"chetters"? WTF are they? Was meant to be "chatterers"...
Lüdecke can already talk, apparently, otherwise what an ingnorant bunch.
http://www.knmi.nl/klimatologie/daggegevens/antieke_wrn/index.html
Labrijn, continuous to 1706 (we also got some stretches of instrumentals back to 1634). In Britain one can go even further back in time, when, according to Lüdecke et al earth temperature stood at like 10 degrees higher than now and dinosaurs were pets.
Why don't universities kick out cranks like this?? Why??
Do you think it's a strategy? Triumphantly flourish the paper only after the level of debunking has cooled, and hope that the real world has moved on sufficiently for the - ahem - 'skeptical' fan-base to lap it up without their sensitive souls being exposed to untoward refutation... ;-)
cRR Kampen
Perhaps even more to the point, given the complexities of tenure and employment law and freedom of academic thought, why do journals publish flawed studies?
Zorita's role in the decision at CP to publish is what disturbs me most.
'Freedom of academic thought', my you-know-what! There is no ffing freedom in thinking about the '2' in inverse square laws, or the (ir-)rationality of Pi, or the fact that CO2 is a GHG, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
cRR
I do understand what you are saying of course, but my point is that what you argue would lead to academics being dismissed *for being mistaken*.
It is better that journal referees and editors detect mistakes and reject papers, surely?
Which is what makes the editorial decision at CP to publish Lüdecke so disturbing.
"what you argue would lead to academics being dismissed *for being mistaken*"
Or worse. Of course. Mathematicians going on quadraturing the circle ought to be kicked out of any university. People denying that CO2 is a GHG (all climate revisionists belong to this group) have to be booted - it is not even necessary to give a reason for that.
One professor Blacquière of Wageningen University, he 'studies' bees, is a fraud who needs to be let off. Why? Because he not only dogmatically will not research anything to do with certain pesticides, he forbids his student explicitly to do so. That's because this guy is a fraud: he works for Bayer. This has been known for years and guess what - he's a government advisor.
Ffing Alice in Wonderland.
Journal referees/editors should reject cranky papers, yes, but the real consequences have to be taken by the academia. Publishing well known artefacts (without even bothering to try for any physical explanation for found 'periodicity') should result in the sack the moment de academia lays eyes on such a paper.
I'd even suggest those authors should pay damages for being the nuisance they are.
/rant
If there is clear evidence of fraud, academic misconduct or paid advocacy for vested interests, then dismissal should be automatic, yes. Of course. Along with a bar against future employment in a teaching capacity. Students must not have their potential careers blighted because of "bad" professors.
So long as the evidence is *clear*. I wouldn't want to live in a world where academics were afraid to publish contrarian papers that run the risk of being mistaken. Then science stops dead.
I think we probably agree but have blog interface problems ;-)
BBD, we do agree ('blog interface problems', that's a useful phrase :) ).
But there is a difference between, let us say, 'contrarian' and 'quadraturian', then. There is a reason I make use of the term 'climate revisionism' for garbage that is more usually called too neutrally 'contrarian'.
(incidentally, when I hit the free speech advocates of WUWT re censorship of the d-word, I instantly coined 'climate revisionism').
Problem with Lüdecke et al is that one could also surmise the level of that work is far below academic, it's high school experimenting at best. I have to agree with you that this kind of thing should be sorted out by the journals themselves.
Unfortunately, with climate revisionism I consider authors guilty until proven naive or demented. Including Lüdecke.
cRR Kampen
Oh yes, no free pass for Lüdecke. But no free pass for Zorita either. He is at least as culpable. To be honest this whole thing gave me a strong case of the WTFs. CP is most certainly not E & E.
Just been reading Bob Tisdale's explanation of how his brain works. He admits that sees things in 'bits' and can't seem to connect the different bits, which stops him from seeing the whole picture. But then we knew that already.
Anyway, it got me to look at how people 'see' things. A few people on WUWT managed to say what they see in a surface temperature chart from WMO, before RichardSCourtney bit their heads off. I drew it in pictures. Interesting if you like that sort of thing.
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/05/wmo-report-gives-insight-into-brain-…
What happened to Marcott et al. In the 20th century ?
The tell me that bit is entirely made up, from a very few selected data points , giving a strong visual impression of an uptick, but with no evidential robustness whatsoever .
I put them all together into a single gif file.
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/05/different-views-of-same-thing.html
I wonder how Tisdale would fair if he met a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necker_cube"Necker Cube or some of M C Escher's work (I love this stuff BTW) such as Ascending and Descending and Waterfall. 'Convex and Concave' and 'Print Gallery' would likely send him out into the night screaming.
Argh!
I wonder how Tisdale would fair if he met a Necker Cube
(Paul West)
Argue with this you dimbo dumbos of the denier/delayer brigade:
Quick Video Wrap Up Of The Week’s Global Warming News.
