July 2013 Open thread

Where else could the water have come from?

Noah's fresh water tank on the Ark?

"NMFS denies ribbon seal endangered species listing"

"This decision begins to bring some rationality to the recent misapplication of the ESA that has resulted in the precautionary listing of currently abundant and robust species based on speculated and unproven climate related impacts over century timeframes," he said by email. "We stand ready to assist the NMFS in defense of this decision if it is challenged."

http://news.yahoo.com/nmfs-denies-ribbon-seal-endangered-species-listin…

Another idiot selective-quotation, brought to you by our regular science-deniers -

Ribbon seals are found in the Bering and Chukchi (Chuk-CHEE') seas off Alaska and in the Sea of Okhotsk (oh-KOTSK') off Russia. They are not in danger of disappearing under the time limits required for listing in the Endangered Species Act, a spokeswoman for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said.

"NOAA's status review concluded that the anticipated threats to ribbon seals, primarily from reductions in sea ice and disrupted prey communities, will result in a gradual decline in ribbon seal population abundance," said Julie Speegle in the announcement. "However, this decline is not expected to render the species in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future."

The agency also rejected a listing for ribbon seals in December 2008. Attorney Rebecca Noblin of the Center for Biological Diversity, which with Greenpeace sued for reconsideration, said the agency acknowledges that the seals could be in serious trouble in the Sea of Okhotsk. Continued sea ice loss also threatens them in the Bering Sea, she said.

"We disagreed that loss of sea ice in the Bering Sea is not going to be a problem in the foreseeable future," she said. "We think the sea ice models show that ribbon seals are losing sea ice at critical times in the spring."

Everyone acknowledges the sea-ice is diminishing and this will have an impact on the seals - this is niggling about timeframes to facilitate BAU; the kind of bog-standard bureaucratic buck-passing you guys deplore in any other context, in fact

And, whaddyaknow, I can use blockquotes! I've showed you the code twice. The reactionary mind...

Maybe you should learn to read before you regurgitate, Batty? Oh, no, sorry; that's right, you're a denier - what was I thinking?

Some evasive, empty blather aside, you have not answered the key question Betty.

I cannot understand the basis of your denial. For AGW to just stop or to have minimal effect the laws of physics would have to be suspended. You do realise this, don’t you?

I wonder because you appear to believe that the laws of physics *have* been suspended. Everything you argue seems predicated on the assumption that AGW will have minimal effects.

How can you argue that AGW has stopped (or isn’t happening in the first place) or will have little or no effect unless you deny the laws of physics?

Are you a physics denier? A Dragon Slayer? Please clarify.

@chek bloblo

no, wrong!!!!!

@bill

blockquotes, hahahahahaha

the computer illiterate is proud of blockquotes in most primitive html, yes that's exacty the level about which you can be proud

GREAT ACHIEVEMENT, BLOCKQUOTES

TYPICAL AGW CHURCH ACOLYTES LEBEL

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAÄHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

@bbd asshole stinker

you have bern given information about the idiocy and fallacy of your delusion

€$£$££¥£$
Some evasive, empty blather aside, you have not answered the key question Betty.

I cannot understand the basis of your denial. For AGW to just stop or to have minimal effect the laws of physics would have to be suspended. You do realise this, don’t you?

I wonder because you appear to believe that the laws of physics *have* been suspended. Everything you argue seems predicated on the assumption that AGW will have minimal effects.

How can you argue that AGW has stopped (or isn’t happening in the first place) or will have little or no effect unless you deny the laws of physics?
€$££¥$£¥¥£$£

why do yout fuckwit resist to learn your lesson??

go back in the thread, read your lesson, then get back and admit that you are a big idiot

yes that’s exacty the level about which you can be proud

Well there is that, but then there's also communicating coherent English and support for the entirely coherent theory of AGW.

Maybe coherence is the thing you're rejecting in thought and deed, Freddy-fred.

why do yout fuckwit resist to learn your lesson??

What lesson? You know nothing, reference nothing and are continually and seriously in error about everything.

Where did that ~6m of extra ocean come from during the Eemian, freddy?

you have bern given information about the idiocy and fallacy of your delusion

No I haven't. I've been subjected to an outpouring of stupid, illiterate abuse by a nutter who references nothing and who clearly knows nothing about even the basic concepts of physical climatology.

And it's getting tedious now.

chek ignorant arse

AGW IS NO THEORY, you have been thaught this now several times, and your learning abilitites a pure catastrophe

for once, wikipedia has a valid definition of what a scientific theory is. listen and try to learn again:

ä$£¥£$£¥$

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.[1][2] Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.[3][4]
The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, which is measured by its ability to make falsifiable predictions with respect to those phenomena. Theories are improved as more evidence is gathered, so that accuracy in prediction improves over time. Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease.
Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[3] This is significantly different from the word "theory" in common usage, which implies that something is unsubstantiated or speculative.[5]

@&€€&€&&€€&&&€&&&&€&

WILL YOU FOOL NOW ABSTSAIN FROM YOUR COMPULSION DISORDER TO CALL SPECULATED HUMAN CO2 WARMING A THEORY, FUCKWIT ARSEHOLE

Freddy:

WILL YOU FOOL NOW ABSTSAIN FROM YOUR COMPULSION DISORDER TO CALL SPECULATED HUMAN CO2 WARMING A THEORY, FUCKWIT ARSEHOLE

Time Cube:

Fraudulent ONEness of religious
academia has retarded your opposite
rationale brain to a half brain slave.
YOU IGNORE 3 OF 4 DAYS -
FORCE 4 DAYS ON EARTH,
THEY ALREADY EXIST.
4 HORSEMEN HAVE 4 DAYS
IN ONLY 1 EARTH ROTATION.
4 ANGLES STOOD ON 4 CORNERS.
4 CORNERS ROTATE TO 16 CORNERS
WHICH EQUAL TO 4 CORNER DAYS.
TEACHERS ARE EVIL LIARS - THE
ONEness OF GOD IS STILLness DEATH.

No, I can't tell the difference either.

Bob

That's interesting. Where did the Time Cube comment come from?

TYPICAL AGW CHURCH ACOLYTES LEBEL

freddy's typical non-argument picked up from the worst of denialist blogs.

LEBEL! Are you now discussing rifles now FFS? If so the SMLE was superior.

It isn't Luboš Motl behind this freddy mask by any chance is it? Just stringing things together.

Fred-fred

AGW is a consequence of the laws of physics operating within the climate system.

It's probably not accurate to describe it as a theory in formal terms, but nor is it correct to claim that it is an hypothesis.

It is robust, evidentially supported and now accepted throughout the multidisciplinary field of Earth System Sciences as a matter of fact. A strong scientific consensus attests to this.

Pretending that AGW is somehow speculative and/or unsupported by everything from well-understood physics to observations of the climate system is simply wrong.

Yet again, you are spouting arrant crap.

BBD,

It's just a random excerpt from the infamous website (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_cube). Freddy's ramblings remind me very strongly of the sort of tripe that can be found on there - in fact, most of them would fit in seamlessly.

Bob - thanks for that; I had no idea. One lives and learns.

The resemblance to fred-fred is remarkable, but perhaps our freddy is only "school of". I get the impression that Gene/Otis E. Ray would sign his own work :-)

@bbd asshole

"Pretending that AGW is somehow speculative and/or unsupported by everything from well-understood physics to observations of the climate system is simply wrong"

THIS IS YOUR PAGAN RELIGIOUS BELIEF.

"WELL-UNDERSTOOD PHYSICS" IS IRRELEVANT AS LONG AS YOU CANNOT PROVE YOUR BELIEF BY TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS 2m ABOVE THE SURFACE, SINCE TEMPERATURE INCREASES MUST BE MEASURED WITH THERMOMETERS AND NOTHING ELSE, YOU COMPLETELY IGNORANT FUCKWITS

"There are more cranks in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy".

further basic education for CAGW meteorology and glaciology laymen morons: bill, jeff, chek, bernard, marco, craig, bbd, etc.:

any changes in antarctic sea ice volume are the consequence NOT OF HUMAN CO2 but of processes in the past at least some thousand years ago, as every sincerely honest, non-IPCC, glaciologist will tell you.

YOUR STUPIDITY AND LEVEL OF LACKING KNOWLEDGE IS INCREDIBLE, HOWEVER THE STINKING MOUTH ALWAYS WIDE OPEN, THE AGW ARSELICKS

Another data point for that skewed bell curve of extreme weather events.

"YOUR STUPIDITY AND LEVEL OF LACKING KNOWLEDGE IS INCREDIBLE, HOWEVER THE STINKING MOUTH ALWAYS WIDE OPEN, THE AGW ARSELICKS"

You really do need professional medical help, Freddy.

What is the raving crank freddy trying to achieve? What's freddy's point? He's completely irrational.

Talk about hyper-religious. He's firmly attached his fragile ego to the teachings of his high priests Monckton and jo nova etc, and his mind has since solidified. Poor guy.

This rubbish again:

WELL-UNDERSTOOD PHYSICS” IS IRRELEVANT AS LONG AS YOU CANNOT PROVE YOUR BELIEF BY TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS 2m ABOVE THE SURFACE, SINCE TEMPERATURE INCREASES MUST BE MEASURED WITH THERMOMETERS AND NOTHING ELSE, YOU COMPLETELY IGNORANT FUCKWITS

Same old graph showing satellite data directly compared to surface air temperature on a common baseline.:

UAH TLT, GISTEMP, HadCRUT4 1979 - present; monthly means; common 1981 - 2010 baseline

Don't you get it? Don't you see that this single graph completely debunks your bollocks about errors/fakery in the gridded surface temperature records?

Can you still not see this? You are taking obtuse to an entirely new level, freddy.

any changes in antarctic sea ice volume are the consequence NOT OF HUMAN CO2 but of processes in the past at least some thousand years ago, as every sincerely honest, non-IPCC, glaciologist will tell you.

The first thing a glaciologist would tell you, fred-fred, is that you have confused sea ice with ice sheets. They are not the same thing at all. Ice sheets form on land. Sea ice forms... well, hopefully you've got it by now.

Now, Google up "marine ice sheet" and "grounding lines on retrograde slopes" and do some reading. Then we can get back to the Eemian MSL mystery that you are so very keen not to discuss with me.

THIS IS YOUR PAGAN RELIGIOUS BELIEF.

No, freddy, it is the truth.

Pretending - as the most stupid and clueless deniers do - that AGW is somehow speculative and/or unsupported by everything from well-understood physics to observations of the climate system is simply wrong.

It is a grossly ignorant misrepresentation of the actual state of scientific understanding. Your insistence on this point is both witless and counter-productive.

my fault: "antarctic sea ice volume"

i meant antarctic ice shield volume (i wrote this too fast)

my comment applied to antarctic ice shield volume

for once you were right, that i used the wrong term: now my eduation lesson to you reads:

any changes in antarctic ice shield volume are the consequence NOT OF HUMAN CO2 but of processes in the past at least some thousand years ago, as every sincerely honest, non-IPCC, glaciologist will tell you.

FUCKWITS

"ice sheet", freddy, but we're getting there.

as every sincerely honest, non-IPCC, glaciologist will tell you.

Then you will have no difficulty in supplying numerous references to support this claim.

I should add that the increasing rate of mass loss from the WAIS is considered to be only the merest hint of what is to come GHG forcing continues to increase over the course of the century.

@ # 20

I am but mad north-north-west: when the
wind is southerly I know a hawk from a handsaw.

About that massive iceberg...

"the way the ice breaks, or "calves," is still somewhat mysterious."

"While Humbert and her colleagues did not draw direct connections between this week's calving event and climate change, other scientists, including marine geologists at the British Antarctic Survey, are investigating whether global warming is thinning Antarctica's ice sheets and speeding up the glacier's retreat"

"Yet, the flow of the Pine Island Glacier may be driven by other factors, Humbert said. The glacier flows to the Amundsen Sea at a rate of about 2.5 miles (4 km) per year. She says whether the flow speeds up or slows down is based more on changing wind directions in the Amundsen Sea, and less by rising air temperatures."

What is it with these denying scientists? Beat them!

The denying link...

http://news.yahoo.com/giant-iceberg-breaks-off-antarctic-glacier-155655…

Betty, pack the straw away. Nobody said anything about the PIG calving being the result of CC. Although everybody I have ever discussed the increasing Antarctic (specifically WAIS) rate of mass loss with thinks that it *is* caused by AGW.

* * *

The denying link…

Do shut up with this rubbish, Betty.

You are a denier because you refuse to accept that AGW is a *threat* to future generations because it will be severely disruptive of the climate and of agriculture and eventually, of the world's entire coastline as SLR gets going later this century.

You don't have the balls or the honesty to admit that you are a denier though. You deny your denial, like the majority of climate liars one comes across.

Then you whine, which makes the whole miserable spectacle even worse and makes several people here - including myself - want to give you a metaphorical kick in the arse.

Betty 'child deniers' Betula, fucks up again with his famous brand of dishonest selective quote mining.

(If you've still got the receipt Betty, I'd take that argument model back to where you got it and demand a refund. Either it's a piece of shit, or you are for not operating it correctly. I know which one my money's on but YMMV).

Betty offers the bit that suits his not-a-denier denial agenda:
whether the flow speeds up or slows down is based more on changing wind directions in the Amundsen Sea, and less by rising air temperatures.”

"Less by rising air temperatures", (presumably measured 2 meters above ground only with a thermometer) is Betty's take home message to us. But - oh dear what's this? Betty left out in the immediately following paragraph:

"The wind now brings warm sea water beneath the shelf ice," Humbert said. "Over time, this process means that the shelf ice melts from below, primarily at the so-called grounding line, the critical transition to the land ice."

Still, if the glacier's flow speeds up, it could have serious consequences, the researchers said. The Pine Island Glacier currently acts as a plug, holding back part of the immense West Antarctic Ice Sheet whose melting ice contributes to rising sea levels.

Oh dear, there's another bucket of globally warmed hot water poured over the hiatus morons. And so teh Stupid loses again with Betty 'child deniers' Betula once again achieving the opposite to what he intended.

Before you get going, Betty, inform yourself. Read this, wherein you will find this:

Ocean waters melting the undersides of Antarctic ice shelves are responsible for most of the continent's ice shelf mass loss, a new study by NASA and university researchers has found.

[...]

Scientists have studied the rates of basal melt, or the melting of the ice shelves from underneath, of individual ice shelves, the floating extensions of glaciers that empty into the sea. But this is the first comprehensive survey of all Antarctic ice shelves. The study found basal melt accounted for 55 percent of all Antarctic ice shelf mass loss from 2003 to 2008, an amount much higher than previously thought.

"The traditional view on Antarctic mass loss is it is almost entirely controlled by iceberg calving," said Eric Rignot of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., and the University of California, Irvine. Rignot is lead author of the study to be published in the June 14 issue of the journal Science. "Our study shows melting from below by the ocean waters is larger, and this should change our perspective on the evolution of the ice sheet in a warming climate."

We crossed again, chek ;-)

I wonder if any of the contrarians here have done as I suggested at #25 and Googled “marine ice sheet” and “grounding lines on retrograde slopes” yet?

It's good advice and sincerely offered.

Here's the calving vs basal melt map of Antarctica.

With this firmly in mind, let's return to the Eemian :-)

Eemian MSL highstand was at least 5m above present MSL. Global average temperature during the Eemian was ~1C – 2C warmer than the Holocene (Hansen & Sato 2012).

The NEEM project results indicate the contribution from the Greenland Ice Sheet (GIS) to the Eemian MSL highstand was ~2m or less (Dahl-Jensen et al. 2013)

A major collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) apparently contributed ~3m – 4m to the Eemian highstand. If not the GIS, then where else could the water have come from, after all?

It’s even possible that the contribution from the East Antarctic Ice Sheet (EAIS) was greater than previously thought.

bbd arseblower, a quite simple thought WILL NOT go into your brain: THERE IS NO AGW WHICH CAN BE DEMONSTRATED BY TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS

HENCE SHUT UP WITH YOUR MONGER BOLLOCKS:
$£¥£$£¥£
You are a denier because you refuse to accept that AGW is a *threat* to future generations because it will be severely disruptive of the climate and of agriculture and eventually, of the world’s entire coastline as SLR gets going later this century
$£¥£$£¥££

YOUR POOR PERFOMANCE AS AGW ARSELICK IS A SHAME, EVEN FOR YOUR CHURCH. I AM SURE KEVIN TRENBERTH WILL NOT LIKE YOU. HE IS HUMILIATED BY LOSERS LIKE YOU FUCKWIT, FUCKING ASSHOLE, FUCK

@bbd arsestink

before something in antarctica collaoses YOU WILL COLLAPSE A MILLION TIMES AT LEAST.

IT'S A SHAME HOW DEPRESSING YOUR LEVEL OF KNOWLEDGE ABOUT GLACIERS IS,

IT’S A SHAME HOW DEPRESSING YOUR LEVEL OF KNOWLEDGE ABOUT GLACIERS IS,

Now there is a thing, glaciers can suffer depression through basal melt.
It is a shame that you never learned anything about anything, 'tis all unknown unknowns with you.

PS It would seem that your med's are wearing off again.

Hi Freddy.

USING ALL CAPS MAKES YOU LOOK LIKE A JUVENILE MORON WITHOUT ARGUMENTS.

Actually, you are a juvenile moron without arguments, so it's very fitting.

Never mind, carry on.

bbd arseblower, a quite simple thought WILL NOT go into your brain: THERE IS NO AGW WHICH CAN BE DEMONSTRATED BY TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS

HENCE SHUT UP WITH YOUR MONGER BOLLOCKS:

But you are mistaken, dear fred-fred. Look:

GAT vs GISS forcings from 1900: solar; well-mixed GHGs; total net forcing

NOAA, GISTEMP and HadCRUT4 GAT (surface) annual means are shown at the top (green). The three lower curves are estimated forcings. Well-mixed GHGs (blue) and solar (yellow; bottom) bracket the total net forcing (red).

stu ASSHOLE ZERO AGW

When one factors in ocean heat content, the picture gets even clearer:

- OHC 0 – 2000m

- Most (>90%) of the energy accumulating in the climate system as a consequence of radiative imbalance is in the oceans (Levitus et al. 2012).

Here is a pretty picture which illustrates this very clearly.

All things considered, I think "MONGER BOLLOCKS" is a little hastily dismissive, don't you?

no bbd arse, i don't give a penny on your propaganda industry

IT’S A SHAME HOW DEPRESSING YOUR LEVEL OF KNOWLEDGE ABOUT GLACIERS IS

You are being a pillock, fred-fred. There's no need for this, really.

Just make your argument and reference it.

Freddy old bean, physics is just physics. It does what it does. The "propaganda industry" - whatever you think that is - is irrelevant.

Look at paleoclimate behaviour.

"freddy", any comment on your mistaken assertions about the Arctic sea ice "recovery" which, it turns out, only existed in your imagination?

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

stu ASSHOLE ZERO AGW

I stand in awe of your debating skills, Freddy. Science be damned, AGW is a hoax! And it's all thanks to you, Freddy!

Here's another classic line bought you by Deadeye Dickie...

Nobody said anything about the PIG calving being the result of CC. Although everybody I have ever discussed the increasing Antarctic (specifically WAIS) rate of mass loss with thinks that it *is* caused by AGW.

Then maybe you should discuss it with Eric Rignot, he sees it differently, which of course makes him a denier that should be beaten by the public....while you watch of course.

Did we establish if Freddy da Freak is, indeed, a Walloony? ;-)

And Scrofula, I'm going to assume that dropping the NMFS Ribbon Seals selective-quotation thing from #2 down the memory hole is your way of acknowledging you have no point. Ta.

The sad thing is that that's as good as it gets for you, isn't it?

"I’m going to assume that dropping the NMFS Ribbon Seals selective-quotation thing from #2 down the memory hole is your way of acknowledging you have no point"

The point was made...Ribbon Seals won't be put on the endangered list because they aren't endangered. Doesn't get any more clear than that.

"Ribbon seals are fairly adaptable," he said in the announcement. "Their diet is diverse, they feed over a wide range of depths, and there is evidence that they may compensate for changes in sea ice by moving to other habitats in which they are still able to feed and reproduce"

Bill, does it upset you that they aren't endangered?

Definitely 'school of' for any Gene Ray / Time Cube comparison.

Philosophical train-wreck gawkers - and, c'mon, isn't this you? ;-) - may enjoy this edumacational material on YouTube.

No, Batty, the point is nothing of the sort.

This is first-class bureaucratic nit-picking about time-lines as the rest of the article makes very clear indeed.

But you excerpted the bit you liked to bolster your ludicrous hope that if someone somewhere claims that AGW impacts are 'speculated and unproven', well, that proves them to be so, don't it?

But this someone turns out to be a 'a spokesman for the state of Alaska, Doug Vincent-Lang', a Sarah Palin appointee who turns out to be this guy.

Would you be so kind as to explain to us the qualifications of this man with regard to either seal-biology or the climate system? Ta.

As I said, this really is the best you can do. It's not impressive, is it?

Bill...

"But you excerpted the bit you liked to bolster your ludicrous hope that if someone somewhere claims that AGW impacts are ‘speculated and unproven’, well, that proves them to be so, don’t it?"

The climate impacts on the "currently abundant and robust" Ribbon seals is indeed "speculated and unproven". That's why the Federal Government, under The National Marine Fisheries Service (not Doug Vincent Lang), rejected the listing....

I think fisheries biologist Doug Vincent Lang, as Director of Alaska's Division of Wildlife Conservation (appointed by Cora Campbell) has every right to comment on the decision, in fact, it would be expected that he does...

And it was Jon Kurland, NOAA Fisheries' assistant regional administrator for protected resources, who stated:

“Ribbon seals are fairly adaptable,” he said in the announcement. “Their diet is diverse, they feed over a wide range of depths, and there is evidence that they may compensate for changes in sea ice by moving to other habitats in which they are still able to feed and reproduce"

So I ask you again evasive Bill, does it upset you that they aren’t endangered?

Batty, your dishonesty shines - or, more rightly, squelches - through.

Here's a link to what you posted above.

I leave people to judge for themselves which qualifications proved crucial in the gentleman concerned securing that job.

And, again, I will take your evasiveness as conceding my point. Thank you.

Your intentions were obvious. I have deflated them. Suck it up.

As for trying to draw attention away from your own dishonesty by alluding to my being 'upset' - one: cheap, and two: not at all. Being a bonafide conservationist, I'm perfectly happy if 'adaptable' Ribbon Seals manage to be just that. But the article you posted proves nothing with regard to the matter - the ice will recede, this may or may not impact the seals, but probably not 'endanger' them in a conveniently truncated timeframe.

What I really don't like is nasty little muckers trying to score cheap points via selective-quotation. And that would be you...

Batty, your dishonesty shines – or, more rightly, squelches – through.

Here’s a link to what you posted above.

I leave people to judge for themselves which qualifications proved crucial in the gentleman concerned securing that job.

And, again, I will take your evasiveness as conceding my point. Thank you.

Your intentions were obvious. I have deflated them. Suck it up.

As for trying to draw attention away from your own dishonesty by alluding to my being ‘upset’ – one: cheap, and two: not at all. Being a bonafide conservationist, I’m perfectly happy if ‘adaptable’ Ribbon Seals manage to be just that. But the article you posted proves nothing with regard to the matter – the ice will recede, this may or may not impact the seals, but probably not ‘endanger’ them in a conveniently truncated timeframe.

What I really don’t like is nasty little muckers trying to score cheap points via selective-quotation. And that would be you…

(If I had a dollar for every time I closed a link tage with 'i' rather than 'a' - well, I'd have 23 dollars and 50 cents... ;-) )

further education of the totally uninformed cagw arselicks concerning THE TOTAL IRRELEVANCE OF CO2 ON EARTH'S CLIMATE!!!

swallow and digest this:

-----------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleistocene

Milankovitch cycles[edit]
Main article: Milankovitch cycles
Glaciation in the Pleistocene was a series of glacials and interglacials, stadials and interstadials, mirroring periodic changes in climate. The main factor at work in climate cycling is now believed to be Milankovitch cycles. These are periodic variations in regional and planetary solar radiation reaching the Earth caused by several repeating changes in the Earth's motion.
Milankovitch cycles cannot be the sole factor responsible for the variations in climate since they explain neither the long term cooling trend over the Plio-Pleistocene, nor the millennial variations in the Greenland Ice Cores. Milankovitch pacing seems to best explain glaciation events with periodicity of 100,000, 40,000, and 20,000 years. Such a pattern seems to fit the information on climate change found in oxygen isotope cores. The timing of our present interglacial interval (known as the Holocene, Postglacial, or the Present Interglacial) to that of the previous interglacial, beginning about 130,000 years ago (The Eemian Interglacial), suggests that the next glacial would likely begin in about 3,000 years.

---------------------------

CONCLUSION: CO2 HAS NO ROLE AND THE NEXT GLACIAL WILL COME SOON, ARSELICKS

FORGET YOUR OBSESSION AND COMPULSION ABOUT A NULL-FACTOR ON EARTH'S CLIMATE, FUCKWITS

Heh, The Australian has a way of spinning things:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/electricity-ma…

"Electricity market shrinks as prices tumble".

I think they mean, "Renewables and carbon tax brings down cost of electricity, freeing up household spending and making business more competitive".

Oh, "freddy" is still here.

Have you explained yet what went wrong with your mistaken belief in an Arctic sea ice recovery that never happened, "freddy"?
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

Seeing as "freddy" was completely wrong about Arctic sea ice, what else is "freddy" wrong about?

Betula is not only a quote miner, but his fatuous little strategy - if one can call it that - is to focus his attention on single examples he thinks support his arguments (e.g the ribbon seal) and to ignore many, many others that do not. The empirical literature is replete with many empirical examples of declining biodiversity in which climate change is a major factor. As far as the seals are concerned, if their predicted demographics indicate declining populations, that is concern in itself even if the species is not listed as endangered. Using Betula's kindergarten-level style of debating, I would guess that he doesn't think that the recent population free-falls of bird species like Eastern Towhees, Golden Winged Warblers, Loggerhead Shrikes and others is worrying given that they are not officially listed as endangered.... yet. Similarly, in Europe many birds have experienced population melt downs since the 1970s and 1980s, some of which can directly be attributed to recent warming. But these species are also not yet listed as endangered, as if that is the magical term in which concern should be raised.

As I have said before, Betula couldn't debate his way out of a dripping wet paper bag. His problem, like that of so many deniers, is that they think they know more than they actually do, on the basis of reading snippets here and there or working outdoors where they think they have a 'pulse' of nature.

I response to this post, be prepared for Mr. Birch to respond in his usual way - about Algonquin Park. That is all he has left when is arguments are shredded, one by one.

Then maybe you should discuss it with Eric Rignot, he sees it differently, which of course makes him a denier that should be beaten by the public….while you watch of course.

You missed the link Betty. Do share.

CONCLUSION: CO2 HAS NO ROLE AND THE NEXT GLACIAL WILL COME SOON, ARSELICKS

Wrong, as ever. First, CO2 and CH4 are essential parts of the mechanism by which orbital (Milankovitch) forcing triggers deglaciations (Shakun et al. 2012).

Very roughly, it works like this:

- Obliquity, precession and eccentricity of the Earth's orbit modulate NH insolation (aka orbital or Milankovitch forcing)

- NH summer insolation minima allow NH ice sheets to grow, triggering strong ice albedo feedback, reducing atmospheric GHG content (water vapour, CO2, CH4) and initiating a glacial

- NH summer insolation maxima roughly every 100ka trigger ice melt and increase the flux of fresh water to the N Atlantic at high latitudes

- This inhibits deep water formation and halts the AMOC

- This halts equator ->pole ocean heat transport in the NH, and the hemisphere *cools*

- The SH ocean meanwhile heats up, as it must, in compensation

- Carbon is released from deep ocean sediments and increased GHG feedback raises global temperature, re-starting NH ice melt

- Both hemispheres now continue to warm, propelled by strong positive ice albedo feedback operating in tandem with GHG feedback

- The climate system reaches a new quasi-equilibrium interglacial phase

Shorter version: you cannot take GHGs out of climate system behaviour and still get everything to work. No GHG feedbacks - no interglacials.

which of course makes him a denier that should be beaten by the public….while you watch of course.

Well, we all do have to watch every single time you drag your mutilated corpse in here to offer up yet another load of nonsense, with the same old shit technique with the same old partial twist and with the same old forlorn hope for williwatts levels of ignorance, then get soundly beaten for the repetitively stupid idiot you are, then disappear for a day or two before repeating the spectacle yet again, and no doubt the time after that as well.

You bring it on yourself Betty. It's feasible that you could educate yourself to the point where you don't auto-adopt crank ideological spin, but that's never going to happen.
I guarantee it.

# 63 cont.

Second, the onset of the next glacial is likely to be somewhat delayed as a result of... CO2!

See Archer & Ganopolski (2005) A movable trigger: Fossil fuel CO2 and the onset of the next glaciation.

Can't wait to see Rignot denying that CO2 is causing energy to accumulate in the climate system, predominantly the oceans, which are warming up as a result.

Where's Betty with that link?!

Oh dear, freddy at #8 thinks that Milankovitch cycles are unknown to us and that their effect rules out any role for CO2 in climate modification.

freddy dear, sorry to disabuse you but we do know about Milankovitch cycles and indeed have pointed out sources such as David Archer's 'Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast' and 'The Great Ocean Conveyor: Discovering the Trigger for Abrupt Climate Change' by Wally Broecker both of which contain explanations.

There are many other sources including an excellent starters treatise on oceanography by Tom Garrison Oceanography (ISE): An Invitation to Marine Science. This book will advise you on many of Earth's processes including the biotic.

Now, as for an ice age coming on soon, you are way behind the curve of current understanding which indicates that an ice age should already be advancing on us were it not for the activities of humans which over about 10k years which have ensured that any ice age has been aborted and is now most unlikely to come upon us anytime soon.

You will find more in William Ruddiman's excellent books 'Earth's Climate: Past and Future' and 'Plows, Plagues, and Petroleum: How Humans Took Control of Climate'.

Now please, for your own sake, go do some honest research amongst the many books of an introductory nature, such as those cited above, which should disabuse you of your strange ideas. You may hen cease behaving like a total part.

Mass balance in the Glacier Bay area of Alaska, USA, and British Columbia, Canada, 1995–2011, using airborne laser altimetry

"For the full period (1995–2011) the average mass loss was 3.93 ± 0.89 Gt a–1 (0.6 ± 0.1 m w.e. a–1), compared with 17.8 Gt a–1 for the post-LIA (1770–1948) rate."

http://www.igsoc.org/journal/59/216/t12j101.pdf

Cherry-picking.

We need to look at global glacier mass balance change, aka "the big picture" - global spatio-temporal mass balance change 1946-2005 (source: World Glacier Monitoring Serivce report Global Glacier Changes 2009):

Fig. 5.8 a-f Spatio-temporal overview on glacier mass changes. The average annual mass balance for nine sectors of the globe are shown for the decades (a) 1946–55, (b) 1956–65, (c) 1966–75, (d) 1976–85, (e) 1986–95, and (f) 1996–2005. Sectors with measurements are coloured according to the mean annual specific mass balance in metre w.e. with positive balances in blue, ice losses up to 0.25 m w.e. in orange and above that in red; sectors without data in grey. Average decadal mass balance values based on less than 100 observations (marked in italics) are less representative for the entire sector. For each decade, the global mean (gm) annual mass balance in m w.e. and the number of observations (no) are indicated. Source: Data from WGMS.

Here's global glacier length change 1845 - 2005. Red indicates recession; blue indicates advance.

The WGMS has since updated its mass balance survey to 2011:

Preliminary mass balance values for the observation period 2010/11 have been reported now from more than 100 glaciers worldwide. The mass balance statistics (Table 1) are calculated based on all reported values as well as on the data from the 37 reference glaciers in ten mountain ranges (Table 2) with continuous observation series back to 1980.

The average mass balance of the glaciers with available long-term observation series around the world continues to be negative, with tentative figures indicating a further thickness reduction of one metre water equivalent (m w.e.) during the hydrological year 2011. The new data continues the global trend in strong ice loss over the past few decades and brings the cumulative average thickness loss of the reference glaciers since 1980 at more than 15 m w.e. (see Figures 1 and 2).

Fig. 1 Mean annual mass balance of reference glaciers 1980 - 2011.

Fig. 2 Mean cumulative mass balance of ALL reported glaciers (blue dashed) vs reference glaciers (red) 1980 - 2011

Stop your bollocks, Karen.

SpamKan put those words down because she found them somewhere and thinks they must prove something because slightly smarter stupid people claim they do.

Refutations don't work on people who have no understanding of what they're hoiking up in the first place. Even sound refutations, unfortunately...

Harvey @ 61...

Yawn. As Cmdr.chek said at #64...."yet another load of nonsense, with the same old shit technique"

Thanks Cmdr.

Cmdr. Cheky @ 64..

"then disappear for a day or two before repeating the spectacle yet again"

Are we still talking about Hardley?

By the way, of the approximately 15 people that follow this blog, I find it interesting that a full 30% of comments come from Deadeye Dickie...
If I disappear for "a day or two" or a week or a year, it's because I have a life, and it doesn't revolve around 12 angry men.

Melting Alaska glacier is exposing remains from a military air tragedy SIX decades ago

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2359632/Melting-Alaska-glacier-…

Bill,

So to you, this isn't about the climate impacts on Ribbon Seals being "speculative and unproven" as much as it is about the qualifications of the person who said it...

Why don't you tell me why future climate impacts on Ribbon seals aren't "speculative and unproven"?

"As for trying to draw attention away from" the "speculative and unproven" climate impacts on Ribbon seals by injecting your political ideology, why don't you show me why your opinion about the qualifications to say such a thing isn't "speculative and unproven"?

Well, I'm hardly surprised that Freddy Fuckwit hasn't found the motivation to lambast Betty and SpamKan in his inimitable fashion for their complete misunderstanding and cherry picking screw-ups respectively.

Maintaining standards doesn't seem to trouble deniers.

Betty, still at it and just as pointlessly I see.

Why don’t you tell me why future climate impacts on Ribbon seals aren’t “speculative and unproven”?

Because every moment in the future is speculative and unproven. You do this all the time, and think it's clever like a rwelve year old might. However in the real world every day people, companies, corporations and governments prepare for that speculative and unproven realm you attempt to dismiss.

They can examine trends and can predict for example that if a huge proprtion of an entire habitat is disappearing before our very eyes and instruments, then the fauna and flora currently there are endangered. Just as it can be be predicted that if the main employer in a town closes down on Friday, there'll be mass unemployment the following Monday.

You, of course would characterise that prediction as speculative and unproven right up until the unemployment claims were made. That's pathological denial in action.
Do you really think the staggering pig-ignorance you display influences anybody at all?

Betty

Then maybe you should discuss it with Eric Rignot, he sees it differently, which of course makes him a denier that should be beaten by the public….while you watch of course.

Actual quote and link for context please.

# 74

Metal objects sink into glaciers. They get hot in the sun, you see. They are also heavy, and ice is, essentially, plastic, so they also just sink. Furthermore, amazingly, lots of snow falls on glaciers and buries stuff...

WTF are you on, Karen?

And Karen, let's make that the last glacier cherry-pick referenced to the Daily Mail ever, shall we?

As I seem to recall mentioning recently, the informative view of the cryosphere is the global one. The big picture. I believe I even provided some links and references to valid scientific sources as opposed to, say, the Daily Mail.

Can anyone hear a whining noise? Seems to get louder around # 73...

A butt-hurt sort of whining...

"Metal objects sink into glaciers. They get hot in the sun, you see. They are also heavy, and ice is, essentially, plastic, so they also just sink. Furthermore, amazingly, lots of snow falls on glaciers and buries stuff…"

sooooo...........if it is hotter now than it was 60 yrs ago then why didn't the sun keep heating and sinking it ? Going by your dumb theory it should now be deeper!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WTF are you on, bbD ?

ps, chekie, Freddie is a hunk :)

"Can anyone hear a whining noise? A butt-hurt sort of whining"

I hear a noise! And yes, it's definitely coming from the butt area:

@ 85 pg 5..."chek – sorry about the look-and-feel infringement there ;-) Have the legal bods sort it out and I’ll buy you a pint."

@93 pg 5..."chek #91 we crossed – sorry"

@95 pg 5...."Good to see you’re on the ball BBD"

Remind me again what the carbon tax and ETF and Global Carbon Markets are supposed to do ?

Three solar firms file for bankruptcy in a week

http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/09/three-solar-firms-file-for-bankruptcy…

Fuck me you are thick, Betty!

The rate of melt/ablation at the glacier surface must be greater than the rate of sinking or the aircraft would not have been exposed.

Do at least *try* to think before typing...

Half Way Through The North Pole Melt Season – Still The Coldest Summer On Record

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

ht. sm

so now I'm Betty, lol

# 84

Would that be homophobic abuse, Betty?! Tsk, tsk.

"Fuck me you are thick, Betty!"

ps. I don't date retards, :(

Sorry Karen!

Well spotted though - encouraging that you can at least recognise your own name. Now, how about admitting that your # 83 was Teh Stupid?

Come on. You have been made to look like what you are - an ignorant arse - so you might as well be good-humoured and join in the laughter.

And I don't date climate liars, Karen. Besides, there's Mrs BBD to think about, not to mention the air fares etc.

Karen and Betty

I cannot understand the basis of your denial. For AGW to just stop or to have minimal effect the laws of physics would have to be suspended. You do realise this, don’t you?

I wonder because you appear to believe that the laws of physics *have* been suspended. Everything you argue seems predicated on the assumption that AGW will have minimal effects.

How can you argue that AGW has stopped (or isn’t happening in the first place) or will have little or no effect unless you deny the laws of physics?

Are you physics deniers? Dragon Slayers? Please clarify.

Especially you, Betty, who has dodged this question endlessly. Your evasive blather on the last page was not a response, so please do not link to it or repeat it. Try substantive engagement this time.

An oldie but a goodie :)

Ancient Artifacts Revealed as Northern Ice Patches Melt

Apr. 26, 2010 — High in the Mackenzie Mountains, scientists are finding a treasure trove of ancient hunting tools being revealed as warming temperatures melt patches of ice that have been in place for thousands of years.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100426131603.htm

lol.........so much for it being warmer now, sorta reminds me of busted hockey sticks :)

"and bows and arrows dating back 850 years. "

lol

sorta reminds me of busted hockey sticks

.. and reminds us that you will never, ever understand what the term 'global' in AGW refers to.

"Mr Jensen said the aircraft was still sitting on the ice in 1931 and was spotted again when ice melted in 1975."

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/ice-melt-reveals-mawsons-…

so this plane disappeared then reappeared and then disappeared then reappeared again.

GOLLY !!! That will really do bbD's head in, lol

Cmdr. cheky @ 78...

"Because every moment in the future is speculative and unproven"

Yet, somehow, the Director of Alaska’s Division of Wildlife Conservation isn't qualified to say such a thing. Interesting.

"They can examine trends and can predict for example that if a huge proprtion of an entire habitat is disappearing before our very eyes and instruments, then the fauna and flora currently there are endangered."

What timescale is needed for that trend to show? Is "before our very eyes" about the right amount of time needed? Apparently, in this case, The National Marine Fisheries Service would disagree with you.

"Just as it can be be predicted that if the main employer in a town closes down on Friday, there’ll be mass unemployment the following Monday."

But Cmdr., "Federal biologists estimate the ribbon seal population at 200,000 to 300,000" how do you know they will close down by Friday?

"You, of course would characterise that prediction as speculative and unproven right up until the unemployment claims were made"

Not my characterization, it's the words of the scientists. By the way, keep in mind that predictions, especially ones that have millions upon millions of parts that need to fit in place as predicted, seldom pan out ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJu0DgpiK8c

Deadeye...

"Especially you, Betty, who has dodged this question endlessly. Your evasive blather on the last page was not a response, so please do not link to it or repeat it"

Actually, it was a response.

See #4 pg 5

Deadeye @ 86...

"Do at least *try* to think before typing"

# 94

So now it's as warm as it was at the end of the Holocene Optimum. Except this time without the precessional forcing to account for the warmth and consequent melt of 4.5ka ice.

Great link, thanks. Goes well with the landmark study of the Schnidejoch ice field finds which shows exactly the same thing: temperatures higher now than for thousands of years.

Of course this all provides strong empirical support for Marcott et al. (2013) - a fact amusingly overlooked (or simply misunderstood) by contrarians.

Deniers loudly and falsely claiming that Marcott et al.'s reconstruction of recent temperatures is wrong will need to explain the strange case of Schnidejoch.

This ice-field in the Western Swiss Alps began to melt in the hot summer of 2003, revealing wood, leather and other perishable artifacts dating back ~5ka to the late Neolithic. These artefacts could not have survived unless continuously frozen since deposition. From Grosjean et al. (2007):

The critical point in the context of this paper is that leather requires permanent embedding in ice in order to stay preserved and, as it is observed today, deteriorates very quickly if exposed at the surface. In consequence, the finds at Schnidejoch suggest permanent ice cover at that site for the last 5000 years, more specifically from ca. 3000 BC until AD 2003.

G07 provides detail about what a truly unusual archive Schnidejoch actually is, essentially by virtue of its altitude:

Schnidejoch is a binary and non-continuous archive (‘open or closed’). It operates at a precisely defined and constant threshold (Equilibrium Line Altitude (ELA) at 2750 m) and responds immediately and most sensitively to small perturbations if climatology fluctuates around that threshold value.

The authors go on to point out that the oldest ice at Schnidejoch (wherein the late Neolithic artefcats were preserved) formed as precessional forcing waned and the Holocene Climatic Optimum faded. Only now has it melted:

Our findings suggest that at the archaeological site this glacier was smaller in 2003 than at any time during the past 5000 years.

Interestingly, there are *four* distinct assemblages of finds at Schnidejoch. Working forwards chronologically from the late Neolithic, these are dated to early Bronze Age (4100–3650 cal. yr BP), Roman Age (1st–3rd century AD), and Medieval times (8–9th century AD and 14–15th century AD).

Each group of artefacts was deposited during a warm period when glacial retreat opened the Schnidejoch pass. But none of these warm periods was warm enough to melt the 5ka ice. None was as warm as the late C20th.
So if Marcott et al. is flawed, why is 5ky-old ice melting now?

On the other hand, if the Marcott reconstruction is essentially correct, then what happened at Schnidejoch in 2003 makes perfect sense.

Enough evasive lies from you Betty. You haven't come within hailing distance of responding to my questions about your apparent physics denial, so on we go.

I cannot understand the basis of your denial. For AGW to just stop or to have minimal effect the laws of physics would have to be suspended. You do realise this, don’t you?

I wonder because you appear to believe that the laws of physics *have* been suspended. Everything you argue seems predicated on the assumption that AGW will have minimal effects.

How can you argue that AGW has stopped (or isn’t happening in the first place) or will have little or no effect unless you deny the laws of physics?

Are you a physics denier? A Dragon Slayer? Please clarify.

Just fucking well get on with it Betty. I'm getting deeply fed up with your endless slipperiness.

Karen, you fucking cretin, Mawson's plane was on the seabed, not a glacier. Just read the words:

Nearly a century after it was abandoned by Mawson, the old Vickers was spotted sitting among rocks in a few centimetres of water during one of the lowest tides recorded at Commonwealth Bay.

"They would not have been found had the tide not been so low and the ice cover at Cape Denison at its lowest for several years - it was a fluke find," Mr Jensen said in a statement.

You are just buttock-stupid, aren't you? And too damned lazy to even bother reading your own pointless references.

Go away. You area waste of time here. Seriously. Fuck off now.

BBD asshole

"For AGW to just stop or to have minimal effect the laws of physics would have to be suspended"

YOU ARE REALLY ILL, GO TO YOUR THERAPIST

AGW IS AN ILL IDEA IN YOUR SKULL, NOBODY EXCEPT GCMS PROGRAMMERS HAVE EVER "MEASURED" THIS

AS WITH ALL SCIENCES: PROVE WHAT YOU CLAIM:

TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS WITH THERMOMETERS, FUCKWIT

Deadeye...

I'm sure your anticipated public beating of Eric Rignot will commence shortly, I just want to make sure you have a good seat...

"Ice melts when the ocean water beneath it warms sufficiently. In this case, Rignot suspects that the melting isn't driven primarily by the gradual warming of ocean water due to climate change, but rather by a change in ocean circulation that is bringing up warmer water from offshore. Generally, atmospheric warming in the Southern Hemisphere has led to slightly stronger "zonal" winds that whip clockwise around Antarctica. And this, at least in certain areas, has pushed cold surface waters away from the continent, allowing slightly warmer water to rise to the surface and melt ice shelves, Rignot said."

"However, exactly why the water beneath certain ice shelves has warmed remains a matter of debate. The main problem is a lack of data in certain areas — imagine the difficulty of obtaining measurements beneath skyscraper-thick ice in Antarctica — as well as a short record of accurate measurements, Rignot said"

http://www.livescience.com/37423-antarctic-ice-melt-from-below.html

BBD , YOU AUTISTICS ARSELICK

YOU CAN REPEAT YOUR WACKY SHIT TEXT

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
I cannot understand the basis of your denial. For AGW to just stop or to have minimal effect the laws of physics would have to be suspended. You do realise this, don’t you?

I wonder because you appear to believe that the laws of physics *have* been suspended. Everything you argue seems predicated on the assumption that AGW will have minimal effects.

How can you argue that AGW has stopped (or isn’t happening in the first place) or will have little or no effect unless you deny the laws of physics?
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

A MILLION TIMES:

IIITTTT IIISSSS IIRREELLEEVVAANNTTT what you understand or not: your imagination of how science works is SICK, YOU ASSHOLE. YOUR SAYING whether physics apply or not is IRRELEVANT, FUCKING AND STINKING SUPER ASSHOLE.

LEARN WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD:

YOU MUST DELIVER THAT YOUR ASSERTION OF WARMING BY HUMAN CO2 IS TRUE. DON'T ASK ANYBODY SUCH AN UTTER STUPID QUESTION WHETHER PHYSICS APPLIES OR NOT, YOU ASSHOLE: YOU FUCKING PIG IDIOT. SHUT UP YOU INSANE ARSELICK WITH ALL YOUR SICKNESS IN YOUR HEAD

LEARN HOW SCIENCE WORKS, YOU ASSHOLE

I think I speak for us all...

BBD asshole

“For AGW to just stop or to have minimal effect the laws of physics would have to be suspended”

YOU ARE REALLY ILL, GO TO YOUR THERAPIST

AGW IS AN ILL IDEA IN YOUR SKULL, NOBODY EXCEPT GCMS PROGRAMMERS HAVE EVER “MEASURED” THIS

AS WITH ALL SCIENCES: PROVE WHAT YOU CLAIM:

TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS WITH THERMOMETERS, FUCKWIT

Your questions have been addressed enough here, fred-fred. Ignoring the explanations and repeating the caps & fucks is just tedious and rude.

I knew you'd manage to misunderstand/deliberately misrepresent Rignot in particular and the upwelling hypothesis in general.

Generally, atmospheric warming in the Southern Hemisphere has led to slightly stronger “zonal” winds that whip clockwise around Antarctica. And this, at least in certain areas, has pushed cold surface waters away from the continent, allowing slightly warmer water to rise to the surface and melt ice shelves, Rignot said.”

The *atmospheric warming* is caused by AGW. The basal melt is accelerated by upwelling driven by the increase in zonal wind field strength in response to a warming atmosphere caused by AGW.

I know it's complicated Betty, but you must at least try.

Way past time for your med's fred.

You need to learn how language works, you may then have a chance of understanding the science.

And I have to say this, Betty. Please stop misrepresenting Rignot as a "denier". I have little doubt that he would find what you are doing exceptionally offensive and dishonest.

Meanwhile, Betty's transparent evasions continue. Betty still won't answer the key questions about his physics denial. Probably because even Betty knows that physics denial = crank bin. But the grown-ups here who understand the physics and the paleoclimate data underpinning the ~2.5C - 3C estimate for ECS/2 x CO2 know that you *have* to be a physics-denying crank to hold Betty's asinine views on AGW.

So come on Betty. Show a little intellectual integrity for the first time ever in our acquaintance and own up to the depths of your denial. Indeed, just *own* the depths of your denial. Have some fucking courage in your convictions, man.

How can you argue that AGW has stopped (or isn’t happening in the first place) or will have little or no effect unless you deny the laws of physics?

Betty @ #98

Cmdr. cheky @ 78…

Still maintaining your marine fantasy, eh Betty? Shame your deplorable formatting indicates failure to complete even elementary school successfully. Nobody's buying it, but carry on if it makes you feel better.

“Because every moment in the future is speculative and unproven” Yet, somehow, the Director of Alaska’s Division of Wildlife Conservation isn’t qualified to say such a thing. Interesting.

No it's not. It's dull. Dull, dull dull. As dull as you Betty. Neither is he apparently qualified to say the sky is blue, because he didn't say that either according to your moron logic.

What timescale is needed for that trend to show? Is “before our very eyes” about the right amount of time needed? Apparently, in this case, The National Marine Fisheries Service would disagree with you.

The collapse of Arctic Sea ice in summer is well documented over the past decade,especially in the climate related blogs and playing dumb only makes you look dumb. Or rather, more dumb than anybody previously thought possible.

But Cdr.

Stop being so obsequious Betty. Just because someone isn't as stupid as you does nor make them your fantasy commanding officer. If it did the whole world would have seniority over you. Although thinking about it, that's likely the root of that inferiority complex and tendency to fixate that you display all to frequently.

“Federal biologists estimate the ribbon seal population at 200,000 to 300,000″ how do you know they will close down by Friday?

Oh my sides - you pretend to take a metaphor seriously and then mangle it. Just like you impulsively do with.. well, everything you bring here. But instead of your idiocy and defence of political appointees in the petro-state of Alaska, <a href="http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/environment/mammals_seals.html"<let's see what's really the problem:

"Early ice breakup could result in premature separation of mothers and pups, leading to higher death rates among newborn pups. In the southern Baltic Sea, from 1989 to 1995, a series of nearly ice-free winters led to very high pup mortality rates (Härkönen et al. 1998). If autumn and winter are fairly mild, the ice is soft and thin and disintegrates easily. As a result, newborn seal pups, which are born on the ice, do not have enough time to wean properly and may not survive. Seal pups need at least 12 days on the ice before they finish nursing (Nickerson 2002).

I expect a few out of those hundreds of thousands should at least make some effort to adapt in your view - uninformed and worthless as it is.

Not my characterization, it’s (sic) the words of the scientists.

Sure they are Betty. And if only you had but a single shred of honesty instead of your usual MO of lying by omission.

By the way, keep in mind that predictions, especially ones that have millions upon millions of parts that need to fit in place as predicted, seldom pan out …

Unfortunately, the single, soltary item of rapidly disappearing arctic sea ice only affords a feeling of security to the most vacant of airheads. That'd be you again, Betty.

Cmdr. cheky @ 78…

Still maintaining your marine fantasy, eh Betty? Shame your deplorable formatting indicates failure to complete even elementary school successfully. Nobody’s buying it, but carry on if it makes you feel better.

“Because every moment in the future is speculative and unproven” Yet, somehow, the Director of Alaska’s Division of Wildlife Conservation isn’t qualified to say such a thing. Interesting.

No it’s not. It’s dull. Dull, dull dull. As dull as you Betty. Neither is he apparently qualified to say the sky is blue, because he didn’t say that either according to your moron logic.

What timescale is needed for that trend to show? Is “before our very eyes” about the right amount of time needed? Apparently, in this case, The National Marine Fisheries Service would disagree with you.