And, as most of us realise, it isn't only global warming that humans are causing but disruption to ecosystems by transport of invasive species. Of course this has been going on for years with e.g. horticulturists not always appreciating the consequences of their actions.
One helper here: Scientists map global routes of ship-borne invasive species .
Next time some sociopath tries to condemn wind turbines for killing birds this should be put under their nose How many birds are killed by windows?.
Never mind windows. What about cats?!
When are the anti-wind campaigners going to start a campaign to ban cats? We should be told.
Casting back to Tim's long-lost youth, Lott has a new edition out - time to call Tim back to the colours...
http://www.humanevents.com/2013/05/01/coulter-americas-most-feared-econ…
Dr Paul Willis is trolling the anti-science cranks here:
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2013/04/29/3740590.htm
Heh - he's keeping an eye on the comments and playing whack-a-mole with them.
Yep, that's fun!
The 'organic food causes autism' chart made me laugh out loud, but the anti-vax brigade (often a strongly-intersecting set with the organic consumers*) is not a laughing matter.
I have no doubt, however, of Internet Explorer's capacity to induce homicidal rages.
Such things cause me to recall recently encountering Neil de Grasse Tyson's suggested response to folks who think the 'if a tree falls in the forest...' question embodies some profound and timeless wisdom - 'How do you know it fell?'
*And I say that as a devotee of the organic and minimum spray stalls at the local farmers market.
I learnt something new today, from reading Willis Eschenbach on WUWT. Well, not from him, needless to say.
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/05/why-does-land-warm-faster-dont-ask.h…
I see Eli's added you to his blogroll, Sou, and flagged it in a post - well done!
Thanks, Bill. I'm seriously flattered.
Almost too much happening in one day even for this tough old bird. I had a stoush with WUWT over Anthony's recycling of a lynch mob attack on Peter Gleick.
Tony's mob of conspiracy theorists are a constant source of amazement/amusement.
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/05/testing-wuwt-moderation.html#sou
No worries Sou!
Here's a highly-recommended great little video I just found at Climate Crocks.
The dim-bulb and pseudo-intellectual count around here has never been lower. Has epistemic closure finally become absolute? Has the gravity of The Stupid become utterly inescapable? You guys know Hawking demonstrated that black holes all evaporate eventually, right? ;-)
Great video, Bill. It's a must do post for HW in the next day or so. Thanks.
I really don't know if it's gotten worse everywhere. The WUWT rabble seem to be reduced to name-calling of individual scientists and the general public en masse. If you're game, have a look at some of the comments on the $$ for video thread on WUWT. "Alarmists are mass murderers" and worse - ad infinitum.
I say keep the pressure on and make sure every sane person is aware of the problem, as well as show up the Dismissives for what they are.
To clarify: The "problem" being climate change, not the Dismissives. The latter aren't about to go anywhere.
Sou
Honourable mention at Stoat too!
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2013/05/06/frolic-and-detour/
And quite right too. I can't face WTFUWT, so your synopses and commentary are very handy. For which many thanks.
More news out of the Arctic demolishing the deniers already wafer-thin arguments:
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/the-acid-ocean-…
Of course, betty had to forget that the claims are:
We've had SEVERAL Hot Summers in a row: that's climate.
We've had ONE Cold Winter: that's weather.
hmmm....... it's still April in here, typical lol
and jeffffery still believes what he reads in the Independent :) so much for peer reviewed.........
Ah, the fool is back.
In April.
The sea level will rise how much?
http://news.yahoo.com/greenlands-glacial-melt-may-slow-study-suggests-1…
Love the contrast of words....
"glaciers will likely slow their rapid retreat"
"researchers resolve one of the biggest uncertainties"
"We now have a good estimate of what's going to happen in the next 100 years"
"Now we know for sure"
"looking at the changes from the last 10 years and extrapolating them is wrong," she said. "It's not science."
"The study predicts"
"One 2008 study, a worst-case scenario"
Sounds like they now know for sure they have a good estimate of their prediction that will likely resolve one of the biggest uncertainties involving a worst case scenario.
Wow @ 72...
Of course, betty had to forget that the claims are:
We’ve had SEVERAL Hot Summers in a row: that’s climate.
We’ve had ONE Cold Winter: that’s weather.
So the first hot summer was considered weather until the second hot summer changed it to climate, followed by one cold winter, which is weather, and a very cool spring which is also weather (bordering on climate). Now, if we get one cool summer, it's not weather, but rather a changed climate even though it's just one summer.
Got it.
Betula, why don't you read the link at the beginning of this thread?
Summer hot weather trends are now decades old and very much climate. I keep on pointing you at the relevant information over and over again but you just won't read the words.
Why not? What is wrong with you?
Betula says, "Sounds like they now know for sure they have a good estimate of their prediction that will likely resolve one of the biggest uncertainties involving a worst case scenario."
Got to love how these fake "sceptics" place so much belief and trust automatically on *some* exercises in computer modelling, while rejecting *others*.