The collapse of Arctic Sea ice in summer is well documented over the past decade,especially in the climate related blogs and playing dumb only makes you look dumb. Or rather, more dumb than anybody previously thought possible.

But Cdr.

Stop being so obsequious Betty. Just because someone isn’t as stupid as you does nor make them your fantasy commanding officer. If it did the whole world would have seniority over you. Although thinking about it, that’s likely the root of that inferiority complex and tendency to fixate that you display all to frequently.

“Federal biologists estimate the ribbon seal population at 200,000 to 300,000″ how do you know they will close down by Friday?

Oh my sides – you pretend to take a metaphor seriously and then mangle it. Just like you impulsively do with.. well, everything you bring here. But instead of your idiocy and defence of political appointees in the petro-state of Alaska, <a href="http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/environment/mammals_seals.html"<let's see what's really the problem:

“Early ice breakup could result in premature separation of mothers and pups, leading to higher death rates among newborn pups. In the southern Baltic Sea, from 1989 to 1995, a series of nearly ice-free winters led to very high pup mortality rates (Härkönen et al. 1998). If autumn and winter are fairly mild, the ice is soft and thin and disintegrates easily. As a result, newborn seal pups, which are born on the ice, do not have enough time to wean properly and may not survive. Seal pups need at least 12 days on the ice before they finish nursing (Nickerson 2002).

I expect a few out of those hundreds of thousands should at least make some effort to adapt in your view – uninformed and worthless as it is.

Not my characterization, it’s (sic) the words of the scientists.

Sure they are Betty. And if only you had but a single shred of honesty instead of your usual MO of lying by omission.

By the way, keep in mind that predictions, especially ones that have millions upon millions of parts that need to fit in place as predicted, seldom pan out..

Unfortunately, the single, soltary item of rapidly disappearing arctic sea ice only affords a feeling of security to the most vacant of airheads. That’d be you again, Betty.

(Härkönen et al. 1998)

Holy crap that's an awesome name. Probably a ginger, too.

Didn't he play guitar with the 'Airplane? :)

BBD...

"Please stop misrepresenting Rignot as a “denier”....

He's only a Denier by your definition of a Denier. He admits the reason for warming water is a matter of debate and more data and more time is needed, which I have posted here repeatedly. If that isn't a Denier in your book, I don't know what is.

Guess you missed this part...

“However, exactly why the water beneath certain ice shelves has warmed remains a matter of debate. The main problem is a lack of data in certain areas — imagine the difficulty of obtaining measurements beneath skyscraper-thick ice in Antarctica — as well as a short record of accurate measurements, Rignot said”

Is it time for the beatings yet?

Cmdr. Cheky...

But you are the Commander...

Commander Cheky of the Lost Planet Airheads:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZNVF1F23oQ

Cmdr. Cheky

"I expect a few out of those hundreds of thousands should at least make some effort to adapt in your view – uninformed and worthless as it is."

Once again, the view of the scientists. That's why they aren't on the endangered list...
You are starting to deny the opinions of scientists....watch out for your kiss up friend, he may turn on you.

Rignot is only a denier in your twisted little world, Betty. Do you seriously think he argues that AGW has *nothing* to do with the increased zonal windfield strength and consequent upwelling and basal melt? Because it is not clear at all from the words that this is the case.

* * *

Meanwhile, Betty’s transparent evasions continue. Betty still won’t answer the key questions about his physics denial. Probably because even Betty knows that physics denial = crank bin. But the grown-ups here who understand the physics and the paleoclimate data underpinning the ~2.5C – 3C estimate for ECS/2 x CO2 know that you *have* to be a physics-denying crank to hold Betty’s asinine views on AGW.

So come on Betty. Show a little intellectual integrity for the first time ever in our acquaintance and own up to the depths of your denial. Indeed, just *own* the depths of your denial. Have some fucking courage in your convictions, man.

How can you argue that AGW has stopped (or isn’t happening in the first place) or will have little or no effect unless you deny the laws of physics?

Once again, the view of the scientists.

Your appointee seems to be breeding, or more likely another of your dishonest quirks in action.

But please link to all the other scientists confirming Rignot's politicised opinion. And to all his relevant published material indicating his experience in the field. You've checked of course, to back him so enthusiastically.

It's so difficult with you because you either deliberately or unintentionally mangle everything.

What Rignot is uncertain about is whether the upwelling hypothesis is correct. He - and many other Antarctic specialist are increasingly confident that it is, but is is a new hypothesis only proposed in 2007.

He's not saying that AGW has nothing to do with the increasing rate of mass loss from the WAIS and EAIS. He's not saying that this is uncertain and that we need more data to establish that AGW is contributing to the increasing rate of mass loss from the WAIS, in particular. He *is* saying that the exact mechanisms involved are not yet fully established. Quite.

I know this pushes you to your limits, but at least *try* to grasp the (slight) subtleties.

Bugger - I confused Rignot with the Alaskan guy, if that helps clarify #20.

Wait, this Rignot?

http://thinkexist.com/quotes/eric_rignot/

Is there anything or anyone you won't dishonestly quotemine Betula? Even more baffling, why the hell do you think you are fooling anyone?

Pathetic.

Just as I said - now Betty has latched onto ribbon seals as his cause celebre as if the climate change-biodiversity the story ends there.

What a dork. Clearly belongs in a sandbox along with Karen and Freddy. This is kindergarten level discourse from these clots.

#23 Stu

Yup, that's our man: Rignot the Denier.

Great denialist quotes there from RtD.

:-)

Did Betty just get beaten up in the street .. again ..today?

@bbd asshole

i think i speak for us all

The *atmospheric warming* is caused by AGW. The basal melt is accelerated by upwelling driven by the increase in zonal wind field strength in response to a warming atmosphere caused by AGW

ASSHOLE, IT'S GETTING TEDIOUS WITH YIU, TAKE YOUR TABLETS AND SHUT UP, ARSELICK

@bbd fuckwit denier

you had given the wrong answer

He’s not saying that AGW has nothing to do with the increasing rate of mass loss from the WAIS and EAIS. He’s not saying that this is uncertain and that we need more data to establish that AGW is contributing to the increasing rate of mass loss from the WAIS, in particular. He *is* saying that the exact mechanisms involved are not yet fully established. Quite

GO TO THE TOILET AND CLEAN YOUR STINKING ASSHOLE

@bbd barbecue sausage fuck

you have exceeded the number of unreasonable repetitions of inappropriate text, you are boring, arsefoul

So come on Betty. Show a little intellectual integrity for the first time ever in our acquaintance and own up to the depths of your denial. Indeed, just *own* the depths of your denial. Have some fucking courage in your convictions, man. How can you argue that AGW has stopped (or isn’t happening in the first place) or will have little or no effect unless you deny the laws of physics?

I WILL INFORM KEVIN TRENBERTH, YOUR BOSS, THAT HE SHOULD PUNISH YOU FOR FOOLISH AGW MISBEHAVIOR

ASSHOLE

Owch! I used to find this a worthwhile site. If you get a moderator to block the likes of Freddy perhaps it would be again. Till then, goodbye.

Deadeye...

"Do you seriously think he argues that AGW has *nothing* to do with the increased zonal windfield strength and consequent upwelling and basal melt?"

No, he thinks it does, but he's not sure:

“However, exactly why the water beneath certain ice shelves has warmed remains a matter of debate. The main problem is a lack of data in certain areas — imagine the difficulty of obtaining measurements beneath skyscraper-thick ice in Antarctica — as well as a short record of accurate measurements, Rignot said”

This according to your criteria, not mine, makes him a denier.

@bbd barbecue sausage fuck

Heh! Good one. No idea what it means, but it sounds sincere and it's Teh Thought that counts.

Goodnight and God Bless!

Oh give over with your nonsense Betty.

Stu...

"Is there anything or anyone you won’t dishonestly quotemine Betula? Even more baffling, why the hell do you think you are fooling anyone?"

How would I be trying to fool anyone by linking the article with the quote numb nuts?

Ringot states:

“However, exactly why the water beneath certain ice shelves has warmed remains a matter of debate. The main problem is a lack of data in certain areas — imagine the difficulty of obtaining measurements beneath skyscraper-thick ice in Antarctica — as well as a short record of accurate measurements, Rignot said”

Like I'v'e been saying on this blog forever....predictions based on uncertainties, lack of data, unknown timeframes (though 23 days seems to be a popular timeframe) and assumed worst case scenarios.

If this makes me a denier, then Rignot is a denier according to Deadeye's criteria and Rignot should be beaten by the public while Deadeye watches.

I notice know-nothing moron, "Karen", was talking about "busted hockey-sticks".

Unfortunately for his irrational belief, the hockey-stick has yet again been reproduced by independent research:

Researchers in 24 countries working for the last seven years have confirmed the findings of the famous 1998 "hockey stick" graph.

The graph showed global temperatures over the last thousand years, and how the warming in the last century was unprecedented.

The research, published in the peer-reviewed journal Nature Geoscience, is based on 511 climate archives from around the world. All the data has been freely released.

It also dismissed the often-quoted "Medieval Warm Period" or "Little Ice Age" as local temperature fluctuations that had no global impact.

http://mg.co.za/article/2013-07-10-temperatures-are-rapidly-increasing

Bad luck, "Karen", you moron.

Sayin' it don't make it so, Betty. See above. You're being boring.

Cheky States...

"I expect a few out of those hundreds of thousands should at least make some effort to adapt in your view – uninformed and worthless as it is.”

Me..."Once again, the view of the scientists"

Chek..."Your appointee seems to be breeding, or more likely another of your dishonest quirks in action"

You're not very good with reading comprehension are you chek...

The "appointee" had nothing to do with any decision rejecting the listing of Ribbon seals on the endangered species list....it was the Federal Government..it was scientists at The National Marine Fisheries Service.

You're dumber than dirt and half as smart as kelp.

Jon Kurland, NOAA Fisheries' assistant regional administrator for protected resources said....
"Ribbon seals are fairly adaptable," "Their diet is diverse, they feed over a wide range of depths, and there is evidence that they may compensate for changes in sea ice by moving to other habitats in which they are still able to feed and reproduce" Link at #2 pg 6

Now, let's review :

You said..."I expect a few out of those hundreds of thousands should at least make some effort to adapt in your view – uninformed and worthless as it is.”

I said......"Once again, the view of the scientists"

I know chek, this is difficult for you. Now, try to go back and read all the lines this time.

Deadeye Dickie..

"Sayin’ it don’t make it so"

See #36.,

#3 BBD
July 11, 2013

"Karen, you fucking cretin, Mawson’s plane was on the seabed, not a glacier. Just read the words:"

tch tch tch.....................here is more about the melting refreezing melting refreezing ect

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-tractor_sledge

You really are a dunce BBD, do a little homework before you act with such choler.

"seabed" lol

maybe the most appropriate answer to all the agw asshole deceivers is that

1.
MICHAEL MANN BETRAYED THE PUBLIC WITH A CRIMINALLY CORRUPT DECEIVING METHODOLOGY TO SHOW THE CONSTRUCTED HOCKEY STICK

2.
GLOBAL TEMPERATURE IS NOT PRECISELY DEFINED AND ITS SENSE IS ZERO

Conclusion:
ALL AGW ASSHOLES DECEIVE THE PUBLIC AND SHOULD BE SUED

1. Michael Mann has just been proven to have been correct. Again.
http://mg.co.za/article/2013-07-10-temperatures-are-rapidly-increasing

2. Global temperature is in Wikipedia, so we know it is real.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature

3. freddy has been telling us about "record" Arctic sea ice, and yet, Arctic sea ice is in freefall:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

Conclusion: freddy is an incompetent, bumbling buffoon who has no idea what he is talking about and is utterly ignorant about basic physics.

Excellent links, Craig. And the continued death spiral of the Arctic ice also includes ice thickness, which has also been drastically reduced in terms of scale over the past three decades.

Watching the D-K brigade flounder in their own ignorance is telling on this site. I've been visiting and contributing to Deltoid for the past decade and at present the AGW denying brigade is the most intellectually challenged bunch I have seen in all that time - and that is saying a lot.

@craig

Thanks for the laugh. Can I just ask, are you the same "Craig Z Thomas" that's reponsible for the wikipedia entry "Global Temperature" from june 28th just so that few days later you could claim

"2. Global temperature is in Wikipedia, so we know it is real.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature"

Ingenious!
;)

Hilarious - as usual Spammy can explain nothing and handwaves a link... to Wikipedia! Always wrong unless it's right, eh?

Now, in your own words, Spammy, what do you imagine that link proves? Hint, as usual, the only thing lolling is your tongue in your gawping mouth. That's the squirmy pink thing that agitates all the drool. Nyuuk Nyuuk...

Nice links indeed from Craig! Switch on the longer term average and 2007 in the NSIDC chart to get the idea. Funny how it's so cold up North and yet the ice is still on the way out. You'd almost think it was in a poor state to begin with...

But don't expect a response: remember, charts are hard, and Foul-mouthed Freddy and SpamKan both think that a 'standard deviation' is a normal suburban peccadillo. Yes, Spammy, that's a kind of small, armour-plated Aaardvark...

Truly it must hurt to be so bloody stupid!

fucking assholes billthejoke and craigthespammer are poor idiots entrapped in their rotten agw ideology

yes of course was craigasshole the crook who entered a "definition" (hahahagahahaha, what a definition from an undeveloped non-performer, wantbeimportant) there that he can claim that there is one.

this incredible scandal shows the quality level of wikishitia as long as climate primates like craigarsekick are entitled to excrement whatever rubbish they like

POOR IDIOTS, AGW FUCKING MORONS!!!!!!

ASSHOLES, SATAN WILL PUNISH YOU!!!!!!

GSW says, "Thanks for the laugh".

He must be looking in the mirror again. The laughs on him and other AGW deniers; they are the ones who don't do much in the way of original science or publish their findings in scientific journals. Clowns like GSW are stuck on blogs sniping away at the overwhelming majority in the scientific community. In this way they are much like proponents of 'intelligent design' or creationism, who also don't do much in the way of science but instead snipe away at evolutionary theory on the sidelines.

Look at Freddy recently: he pasted an article he thinks contradicts evidence for AGW then adds the caveat PEER REVIEWED as if this legitimizes both the paper and his misinterpretation of it. But of course, what Freddy doesn't do is go on to say that the huge empirical literature base in support of AGW is also PEER REVIEWED including studies he doesn't like that appear in the most rigid journals like Science, Nature and PNAS.

What the deniers do is this: they scrape the bottom of the barrel searching for any studies, no matter how obscure, that they think support their position of AGW denial. Once they find an article, they blow its findings out of all proportion and if the paper is published in a joke journal they still try and legitimize it by saying it was PEER REVIEWED.

@gsw

and billie was the asshole who explained to me foul-mouth wide open that there IS a definition of "GLOBAL TEMPERATURE" in wikiassholia, but only since a few days after i have driven the agw assholes mad about this lack in their ideology rotten insanity. i confront the agw asshole shit community full of bowel consensus that their shit smells well thtat they are not able to define their only SINGKE cause of existence, THE "GLOBAL TEMPERATURE, in a reliable comprehensive way. craigass finally gave in to my pressure onto the asshole community and entered his personal version by copy paste from undisclosed sources into wikinastia.

THATS HOW THE CAGW SCOUNDRELS UNDERSTAND THEIR HAHAHA-SCIENTIFIC CLIMATE ARSELICK WORK.

AND THEN COMES SHITBILLIE AND BLATHERS THAT THERE IIIISS A DEFINITION OF "GLOBAL SHIT TEMPERATURE" 5 cm above the anus of insane climate scientology believers.

IT IS SOOOOO RIDIDUCULOUS WHAT THE AGW CROOKS DO!!!! hahahahahahahahahahahaha, you assholes

hahahahahahahahaha, you agw assholes

@jeff fuckwit

"the huge empirical literature base in support of AGW is also PEER REVIEWED including studies"

WHICH ONES??????

references required, subito

Freddy,

Read the 2007 IPCC report, that is if of course you can read anything vaguley scientific that is. Judging by the quality of your posts, you give the impression of being a tantrum prone teenager or a very old and bitter pensioner.

It has been known for more that a century that C02 is a potent greenhouse gas - then go to the 1950s and read what Revelle and Keeling had to say about the future implications of putting more C02 into the atmosphere. Then read the report commissioned by the Johnson administration in 1965 warning of future warming on the basis of the burning of fossil fuels. What has since transpired was therefore predicted several decades ago. Hansen has been completely vindicated.

But of course all of this will be lost of you, a foul-mouthed, wretched dipstick who will be banned when Tim returns to the blog.That won't be a moment too soon IMHO.

You once told us all here that you have a PhD - when challenged that little nugget was quickly buried. Where is your bonafide scientific resume, Freddy? Or do you like to lie and lie and lie and then lie some more before going off on another foul-mouthed tangent?

entered his personal version by copy paste from undisclosed sources into wikinastia.

Freddy-fred, why do you need to lie that way?
The fully disclosed source is the IPCC AR4, WG1 report, Chapter3

Sources don't get any sounder than that (in the real world that is, not la-la flake land).

chek fuqwit, fuking asshole, ignorant idiot

your link which show craigtheasses definition is this

€€€€€€€£££$££¥£$$£££$

Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis
Contents3
Chapter 3: Observations: Surface and Atmospheric Climate Change
Executive Summary
3.1 Introduction
3.2Changes in Surface Climate: Temperature
3.2.1Background
3.2.2Temperature in the Instrumental Record for Land and Oceans
FAQ 3.1 How are Temperatures on Earth Changing?
3.3Changes in Surface Climate: Precipitation, Drought and Surface Hydrology
3.3.1Background
3.3.2Changes in Large-scale Precipitation
3.3.3Evapotranspiration
3.3.4Changes in Soil Moisture, Drought, Runoff and River Discharge
FAQ 3.2 How is Precipitation Changing?
3.3.5Consistency and Relationships between Temperature and Precipitation
3.3.6 Summary
3.4 Changes in the Free Atmosphere
3.4.1Temperature of the Upper Air: Troposphere and Stratosphere
3.4.2Water Vapour
3.4.3Clouds
3.4.4Radiation
3.5 Changes in Atmospheric Circulation
3.5.1Surface or Sea Level Pressure
3.5.2Geopotential Height, Winds and the Jet Stream
3.5.3Storm Tracks
3.5.4Blocking
3.5.5The Stratosphere
3.5.6Winds, Waves and Surface Fluxes
3.5.7Summary
3.6Patterns of Atmospheric Circulation Variability
3.6.1Teleconnections
3.6.2El Niño-Southern Oscillation and Tropical/Extratropical Interactions
3.6.3Pacific Decadal Variability
3.6.4The North Atlantic Oscillation and Northern Annular Mode
3.6.5The Southern Hemisphere and Southern Annular Mode
3.6.6 Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation
3.6.7Other Indices
3.6.8Summary
3.7Changes in the Tropics and Subtropics, and in the Monsoons
3.7.1Asia
3.7.2Australia
3.7.3The Americas
3.7.4Africa
3.7.5Summary
3.8Changes in Extreme Events
3.8.1Background
3.8.2Evidence for Changes in Variability or Extremes
3.8.3Evidence for Changes in Tropical Storms
FAQ 3.3 Has there been a Change in Extreme Events like Heat Waves, Droughts, Floods and Hurricanes?
3.8.4Evidence for Changes in Extratropical Storms and Extreme Events
3.8.5Summary
3.9Synthesis: Consistency Across Observations
References
Appendix 3.A: Low-Pass Filters and Linear Trends
Appendix 3.B: Techniques, Error Estimation and Measurement Systems: See Supplementary Material
Coordinating Lead Authors:
Kevin E. Trenberth (USA), Philip D. Jones (UK)
Lead Authors:
Peter Ambenje (Kenya), Roxana Bojariu (Romania), David Easterling (USA), Albert Klein Tank (Netherlands), David Parker (UK), Fatemeh Rahimzadeh (Iran), James A. Renwick (New Zealand), Matilde Rusticucci (Argentina), Brian Soden (USA), Panmao Zhai (China)
Contributing Authors:
R. Adler (USA), L. Alexander (UK, Australia, Ireland), H. Alexandersson (Sweden), R. Allan (UK), M.P. Baldwin (USA), M. Beniston (Switzerland), D. Bromwich (USA), I. Camilloni (Argentina), C. Cassou (France), D.R. Cayan (USA), E.K.M. Chang (USA), J. Christy (USA), A. Dai (USA), C. Deser (USA), N. Dotzek (Germany), J. Fasullo (USA), R. Fogt (USA), C. Folland (UK), P. Forster (UK), M. Free (USA), C. Frei (Switzerland), B. Gleason (USA), J. Grieser (Germany), P. Groisman (USA, Russian Federation), S. Gulev (Russian Federation), J. Hurrell (USA), M. Ishii (Japan), S. Josey (UK), P. Kållberg (ECMWF), J. Kennedy (UK), G. Kiladis (USA), R. Kripalani (India), K. Kunkel (USA), C.-Y. Lam (China), J. Lanzante (USA), J. Lawrimore (USA), D. Levinson (USA), B. Liepert (USA), G. Marshall (UK), C. Mears (USA), P. Mote (USA), H. Nakamura (Japan), N. Nicholls (Australia), J. Norris (USA), T. Oki (Japan), F.R. Robertson (USA), K. Rosenlof (USA), F.H. Semazzi (USA), D. Shea (USA), J.M. Shepherd (USA), T.G. Shepherd (Canada), S. Sherwood (USA), P. Siegmund (Netherlands), I. Simmonds (Australia), A. Simmons (ECMWF, UK), C. Thorncroft (USA, UK), P. Thorne (UK), S. Uppala (ECMWF), R. Vose (USA), B. Wang (USA), S. Warren (USA), R. Washington (UK, South Africa), M. Wheeler (Australia), B. Wielicki (USA), T. Wong (USA), D. Wuertz (USA)
Review Editors:
Brian J. Hoskins (UK), Thomas R. Karl (USA), Bubu Jallow (The Gambia)
This chapter should be cited as:
Trenberth, K.E., P.D. Jones, P. Ambenje, R. Bojariu, D. Easterling, A. Klein Tank, D. Parker, F. Rahimzadeh, J.A. Renwick, M. Rusticucci, B. Soden and P. Zhai, 2007: Observations: Surface and Atmospheric Climate Change. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

€£$££¥£$££¥£$£

SO YOU ASSHOLE WHERE IS THE DEFINITION, ASSHOLE STINKER, WHERE IS IT ARSELICK

YOU ARE SUPERFICIAL ARSEBLOW SCOUNDREL WHO DOES NOT EVEN KNOW WHAT A REFERENCE IS. BUT THIS IS SO TYPICAL FOR UNDERGROUND AGW WATCHDOGS LIKE YOU FUCKING ASSHOLE

@jeff arselick, THESE ARE YOUR PEER-REVIEWED STUDIES WHICH SHOW WHAT YOU CLAIM, empirical evidence if AGW:

€£$£¥£$£££$£¥£$

Read the 2007 IPCC report, that is if of course you can read anything vaguley scientific that is. Judging by the quality of your posts, you give the impression of being a tantrum prone teenager or a very old and bitter pensioner.

It has been known for more that a century that C02 is a potent greenhouse gas – then go to the 1950s and read what Revelle and Keeling had to say about the future implications of putting more C02 into the atmosphere. Then read the report commissioned by the Johnson administration in 1965 warning of future warming on the basis of the burning of fossil fuels. What has since transpired was therefore predicted several decades ago. Hansen has been completely vindicated.

€$£¥£$£¥$££$

not a single of the mentioned reports is a true peer-reviewed original scientific study

YOU REALLY DONT KNOW WHAT A PEER-REVIEWED STUDY IS??????

LEARN BEFORE YOU POST JUNK, ASSHOLE

You can be given references Freddy-fred, but you have to be able to read them. However, just this once.

lol......I luv the way these guys move the goalposts to keep you guyz suckered in, :)

http://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/7.11335.1373023384!/image/climate-for…

T'wont be long before all the computer models start to mysteriously point down.

T’wont be long before all the computer models start to mysteriously point down.

Short of radiation ceasing (which will make a petty item like climate change moot) how's that going to happen? Or does SpamKan actually think radiative transfer will just stop? There's enough lolling stupidity there, but surely not.

tiz a down hill run chekie

http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/Fundamentals/HoloceneEvents&NorthGRIP0…

Hey, Freddy - surely Satan's not likely to punish us pagans, given we're in league with him and all that? Try to get your fantasies straight, there's a good loony... say, isn't that nurse pulling on the rubber gloves?

And, chek, the question you're really looking for is -

does SpamKan actually think

And the answer is 'no.' Spammy pastes. Spammy doesn't know what 'radiative transfer' is, but she suspects it might be a sort of a tattoo that glows in the dark...

hahahahahahahahahahahaha, you assholes

Once again freddy fails with words. Maybe in his world asses live in holes and thus calling another an asshole is some form of twisted-freddy-world insult.

Our freddy has now got to the second stage of this - from 2:10. What a joke is our fred.

Billie......sometimes you can be very catty dear, lift up that shriveled up old scrotum of yours and see if you have another hole?

Your miasmatic charm is amusing :)

@all agw fuckwit morons

look how dirty phil jones acted regarding the hockeystick betrayal by mann: LOOK AT THIS, AGW ASSHOLES

€€€€£$£¥£££¥££

From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxx.xxx Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@xxx.xx.xx,t.osborn@xxxx.xxx

Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow.

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.

Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Cheers Phil

€$£¥£$£¥¥££¥¥££

this mail is very revealng how fraud-enthousiastic phil jones applauded the dirty, methodologically sick trick to cheat with the hockeystick

@chek asslicker

the reference you had given re "global temperature" did not contain what you pretended, therefore YOU ARE A LIAR AND A DIDDLER. WHY ARE AGW ASSHOLES INCAPABLE TO REFERENCE SOMETHING THEY ASSERT???????

Oh no! Freddy posted the ClimateGate e-mail! We've been caught! We never wanted that e-mail to get out! Run away!