Of couuse, their discrimination has nothing to do with understanding, analysis, and rational thought - Betula likes the results of this computer model because some crank site on the internet has told him to like it.
Poor ol' Betty grabs both feet of his comprehension and swings it around like he's holding a cat with a 2m radius within the 1m radius of his comprehension.
He knows (from his visits here) that the average global temperature is rising inexorably but with non-linear local effects, just as the trees he prunes don't grow absolutely uniformly.
But he beats the shit out of that cat because 'murcan 'publicanism values herd-following stupidity above all else - it's their one growth industry - and so even though he fully comprehends non-linearity in his everyday work, Betty's happy to pretend that he means something as long as it's not what those gummint eggheads think about climate change.
Thus down the tubes of history went American Thinking.
Betty, even by the standards of Deniers, you continue to astonish.
Gee, they've used confident words, and I'm choosing to believe what they're saying helps my cause, so they must be right. However wherever authority and confident language combine in a message I don't like I simply reject or ignore it. No matter how many times the same conclusion is reached.
And, yep, like all the other dills you don't get the distinction between weather and climate. Climate is where you get the warmest decade in recorded history, and probably for 10000 years. Weather is where we had a lot of snow last Wednesday.
And, seriously, one winter grading into spring is 'climate'? It's like you're a cartoon!
You ought to be ashamed of your astonishing level of ignorance, and your equally shameless barging in on matters you clearly do not comprehend. But that's impossible.
"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." - John Stuart Mill
Stick to lopping branches.
Gosh, Betty, so if several tonnes of all this snow you've been having was poised to slide off a mountain onto your house, and the amount of snow accumulating had recently doubled, if you found out the rate of pile up wasn't likely to increase to anything greater than that there wouldn't be a problem at all! Right?
Graham LLoyd at The Australian quoting from an interview on the "skydragon" website with nutter Habibullo Abdussamatov.
"Abdussamatov said a new "little ice age" would start this or next year and hit a low around 2040, with a deep freeze that would last for the rest of the century."
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/emissions-deba…
I can't comment at Peter Gleick's for some reason, so I can't respond to the idiot who brought up Lindzen as a counter-authority to reality as we know it.
I would respond with this:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Hansen88vsLindzen99_all.png
or this:
http://media.treehugger.com/assets/images/2011/10/20110428-hansen-v-lin…
Uh-oh - turns out Lindzen was horribly wrong. Who'd have guessed it?
I'm referring to Peter Gleick's here:
http://scienceblogs.com/significantfigures/index.php/2013/04/02/three-i…
Thanks, Mike.
While not as egregiously misleading as previous Graham Lloyd efforts, one had to wonder what this article is actually meant to be about, seeing as its headline is obviously a bit of made-up nonsense, its reference to Russian crank theories is just a waste of time and space, and the rest of what it presents contains nothing new and nothing interesting beyond a deliberate attempt to confuse the scope of CO2-related forcing with the far, far smaller scope of solar variability forcing.
At least Lloyd won't have to issue a correction in relation to this one.
Still warrants a spot on the checklist of The Australian's War on Science, though.
# 82 Craig Thomas
WRT unable to comment at PG's...
Last time this happened (several sites) I cured it by enabling the "accept third-party cookies" option in the innards of my browser. It is well worth checking to see if this is on or off as it is a common cause of mystery "lock-outs" from comments.
"So the first hot summer was considered weather until the second hot summer changed it to climate"
So you think two is "several", betty?
Your lack of even basic counting skills is displayed to full effect here, betty.
Go away and make me a sammich.
Re Abdussamatov crankery - see Feulner & Rahmstorf (2010).
Pretty picture.
F&R commentary by authors.
MikeH #81 - I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't read it myself. What a twit.
His twitter handle is very apt: @glloydtwit
I keep hearing about Abdussamatov. Doubtless he is Crank of the Month at various chumming sites - and now The Australian. Doubtless coming to The Daily Mail and The Telegraph soon.
Always interesting to watch the climate liars spread misinformation from their blogs that finds its way up the media food chain into the MSM.
Then listen to them whine that they are just a tiny, uninfluential minority crushed beneath the massive weight of "state-sponsored climate science" blah blah blah.
Lol - I got suckered. Thought @glloydtwit was Graham Lloyd - it's a fake account.
I've been conned before on Twitter with fake accounts. I recall reading an unbelievable tweet from Kevin Rudd - only it was the fake KRudd.
#83
Craig, you've nailed the real divergence problem.
Ha ha ha. Silly me. The Abdussamatov fiction made it into the Daily Mail almost two weeks ago!
Interestingly, Abdussamatov was not mentioned by name, but the noise is coming from the the Pulkovo Observatory, so it's him again. He's been at it for years (at least since 2007) - I hadn't realised.
Notice the misleading description of these clowns as "climate experts" by both "newspapers"? They are astronomers of some sort or other. Calling them "climate experts" is like calling Kevin Trenberth a solar physicist - flat-out wrong.