(By the way, I second the call for a time-out for this clown until he takes some meds -- maybe Karen can join him, as well... he/she/it probably needs some time to recover from its new scrotum fixation)

ALL YOU AGW ASSHOLES ARE TOTALLY CORRUPT:

CHECK ARSELICK, I BET THAT IF A GIVE YOU 100'000 US$ YOU WOULD IMMEDIATELY SAY THAT AGW IS AN ASSHOLES DIRTY JUNK SCIENCE AND YOU CURSE ALL AGW DELUSIONISTS, IF I WANT YOU TO SAY SO.

THEREFORE YOU ARE A CORRUPT STINKING ARSEHOLE, WORTH NOTHING

@stooling ass

any consternation apart from your corruptness re phil jones scandalous behavior as science fraud??

ADMIT, ASSHOLE!!!!!!

Strewth. When was this freddy character retired from the SS?

VE HAVE VAYS OF MAKING YOU TALK YOU GLOBAL KORUPT VARMISTS - ASSESVHOLES!

Freddy-fred - the reference I provided @ #50 & #53 was exactly what was required to expose your lie regarding Craig making up the Wiki derfinition.

You're a liar Freddy, and that's all there is to it. And if you're still masturbating over the so-called climategate emails, take a tip: go get a life.

Has freddy been locked away somewhere since December 2009? Wonder where?

Btw, whatever happend to climategate3?

any consternation apart from your corruptness re phil jones scandalous behavior as science fraud??

This has been addressed multiple times, on this blog and elsewhere. Are you seriously blaming me for your own ignorance?

To all and sundry, whether you believe global warming or do not ,why not try a different line of thought. How about we get together and try to put pressure on politicos and govs. To get us off the planet instead of putting money into wars . We could just as easily put our efforts into terraforming mars and Venus as killing each other and obtain far greater returns for our efforts

Btw, whatever happend to climategate3?

Like CG2, it disappeared without a trace, leaving only the broken hearts of a handful of conspiracy cranks who truly believed (and they really, really did, if you peeked at their contemporary comments) that this time... this time....

You really are a dunce BBD, do a little homework before you act with such choler.

“seabed” lol

You should have taken my advice and kept your mouth *shut*.

By opening it again, once more demonstrate that you are simply a liar.

It is exactly as I said. The plane is not on a glacier. It's at the bottom of Boat Harbour. The occasional melt sank it and refroze it on the bottom. Melt and low tide finally revealed it.

Here are a few quotes from the Wiki you linked but apparently did not bother to read:

The frame of the air-tractor sledge remained on the ice at Boat Harbour where Bickerton had left it. The last expedition to Cape Denison to see the frame was in 1976; the next expedition, in 1981, could find no trace of it. The ice in that location does not move, and the implication is that the frame sank through the ice. It is therefore possible the frame is still there.

And:

Next year (the 2009-10 season) further search was undertaken using differential GPS, bathymetry equipment, ice augers, a magnetometer and a metal detector (whose sensor was placed down the ice auger holes after drilling).[53] The ice showed signs of having extensively melted in the past, was about 3 metres thick and covering smooth rock which extended Northwards to become the harbour bottom. Visual examination of the harbour bottom during the bathymetry survey did not reveal any fragments of the frame in the first 30 metres of the harbour.

I repeat: the plane is not on a fucking glacier. Never was. You are wrong and lying about it. As I said, you are a waste of space and time. So shut up and disappear.

Christ, when is Tim going to block freddy's IP? The self-parodic ravings were vaguely amusing for a while, but the novelty has entirely worn off now.

# 56 Karen

tiz a down hill run chekie

No, it *was* a downhill run. Until the C20th. Read Marcott et al. (2013). It's all in there:

Our results indicate that global mean temperature for the decade 2000–2009 (34) has not yet exceeded the warmest temperatures of the early Holocene (5000 to 10,000 yr B.P.). These temperatures are, however, warmer than 82% of the Holocene distribution as represented by the Standard 5×5 stack, or 72% after making plausible corrections for inherent smoothing of the high frequencies in the stack (6) (Fig. 3). In contrast, the decadal mean global temperature of the early 20th century (1900–1909) was cooler than >95% of the Holocene distribution under both the Standard 5×5 and high-frequency corrected scenarios. Global temperature, therefore, has risen from near the coldest to the warmest levels of the Holocene within the past century, reversing the long-term cooling trend that began ~5000 yr B.P.

Climate models project that temperatures are likely to exceed the full distribution of Holocene warmth by 2100 for all versions of the temperature stack (35) (Fig. 3), regardless of the greenhouse gas emission scenario considered (excluding the year 2000 constant composition scenario, which has already been exceeded). By 2100, global average temperatures will probably be 5 to 12 standard deviations above the Holocene temperature mean for the A1B scenario (35) based on our Standard 5×5 plus high-frequency addition stack (Fig. 3).

* * *

I have to say something here. You, Karen, know exactly fuck-all about paleoclimate. Every time you try to use it as a sandbox for your stupid, ignorant denialism, you look like the floundering, dishonest prat that you are.

So don't. Steer clear of all things paleoclimate or expect to be skewered every time.

Oh, and Karen, read this again. Try to understand it this time.

Wow, I didn't know Freddy was on YouTube...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGvD5OSkJ_Q

Comprehensive review of Murray Salby's antics by John Mashey at DeSmog.

Salby, it turns out, has form. Lots of it. Let's hope this important but missing context becomes as well-aired as Salby's misleading claims about CO2.

The echo chamber rundown alone makes the article worth reading. Where all the trolls get fed.

Yes indeed. All the chum-ladlers stand revealed as credulous bozos who don't bother checking their sources.

All the uncomprehending repeaters swarming blog comments likewise.

BBD - you don't seriously think Spammer is going to read any of those hard words, do you? Or ever really grasp what happened to Mawson's entertainingly Heath Robinson sledgey thing?

And I love the bursts of compensatory pretentious language. 'Choler'? Seriously? More like choler-ing in!

You are a gift to our side, SpamKan.

I'll also pause to note that like many incompetents when defeated you fall-back to the cheapest, most-tawdry, anally-fixated and infantile insults, apparently imagining that this is stinging repartee; whereas your stupidity, which is what the rest of us are drawing attention to, is palpable (and that's not the mouthparts of a bug!), and has been demonstrated in these pages over and over again. I mean; sussed out the distinction between C and F yet?

You singularly pointless individual, you!

Much of this debate could fairly be characterised as the Revenge of the Thickos, where a whole bunch of also-rans whose Dunning-Krugers protects them from full knowledge of the awful truth now find they can get lashings of undeserved attention by acting as useful idiots (actually, the 'useful' bit is highly debatable - witness the case in point) on behalf of a truly venal corporate elite and its magical economic theory.

And, Freddy, you really are the most ridiculous little fellow. Baby Jesus despises you for a fool! The bearded bloke in the sky is going to be none-too-happy with you wrecking his creation, too! Just imagine what he'll have to do to you! Run along now...

And sure our Karen has "miasmatic" on the tip of her tongue every day.

Yet they don't get the most basic of the basics. You can't fool an informed audience.

So the capering and jingling goes on.

@craig

Thanks for the laugh. Can I just ask, are you the same “Craig Z Thomas” that’s reponsible for the wikipedia entry “Global Temperature” from june 28th just so that few days later you could claim

“2. Global temperature is in Wikipedia, so we know it is real.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature”

Ingenious!
;)

What GSW may have previously missed in this conversation was freddy's assertion that there was no such thing as "Global Temperature", the proof being there was no wikipedia entry for it.

Having hoist freddy with his own petard, we now have the bonus of having amused GSW.

Oh, and freddy is a liar and a moron.

entered his personal version by copy paste from undisclosed sources into wikinastia.

The source isn't just disclosed, it is referenced and linked to. You would have to be an abject fool to call a direct link to the relevant reference an "undisclosed" source, wouldn't you freddy, you foul-mouthed muppet?

BBD
July 12, 2013

Comprehensive review of Murray Salby’s antics by John Mashey at DeSmog.

Salby, it turns out, has form. Lots of it. Let’s hope this important but missing context becomes as well-aired as Salby’s misleading claims about CO2.

I've only had time to just glance over it, but I cannot see Salby's name anywhere in the documents link-referenced by the article at Desmoblog.
http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/07/12/murry-salby-sacked-australian-univ…

What am I missing?

Are you sure you're reading the right article there, Craig? That's not the link provided above.

And re #80; denier doesn't get the joke. Film at 11.

bill arselick

ALL YOU AGW ASSHOLES ARE TOTALLY CORRUPT:

bill ARSELICK, I BET THAT IF I GIVE YOU 100’000 US$ YOU WOULD IMMEDIATELY SAY THAT AGW IS AN ASSHOLES DIRTY JUNK SCIENCE AND YOU CURSE ALL AGW DELUSIONISTS, IF I WANT YOU TO SAY SO.

THEREFORE YOU ARE A CORRUPT STINKING ARSEHOLE, WORTH NOTHING

Look, moron, you're wrong. What you're doing is called 'projection' - you know; 'I'm a sleazy mercenary fuck, therefore so is everybody else.'

And Jesus really doesn't want you for a sunbeam, petal. There's no room in the happy-place for nasty, spiteful, foul-mouthed little boys...

apart from their total ignorance in meteorology and atmospheric physics the arsefuck environmentalists here, the bbds, cheks, bernards, billies, craigs etc etc etc, are also totally incompetent in biology, molecular biology, molecular genetics etc and still believe in an utmost primitive manner the old fairy tales of darwinian evolution because of a total lack of information and understanding of the advancements in science especially in molecular genetics.

the agw arseholes working in wg2 and wg3 are only parasites who claim illusioned empirical evidence of agw like more live stress for a fish, a fly, etc.

POOR CRAP BROTHERS, AGW ARSELICKS

I WANT TIM TO BAN YOU ALL, YOU LOSERS

so bill, you asshole, you want 200k bucks? you are not humble

BBD #70 & #72

Sheeezzzzz I don't know why I bother trying to educate protozoal cretins such as yourself.

Quotes from here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-tractor_sledge

"The frame of the air-tractor sledge remained on the ice at Boat Harbour where Bickerton had left it."

At the harbour! ...............Not in the harbour! They looked in the harbour and found nothing, simpleton!

"Using photographs from 1913, 1931 and 1976 it was possible to derive transits between the frame and distant objects which located the frame to a small area of ice about 50 m from the hut. Comparison with a 1931 photograph by Frank Hurley confirmed this location."

Take note that between the above mentioned dates the sledge was covered in ice and when the ice had melted the sledge was visible at those dates.

"located the frame to a small area of ice about 50 m from the hut"

If you have a look at this map https://data.aad.gov.au/aadc/artefacts/cape_denison.jpg you will see that (if you are capable) by using the scale
at the bottom of the map, that the sledge would be positioned close to the shoreline, NOT IN THE HARBOUR YOU FOOL!

"Dr Chris Henderson, the leader of the team, believes "the frame sank in situ to the rock surface, three metres below the present ice surface"

So now the ice at that position (the edge of the harbour) is 3 metres deeper than it was in 1931 and 1976, lol

"The findings to date (2011) suggest that metal object(s) exist at a depth of 3 metres, on rock, in the location where the frame was last known to have been seen in 1976. This is likely to be the remains of Mawson's Air Tractor, but confirmation awaits a future opportunity.

So the ice melted around 1931 and the sledge sunk to the rocky surface below, then it was covered in ice again until the ice REMELTED in or about 1976, then it was covered in ice again, so now it is 3 METRES below the ice surface at the EDGE of the harbour.

SO MUCH FOR GLOBAL WARMING !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BBD, if you cannot understand something as simplistic as this then why would anybody believe anything that you have to say about the subject of climate change?

Climate Change is a complex science, not even the government funded climate scientists understand it, what hope have you got sweety, :)

It is obvious that your ego has been smashed, after all you have been very sooky lately, wah wah wah.

So shut up and disappear, your mangling of the science is a joke.

"So shut up and disappear, your mangling of the science is a joke"....

says Karen, who for all we know works in a cardboard box factory. What are your scientific credentials, "sweetie"?

Dolts like Karen and Freddy make big noises about "science" on a few blogs but, like Jonas, Betula, PentaxZ, Rednose etc., NONE of them has any scientific credentials and NONE of them have published a single paper in their miserable lives. Instead, they haunt the blogs imparting their versions of contemporary wisdom, oblivious to the fact that every major scientific organization on Earth in every country has verified the reality of AGW and its potentially serious consequences. EVERY ONE. There are no 'outliers'.

Set against these prestigious organizations and the huge number of scientists they represent are a small coterie of scientifically illiterate knobs who think they know a lot about various fields because their views are not under any sort of scrutiny or peer-review; if they were, these knobs would be forced to spew their vitriolic nonsense elsewhere. The only salvation is that this horde of ignorants is virtually invisible in the broader scientific arenas; the likes of Karen and Freddy are laughingstocks amongst those doing the research - or would be if they were known. Its a shame I, as a working, publishing scientist have encountered them though. Still, they are good material for ridicule amongst my colleagues. No wonder they are anonymous; they know that, were their cover to be blown, that they would metaphorically be tarred and feathered.

So Karen thinks that a few old shipping records indicate that the Arctic was as warm in the 1920s and 1930s as it is now, and more importantly that the remarkable decline in sea ice also is hardly unusual. Strangely, this view is not shared by the scientific community either.

"the bbds, cheks, bernards, billies, craigs etc etc etc, are also totally incompetent in biology, molecular biology, molecular genetics etc and still believe in an utmost primitive manner the old fairy tales of darwinian evolution because of a total lack of information and understanding of the advancements in science especially in molecular genetics"

Aside from HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! etc, what can I reply to this verbal diarrhea? Listen Freddy, you are wwaayyyy over your head. You once claimed to have a PhD: I say prove it. I do. I have 130 plus papers and over 3,000 citation so my work (201 so far in 2013) and an h-factor of 32. So, aside from being a foul mouthed idiot, what are your prestigious credentials? I AM a biologist, and the stuff you spew is completely vacuous garbage.

"So Karen thinks that a few old shipping records indicate that the Arctic was as warm in the 1920s and 1930s as it is now, and more importantly that the remarkable decline in sea ice also is hardly unusual. Strangely, this view is not shared by the scientific community either."

hahaha, wot a moron. lol

you, like BBD have not got a clue!

your commenting on the post directly above your own last post and you did not comprehend ANYTHING ABOUT THAT POST !!!!!!

Wot a fantastic specimen of a scientist you are JefFeRy, lol lol lol

JefFeRy could you please publish a list here of all, or even some, of the peer reviewed papers that BBD Bill Chek Lionel or any other Dumbtoids have published,

Thanks in advance, :)

Karen, You evade the point I made (as expected). Why has the scientific community writ large expressed concern over the rapid loss of ice in Arctic if, as you suggest, it is not unprecedented in recent geological history? How is is that knobs like you apparently possess 'wisdom' that has bypassed the vast majority of experts in the field?

This is a point you can duck and avoid here, but if you were to give a presentation at a scientific conference you'd be humiliated and laughed out of the venue. Most importantly, your silly, fatuous arguments would be shot down in flames.

Its you who does not have a clue. If you did, you wouldn't be consigned as an anonymous nothing on a blog. You'd be out there in the big world imparting your 'wisdom'. But the truth is that your arguments are hollow and meaningless.

"Karen, You evade the point I made"

The point is dopey, the discussion was a small area in Antarctica, lol

Oh you muppet. From your original link:

Nearly a century after it was abandoned by Mawson, the old Vickers was spotted sitting among rocks in a few centimetres of water during one of the lowest tides recorded at Commonwealth Bay.

“They would not have been found had the tide not been so low and the ice cover at Cape Denison at its lowest for several years – it was a fluke find,” Mr Jensen said in a statement.

The TIDE was low, fuckwit. The TIDE. The TIDE. Read the fucking words. The exceptionally low TIDE exposed the plane, which was on the seabead, fuckwit.

Low tides expose things on the seabed.

Your unbelievably stupid lies really have screwed you this time. Take my advice and shut up and sod off. Not for damage limitation, because we are far beyond that now, but out of a proper sense of embarrassment.

Just go, Karen. Now.

OH good, this means that you fully agree that the Arctic death spiral is real and of profound concern.

Glad I got that all sorted out.

"Why has the scientific community writ large expressed concern over the rapid loss of ice in Arctic if, as you suggest, it is not unprecedented in recent geological history? How is is that knobs like you apparently possess ‘wisdom’ that has bypassed the vast majority of experts in the field? "

http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/prods/CVCHACTWA/20130708180000_CVCHACTWA_000…

Just for Karen:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bL7D5eRlDxk

And while I am at it, changes in ice mass in the Antarctic in no way exclude the effects of AGW. The continent is bitterly cold. If temperatures increase, it will still be very cold - what do you expect - a sudden shift from - 30 C to + 10C? Yet this is the sort of obfuscation deniers make so frequently: that if its warming regionally, suddenly these shifts lead to broadcast changes in local conditions. Moreover, was about changes in precipitation? Given that its still cold in the Antarctic even under warming, increases in precipitation could very feasibly influence ice mass.

Of course experts in the field know all of this and have factored it in. Karen hasn't. End of story.

"Glad I got that all sorted out."

me too :)

Karen, what does you graph tell us about the thickness of the ice in the Arctic? Nothing of course. Its like you showing me a graph showing that 88% of Brazil is still forested but leaving out the little tidbit that about 25% of these forests are plantations or second growth forests - very different from primary forests.

Nothing then, about quality.

My gosh Karen you are a lousy debater. Join the club of Betula, Rednose et al. None of you are remotely credible.

Furthermore, none of this absurd McGuffin has anything whatsoever to do with AGW. It's just more denialist blether and time-wasting by a clueless prat who understands absolutely nothing about absolutely everything, starting with paleoclimate and working up (see most recent evisceration above at #1 and # 72).

Karen is hammering on one stupid lie to distract from the mauling she's just had over the other stupid lies.

Karen has tripped over the pig's bladder on a stick and gone down in the usual flailing tangle of dishonesty and stupidity. Cap askew and bells a-jingling. The crowd roars with laughter.

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

Karen loses again. Turn out the lights, the party's over...

And now we get to denialist lies about Arctic melt during the early C20th.

Debunked in full, here.</a

Next.

BBD ...and then there was that reference to the 3 metre trench exposing... seaweed!

Note the subsequent abrupt change of topic.

And you really have to have an intellect - and I'm being more than generous using the word - like, well, like Karen's to get 'SO MUCH FOR GLOBAL WARMING !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!' out of the episode. 'Simplistic' is the right word, but not in the way she supposes...

The sheer tenacious dishonesty is what drops my jaw, Jeff. The hammering away at stupid, obvious lies, day in, day out. Karen now, but the whole troupe of climate clowns exhibit this moronic refusal to accept that they have no arguments and they lose whenever they pick a fight with an informed correspondent.

And lose badly, messily, painfully at that. Yet they keep on coming. It's incomprehensible to any sane and rational being operating in good faith.

bill - yes. The Prime McGuffin of Denial in full, glorious effect.

Cap, bells, action!

Deadeye...

Could someone please call the scientists involved with this and ask them to stop spreading this denialist dribble....Thanks.

Oh, and then call out the public to beat them while Deadeye watches....Thanks again.

"The correlation between warming ocean waters and more fish has also been investigated in a comparative study carried out by the NESSAS researchers in collaboration with US researchers. They have compared developments in three ocean areas: off the coast of Norway, in the waters of the Gulf of Maine (off the northeast coast of the US), and off Alaska and in the Bering Sea (between Alaska and Russia)".

"This comparative study has been interesting," says Dr Drinkwater, "in that the causal factors are completely different for the warming of these three northern seas. Yet in each area, warmer waters have led to longer growing seasons, more plankton and more fish."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100505092525.htm

#94 BBD said:
"Oh you muppet. From your original link:"
"The TIDE was low, fuckwit. The TIDE. The TIDE. Read the fucking words. The exceptionally low TIDE exposed the plane, which was on the seabead, fuckwit."

BBD also said: "Your unbelievably stupid lies really have screwed you this time. Take my advice and shut up and sod off. Not for damage limitation, because we are far beyond that now, but out of a proper sense of embarrassment."

BBD also said: "The sheer tenacious dishonesty is what drops my jaw, Jeff. The hammering away at stupid, obvious lies, day in, day out.
Low tides expose things on the seabed. "

Now here is the unadulterated text, yes that's right viewers, the actual paragraph that BBD has got his knickers in a knot over.

"On 1 January 2010, a day of unusually low tide, 4 small capping pieces from the end section of the tail were found by the edge of the harbour. The tail and a section of fuselage had been removed from the rest of the air-tractor before it was abandoned in 1913, therefore this discovery did not shed much light on the location of the rest of the frame, but it suggests that "the frame, or parts of it,can survive for nearly 100 years in this environment"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-tractor_sledge

BBD, you changed the text in a pathetic attempt to distort the truth, then you accused me of lying and being stupid!

Anybody can see that YOU BBD are a deceitful lying lowlife, your deception, misrepresentation of the text confirms that you BBD are indeed a liar!

Along with your shoddy lies and the accompanying childish outburst you should be sin binned to your own BBD thread where we would not have to put up with your distorted and unhinged opinions.

As stated previously, there is now 3 metre thick ice at this location, I do hope that upsets you BBD.

BBD the Ananias

Your original comment #97 page 6.

“Mr Jensen said the aircraft was still sitting on the ice in 1931 and was spotted again when ice melted in 1975.”

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/ice-melt-reveals-mawsons-…

so this plane disappeared then reappeared and then disappeared then reappeared again.

GOLLY !!! That will really do bbD’s head in, lol

From the link in your original comment #97, page 6:

An Australian heritage carpenter stumbled on the remains of the craft on New Year's Day at Camp Denison, its cast iron framework revealed by an unusually low tide and reduced ice cover.

[...]

Nearly a century after it was abandoned by Mawson, the old Vickers was spotted sitting among rocks in a few centimetres of water during one of the lowest tides recorded at Commonwealth Bay.

"They would not have been found had the tide not been so low and the ice cover at Cape Denison at its lowest for several years - it was a fluke find," Mr Jensen said in a statement.

I changed no text you lying shit. You changed reference when you got exposed a prat the first time around.

* * *

The purpose behind this blatant trolling is to divert attention away from you getting skelped again and again on the previous page when you ventured into paleoclimate misrepresentation.

It is a diversion, pure and simple.

This is what you are avoiding.

And this.

And this.

The last one bears repeating in full here:

Furthermore, none of this absurd McGuffin has anything whatsoever to do with AGW. It’s just more denialist blether and time-wasting by a clueless prat who understands absolutely nothing about absolutely everything, starting with paleoclimate and working up (see most recent evisceration above at #1 and # 72).

Karen is hammering on one stupid lie to distract from the mauling she’s just had over the other stupid lies.

Karen has tripped over the pig’s bladder on a stick and gone down in the usual flailing tangle of dishonesty and stupidity. Cap askew and bells a-jingling. The crowd roars with laughter.

More quote-mining misrepresentation from the increasingly tedious Betty.

Up-to-date research destroys your pollyannish crypto-denialism.

Now that I have shown you up for the liar that you are BBD I would like to point to the falling sea temperature anomaly's

2007 http://weather.unisys.com/archive/sst/sst_anom-070708.gif

2010 http://weather.unisys.com/archive/sst/sst_anom-100606.gif

2012 http://weather.unisys.com/archive/sst/sst_anom-120603.gif

2013 http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.gif

The heat is being slowly released from the ocean.

Anybody that thinks that the heat is somehow defying physics and miraculously heading to the bottom of the ocean is in la la land :)

Karen, you are simply insane. You have inverted reality despite the actual quotes sitting there on the page, in black and white.

You are possibly one of the most dishonest posters I have ever encountered. See above.

You are also engaged in an utterly transparent and increasingly desperate attempts to divert attention from your horrible failures on the previous page.

So, what to do?

First, no more rubbish about Mawson's plane. We've done that.

Second, no more rushing off with more denialist misrepresentations.

We are going back to all the things that you fucked up on the previous page and my long, detailed responses that you utterly ignored.

Starting here.

Just as BBD said: Karen is data mining. She's pretty good at it, but then again deniers are masters of the art. She's been doing this ever since she arrived here. What she does is do exhaustive google searches, go through data sets and graphs, most of which run counter to her pre-determined views, and then finds a few that she can past up here as if they represent the 'bottom line'.

Karen is not a scientist. She/he/it/whatever does not do research in any way, shape or form, yet she/he/it/whatever appears to think that she/he/it/whatever has a complete grasp of climate science. Moreover, Karen's views are in complete contrast with most experts in the field. This also goes for Freddy, Betula et al .... non-scientists whose views are completely at odds with those doing the research.

That's why these people end up in blogs. They don't write their brilliant ideas up for scientific journals, which would reject them in a fraction of a second. No, instead they frequent a few blogs, where in contrast with academia there is no peer-review to jettison their posts. This is their niche, their only niche, and its all they have.

To reiterate what i said on the Jonas thread the other day, thank heaven for small mercies. Karen and other like 'her' are virtually invisible in scientific arenas. They can pound their chests on blogs all day long and puff up their bloated egos because some people actually respond to their nonsense, but amongst scientific peers their views are non-existant. If they had any guts they'd try and publish their piffle but of courser they won't even try.

Anybody that thinks that the heat is somehow defying physics and miraculously heading to the bottom of the ocean is in la la land

Ekman pumping does not "defy the laws of physics". It is an expression of them.

Everything you are trying to do here is dishonest and wrong, including the carefully cherry-picked SSTs for an individual *month* plucked from carefully selected individual years. Here is the context - a continuous time series of annual anomalies:

HadSST3 1900 - present

* * *

That's enough of that. Back we go to your evasions from the previous page.

"More quote-mining misrepresentation from the increasingly tedious Betty"

I'm sure you meant to say... misrepresentation from the scientists at NESSAS.
You did read the article didn't you? They are scientists aren't they?

Anyhow, when do you expect the beatings to begin? Flights to Norway fill up fast, you need to book early...

Hardley at #14...

You forgot to use the word "Kindergarten". You're slipping.

"non-scientists whose views are completely at odds with those doing the research"

What exactly were the findings from your Algonquin research again? Oh yes, I remember..
http://www.akileine.co.uk/wintercreme.html

I didn't say they were wrong, I said that YOU were quote-mining. Now shut up, go away and read the fucking link provided at #10.

Your dishonesty sickens me more than I can easily express.

Karen is data mining. She’s pretty good at it

Actually, the lot of them are just clueless water carriers, Jeff. Now the agents supplying the chum sites they collect their ignorant, partially unformed dross from well, they're very different.

Let's take Betty 'child deniers' Betula's latest foray as an example. The story he linked (dating from 2010) told of recovering cod stocks.
"Ken Drinkwater is a senior research scientist at both the Institute of Marine Research and the Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research, located in Bergen"

"In explaining how warmer seas could lead to so much more fish in the North Atlantic, all the way to the Arctic, scientists point to the bottom-up effect: Warmer seas result in more phytoplankton, which feeds more zooplankton, providing more nourishment for the herring and capelin that serve as a food supply for cod and other larger fish.Scientific literature confirms that cod reproduction is typically higher in warm-water years and lower when waters are cold. Recently, cod catches in the Barents Sea have been on the rise. Within the last few years, catch levels have reached those of the 1920s and 1930s warm period. Off Iceland and Greenland, however, no corresponding increase has been recorded".

This fits the narrative Betty is not just advocating or promoting, but positively evangelising. Warming will be unconditionally good.

But there's not a shred of evidence Betty has read the article he's promoting because there on the very same page we can find this which informs us that those recovering cod stocks can be reduced to cannibalism because the food chain and ecological support for their increased numbers doesn't exist, and human understanding of the complexity and logistics in re-engineering those support webs is nowhere near adequate enough.

But there’s not a shred of evidence Betty has read the article he’s promoting because there on the very same page we can find this which informs us that those recovering cod stocks can be reduced to cannibalism because the food chain and ecological support for their increased numbers doesn’t exist, and human understanding of the complexity and logistics in re-engineering those support webs is nowhere near adequate enough.

To fix the buggered link in last paragraph of #19

Notice that the pathetic Karen-thing has run off again rather than face up to its fecal mess from the previous page.

God thee people are vile.

More dishonest quote-mining from Betty-John Pollyanna exposed. Thanks chek.

Deadeye @ 18..

I link this quote from the findings of scientists...

"Yet in each area, warmer waters have led to longer growing seasons, more plankton and more fish.”

You reply: "I didn’t say they were wrong"

Yet you linked an article with this title:
"Why Warming Oceans Could Mean Dwindling Fish"

You aren't sure what you believe anymore are you Deadeye? Sort of like the scientists themselves (note the word "could" in the above title).

So the question becomes, how do you pick and choose which scientists are deniers? What is the beating criteria? Who do you watch get beaten? This is very complex...

Whenever Betty hawks something around, it's guaranteed to be some combination of simplified and misleading partial truths and quote-mined falsities.

Case in point @ #23

Like some cross between Neville Chamberlain and Daffy Duck in spite mode, Betty 'child deniers' Betula waves his piece of paper around.
"I have here in my hand a piece of paper with one sentence on it. 'Yet in each area, warmer waters have led to longer growing seasons, more plankton and more fish.'
I think Herr AGW is someone we can do business as usual with.

Betty likes to ignore that there are far more factors at play than his simpleton layman understanding can conceive of.
Stuff like - oh, maybe the teams of professional scientists producing the marine reports for the IPCC might know a thing or two about.

None of which will ever deter Betty and so the stupid will continue.

Standard denialist dishonesty. Focus on a region, or a short time-series, then extrapolate incorrectly and misleadingly to the global level.

Read the fucking link instead of posting more crypto-denialist shite up here Betty.

Ho-hum, and once again to correct my shit html.

Case in point @ #23

Like some cross between Neville Chamberlain and Daffy Duck in spite mode, Betty 'child deniers' Betula waves his piece of paper around.
"I have here in my hand a piece of paper with one sentence on it. 'Yet in each area, warmer waters have led to longer growing seasons, more plankton and more fish.'
I think Herr AGW is someone we can do business as usual with.

Betty likes to ignore that there are far more factors at play than his simpleton layman understanding can conceive of.
Stuff like - oh, maybe the teams of professional scientists producing the marine reports for the IPCC might know a thing or two about.

None of which will ever deter Betty and so the stupid will continue.

And meanwhile, Betty’s transparent evasions continue.

Betty still won’t answer the key questions about his physics denial. Probably because even Betty knows that physics denial = crank bin. But the grown-ups here who understand the physics and the paleoclimate data underpinning the ~2.5C – 3C estimate for ECS/2 x CO2 know that you *have* to be a physics-denying crank to hold Betty’s asinine views on AGW.

So come on Betty. Show a little intellectual integrity for the first time ever in our acquaintance and own up to the depths of your denial. Indeed, just *own* the depths of your denial. Have some fucking courage in your convictions, man.

How can you argue that AGW will have little or no effect unless you deny the laws of physics?

Deadeye and Cmdr Cheky....

Missing the point as usual.

The fact is, not all reactions to warming are bad and not all are good. The real fact is, you don't know. You assume, and you only assume the worst.

You pick and choose the potential, possible, predicted bad news...and treat it as fact. Yet, somehow, there always seems to be something unforeseen lurking around the corner...

I link scientific research stating "warmer waters have led to longer growing seasons, more plankton and more fish"

Deadeye says it not wrong, yet links an article that states "Why Warming Oceans Could Mean Dwindling Fish", which proves he doesn't know what he thinks.

Cmdr Cheky links an article that states the Cod are so abundant, they lack food and have to resort to cannibalism. These "unexpected density dependent effects" mean what? That the Cod will eat each other until there are 2 left, and then Deadeye will watch them beat each other?
And how can the effects be unexpected? Which is the real point here......the unexpected, the unexplained, the assumed, the uncertain, the conflicting reports, the lack of data, the questionable timescales, the unforeseen, the if's, the could's and the maybe's that all add up to a future that is treated as fact in the ideological Deltoid mind....

"How can you argue that AGW will have little or no effect unless you deny the laws of physics?"

How can you claim I've argued with you about something I've never argued with you about unless your delusional?

The fact is, not all reactions to warming are bad and not all are good. The real fact is, you don’t know. You assume, and you only assume the worst.

Not this again. This was pathetic the first ten times you tried it, and it still is. AGW threatens the food chain and even land of millions of people, and you counter with "so what, more cod off Norway".

You're sad, you're transparent, and you keep on embarrassing yourself.

Betty 'child deniers' Betula whined:

Which is the real point here……the unexpected, the unexplained, the assumed, the uncertain, the conflicting reports, the lack of data, the questionable timescales, the unforeseen, the if’s, the could’s and the maybe’s that all add up to a future that is treated as fact in the ideological Deltoid mind….

Yes Betty, we know it's too complicated for you.
It's complicated even for the scientists who study the subject full time. Of course every detail isn't yet known: we know that. But the trends present trajectories that are worrying to - dare I say - catastrophic in range. That's what you uneducated, politically motivated know-nothing morons cannot and will not recognise.

Betty you are an absolutely classic crypto-denier. You reject the scientific consensus, denying physics in the process and then deny your denial when confronted over your behaviour.

Then you start lying, quote-mining and misrepresenting for all you are worth. It's what you do. Crypto-denial.

Oh, and with you, it's all about politics, not science. You let that slip with that anti-IPCC anti-UN rant you farted out a couple of weeks ago.

You are just another lying, right-wing, know-nothing science denier pretending that this isn't what you are doing because you think - wrongly - that this camouflages what you are really doing.

It's a particularly loathsome form of intellectual dishonesty, which is why you are scum, as I have pointed out before.

Betty, being a lying shit:

I link scientific research stating “warmer waters have led to longer growing seasons, more plankton and more fish”

Deadeye says it not wrong, yet links an article that states “Why Warming Oceans Could Mean Dwindling Fish”, which proves he doesn’t know what he thinks.

Absolutely blatant misrepresentation. And repeating it is utterly, unforgivably dishonest because I have already written this (#27):

Standard denialist dishonesty. Focus on a region, or a short time-series, then extrapolate incorrectly and misleadingly to the global level.

Read the fucking link instead of posting more crypto-denialist shite up here Betty.

So you focus on a region over a short time period, and extrapolate globally *into the future* in an absolutely dishonest and misleading manner, then you repeat a lie about what I said "which proves he doesn’t know what he thinks."

What I think is what I wrote: you are a lying, quote-mining, misrepresenting crypto-denialist shit.

Tell us something Betty. Tell us when there has ever been a hyperthermal which WASN'T associated with widespread extinctions of marine biota?

Tell us now. Before this "conversation" goes a inch further. Give us some paleoclimate context for your Pollyanna-ish crypto-denial about the likely impacts on fisheries of a rapid ocean warming over the next 50 - 100 years (although it will not stop then).

Tell us. Go on.

Deadeye....

"Focus on a region, or a short time-series, then extrapolate incorrectly and misleadingly to the global level."

First of all, we are not talking about Hardley's 23 day trek where he experienced Climate change first hand, so let's not go there...

Secondly, as you well know, 3 separate oceans is a big "region". Did you read my post at #7:

"They have compared developments in three ocean areas: off the coast of Norway, in the waters of the Gulf of Maine (off the northeast coast of the US), and off Alaska and in the Bering Sea (between Alaska and Russia)”.

“This comparative study has been interesting,” says Dr Drinkwater, “in that the causal factors are completely different for the warming of these three northern seas. Yet in each area, warmer waters have led to longer growing seasons, more plankton and more fish.”

Do you have ADD? This is becoming a habit with you. Back in June I made a parody/ comment about the Deltoid noise/ signal and you responded by saying it was a “deliberate misrepresentation aka the “cooling over the last decade” meme.”
In other words, you didn't pay attention to the words.

More recently, you started cursing at me because of something Karen said, simply because you weren't paying attention to who you were responding to..

And now this.

C'mon man, you're falling apart at the seams.

Deadeye...

"then you repeat a lie about what I said “which proves he doesn’t know what he thinks.”

Do you know what you think Deadeye?

Door #1, a fact which you said isn't wrong:

“in that the causal factors are completely different for the warming of these three northern seas. Yet in each area, warmer waters have led to longer growing seasons, more plankton and more fish.”

Or door #2, a possibility which you seem to think is right:

“Why Warming Oceans Could Mean Dwindling Fish"

Take your time, or you medicine...

Tell us something Betty. Tell us when there has ever been a hyperthermal which WASN’T associated with widespread extinctions of marine biota?

Tell us now. Before this “conversation” goes a inch further. Give us some paleoclimate context for your Pollyanna-ish crypto-denial about the likely impacts on fisheries of a rapid ocean warming over the next 50 – 100 years (although it will not stop then).

Tell us. Go on.

Don't be so bloody obviously evasive.

Typical Betula: as with C02, he thinks that abiotic changes in marine temperatures which normally take millennia but that are now occurring in a blink of an evolutionary eye will lead to conditions that benefit marine biodiversity.

Its the scale Betty - geddit? I'm sure you also believe that tropical forest birds and mammals will also rapidly adapt to the grasslands or deserts that replace these forests in a century when they are slashed or burned - am I correct?

The bottom line is that there is not a marine biologist on Earth who thinks that a sudden warming of the coastal green seas is a good thing for the diversity of organisms that inhabits these habitats. Not one. Only tree pruners who think that their job inculcates them with immense wisdom about the environment, and even there you are 'out on a limb' (geddit? I like that one).

The projected warming of coastal marine ecosystems will be utterly disastrous for the species that inhabit them, (1) because it means that species adapted to cooler waters will have to rapidly move polewards or die out, and (2) that species adapted to warmer waters will out-compete species less adapted to warmer conditions. Either way it means these systems will become less species-rich, simpler, and thus more prone to collapse (see McCann, 1998). This is already happening, in concert with other forms of pollution and huge reductions in species at the terminal end of the food chain that have been decimated as a result of over-harvesting.

Sigh. Its so easy countering the b* spewed out here by Betula. But why shouldn't it be? He has no expertise whatsoever in ecology or environmental science and I do. What a pity for him.

Pesky thing that primary literature, innit?

http://www.seaaroundus.org/climatechange/images/Cheung-climate-biodiver…

Still more:

http://www.ericwalters.ca/Harvell_et_al_2002.pdf
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v430/n7002/abs/nature02808.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/315/5808/95.short
http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.energy.31.020105.1…
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/40/15452.short
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6010/1496.short
http://community.gleon.org/sites/default/files/uploaded/Paerl%26Huisman…
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2010.02182.x/abs…
http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/meps/v450/p67-80/

...but don't expect Betty to read any of them. He didn't read the last batch I posted up here countering his flippant opinions about the state of eastern NA biodiversity. So why should he now? No, he'll return to his old meme: my trek across Algonquin Park.

PS Betty: I didn't suffer from frostbite.... my friend did. So the cream you suggested is of no use to me. Try harder next time, eh?

Jeff Harvey wrote,

(1) because it means that species adapted to cooler waters will have to rapidly move polewards or die out, and...

Absolutely correct, and we are already noticing a rapid decline in sea bird colonies around UK coasts, including Puffins who's preferred food, other fish species can choke the chicks, is the sand eel.

And this is not the only sign of change in the biota of our lands and seas.

"Tell us something Betty. Tell us when there has ever been a hyperthermal which WASN’T associated with widespread extinctions of marine biota?"

When the scientists at NESSAS came up with their conclusions, I don't think they realized we were currently experiencing a hyperthermal . Oh, wait I get it, you were speculating again, I was about to apologize for the scientists...

jeff asshole: "ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE" hahahaha, a science, hahahaha, A KIND OF SCIENCE???? hahahaa, WHICH KIND OF SCIENCE, ASSHOLE

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE IS JUST A PARASITE AND YOU ARE A PARASITE, ARSELICK. ENVIRONMENTALSM IS A SOCIALIST GREEN MOVEMENT, A SUBSIDIARY OF GREENWAR AND WORLD WAR FUND, FULL OF MISLED ACTIVISTS LIKE YOU. YOU WASTE TAXPAYERS MONEY WITH JUNK, NONSENSE, AND DO HARM TO SOCIETY AND ECONOMY.

FUCKWIT, SATAN WILL PUNISH YOU INSANE UNETHICAK IMMORALIST

FUCKING ASSHOLE, FUCKING, FUCKING

lionel asshole, for gods sake, please start to try to be a more intelligent person than you are now, then you maybe will grasp that living organisms are ALWAYS in a change. CHANGE IS A BASIC PRINCIPLE. you eco idiots have no sense for nature at all, no wisdom about how life works, you are full of anxiety that anything might change. YOU ARE COWARDS AND WANT TO PRESERVE FAUNA AND FLORA AS YOU HAVE SEEN THIS IN YOUR LIFE.

When the scientists at NESSAS came up with their conclusions, I don’t think they realized we were currently experiencing a hyperthermal . Oh, wait I get it, you were speculating again, I was about to apologize for the scientists

And Betty does it again. We aren't currently experiencing a hyperthermal, but are potentially headed for one. Arguments to the contrary are physics denial.

They have compared developments in three ocean areas: off the coast of Norway, in the waters of the Gulf of Maine (off the northeast coast of the US), and off Alaska and in the Bering Sea (between Alaska and Russia).

Next misrepresentation: three ocean areas become three whole ocean basins:

Secondly, as you well know, 3 separate oceans is a big “region”. Did you read my post at #7

Three strikes:

- Dishonest.

- Misleading.

- Misrepresentation.

Next misrepresentation: transient effects in *three small regions* of the NH ocean is misrepresented by Betty as "evidence" that a global increase in OHC at an unprecedented rate will be neutral/beneficial to marine biota and fisheries we exploit world-wide.

But that's not what happens during hyperthermals. What happens is widespread extinction of marine biota.

Unless of course you have found previously unknown evidence in the fossil record that counters this. Have you such paradigm-destroying evidence? If so, you must publish at once. The field of marine paleontology will never be the same again. Babes in lab coats, grants and conference junkets in exotic locations will be yours, for the rest of your natural. Might even be a Nobel in it.

But back to reality. Per the link I gave you and which you have so far *only* used to misrepresent me, ask yourself what happens when it gets too warm for the cod in those little areas you are so keen on? Because it will - unless of course you deny the laws of physics.

Which effectively, you do, every time you indulge in crypto-denial like this.

If you cannot see what you are doing, you are thick and ill-informed. If you can see it, you are dishonest.

@all agw arseholes

bankruptcy of AGW scientoloy church:

€&@&€&@&&&€&&

From: Kevin Trenberth
To: Michael Mann
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600
Cc: Stephen H Schneider , Myles Allen , peter stott , “Philip D. Jones” , Benjamin Santer , Tom Wigley , Thomas R Karl , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen , Michael Oppenheimer

Hi all

Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather).

Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth’s global energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 19-27, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [1][PDF] (A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.)

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO. People like CPC are tracking PDO on a monthly basis but it is highly correlated with ENSO. Most of what they are seeing is the change in ENSO not real PDO. It surely isn’t decadal. The PDO is already reversing with the switch to El Nino. The PDO index became positive in September for first time since Sept 2007.see[2]http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/ocean_briefing_gif/global_o… urrent.ppt

Kevin

&9€&&988&&8&€&@&€

Deadeye...

"misrepresented by Betty as “evidence” that a global increase in OHC at an unprecedented rate will be neutral/beneficial to marine biota and fisheries we exploit world-wide"

Once again, you mean you believe the scientists at NESSAS misrepresented their findings over "a big region", since they are the ones who came up with the conclusions. I'm sure that's what you meant.

FUCKWIT, SATAN WILL PUNISH YOU INSANE UNETHICAK IMMORALIST

FUCKING ASSHOLE, FUCKING, FUCKING

Come on, Freddy. Don't just stop, open-mouthed, with the spittle abseiling down your chin. Don't leave us in suspense.

Can you top "barbecue sausage fuck"?

Go for it!

Tell us something Betty. Tell us when there has ever been a hyperthermal which WASN’T associated with widespread extinctions of marine biota?

Tell us now. Before this “conversation” goes a inch further. Give us some paleoclimate context for your Pollyanna-ish crypto-denial about the likely impacts on fisheries of a rapid ocean warming over the next 50 – 100 years (although it will not stop then).

Tell us. Go on.

Don’t be so bloody obviously evasive.

Freddy-fred, I don't think anyone here sees what you think you see in that email. Neither do I think they care in the slightest what one more denier dweeb thinks he sees.

But then I suspect that's always been true of everything in your whole life Freddy-fred..

Deadeye...

"We aren’t currently experiencing a hyperthermal, but are potentially headed for one. Arguments to the contrary are physics denial"

What do you mean by "potential"? ..... "Arguments to the contrary are physics denial"

Jeez Deadeye, you are denying physics in an argument with yourself!

Notify the public! It's time for a beating! Quick Deadeye, get a good spot to watch the....oh boy.

Jeez Deadeye, you are denying physics in an argument with yourself!

How?

Answer the question:

Tell us something Betty. Tell us when there has ever been a hyperthermal which WASN’T associated with widespread extinctions of marine biota?

Tell us now. Before this “conversation” goes a inch further. Give us some paleoclimate context for your Pollyanna-ish crypto-denial about the likely impacts on fisheries of a rapid ocean warming over the next 50 – 100 years (although it will not stop then).

Tell us. Go on.

Don’t be so bloody obviously evasive.

Dear god, for the sake of stopping this stupid shit from Betty, the potential is determined by when *we* stop - or do not stop - increasing CO2 ppm.

Deadeye,

"Tell us something Betty. Tell us when there has ever been a hyperthermal which WASN’T associated with widespread extinctions of marine biota?"

Irrelevant. Besides, I wouldn't know which species became extinct as a direct result of the hyperthermal , the timescale of the hyperthermal you are referring to, how many species adapted to the hyperthermal over the timescale you didn't provide or how many species evolved over the timescale you didn't provide .
The question is still irrelevant to the scientists conclusions at NESSAS.

Why do you keep avoiding the fact that it was a quote by scientists?

Deadeye...

You just stated: “We aren’t currently experiencing a hyperthermal, but are potentially headed for one"

What do you mean by "potentially"?

You then stated: "Arguments to the contrary are physics denial"

How can the laws of physics have "potential" results?

Explain.

You contradict yourself Deadeye.... you are a physics denier and should be beaten while you watch.

Irrelevant

No it isn't.

Physics denial.

What do you mean by “potentially”?

The charitable explanation for this is that we crossed.

Tell us something Betty. Tell us when there has ever been a hyperthermal which WASN’T associated with widespread extinctions of marine biota?

Tell us now. Before this “conversation” goes a inch further. Give us some paleoclimate context for your Pollyanna-ish crypto-denial about the likely impacts on fisheries of a rapid ocean warming over the next 50 – 100 years (although it will not stop then).

Tell us. Go on.

It's not irrelevant.

@fuvking eco jeff harvey

what went wrong in your life that you have got your phd at age 38???

did you have to repeat every single school class due to learning problems, have you been unemployed for 10 years due to inability, were you a drug addict for some years, a truck driver, a toilet cleaner, did you suffer from head injury

why such a retard of 10 to 15 years???? i got my doctorate at age 24 as the best in class

my hypothesis is that ALL environmentalists, journalists and climatologists were extremely untalented and poor pupils with learning problems. YOU JEFF FUQWIT ONE OF THEM AS A GOOD EXAMPLE.

bbd arsehole

YOUR ONLY "ARGUMENT" IS

"PHYSICS DENIAL"

but it's even worse:

I FORMALLY, SOLEMNLY, HONESTLY AND THOROUGHLY DENY YOUR EXISTENCE AND DECLARE YOU OFFICIALLY

SMALL FUCKWIT MORON

chek arselick

what is it you don't understand in trenberth's words:

@&€&@&€&&€€

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO.
...

@&€€&&@&&&@&&&@

EXPLAIN YOUR COMPREHENSION PROBLEM WITH WHAT YOUR GURU ADMITTED AND COMPLAINED

EXPLANATION REQUIRED, FUCKWIT ASSHOLE

Freddy.

Just quietly, you don't have a doctorate. You likely didn't even finish (or have not yet finished) high school. Your language usage as typified by your vocabulary and grammar indicate someone with little more than primary grade capacities.

For what it's worth your unfamiliarity with doctoral education is blatantly demonstrated by your own words. No one "g[ets a] doctorate at age 24 as the best in class", because doctoral degrees are not conducted in classes.

Further, many PhDs are obtained by highly competent and intelligent mature-age students. I myself worked in medical research for 15 years before changing disciplines and going back to uni to do a masters and a PhD in ecology.

And guess what? In my undergrad classes I was "best in class".

Freddy, you are some comedian! I have to admit, your posts are so utterly appalling that they are funny... and, as Bernard says, it is patently obvious that you don't have a PhD or a degree of any kind. If you did, you'd provide proof of it and that would mean you'd have to blow your cover. And anyone who writes such childish, banal gibberish as you as well as using such despicable language is in no way any kind of academic.

With respect to me, my old adage is better late than never. I was 37 actually, but why quibble? And if you bother to look at the years since I got my PhD you'll also see that my career has been pretty successful. You have obviously looked me up and are extremely envious.

As with respect to awards, like Bernard I was top in my undergraduate classes and received many awards (Ellis Prizes) for achieving top grades in course subjects. I also was awarded the top grade amongst the 37 students in my final year as an undergraduate before going on to do my PhD. So I have nothing to be ashamed of. And just yesterday I was offered a Professorship.

But I digress. The bottom line here is that your posts clearly suggest a deranged individual with delusions of expertise in fields beyond their competence. Bernard has summed you up well.

I'd normally peg a poster as a Poe based on this:

...earth’s climate is principally affected by two factors, ...

...after which he goes on to list four factors, which he counts as three. If he's a Poe he's mastered the art of projecting a dedicated animus centred just somewhere past this side of sanity, but I suspect the animus is genuine.

If freddy is not a Poe, well, it takes a very special kind of mind to contradict oneself on the facts of basic counting not once, but twice in a small comment - whilst simultaneously claiming to have a Ph.D.

It is also interesting that both freddy and Jonas appear to share the same pathology - that of characterising their own unsupported assertions as "educating" the reader.

In my undergrad classes I was “best in class”.

Yep, me too.

And like the others, when I got my Ph.D. I wasn't "best in my class" because there is no class to be best in when doing a Ph.D.

I predict Freddy will not apologise for being caught out but simply throw more coprolalia at the wall and hope it distracts from his falsehoods.

BTW, congrats to Jeff Harvey :-)

Thanks Lotharsson.... I appreciate it!

I also like what you said about Freddy and Jonas: "It is also interesting that both freddy and Jonas appear to share the same pathology – that of characterising their own unsupported assertions as 'educating' the reader".

So true. Jonas is on his own thread claiming that his critics have failed spectacularly to counter his arguments. Note the pathology there - Jonas' own opinion paraded as 'fact'. He does this all the time. GSW does it too, as it turns out. In truth, its up to others to determine whether their arguments have any sound empirical or theoretical basis or not - and not themselves. And on that count they both have only a few shallow sycophants like PentaxZ and Olaus as 'support'. Hardly a solid foundation to build on.

As for Freddy, he is a real hoot. Yesterday he was claiming that advances in molecular genetics somehow undermines Darwinian evolution, which no scientist in their right mind would say. I had to smile at that one. And then he comes flailing out saying that environmental science is not in fact a science at all. More comedy relief. But let's face it: the AGW deniers and downplayers on this site aren't exactly the smartest bunch around. What I learn from reading their comments on Deltoid and elsewhere is how utterly shallow many, if not most, of them are. What also becomes clear is that, without exception, there are no trained scientists (and few academics of any kind) amongst their ranks. They lie and very often bloat and exaggerate their academic qualifications to try and give the impression that they have the relevant expertise. I'll give Jonas some credit in this regard: he won't tell us what his professional background is because its obvious he has no scientific pedigree. At least he is being painfully honest in his silence.

Hardley @ 65

It's the Hadley "I", "me" show....

"I was 37 actually, but why quibble?"

"I got my PhD"

"my career"

"looked me up and are extremely envious".

"I was top"

"I also was awarded"

"So I have"

"I was offered "

"But I digress"

An you end with....."Bernard has summed you up well."

No Hardley, YOU have summed YOU up well.

The self-loving Hardley with his daily affirmations, vying for attention from a few people on a dying blog....how pathetic.

Maybe you could do a movie..."What Ever Happened To Baby Hardley?"

Paper birchhead,

My response was to an attack - however comical - by Freddy. You appear to like him - that's hardly surprising, given what your posts have told us about you. It isn't flattering, let me say that.

There's nothing more self-loving than having no qualifications and yet telling everybody what a bloody expert you are. Freddy does it, Jonas does it, GSW does it, and you, you poor sod, also do it. My qualifications speak for themselves. I don't have to prove anything to anybody, and especially not you, with your appalling knowledge of environmental science.

You've intimated on Deltoid more than once how your day job somehow enables you to have a better understanding of nature and global change scenarios than scientists who are trained in the field - including me and Bernard. As I have pointed out here many times, your examples are not only usually piss-poor, but when challenged you don't even attempt to defend them, but slither your way onto some other topic or resort to the usual smears. I've linked piles of studies up here that contradict your profoundly simple arguments, and predictably you don't respond to a single one of them.

Get lost, barkey. I'd say before you make too much more of an idiot of yourself but I am afraid its too late for that.

Well done Jeff on the offer, and well done for occupying such a vast space in Betty 'child deniers' Betula's head! Space that would likely otherwise be filled with the usual permutations of drivel otherwise.

That the envy, bitterness and jealousy are palpable and eating him up pretty much sums up the impotence of denial where making the foolish error of trying to make reality bend to ideology can never end well.

Maybe Bettybloops will step back and reflect on his ridiculousness, but then again intelligence isn't his strong point. ,

@Betula

"”What Ever Happened To Baby Hardley?”

I had a laugh, thanks!
;)

What a shocker, Freddy's yet another right-wing douchecanoe. Who thinks he knows nature better than actual scientists.

Hardley...

"I don’t have to prove anything to anybody"

You mean like when you experienced climate change "first hand" and shifting zones "for real" over a 23 day time scale where the average temperature was "around -2 oC during the day and -10 at night" and your friend got frostbite?

"and especially not you, with your appalling knowledge of environmental science"

Yet, somehow, I'm still smart enough to know you are an egocentric who is full of shit. Ouch.

And now for something completely different...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3n6Ra-K7us8

I’m still smart enough to know you are an egocentric who is full of shit.

Projection much, Betty.

Hey Lotharsson and Pukka Sahib, Sudda, Bwana Jeff of Algonquin, Tireless Defender of the Greenshirt Gravy Train, Dextrous Flasher of Smarty-Pants Credentials, Prodigious Frequent-Flyer Spewer of CO2, Mighty Privileged-White-Dork Bringer-of-Light to Sri Lanka, etc. etc. etc.!

Lotharsson--Yr kiss-butt mash mote No. 68: "BTW Congrats to Jeff Harvey [with get this!--a "smiley face" that has "school-girl crush" written all over it]"

The"Jeff entity"--Yr little air-kiss (mwah!) response to Lotharsson's No. 69: "Thanks Lotharsson...I appreciate it!"

Oh Brother! I mean, like, you Deltoids can be such creep-outs, especially when you're, like, so totally immersed in yet another one of those incessant, happy-place, eco-retard, geek-ball, ritual, hive-bonding sessions of yours with all their obligatory gushing, Platonic (as befits a couple of Philosopher King wannabes, like you two weirdos), golden-soulful sighs and longing-looks and needy, little outpourings of goo-goo, bubber-bubber, buddy-wuddy sweet-talk on full-flower, public display!

How so fracking precious!--BAAAAARF!

Would any psychologist in da house care to review this afternoon's (GMT) collection of denier bloopings?

Surely they can't all just be the open books they present, can they?

Here's Betula's histrionic strategy, acting as third person:

Freddy: "what went wrong in your life that you have got your phd at age 38??? did you have to repeat every single school class due to learning problems, have you been unemployed for 10 years due to inability, were you a drug addict for some years, a truck driver, a toilet cleaner, did you suffer from head injury why such a retard of 10 to 15 years???? i got my doctorate at age 24 as the best in class"

My response: "With respect to me, my old adage is better late than never. I was 37 actually, but why quibble? And if you bother to look at the years since I got my PhD you’ll also see that my career has been pretty successful. You have obviously looked me up and are extremely envious. As with respect to awards, like Bernard I was top in my undergraduate classes and received many awards (Ellis Prizes) for achieving top grades in course subjects. I also was awarded the top grade amongst the 37 students in my final year as an undergraduate before going on to do my PhD. So I have nothing to be ashamed of. And just yesterday I was offered a Professorship".

Betty's (non)objective hypocritical response:
"The self-loving Hardley with his daily affirmations, vying for attention from a few people on a dying blog….how pathetic"

So Birch brain, its perfectly OK for Freddy to smear me in every conceivable way, to ridicule my age, my qualifications, to call me a retard, and then to lie by saying he was 'top of his class' in getting a PhD (since deconstructed by Bernard and Lotharsson). No, Freddy isn't nuts, arrogant, a liar, or in love with himself. But in responding to his vile I am.

Birch-brain, you are also one vile waste of human space. You and Freddy belong together (along with GSW, who also suffers from a weird inferiority/superiority complex at the same time). And you are a complete hypocrite to boot.

Speaking of clones, Mike and Freddy are also alarmingly similar. Both are completely arrogant vile creatures as well, and both think they are supremely witty (yet I am sure Betula won't think either of them are 'self-loving').

Truth is, as Chek says, the entire coterie of deniers on Deltoid suffer from the same pathology. Oh yes, they love themselves BIG time, so it must hurt when their arguments are burned down time and time again.

Betula also plays the Jonas game. That is to have implied that their opponents have no credible qualifications to demand proof when their opponents say they do. When this is provided, their opponents are smeared by saying that they adore themselves. 'Self-valorization' as Olaus or Jonas or both called it; ' self-loving' in Betula's. This is their last refuge.

That is because none of them have a clue about anything remotely related to science. Sure, birch bark man can tell us all about the odd aphid outbreak, and that coyotes are doing well in his neck of the woods, but when it comes down to hard empirical facts this lot is hung out to dry.

Chek, life is too short. Denialist is usually tribalism, attempt to avoid challenging one's own ideology, or trying to avoid admitting an error. Reference to facts is a fig-leaf, rather than trying to understand a phenomenon. Tribalism is marked by abuse, ideology is marked by speaking of the awful consequences of choosing an alternative and reliance on magical benefits of doing the same thing, and refusing to admit error tends to be the merry go round/Gish gallop we see. I think we have all three, and maybe even some new hybrids.

Prof. Harvey - congratulations.

:-)

Lotharsson–Yr kiss-butt mash mote No. 68: “BTW Congrats to Jeff Harvey [with get this!--a "smiley face" that has "school-girl crush" written all over it]”

You old sourpuss, you.

Fred-fred

I FORMALLY, SOLEMNLY, HONESTLY AND THOROUGHLY DENY YOUR EXISTENCE AND DECLARE YOU OFFICIALLY

SMALL FUCKWIT MORON

There is a logical flaw in this. Can you spot it?

You can't have it both ways!

freddy
July 13, 2013

lionel asshole, for gods sake, please start to try to be a more intelligent person than you are now,...

.

Playing true to form I see freddy. Like all of your type you cannot handle reality. This does not bode well for your survival.

It is just up to us to ensure that you don't take others down with you.

freddy
July 13, 2013

@all agw arseholes

bankruptcy of AGW scientoloy [sic] church:

You really need to take more care with your utterings, besides, each and every one betrays who is priming your pump with such talk of scientology church. Which BTW is not so much a church as a secret society for misfits and those with screws loose, which means that it is you who would fir right in there.

Freddy #48 and #63

There's no big cover-up here. Trenberth is complaining about the lack of adequate monitoring systems. That's the "travesty" he's referring to.

Not enough satellite data for TOA energy flux and not (in 2009) a sufficiently clear picture of OHC below ~700m.

Why not read the article he refers to in his email?

Here's Trenberth's own comment on the stolen email you quote:

In my case, one cherry-picked email quote has gone viral and at last check it was featured in over 107,000 items (in Google). Here is the quote: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." It is amazing to see this particular quote lambasted so often. It stems from a paper I published this year bemoaning our inability to effectively monitor the energy flows associated with short-term climate variability. It is quite clear from the paper that I was not questioning the link between anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and warming, or even suggesting that recent temperatures are unusual in the context of short-term natural variability.

The paper on this is available here:

An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth’s global energy

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/trenbert/trenberth.papers/EnergyDiagnosti…

This paper tracks the effects of the changing Sun, how much heat went into the land, ocean, melting Arctic sea ice, melting Greenland and Antarctica, and changes in clouds, along with changes in greenhouse gases. We can track this well for 1993 to 2003, but not for 2004 to 2008. It does NOT mean that global warming is not happening, on the contrary, it suggests that we simply can't fully explain why 2008 was as cool as it was, but with an implication that warming will come back, as it has. A major La Niña was underway in 2008, since June 2009 we have gone into an El Niño and the highest sea surface temperatures on record have been recorded in July 2009.

The properly sceptical thing to do would be to read the paper.

re: Salby I think there was a question
Both mine and Graham Readfearn's posts reference the NSF 2009 closeout report.
On page 1, it says Subject 1 (fn1)
(fn1) Murry Salby.

But Salby's identify was absolutely clear even without that, given the combination of the NSF summaries I posted, plus Salby's foolish court case against CU in Federal court, which made much information not only public, but easy to get.
Read:
1) My detailed post.
2) Then, follow link to Salby's allegations against CU.
3) CU's defense.
4) Salby folds, moves to state court, tried again, gets nowhere.
5) And then review the NSF summary.

By comparison with past cases, Salby was smart to run to Oz, because there is at least some chance NSF OIG might have sought a felony charge. Although people usually don't go to jail, sometimes they do. There also might have been issues with the IRS, both on personal taxes, and maybe with 501(c)(3) issues.

Some of the clueless have claimed that if there were a real problem, he'd have gone to jail.
But NSF and IRS have plenty to do and have to prioritize. It is expensive to do court cases, takes a while, and getting someone back from Oz is a hassle. While a 3-year debarment may not seem much,. in the US, a thing like this is probably The End for any senior person who does grant-funded research.

But for amusement, go follow the links to some of the blogs that picked up Salby as Truth. Breathless attack on Macquarie, following every detail ... and then rather quickly, silence.

Thanks John. As always, great research and I think I'm a bit clearer on the sequence of events now.

Any response from the man himself, John?

Bill
Not that I know of. In some sense, it might have been nice to have let the blogopshere bozo brigade babble breathlessly away about Copernicus and Galielo and co ...a bit longer, but there is already an adequate supply of info for the next round.
The threads have gone strangely silent, although I haven't noticed many "Oops!" comments. Maybe some Aussies here might wander over to JoNova and ask.

jeff harvey illiterate!

from your web self-description: WHAT A POOR LANGUAGE FOR A "SCIENTIST"

what you wrote:

€&@&€&@&€&

(1) Intra-interspecific variation in plant quality and its effects on herbivores, parasitoids and hyperparasitoids; linking above- and below ground multitrophic interactions via plant defense.

Related plant species with different spatial and/or temporal life-history characteristics often possess differences in secondary chemistry and thus direct defensive capability.....

€&@&€&@&€&

a: "Intra-interspecific": NONSENSE: you probably meant intra- and/or interspecific

b: "linking above- and below ground": should be written "linking above and below ground" or "linking above- and below-ground"

c: "Related plant species with different spatial ....": different to what???? you should have used the word "differing"

d: "often possess differences": very poor!! you better have said: "often show differences"

i could continue with corrections of your terrible english

AS I SAID: ECOS, CLIMATE ASSHOLES, JOURNALISTS ARE UNTALENTED LOW-EDUCATED PEOPLE

FUCKWITS

As you can see, Freddy seems singularly obsessed with me. He has gone through my research career with a fine-toothed comb and he must be searching for me all over the internet. Next thing he will pour through my 130 plus publications (if he is a scientist - which of course he is not, he will have access through his university) and start reviewing them as well. Obviously he is very, very impressed with my CV and wants to emulate my career. Thanks Freddy. I especially love your focus on pedantics.

So, Freddy, please tell us who you are and where I can look up your illustrious achievements in academia. Given you keep telling us that you were the top of your 'class' as a PhD student, a process which in fact as has been pointed out does not exist, it would be nice to see your lengthy list of peer-reviewed publications.

The truth is that you are a psychotic half-witted nutcase.

End of story.

By the way, Freddy, you ought to be cautious in throwing around the term 'illiterate', given that the intellectual content of your posts would not impress a five year old.

But then again, given that you are a raving, mad lunatic, I suppose anything goes.

To prove my last point, here's our resident wacko yesterday:

"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE IS JUST A PARASITE AND YOU ARE A PARASITE, ARSELICK. ENVIRONMENTALSM IS A SOCIALIST GREEN MOVEMENT, A SUBSIDIARY OF GREENWAR AND WORLD WAR FUND, FULL OF MISLED ACTIVISTS LIKE YOU. YOU WASTE TAXPAYERS MONEY WITH JUNK, NONSENSE, AND DO HARM TO SOCIETY AND ECONOMY*"

*Note also simple grammatical mistake here (whose economy?), but I won't elaborate. The bottom line is that this is a rant from a truly deranged individual.

Yeah yeah, Freddy; you big super-smart genius clever, clever man. Smash enemies with big (poo-stained) rock! Warmies run or Freddy smash smash with slippy squishy rock! Ughhhh!....

John, some of the responses at Jo Nova's and WUWT were indeed priceless - and, when referring to the Uni and it's management, equal parts outrageous and unintentionally comic - and, with few exceptions, perhaps not what one might call (ahem) 'skeptical'.

The current mode at la Casa Codling appears to be 'hands in pockets, whistling nonchalantly'. Nothing to see here, move along... Last comment references your article - and Graham's - directly.

And meanwhile none other than Jonas N has entered the fray at Willard Watts'!

It sure is amusing to see freddy trying to lecture other people about English grammar - whilst butchering even more basic English punctuation in the very same post. He'd be a decent Poe if he wasn't so sincere ;-)

@jeff harvey "scientologist"

you maintain that the following are your main interests:

@&€&@&€&&€€&&&€

Main research interests

(1) Intra-interspecific variation in plant quality and its effects on herbivores, parasitoids and hyperparasitoids; linking above- and below ground multitrophic interactions via plant defense.

Related plant species with different spatial and/or temporal life-history characteristics often possess differences in secondary chemistry and thus direct defensive capability. These differences are often attributed to a range of divergent selection pressures from herbivores and pathogens. Most studies of insect-plant interactions have examined the effects of plant defence on herbivore performance, with less attention being paid to higher trophic levels, such as parasitoid wasps. Ultimately, the net effect of secondary plant compounds on plant fitness depends on how each trophic level separately responds to them. Many parasitoids (in the third trophic level) are attacked by one or more species of obligate hyperparasitoids (in the fourth trophic level) which may in turn be attacked by facultative (or tertiary) hyperparasitoids. Most importantly, the dynamics of tri-trophic interactions involving plants, herbivores and parasitoids may be profoundly affected by hyperparasitoids. They may exert a significant negative effect on plant-fitness by removing parasitoids or predators of the herbivores, (top-down regulation) or else plant allelochemicals may be transferred vertically through herbivores feeding on plants to the third trophic level and perhaps higher (bottom-up regulation). At present this research explores interactions between (a) wild cruciferous plants (Brassicaceae), insect herbivores, parasitoids and hyperparasitoids. Crucifers produce inducible glycoside toxins known as glucosinolates. Although glucosinolates are known to be synthesized by plants in several plant families, they are best studied in the family Brassicaceae. Glucosinolates and their breakdown products play a role in mediating plant-phytophage interactions. For example, they have been shown to act as feeding deterrents or to exhibit detrimental effects on the growth and development of herbivores, pathogens and nematodes. Alternatively, they are known to act as oviposition and feeding stimulants for specialist herbivores. Current research (with R. Gols, Wageningen University, Nicole van am, NIOO, J. Bullock, UK) is examining development and plant selection in several generalist and specialist herbivores and their endoparasitoids on wild and cultivated populations of Brassica nigra and Brassica oleracea. Moreover, PhD student (R. Soler), is also investigating indirect interactions between above- and below ground herbivores as mediated by differential effects of herbivory on primary and secondary chemistry in the two Brassica species.

Collaborations: Nicole van Dam (NIOO), Martijn Bezemer (NIOO and Wageningen University), Arjen Biere (NIOO), Rieta Gols (Wageningen Uniersity), James Bullock (Institute of Ecology and Hydrology, Dorset, UK), Karen Kester (Virginia Commonwealth University, USA) Pedro Barbosa (University of Maryland, USA), Anne-Marie Cortesero (University of Rennes, France).

(2) Life-history, foraging and developmental strategies in hyperparasitoids.
Hyperparasitoids are a fascinating group of insects that attack primary parasitoid hosts. Hyperparasitoids may be primary (e.g. they attack their hosts as larvae within a secondary host, usually a herbivore) or secondary (e.g they attack the primary parasitoid host after it has emerged from the secondary host). With the exception of hyperparasitoids of aphidiine braconds, very little is known about the biology and ecology of most hyperparasitoids. Virtually nothing is known (beyond some basic taxonomic information) of the hyperparasitoid complex of even well-studied tritrophic systems, such as the crucifer-Pieris-Cotesia interaction. At present I am examining lifetime reproductive success and development of Lysibia nana and Gelis agilis, secondary ichneumonid hyperparasitoids that attack cocooned pre-pupae and pupae of several microgastrines in the genus Cotesia. Recent work has shown that differing plant quality, as mediated through the herbivore (secondary host) and parasitoid (primary host) affects developmentof both species, even though there were no effects on the host. Furthermore, Lysibia has a much higher reproductive success than many other hyperparasitoids, reflecting an adaptation to gregarious parasitoid hosts. Offspring sex ratio is highly female-biased, also reflecting selection pressures on its host (via local mate competition). By contrast, reproductive success and daily patterns of progeny allocation in Gelis are much lower.

Collaborations: Jacques Brodeur (Laval University, Canada), Mark Jervis (University of Cardiff, UK).

(3) Spatial and temporal effects on multitrophic interactions.
It is well established that higher trophic levels occupy only a subset of habitats occupied by lower trophic levels. Much recent attention has focussed on evaluating the effects of habitat fragmentation on multitrophic interactions, and parasitoid wasps and their hosts have been increasingly employed as model systems in this research. However, hyperparasitoids have been virtually ignored in this research, even though (as stipulated above) they may play an important role in mediating the strength of community modules. Furthermore, the 'enemies hypothesis' predicts that more complex habitats will harbour a greater number of natural enemies than simple habitats. Most tests of this hypothesis have been based on agricultrual systems, which usually exhibit considerable homogeneity compared with semi-natural self-organized environments. Using extreme ends of a continuum, I am comparing (1) levels of predation, (2) parasitism, and (3) secondary hyperparasitism in a simple habitat (mown field margin) and a complex habitat (dense stands of Brassica nigra along the River Rhein) in order to test both the 'enemies hypothesis' and to establish how parasitoids and hyperparsitoids respond to such extreme variation in the spatial structure and plant diversity of the two locations.

@&€&&&€&&&&€€

AS EVERYBODY CAN SEE YOU SPEND YOUR LIFE WITH LOOKING AT SMALL ANIMALS, NOT WITH WEATHER AND CLIMATE EVERYTHING YOU EXCREMENT ON WEATHER AND CLIMATE IS TOTALLY UNINFORMED COPY PASTE FROM SOURCES OF YOUR CLIMATE SCIENTOLOGY CHURCH. same with other climate troll chuckwit bbd, bernard, chek, shitbillie, craigjoke etc etc: NOBODY OF YOU ASSHOLES HAS ANY BACKGROUND IN WEATHER AND CLIMATE, THEREFORE YOU ARE 100% INCOMPETENT TO TALK ABOUT CAGW

ASSHOLES, STINKERS

What a tedious, illiterate plonker.

Next.

The seas, they are a risin'... and a little faster every day...

Freddy, since when are you qualified to talk about climate? Uh... since... never? And you don't seem to like many of thsoe whoa re qualified to talk about climate; Mann, Hansen, Schmidt, Trenberth, Santer, et al.

The fact is that my views are in support of the vast majority of climate scientists. Yours aren't.

I have asked you this also before: you claim to have a PhD. PROVE IT.

Of course you won't and can't anyway. First, if you did, you'd blow your cover and be thrown out of academia. Second, and more importantly, you probably don't even have a basic high school diploma.

As you well know by now, I do have a PhD and a lot of publications. Heck, given what a maniac you are, next thing you'll be asking to download all of my published work to pour over it for mistakes and typos. Certainly not for the science, as it will be way, way over your little head.

Those in the UK may like to do something about this Envirinment Agency permit application for Cuadrilla Balcombe Limited response form.

Worth pointing out this recent article at CP: Shale Shocked: Sharp Rise In U.S. Earthquakes Directly Linked To Fracking Wastewater Reinjection as well as the many other articles found there and elsewhere.

Yes Jeff, it is painfully obvious that much is over freddy's little head and he provide the evidence right here:

a: “Intra-interspecific”: NONSENSE: you probably meant intra- and/or interspecific

freddy could not parse intra-interspecific so therefore you Jeff are illiterate. What a twerp our latest resident genius freddy is.

freddy, why don't YOU investigate the meaning of all those words that you blockquoted, the words Jeff used in the context of his understanding and experience. Do you not realise that ecological developments tell us much about climate and how it is changing?

@luniolell fartblow

it's extremely painful that aussies and brits open their so wide on an US science blog. nobody is really interested in too much emphasis on your unimportant home countries, just shut up, go home, AGW ARSELICKS

Australian blog, nitwit.

The illiterate right-wing douchecanoe brims with American exceptionalism? I'm shocked again!

You twerp freddy, as others have pointed out this blog and its creator are based in Australia. Look at a map of the world, I do realise this could be a novel experience for you, and note the large land mass at a similar longitude to China but south of the equator.

You may need further help understanding a number of concepts in that above explanation but then it is way past time you did some homework.

I'll bet that you are located somewhere south of the Mason-Dixon line and can whistle 'Dixie'.

How come you are so insulated from this sort of stuff freddy:

July 15 News: Ongoing Drought In New Mexico Turns Rio Grande Into ‘Rio Sand’.

Human caused climate change is having consequences.

Freddy still not been banned/restricted to the Jonas thread then?

Come on, Tim. Enough's enough.

#2

Just shut up and go home, frothing bloody lunatic.

It seems that it's been Ken Drinwater's week for being traduced by deniers.

On the previous page we had Betty 'child deniers' Betula re-interpretation of fish population 'recoveries', while the reliably stupid Christopher Booker was misreporting Arctic ice melt at the Daily Torygraph. Ken corrects Booker over at Real Climate

That should be 'Ken Drinkwater', of course.

Lionel @ 6...

Perhaps you can clue me in on a few things...

First, you link an article about a drought in New Mexico, then you link an article about empirical evidence pointing to Human's causing Global Warming...

You then seem to conclude that, therefore, the New Mexico drought is caused by Global Warming. This sounds very scientific..... is this the normal process of scientific deduction?

A few questions:

First, you linked to the second article with this tagline...."Human caused climate change is having consequences".

Can you show me where in the article it mentions the consequences? Perhaps this is some m̶i̶s̶l̶e̶a̶d̶i̶n̶g̶ misunderstanding on your part?

Second, do you know if the drought in New Mexico is unprecedented? What does the paleo data that you here at Deltoid rely on so heavily have to show?

Thanks.

Deadeye @ 9..

You already linked that @ #9 on pg 8.

Alzheimer's?

Now, before you are too far gone, why don't you explain to me the "re-interpretation of fish population ‘recoveries’" and how it relates to your link.

Thanks.

Deadeye...

That would be # 3 of pg 8.

Alzheimer's?

"Deadeye"?

Aren't you talking to chek at #9?

Altzheimers?

Now, before you are too far gone, why don’t you explain to me the “re-interpretation of fish population ‘recoveries’” and how it relates to your link.

Why? It's not relevant.

I've been asking you a question for a while now and you have been desperately trying to avoid answering it.

The question has nothing to do with Booker getting his rubbish debunked by Drinkwater at RC.

* * *

Tell us something Betty. Tell us when there has ever been a hyperthermal which WASN’T associated with widespread extinctions of marine biota?

Tell us now. Before this “conversation” goes a inch further. Give us some paleoclimate context for your Pollyanna-ish crypto-denial about the likely impacts on fisheries of a rapid ocean warming over the next 50 – 100 years (although it will not stop then).

Tell us. Go on.

It’s not irrelevant.

Marine ecosystems are in an appalling condition, perhaps worse than in any time in tens of millions of years.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/oceans-on-brink-of-cata…

To be fair to Birch-bark, climate change is only one factor in this unfolding catastrophe. Other forms of pollution and in particular over-harvesting are also major factors decimating coastal marine ecosystems and critically undermining their health and stability. Humans have fished down the food chain, so depleting stocks of many carnivorous species that jellyfish have moved to the terminal end of food chains off the Spanish coast, the Mediterranean and in other coastal green sea habitats.

If truth be told, marine ecosystems are in a more parlous state than most of their terrestrial counterparts. Huge influxes of terrestrial pollutants have created virtual 'dead zones' in many coastal ecosystems which once teemed with life. Hyper-eutrophication from terrestrial N and P runoff is a major problem that is creating anoxic zones. Climate change is adding to this.

It is also important to note that the vast majority of marine ecosystems are virtual biotic 'deserts', lacking in much of the way of biodiversity. The productive ecosystems are the green seas that lie off of the coasts on continental shelves. And it is these that are being hammered by a suite of anthropogenic processes.

Of course old birchy will probably use expanding sea lamprey or jellyfish populations as an example of how 'healthy' these systems are.

BBD @ 15..

See # 56 Pg 8..

Alzheimer's?

"To be fair to Birch-bark"

WTF?

#17

See my response at 8/#59:

Irrelevant

No it isn’t.

Physics denial.

To be clear:

#17

See my response at 8/#59:

[Betty-John:] Irrelevant

[BBD:]
No it isn’t.

Physics denial.

"“To be fair to Birch-bark”

WTF?

Well, since bitch trees are in the genus Betula, and you seem to rant on here a lot (e.g. bark), I thought it was as original as your handle for me (Hardley).

Heck, anything goes on Deltoid....

oopps... now I am getting tetchy! I meant BIRCH!

Hardley @ 21..

It was the "To be fair" part that threw me off...

Deadeye @ 20'...

It's not relevant to the quote by the NESSAS scientists because we aren't in a Hyperthermal..

So why are you calling the NESSAS scientists physics deniers?

Deadeye...

See # 24

Deadeye...

See # 25

Deadeye...

And so forth...

Deadeye Dickie...

And so on...

Deadeye Dickie...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9HDSQJdudM

@Betula, 24:

1. Nobody did.
2. They didn't.
3. They arent.
4. You're a clown. Stop lying. You're pathetic and transparent. Who do you think you are fooling with this tripe? The pathologically dyslexic?

So why are you calling the NESSAS scientists physics deniers?

Because they aren't. You are the denier.

They are investigating a regional and transient event and you are pretending that this regional and transient event means... fuck it, Betty, we've been through this already and you are just ignoring and evading the substantial argument.

It's dishonest and tedious. And above all, it's physics denial.

India's June 2013 Flood: Earth's 4th Deadliest Weather Disaster Since 2000 .

Deadeye...

"Because they aren’t. You are the denier"

Put your bullet back in your pocket Deadeye..

Let me get this right. I post an article that discusses the findings of scientists, corroborated with other scientists, and they aren't deniers, but I am a lying physics denier.....just for posting it.

Someone (or two Stu) needs help.

Let's review:

"More plankton benefits entire food chain"

"In explaining how warmer seas could lead to so much more fish in the North Atlantic, all the way to the Arctic, scientists point to the bottom-up effect: Warmer seas result in more phytoplankton, which feeds more zooplankton, providing more nourishment for the herring and capelin that serve as a food supply for cod and other larger fish."

"Scientific literature confirms that cod reproduction is typically higher in warm-water years and lower when waters are cold".

Link between ocean temperature and spawning

"As part of the recently concluded research project Norwegian Component of the Ecosystem Studies of Sub-Arctic Seas (NESSAS), researchers Svein Sundby and Odd Nakken studied the relationship between ocean temperature and cod spawning"

"When the two charted spawning along the Norwegian coast in a 1900-1976 timeline, the correlation was unmistakable: In coldwater years, southern coastal areas were of highest importance. When waters warmed up, spawning was most active in the northern areas. Seen over time, their research showed that cod reproductivity was markedly higher when the ocean warmed up, and that spawning moved north".

Spawning grounds off northern Norway

"Since 2003, Arcto-Norwegian cod have been observed spawning once again along the coast of Finnmark, Norway's northernmost county. This had not seen since the early 1960s".

"Recently, cod catches in the Barents Sea have been on the rise. Within the last few years, catch levels have reached those of the 1920s and 1930s warm period. Off Iceland and Greenland, however, no corresponding increase has been recorded."

"Research indicates that knowledge about natural climatic variations in fish stocks deserves a role in the future management of the northern fisheries resources."

US observations corroborate

"The correlation between warming ocean waters and more fish has also been investigated in a comparative study carried out by the NESSAS researchers in collaboration with US researchers. They have compared developments in three ocean areas: off the coast of Norway, in the waters of the Gulf of Maine (off the northeast coast of the US), and off Alaska and in the Bering Sea (between Alaska and Russia)."

"This comparative study has been interesting," says Dr Drinkwater, "in that the causal factors are completely different for the warming of these three northern seas. Yet in each area, warmer waters have led to longer growing seasons, more plankton and more fish."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100505092525.htm

Interesting story on nuclear plant closings
http://www.cjr.org/united_states_project/beyond_san_onofres_closure.php…

A nice summation of Tony 'Seems I Don't Believe in Markets After All' Abbott's climate 'policies' at teh Graun.

Betty 'child deniers Betula, let me put this as straight as possible.

You're trying to construct a feasible reality from news reports of work beyond your competence, and insisting that your uninformed layman's interpretations are the correct ones.

You're an egotistical, know-nothing wanker Betty, caught lying far too many times, knowingly, or more likely unknowingly. shilling for corporate interests way beyond any areas of expertise your pig-ignorant hide possesses.

Unless we stop emitting prodigious amounts of CO2 It's not going to stop warming, Betty-John.

Arguing otherwise is physics denial.

Focussing on a transient, regional effect and pretending that it has any relevance to the mid-century and beyond is either stupid or dishonest. Or both.

We've been through this. Repeating your misdirections is pointless.

chek puts it better.

Tell us something Betty. Tell us when there has ever been a hyperthermal which WASN’T associated with widespread extinctions of marine biota?

Tell us now. Before this “conversation” goes a inch further. Give us some paleoclimate context for your Pollyanna-ish crypto-denial about the likely impacts on fisheries of a rapid ocean warming over the next 50 – 100 years (although it will not stop then).

Come on, Betty. Answer the fucking question. It is relevant.

Tell us when there has ever been a hyperthermal which WASN’T associated with widespread extinctions of marine biota?

Let me get this right. I post an article that discusses the findings of scientists, corroborated with other scientists,

...that doesn't say what you say it does, which is obvious to sentient slugs.

Who do you think you are fooling, you lying douche?

Deadeye...

See # 26

Cmdr.Cheky.

"You’re trying to construct a feasible reality from news reports of work beyond your competence, and insisting that your uninformed layman’s interpretations are the correct
ones."

And you have imagined what my interpretations are.....

Scary, isn't it?

Stu...

"that doesn’t say what you say it does"

Enlighten me.

Scary, isn’t it?

Not in the slightest.
You're not even any good at what you do here.

So Betula takes ONE study by one ONE scientific research group with respect to ONE fish species and then apparently applies these findings to marine ecosystems as a whole.

I have used all sorts of analogies before to explain Betula's benthic level understanding of ecology. Another one here is to argue that coyotes (one of his own poor examples) have spread across much of eastern North America ad have become much more abundant as a result of forest clearing and other human disturbances. But what about the vast majority of other species that inhabited the original forests before they were cleared?

This is why Betula is a waste of time and space, or as Chek put it: "You’re an egotistical, know-nothing wanker Betty".

I will paste it again and say it again: marine ecosystems are in serious trouble:

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/oceans-on-brink-of-cata…

Betula will again ignore this and all of the other studies I have pasted up here that completely contradict and undermine his arguments and focus on one study on one species. This is what he does. He is not convincing anyone here, except a few other deluded converts, so why does he persist?

Can someone please set Guardian straight? It has a scale problem. ;-)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/jul/15/polar-ice-loss-cause-…

Tell us when there has ever been a hyperthermal which WASN’T associated with widespread extinctions of marine biota?

You miserable, evasive little fuck.

Since Betty is a fucking cowardly liar, I will answer the question that he is too frightened and dishonest even to acknowledg.

Major warming events invariably result in mass extinctions of marine biota. And it will of course happen again if sufficient CO2 forcing is applied to the climate system.

Transient, regional benefits are just that: short-lived and localised.

The effect on the global oceans will be devastating. It always is. Invariably. Every time.

Betty won't face up to this because he is a denier.

Not to mention dishonest scum.

What's your point OP? The scientists say that they need more years of data to be able to reach firm conclusions:
“Although ice is lost beyond any doubt, the period is not long enough to state that ice loss is accelerating,” said Wolfgang Rack of the University of Canterbury in New Zealand.

“This is because of the natural variability of the credit process, snowfall, and the debit process, melting, and iceberg calving, which both control the ice sheet balance.”

Physics denial:

[Betty, over and over again:] It’s not relevant to the quote by the NESSAS scientists because we aren’t in a Hyperthermal..

But unless we stop emitting prodigious amounts of CO2 it’s not going to stop warming, Betty-John.

Arguing otherwise is physics denial.

Focussing on a transient, regional effect and pretending that it has any relevance to the mid-century and beyond is either stupid or dishonest. Or both.

We’ve been through this. Repeating your misdirections is pointless.

But on and on he goes. At root, it's standard-issue crank, tinfoil, loony tunes physics denial.

Nobody takes physics deniers seriously because they are nutters and we don't take nutters seriously.

It's over, Betty-John. You are outed as just another the physics-denying nutter blabbering and lying on the internet.

'Only one idea at a time' (OOIAAT) birch at #11 wrote:

First, you linked to the second article with this tagline….”Human caused climate change is having consequences”.

Can you show me where in the article it mentions the consequences? Perhaps this is some m̶i̶s̶l̶e̶a̶d̶i̶n̶g̶ misunderstanding on your part?

You only ask that question because you have, deliberately or because of a lack in comprehension skills, misinterpreted the make up of my sentence where only the first part 'Human caused climate change' contained a link to evidence for human activities being behind the current trend for increasing incidence of extreme weather events of which droughts are but one example.

And it is that latter type of event which is implicated in the lack of water in the lower Rio Grande as reported in the article cited.

You must be some kind of dissembler or an idiot to not connect the dots here.

What is the ultimate source of water for the Rio Grande?

Here I'll help you out with some information from The University of Arizona:

Snowpacks in the Upper Colorado River Basin continue to decrease as spring temperatures warm. While several spring storms dropped snow in northern Colorado, which helped measuring stations record near-average snowpacks for this time of year, many other regions are recording well below-average totals (Figure 8). This includes the upper Rio Grande headwaters, where snowpacks are measuring, on average, about 24 percent of average

Get it now?

Of course another factor in low reservoir levels is an increased need for farmers to draw off water which in turn is due to warming caused drought.

Therefore my,

Human caused climate change is having consequences.

in the round is entirely in order.

Olap @ #48
The Guardian doesn't have a problem at all.
The glaciologists don't have a problem either:
"“Although ice is lost beyond any doubt, the period is not long enough to state that ice loss is accelerating,” said Wolfgang Rack of the University of Canterbury in New Zealand.
Such problem ass exists is for you deniers trying to spin the current question: 'is the rate increasing?' into the answer: 'There's some doubt? Why there's 'nothing to worry about at all (and hence BAU)'.

And to keep Birch on the hook with which he has snagged himself we have Jeff Masters with this report on floods i n India

According to the Indian Meteorological Department, Uttarakhand, which lies just to the west of Nepal in the Himalayas, received rainfall 847% of normal during the week June 13 - 19, 2013. Dehradun, the capital of Uttarakhand, received 14.57" (370 mm) of rain in 24 hours on June 16 - 17, the highest 24-hour rainfall in city history. The torrential rains triggered a massive landslide that hit Uttarakhand's Hindu shrine in Kedarnath, which lies just a short distance from the snout of two mountain glaciers. The shrine is an important pilgrimage destination in June, and was packed with visitors celebrating a religious holiday. The June 2013 monsoon rains in Uttarakhand were highly unusual, as the monsoon came to the region two weeks earlier than normal. The monsoon started in South India near the normal June 1 arrival date, but then advanced across India in unusually rapid fashion, arriving in Pakistan along the western border of India on June 16, a full month earlier than normal. This was the fastest progression of the monsoon on record.

Don't forget China.

China - indeed. We had a family member, a medic, trapped over there for awhile, back in UK now.

Glad to hear of safe return. A grim business, by the looks of things.

agw assholes

dont forget sahara, much hotter than india or china

FUCKWIT ALARMISTS

Still not banned fred-fred? Oh well...

The illiterate squatter strikes again. Don't be an idiot freddy were we reporting on heat in India and China? Nope! You Dope.

Sheeesh! What a simpleton this twerp freddy is.

jeff harvey eco-arselick

the following from your homepage is utmost idiotic, as typical for a green lefty activist of your scientology church of fundamentalistic truth deniers and big assholes:

YOU 4TH INTEREST:

€&@&€&@&€&@@€

Science, ecology and advocacy.

Scientists are currently faced with the immense challenge of better informing the public and policy makers as to the underlying causes and potential consequences of human-induced simplification of the biosphere. Although our knowledge of factors shaping the evolution, assembly and functioning of ecosystems is poorly understood, we do know that over large spatial and temporal scales, conditions and processes (‘ecosystem services’) which nurture life and humanity are generated. At the same time, sophisticated techniques are being employed around the world by powerful, vested interests that are aiming to change the way the public thinks about the environment. For example, a number of dubious sources are invoking science as a tool to influence and reshape public opinion, to attack the consensus view held amongst the scientific community, and to ultimately influence politicians into reducing environmental regulations. In the face of this new threat from the political right, scientists are faced with the immense challenge of better informing the public and policy makers as to the underlying causes and potential consequences of human-induced changes to the biosphere and their consequent effects on the delivery of ecosystem services. Over the past several years I have become actively involved in discussions based on bridging economics and ecology, in an attempt to stem the relentless flow of disinformation emanating from a number of surprisingly well-endowed think tanks and public relations firms that are distorting science to support a political agenda and pre-determined worldview on environmental issues.

@&€&&@&€&&@&€&@&

arselick: " a number of dubious sources are invoking science as a tool to influence and reshape public opinion, to attack the consensus view held amongst the scientific community, and to ultimately influence politicians into reducing environmental regulations.... blah blah "

education for arselick: conspiration theory, it's not dubious sources you asshole, but the resistance of reasonable citizens to throw your ideology into the wastebasket as complete and quickly as possible.

FUCKWIT, FUCK, WUCK, WUCK, FUCK

@bbd

WHY ARE YOU NOT BANNED, YOU FUCKING IDIOT WITHOUT VALUE IN EVERY SCIENCE DEBATE

ASSHOLE, FUCKING, CLEAN YOUR STINKING ASSHOLE FROM DIRTY SHIT

sillyonell, shut just up you ugly dwarf

your comments are unbearable

only crap from a bollocks monger arselick

agw assblowers, when are you finally willing to follow your guru kevin to be at least a tiny bit honest

kevin wrote

€&@€&@&€

From: Kevin Trenberth
To: Michael Mann
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600
Cc: Stephen H Schneider , Myles Allen , peter stott , “Philip D. Jones” , Benjamin Santer , Tom Wigley , Thomas R Karl , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen , Michael Oppenheimer

Hi all

Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather).

@&€&@&€&@&€

FOLLOW YOUR GURU AND ACCEPT WHAT HE SAID. DONT DIVERT FROM WHAT HE SAID AND APPRAISE HIS GUIDANCE TO YOU FOLLOWER ARSELICKS WITHOUT ANY OWN KNOLEDGE ABOUT WEATHER AND CLIMATE, YOU ALL ARE ONLY COPY PASTE Of THE "TRUTHS" OF KEVIN, MIKE, JIM, PHIL AND YOUR OTHER AGW PRIESTS.

YOU ARE TRUE IDIOTIC FUCKWIT DWARFS AND PRESUMABLY METROSEXUAL IN ITS WORST SIGNIFICANCE

GO HOME AND LEARN TO LIVE A DECENT LIFE WITHOUT WANTING HARM TO SOCIETY

@liontroll assfucker

you disqualified due to your mental deviation:

The illiterate squatter strikes again. Don’t be an idiot freddy were we reporting on heat in India and China? Nope! You Dope. Sheeesh! What a simpleton this twerp freddy is.

LEARN AND IMPROVE, ARSELICK

TRY TO BECOME A DECENT CITIZEN!!!

@lionejokeblower

again, you missed the minimum standard of communication skill:

You only ask that question because you have, deliberately or because of a lack in comprehension skills, misinterpreted the make up of my sentence where only the first part ‘Human caused climate change‘ contained a link to evidence for human activities being behind the current trend for increasing incidence of extreme weather events of which droughts are but one example.

IT IS DEFINITELY YOU WHO SHOWS SEVERE COMPREHENSION PROBLEMS. YOU NEED A THERAPIST URGENTLY, STINKING ASSHOLE

Oh! My!

OMG: I can't believe that anyone is still trying to make points using the Climategate I e-mails.

I think freddy has recently been released from solitary confinement somewhere, even if self imposed.

Meanwhile we may as well let the Russians, Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Norwegians, old uncle Tom Cobbly and all complete the devastation of fish stocks from everywhere on the planet:

No deal on huge Antarctic marine reserves.

Has no body heard the fables of 'The Goose that laid the golden egg' and 'King Midas'. You cannot eat gold.

Way to go world, which will shrug us off soon at this rate.

lionell and turbobloke nutters, the thunderstorm is not yet over for you. i know, you define it so, you want it, but the content from kevin still applies and you assholes have never given any substantial testimony of what kevin admitted

YOU HAVE TO HEAR WHAT YOUR GURU SAID, FUCKWITS

Reminding about my #100 on page 8 , which is in danger of being overlooked by the turn of the page.

...the thunderstorm is not yet over for you...

Meaning what freddy do you even know yourself?

@lioneloony, why are you soooooo misanthrop and dont enjoy life? what went wrong with you? are you so angry because you are lacking all talents, look ugly, dont have money? what is it that makes you a mean enemy of mankind and a dirty alarmist?

your text: "Meanwhile we may as well let the Russians, Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Norwegians, old uncle Tom Cobbly and all complete the devastation of fish stocks from everywhere on the planet:

No deal on huge Antarctic marine reserves.

Has no body heard the fables of ‘The Goose that laid the golden egg’ and ‘King Midas’. You cannot eat gold.

Way to go world, which will shrug us off soon at this rate."

is of utter idiocy. of course will there be a lot of fish in the future. nobody wants to eat gold but just to have it to buy nice things, which you cant since you are poor like bbd fuckwit, the other big arselick

YOU MUST LEARN TO BECOME OPTIMISTICI AND TO THROW AWAY YOUR DARK DELUSIONS OF A WARMING AND DYING WORLD, YOU ASSHOLE

Lionel @ 53'''

I see you accidently skipped over my question at #11. I'm sure it was just oversight on your part. No worries, I'll post it again here:

Do you know if the drought in New Mexico is unprecedented? What does the paleo data that you here at Deltoid rely on so heavily have to show?

Thanks.

Deadeye...

"But unless we stop emitting prodigious amounts of CO2 it’s not going to stop warming", "Arguing otherwise is physics denial"

Strange, I don't recall that argument...

But let's sum up what it is you are saying:

You speculate that CO2 will double, if it does, you guess at when it will double, if it doubles, you predict a GAT within a range, if the GAT falls within a range you predict multiple scenarios, one being a hyperthermal,.... and within all this, each layer of predictions contains elements of uncertainties, unknowns, assumptions, lack of data and insufficient timescales along with the potential for human error, biases, agendas and ideologies....all which leads a few diehard delusional Deltoidians to accept only the worst case scenarios as "possible" fact, while they encourage the public to beat those who have a brain so they can watch while shouting "physics deniers!"

Deadeye, I have a piece of land you may want to buy in Algonquin.

"...a few diehard delusional Deltoidians to accept only the worst case scenarios as “possible” fact, while they encourage the public to beat those who have a brain so they can watch while shouting “physics deniers!” Deadeye, I have a piece of land you may want to buy in Algonquin".

More than a few 'diehard delusional Deltoidians' , birch bark brain. Try much of the scientific community as well as all of the National Academies in every nation are agreed that climate change poses a very profoundly serious risk to the future. The article I lined to above appears to suggest that many scientists view human threats to marine ecosystems as very serious as well.

As for your other obsessions, they reveal a lot about your mind set. Cornered, you resort to whatever you have left. And that ain't much.

PS: Algonquin Provincial Park is publicly owned. So its clear that if your tried to sell some land from there you'd be breaking the law.

In other words, your humor mis abut as flat as pancake.

As for Betula's sidekick Freddy, well what more can we say. He's truly off his rocker.

I see that Freddy still adores me. He's going through just about anything he can find about me.

You want my autograph, Freddy?

Lionel' @ 55

I know you like to keep informed. Here's some info for you...

"Disastrous monsoon floods are common in India and surrounding nations, and 60,000 people--an average of 500 people per year--died in India due to monsoon floods between 1900 - 2012, according to EM-DAT, the International Disaster Database."

"There is criticism from some that the devastating floods were not entirely a natural disaster--human-caused deforestation, dam building, and mining may have contributed. "Large-scale construction of dams and absence of environmental regulations has led to the floods," said Sunita Narian, director general of Delhi based advocacy group Centre for Science and Environment (CSE)."

"Climate models show a wide range of possibilities for the future of the Indian monsoon, and it is unclear at present what the future might hold"

You're welcome.

Lionel...

Link..http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2446

Can't wait to see the primary school educated Dunning-Kruger wannabes go after this one:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50360/abstract

GO HOME AND LEARN TO LIVE A DECENT LIFE WITHOUT WANTING HARM TO SOCIETY

Yawn @ #65

You aren't reading my responses, which is regrettable but not unexpected.

Where would you be if you stopped ranting about debunked shite?

;-)

Deadeye, I have a piece of land you may want to buy in Algonquin.

Explain the PETM.

You speculate that CO2 will double, if it does, you guess at when it will double, if it doubles, you predict a GAT within a range, if the GAT falls within a range you predict multiple scenarios, one being a hyperthermal

Since I don't indulge in physics denial or paleoclimate denial (remember those marine extinctions?) I'm left with a future where policy responses to the laws of physics will determine what happens.

You would be too, if you weren't a physics denier.

Betty

You don't provide a link, but assuming that Sunita Narian is quoted accurately:

“Climate models show a wide range of possibilities for the future of the Indian monsoon, and it is unclear at present what the future might hold”

Monsoons are caused by land surface warming during the Spring and early Summer creating a low pressure over continental interiors (convection). Warm SSTs evaporate moisture into the atmosphere and the moist air is drawn in by the low pressure over the hot continental interior. Big rains result.

What do you think will happen as the climate system heats up?

- Monsoon stays the same

- Monsoon strengthens

- Monsoon weakens

Pick one and explain your reasoning.

@bbd arselick and fartstinker

your pretext is wrong, therefore ---> wastebasket

Monsoons are caused by land surface warming during the Spring and early Summer creating a low pressure over continental interiors (convection). Warm SSTs evaporate moisture into the atmosphere and the moist air is drawn in by the low pressure over the hot continental interior. Big rains result.

What do you think will happen as the climate system heats up?

- Monsoon stays the same

- Monsoon strengthens

- Monsoon weakens

Pick one and explain your reasoning.

YOU ASSHOLE SHOULD LEARN FROM METEOROLOGISTS THAT TOTAL SOLAR INSOLATION IS THE ONLY SOURCE OF ENERGY TO THE EARTH'S SURFACE. THE SECOND IMPORTANT FACTOR FOR SURFACE TEMPERATURES ARE CLOUDS. MORE CLOUDS = COLDER, LESS CLOUDS = WARMER. THAT'S IT. THE REST IS PEANUTS FOR FUCKWITS WHO WANT TO PRETEND TO SAVE THE WORLD.

YOU TINY AGW DWARFS ARE WRONG, YOU CHEAT, DECEIVE AND BETRAY AND SHOULD GIVE THE MONEY BACK YOU HAVE WASTED, YOU DIRTY ASSHOLES FULL OF STINKING SHIT.

Jeffie, a friendly advise: The One hour photo guy isn't freddy. You should be more concerned with chek. I remember clearly his creepy fanyasies about what you were up to in your own home. Really creepy stuff.

" Algonquin Provincial Park is publicly owned. So its clear that if your tried to sell some land from there you’d be breaking the law."

Um, yes Hardley, nothing is lost on you ....

citation bbd arselick: " ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ...... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ...... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ...... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ...... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ...... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ...... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ...... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ...... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ...... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ...... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ...... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ...... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ...... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ...... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ...... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ...... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ...... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ...... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ...... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ...... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ...... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ...... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ...... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ...... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ...... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ...... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ...... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ...... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ...... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ...... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ...... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ...... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ...... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ...... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ...... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ...... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ...... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ...... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ...... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ...... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ...... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ...... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ...... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ...... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ...... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ...... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ...... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ...
physics denial
physics denial fuck
physics denial ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ...... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ...... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ...... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ...... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ...... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ...... blah blah blah ... physics denial ... blah blah blah ... physics denial ..."

YOU ARE AWARDED THE MONDAY AFTERNOON PRIZE FOR THE DISTINGUISHED FUCKWIT WHICH HAS MOST OFTEN USED "physics denial" WITHIN 2 HOURS.

CONGRATULATIONS YOU ASSHOLE

Betty @ 76 tried it on again, this time with this variation:

within all this, each layer of predictions contains elements of uncertainties, unknowns, assumptions, lack of data and insufficient timescales along with the potential for human error, biases, agendas and ideologies….all which leads a few diehard delusional Deltoidians to accept only the worst case scenarios as “possible” fact, while they encourage the public to beat those who have a brain so they can watch while shouting “physics deniers!”

Tell me Betty, what thickness of tinfoil are you making your hats from these days?

How's your Arctic sea ice "recovery", "freddy"?

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

Time to admit you were wrong?

What else are you wrong about?

Or, to put it another way, is there anything you are *right* about?

craig asshole, to stuff your green blathermouth:

THIS IS WHO YOU ARE:

@&&&&€&&€@@&€€&

Craig Thomas joined the Evans School faculty in 2006. Thomas teaches courses in policy process, environmental policy, performance management, and research design. His current research analyzes collaboration among public, private, and nonprofit partners as an alternative form of governance to centralized planning and command-and-control regulation. He has also begun new lines of research on performance management and institutional adaptation to environmental change.

Thomas previously served on the faculty at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst from 1997-06.

He is the author of Bureaucratic Landscapes: Interagency Cooperation and the Preservation of Biodiversity (MIT Press, 2003), and co-author of Collaborative Environmental Management: What Roles for Government? (RFF Press, 2004). He has also published numerous articles in interdisciplinary journals, and is the editor of the Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory.

He is the 1998 recipient of the American Political Science Association's Leonard D. White Award, which recognizes the best dissertation in the field of public administration.

Outside of academia, Thomas has worked professionally as an administrative analyst for the University of California, a consultant to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Energy, and in positions for two environmental nonprofits in Washington, D.C.

Thomas holds a Ph.D. in political science and an MPP from the University of California, Berkeley. He also holds a BA in international studies from the University of Washington.

Areas of specialization
Collaborative Governance
Environmental Policy
Policy Process
Public Management

@&€&&&€&@&€&&

YOU ARE A GREEN ECO-ORDAINED POLITOLOGIST WITHOUT ANY CLUE OF NATURAL SCIENCES, HOWEVER YOUR LOSE MOUTH WIDE OPEN TO CONFESS AGW CLIMATE SLOGANS BY

COPY PASTE

YOU ASSHOLE WITHOUT ANY BACKGROUND DO COPY PASTE OF SLOGANS FROM YOUR AGW SCIENTOLOGY CHURCH GURUS WHOM YOU BLINDLY BELIEVE UNTIL THE END.

YOU DARED - AS BLOODY LAYMAN WITHOUT ANY KNOWLEDGE IN METEOROLOGY AND ATMOSPHERIC PHYSICS - TO "DEFINE" the tern "GLOBAL TEMPERATURE" in Wikipedia. That's an example of how utterly primitive Wikipedia deals with contents, IT'S ALL ABOUT A POLIITICAL SPIN OF THE GREEN SOCIALIST MOVEMENT IN WIKIPEDIA

ASSHOLE CRAIG FUVKWIT: YOU DO COPY PASTE IN AREAS YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND

YOU ARE AN ASSHOLE, SO TYPICAL FOR THE ROTTEN AGW CHURCH MOVEMENT

YOU ASSHOLE SHOULD LEARN FROM METEOROLOGISTS THAT TOTAL SOLAR INSOLATION IS THE ONLY SOURCE OF ENERGY TO THE EARTH’S SURFACE.

No it isn't. The atmosphere re-radiates in IR. Basic wrong-o.

citation bbd arselick: ” … blah blah blah … physics denial … blah blah blah … physics denial … … blah blah blah … physics denial … blah blah blah … physics denial …… blah blah blah … physics denial … blah blah blah … physics denial …… blah blah blah … physics denial … blah blah blah … physics denial …… blah blah blah … physics denial …

And the atmosphere still re-radiates IR.

You silly billy!

YOU DARED – AS BLOODY LAYMAN WITHOUT ANY KNOWLEDGE IN METEOROLOGY AND ATMOSPHERIC PHYSICS – TO “DEFINE” the tern “GLOBAL TEMPERATURE” in Wikipedia. That’s an example of how utterly primitive Wikipedia deals with contents, IT’S ALL ABOUT A POLIITICAL SPIN OF THE GREEN SOCIALIST MOVEMENT IN WIKIPEDIA

So the prominent sceptic and vocal critic of the IPCC Roy Spencer is peddling *warmist lies*? Someone ring Roy. Right now. He should be told.

Here's what Roy says about global average temperature. Remember, he's the sceptic satellite guy.

I sometimes hear my fellow climate realists say that a globally-averaged surface temperature has little or no meaning in the global warming debate. They claim it is too ill-defined, not accurately known, or little more than just an average of a bunch of unrelated numbers from different regions of the Earth.

I must disagree.

The globally averaged surface temperature is directly connected to the globally averaged tropospheric temperature through convective overturning of the atmosphere. This is about 80% of the mass of the atmosphere. You cannot warm or cool the surface temperature without most of the atmosphere following suit.

The combined surface-deep layer atmospheric temperature distribution is then the thermal source of most of the infrared (IR) radiation that cools the Earth in response to solar heating by the sun. Admittedly, things like water vapor, clouds, and CO2 end up also modulating the rate of loss of IR to space, but it is the temperature which is the ultimate source of this radiation. And unless the rate of IR loss to space equals the rate of solar absorption in the global average, the global average temperature will change.

Read the rest here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/05/in-defense-of-the-globally-averaged…

What was your PhD in, "freddy"?

Care to share with us a list of your publications?

Or, as we all suspect from the ignorance and lack of education your writing displays, is it possible that you have no scientific training, little education, and no expertise in any field let alone the field of climate science?

How's that Arctic sea ice recovery going?
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

Are you going to admit you were wrong? Or are you still in denial about it?

Oh, this guy really is a hoot.

YOU DARED – AS BLOODY LAYMAN WITHOUT ANY KNOWLEDGE IN METEOROLOGY AND ATMOSPHERIC PHYSICS – TO “DEFINE” the tern “GLOBAL TEMPERATURE” in Wikipedia.

No I didn't. I referenced an authoritative source on the matter.

Which seems to be a bit more than you can manage.

Still going to crank blogs like WUWT for your "information"?

Freddy, vous êtes fou.

Er ist ganz verrückt. Und ohne Ahnung.

Er ist zweifellos.

bill,

Yr. No. 98: "Freddy, vous etes fou." [Sorry, I don't have the French doo-dads on my keyboard, bill]

So, bill, I mean, like, what in heaven's name prompted you to peck out a dumb-merde, one-line-weirdo "bon-mot"-wannabe comment, in French, no less? I mean, like, what's wrong with you, anyway, bill? I mean, like, this silly-assed, little foray into Francais of yours, bill, is even more of a nitwit, dork-ball, insufferable-weenie affectation than even BJ's past, improbable dalliance with those high-brow-geek, umlaut-booger specials of his. Jeez, bill...

You know, bill, I kinda suspect, that since your earliest, obnoxious, attention-seeking, spoiled-brat youth, you've been putting on your phony, little, precocious, cutie-pie, I'm-a-little-smarty-pants-aren't-I?, star-of-the-show act, right? And in your youth, bill, your little, creepy-kid stunts were, no doubt, a reliable generator of effusive acclaim from certain "doting" adults (mostly female?) who really did you no favors. And now you can't get out of that rut, can you, bill?--I mean, like, even as you've outgrown the "privilege" of your junior-boy "charms", such as they were, and even though you can now plainly see, for yourself, that your little, show-off tricks just aren't working any more?

Sad case, bill. But, your unfortunate, life-history did provide you with just exactly the sort of needy-nerd, unearned-praise-addict, psychological profile the hive's youth-masters are always on the look-out for. And so, here you are, right, bill, (with a pit-stop for the obligatory, greenshirt brain-washing along the way, of course)?

And, oh by the way, bill, if you want to sling some French--here's how it's done:

bill, vous etes un mangeur de crotte de nez!--ruche-bozo!

And while we're at it, bill, let me also correct your French--freddy is not "fou", rather he's a hive-bot "provocateur".

Uh-oh! Now the ultimate Mr. Pretentious-Phony--Craig Thomas, of course--shows up (no 99 previous page) spouting Deutsch! (even snuck an umlaut in (did you clear that with BJ, Craig?)--oh brother! To which, bill responds with an antennae feel-up and a pheromone spew in kind. You know, it's the sicko, unsavory, freak-show quality of you Deltoids that makes this blog worth a peek or two now and then. Keep up the good work, guys.

Oh, look - more mike-vomit.

Could somebody clean that up, please? Failing that, I'll have to resort to more umlauts.

Er ist ein Mann-Schwein mit ein unflätigen Mund.

Olaus,

Get lost, creep. The fact that you, Betula, Mike et al. support a complete maniac in Freddy shows exactly what kind of people you are. The man is clearly unhinged. You all belong together.

Craig: This is what happens to us when we waive our anonymity. Dipsticks like Freddy scour the internet in order to find out about us. As I said, this seems to be his preoccupation, along with his wretched histrionics and appalling language. But Freddy, who claims to have a PhD, will certainly not blow his own cover, because if he did it would prove that he is a high school dropout. Note to Freddy: we already gathered that from the content of your posts.

Its only a matter of time before Tim bans him. Mike deserves the same. He's never made a single scientific contribution here.

Olaus,

Get lost, creep. The fact that you, Betula, Mike et al. support a complete maniac in Freddy shows exactly what kind of people you are. The man is clearly unhinged. You all belong together.

Craig: This is what happens to us when we waive our anonymity. Dipsticks like Freddy scour the internet in order to find out about us. As I said, this seems to be his preoccupation, along with his wretched histrionics and appalling language. But Freddy, who claims to have a PhD, will certainly not blow his own cover, because if he did it would prove that he is a high school dropout. Note to Freddy: we already gathered that from the content of your posts.

Its only a matter of time before Tim bans him. Mike deserves the same. He's never made a single scientific contribution here.

Du mienst ein Mann-Bär-Schwein, nicht war?

The umlaut comes for free, Mike...

I've just been enjoying the comedy-channel over at Jo Nova's, specifically the thread where they are all throwing tantrums over Bob Carter's separation from the University he was embarrassing with his Abbott-friendly fact-free drivel.

In the expectation that my post's use of facts falls foul of Nova's fact-fearing and reality-denying "Anti-Facts" policy, I'd like to record it here for future reference:

Bob Carter has previously suggested that global warming is not occurring using the argument something along the lines of, "1958 was the same temperature as 2009".

I mean, come on!

You can check a few of his more obvious mistakes here:
No warming:
http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11639/dn11639-2_808.jpg

Sea level rise decelerating:
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_last_15.html

Australian rainfall static:
http://www.bom.gov.au/web01/ncc/www/cli_chg/trendmap/rain/0112/aus/1970…

Ocean temperature cooling:
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=sst&a…

His statements about the Murray-Darling Basin are completely non-sensical: in 3 of 4 areas of the M-DB, vegetation is decidedly on a downward trend, while animals inarguably rely on *flow* and that flow has greatly dwindled. Salinity at the lower end is also massively increased.
Anybody willing to invest 60 minutes in informing themselves about the Murray-Darling by reading this,
http://www2.mdbc.gov.au/__data/page/665/mbdcmc_eov_exesummary.pdf
,will thereby easily exceed Carter's apparent knowledge of the Murray-Darling's ecology and how it is affected by human activity and climate change.

Personally, I think his book is aimed at people with a very low level of knowledge of any of these issues, because even the slightest bit of knowledge would cause the reader's sceptical alarm bells to go off.
I'm not in the slightest bit surprised a University would be happy to become dis-associated with him. It's embarrassing.

Jeff, I am a big fan of your learned and generous contributions to our shared understanding here.

I am not, however, the individual identified by Freddy - although similar in age, *I* still have all my hair, and I gave up sporting a goatee over 15 years ago.

Were "freddy" slightly more familiar with our language, he might have cottoned-on to the fact that I employ Australian-English.

Hey Craig, that's even more ironic. Freddy is a cyber stalker and he's not even good at that!

I also enjoy reading your posts. Keep them coming!

bill the arselick

if my japanese would be as bad as what you have tried i would shoot in my knee.

YOU CANNOT DISTRACT FROM THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE NO COMMMAND OF ANY FOREIGN LANGUAGE, NO WONDER THE LOW SKILL BASE OF AGW FUCKWITS LIKE YOU, BBD, CRAIG, HARVEY, BERNARD ETC. OTHER IDIOTS. BUT EVEN YOUR ENGLISH IS TERRIBLY DEPLORABLE, SIMLAR TO HARVEYS ROTTEN GRAMMAR AND SYNTAX

WHY DOES AGW ATTRACT SUCH UNTALENTED GUYS???

No answer required, as its is obvious that agw bollocks mongers are among the most stupid apes

ASSHOLES, STINKERS

hey cagw arselicks

who of you dares to bet 100'000 US$ that this year will show a record minimum arctic sea ice extent??

who of you cowards dares to stick to your conviction of alarmistic arctic sea ice loss. which is a fake, btw

ASSHOLES WITH STNKING SHIT

Hey Freddy-fred, I'll bet you $100 that you'll die, making a record minimum impact on the world.

Chek, that's a bet I wound't mind taking.

Freddy is so brazenly stupid that he thinks the Arctic ice loss must, be more every year than the previous year. I would certainly bet that the extent of Arctic ice will reach a record low in the next 3-4 years.

"SIMLAR TO HARVEYS ROTTEN GRAMMAR AND SYNTAX"

OMG, Freddy is a sick joke. And he even makes a spelling mistake in this short phrase.

What a moron.

Frank - ja, das stimmt!

Freddie, you're a culus. Just how good do you imagine your English is, incidentally? Talk about Dunning-Kruger...

Anyway, what you really are is a walking advertisement of the fate that awaits those who don't take their meds.

bill, you certainly know that you are an unbearable asshole and also a totally untalented cagw pissfuckwit. you at age 80 now will most probably not see how "global temperature", defined by self-appointed "climatologist" craig thomas, decrease in the next 10 years: THATS WHAT MY CLIMATE MODELS PROJECT.

you are not even able to program your own climate model, ASSHOLE

YOU CANNOT TALK IN FRENCH
YOU CANNOT TALK IN ITALIAN
YOU CANNOT TALK IN PORTUGUESE
YOU CANNOT TALK IN RUSSIAN
YOU CANNOT TALK IN JAPANESE
YOU CANNOT TALK IN MANDARIN
YOU CANNOT TALK IN GERMAN
YOU CANNOT TALK IN DUTCH
YOU CANNOT TALK IN SPANISH
YOU CANNOT TALK IN HUNGARIAN

IN ALL THESE LANGUAGES I CAN TALK AND YOU NOT. THEREFORE I AM FOR YOU A GENIUS IN LANGUAGES, AND YOU ARE A ZERO, A BLANK NULL, A NON-EVENT, IN SHORT:

AN ASSHOLE WITHOUT LANGUAGE SKILLS.

BILL THE ASSHOLE WANTS TO BE SOMEBODY, BUT IS NOBODY: POOR SHIT FUCKWIT, GO HOME AND LEARN SOMETHNG

Ah, Freddy, téigh ag fuck tú féin.

BILL ASSHOLE, FUCK YOURSELF, YOU FUCKING IRISH ASSHOLE

My word: Climategate 1 and racist... what a picture boy for the deniers.

Freddy: seg me eats in daiser tarl. It's written "phoenetically" so you can't easily google a translation

turbloke asswit

ONLY COPY PASTE, AS ALWAYS WITH YOU TOTALLY UNORIGINAL UNINSPIRED, NON-CREATIVE AGW FUCKWIT ASSHOLES

YOU ARE A MEAN LOSER AND NON-PERFORMER

Gotcha!!! LOL.

Freddy is a: grote stomme idioot. Hij heeft geen hersennen....

I am sure he is typing away from some padded cell somewhere...

turbobloke asshole

I SPEAK MANY LANGUAGES AND YOU HARDLY ONE

YOU MUST SWALLOW THIS, I KNOW THIS IS A NARCISTIC OFFENSE FOR YOU, BUT YOU MUST LIVE WITH IT, ASSHOLE, YOU WANT BUT CANNOT, POOR FUCKWIT

lunatic harvey, after 10+ years in holland you managed to remember 10 dutch words! bravo, more than i expected from an illiterate like you

igentlick ic spracher feelern tarlen. yer wait nicks fan mai

Ik spreeken veel meer Nederlands dan jou, Freddy-fruitcake.

Judging by your posts, Freddy, you can barely manage with English. Most of your posts are nothing more than insults, smears, expletives etc. Hardly proof of your immense wisdom and grasp of anything other than sheer, utter stupidity.

By the way, Freddy: we are all waiting here with baited breath for proof of your PhD, your lengthy publication list, all of the academic awards you claim to have won and other relevant information. Lacking this, we only have your infantile posts about assholes and communists/socialists to go on.

So until you come up with bonafide proof, you will be laughed at again and again by most of us here except that tiny minority who seem to think you make some kind of sense. So come on Freddy the fruitcake, download your CV here, cut-and-paste if you like, as you seem adept at doing that.

Freddy, your sister swims out to passing ships.

...all which leads a few diehard delusional Deltoidians to accept only the worst case scenarios as “possible” fact...

I know that distributions of potential outcomes boggle your mind and expose the shallowness of your comprehension, but do try to get it through your head that no-one here, but no-one (except the fictional personae in your head) are "accepting only the worst case scenarios as fact".

Just about everyone here would be delighted if we avoided the worst case potential outcomes which are staggeringly bad indeed, and most people here advocate that we take appropriate action to help improve the chances of doing so. It would be great if we only end up realising the middle of the road potential outcomes - but even those are pretty bad.

It would be a stupid stupid man who tried to claim that people in a bushfire zone only buy insurance because they "only accept the worst case scenarios as fact" - especially after they've patiently spent hours and hours explaining that no, they actually do understand probability distributions and conditional outcomes and the like and it still makes sense to buy the insurance against the worst case, but you're determinedly and repeatedly trying to give an impression of being that eminently stupid.

Hardley @ 5...

"The fact that you, Betula, Mike et al. support a complete maniac in Freddy shows exactly what kind of people you are"

That's quite the scientific mind you have there Hardley, sort of defines what type of person you are wouldn't you say?

Maybe Craig Thomas @ # 8 can learn something from this thought process since he is "a big fan of your learned and generous contributions to our shared understanding here".

Let's see what he could have learned:

As far as I know, you have never condemned BBD wanting the Public to beat people while he "doesn't lift a fucking finger to help."

According to the Hardley learning process, not commenting obviously means you support the beating of people while you watch, which shows "exactly what kind of" person "you are."

And what kind of person is that?

Well, someone who would support a beating while watching obviously has some sadistic qualities to them...so , according to the Hardley scientific school of thought, we can only conclude that this is "exactly what kind of" person "you are".

So Hardley, let me be the second one in line to say...thank you for "your learned and generous contributions to our shared understanding here"...you sadistic egotistical mindless putz.

So the guy who said this:

BUT EVEN YOUR ENGLISH IS TERRIBLY DEPLORABLE [sic], SIMLAR [sic] TO HARVEYS [sic] ROTTEN GRAMMAR AND SYNTAX

Also said

WHY DOES AGW ATTRACT [sic]

and

as its [sic] is obvious

and

100’000 [sic] US$

and

ASSHOLES WITH STNKING SHIT [just quoted for the disturbing anal and fecal fixation]

I SPEAK MANY LANGUAGES

Leugenaar. Bewijs of geef toe dat je geen idee hebt waarover we het hier hebben. Je Engels is belachelijk, je hebt nul idee van een enkele andere taal... je lult uit je nek en iedereen weet het, schattebout.

AND YOU HARDLY ONE

Ahem. This kind of pedantry only works if your own syntax and grammar is much, much better than yours is.

I KNOW THIS IS A NARCISTIC OFFENSE

A what now?

YOU WANT BUT CANNOT

Wat een klein, zielig ventje ben je.

Betula,

all which leads a few diehard delusional Deltoidians to accept only the worst case scenarios as “possible” fact

I called you on this obvious and stupid lie one or two pages ago. You're trying it again? Not even waiting a week or two this time?

Pathetic. You need to keep better track of your lies.

Oh shut up, Betty. Or at least learn a new tune. Your grotesque and failed attempts to delegitimise me have become parodic. They make *you* look like a nasty and vindictive little whiner.

You might also pause to reflect that nobody here really disagrees with the sentiment I actually expressed - as opposed to your distorted, dishonest spinning of it.

Let's remind ourselves what I actually said again, shall we?

* * *

June open thread Page 9 #20

- You [Betty-John Birch] have no basis for your claims

- You lack the expertise to make them

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

- This makes you an enemy of mankind.

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

Later:

June open thread Page 9 #53

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

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

Deniers should be asked the same basic questions:

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

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

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

God help you Betty if you are too stupid to see what the science-denying right is storing up for itself. I used the phrase "digging its own grave with its bare hands" last time, and there's no reason to change the words.

You are all so utterly fucked by what you've tried to do over climate change and I think some of the smarter ones have an inkling that this will never be forgiven, never be forgotten.

There is very little more unedifying than witnessing Betty 'child deniers' Betula trying to pull on the poor victim suit to pursue his agenda. Needless to say, coming from a contemptible worm with a form like Betty, it doesn't work.

But our lying marine impersonator surpasses his previous efforts @ #30 today. A live example of the mal-constructed, fucked-in-the-head (it's an academic term) logic the motivated Right will employ to attack those they cannot dispute legitimately, the scientists.

Which is what we see in action here.

"...you sadistic egotistical mindless putz"

And yet, in spite of this, I still know a great deal more than you about environmental science (not hard, I will admit), as evidenced by (a) some of the pathetically vacuous crap you write up here, and (b) your constant evasion of facts when they are shoved in front of your face.

Also, your sheer hypocrisy: our resident loon Freddy spews forth a lather of invective in which he attacks my scientific background as well as the educations of others on Deltoid whilst telling us here how much knowledge and wisdom he possesses: e.g. he is multilingual, has better education than everyone else, and so on and so forth.

Your response? Deafening silence.

Then, when I respond, I am accused by you of being 'self-loving' etc. Truth is brch-head, you are a an arrogant worthless moron who also carries around a massive superiority complex - just reading some of your nauseous comments about US marines was enough to make anybody spew. And you also told us all about your BS degree in forestry, as if this somehow provides you with deep wisdom about ecology and the environment. You just don't like the fact that I and a number f others here have pulled the huge rug you have constructed for yourself out from under your feet. If you had an ounce of brain, which I sincerely doubt, you'd at least try and counter that piles of examples and studies that have been posted here that undermine your silly arguments, often which you have haplessly gleaned from right wing blogs or generally anti-environmental sites (like the GWPF, for instance). But you don't even try. Instead, you write a bunch of witless remarks and think that smears along with refusing to address substantive comments substitutes for real 'debate'.

Get lost dopey. I have much, much bigger fish to fry in science than a tree pruner who thinks he is Gold Almighty but who is, in reality, a star pupil of the Dunning-Kruger school of over-estimated self-knowledge.

Now there's a Freudian slip... Gold Almighty... but it might as well be true.

With Betula its a case of Pot-Kettle-Black.

Freddy's assertion is patently false.

Here is a comparison of the scientific predictions and the physical reality in regard to Arctic melt:
http://climatecrock.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/stroeve3small.jpg?w=480…

As you can see, the melt has occurred even faster than their worst prediction.

Old fred-fred hasn't had much to say about staunch sceptic *Dr*Roy Spencer *PhD* :-) peddling warmist lies about global average temperature and UAH MSU measurements of same.

This is just a wild guess, but perhaps it has something to do with the way the satellite reconstructions of TLT confirm the supposedly-faked surface temperature reconstructions eg GISTEMP and HadCRUT.

It must be hard to have the facts whip round and bite you in the arse like that. But even so, fred-fred is handling it badly.

But even so, fred-fred is handling it badly.

Not just him, all the denier tag-team here are descending into vicious stupidity, where previously there was only stupidity.

There are no longer any denier interpretations of the facts that hold water, and they're too stupid to either change their minds or just go home.

They know, in their heart of hearts.

Hence the growing rage.

As for Betula, not only would I not lift a finger to help him, but to put it in more colorful terms, I wouldn't piss on him if he was on fire.

But...but...what if it was a child denier? And what about a denier in a wheelchair, wouldn't you piss on him?

Well, it would depend on my mood at the time, but probably not. I make an exception for professor Freddy; he's so stupid and so extreme that he makes me laugh _ so I probably would piss on him. Hahaha....Hi, Freddy! Still trolling, I see.

Sloth @ 29

"but do try to get it through your head that no-one here, but no-one (except the fictional personae in your head) are “accepting only the worst case scenarios as fact”.

Is a hyperthermal considered a worst case scenario?

Deadeye @33..

" If the public really thought about the matter, deniers would be beaten in the streets, and I for one would not lift a fucking finger to stop it."

Jp @ 43...

"As for Betula, not only would I not lift a finger to help him, but to put it in more colorful terms, I wouldn’t piss on him if he was on fire"

Wow, the truth really hurts...."Hence the growing rage."

The truth:
You speculate that CO2 will double, if it does, you guess at when it will double, if it doubles, you predict a GAT within a range, if the GAT falls within a range you predict multiple scenarios, one being a hyperthermal,…. and within all this, each layer of predictions contains elements of uncertainties, unknowns, assumptions, lack of data and insufficient timescales along with the potential for human error, biases, agendas and ideologies….all which leads a few diehard delusional Deltoidians to accept only the worst case scenarios as “possible” fact, while they encourage the public to beat those who have a brain so they can watch while shouting “physics deniers!”

Betula, you are just boring now.

Careful now, JP.
Betty will take offence and start complaining that delusional Deltoidians have now sunk to refusing to piss on him.

I see "freddy" hasn't commented yet on the evidence showing that his claim of an Arctic sea ice "recovery" was a mistake on his part:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

Will "freddy" apologise for being wrong?

If "freddy" was wrong about *that*, what else is he wrong about?

万事

”Hence the growing rage."

I wouldn't call it rage. If it was rage I'd light the match.
It's just contempt for a dumb, delusional fuckwit.

I think BBD was referring to Betty and the Delusionals as the Ragers, not the Ragees...

pssttt.....hey Freddie

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2012/10/september-monthly-arctic-…

barnturd j is a big enough fool to have a bet with you.

I was addressing Betula. He redirected what BBD said towards me.

Fellas, the bad deltoid language aside, let us hope for the best.

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/old_icecover.uk.php

Come on, betty. Get a grip.

when it will double, if it doubles, you predict a GAT within a range, if the GAT falls within a range you predict multiple scenarios, one being a hyperthermal

You can't possibly put "double CO2" and "hyperthermal" in the same sentence - unless you put a lot of other words in between. Those words will say something like "burn it all" and "outside the scenarios normally projected by the IPCC" and "...lots of things you didn't write".

Thanks for the slide, Olaus, showing unambiguously that Actic sea ice extent is very low, and lower at present than at the same time in most of the years since 2005. So the Arctic death spiral continues....

Glad to see you are finally on board with the vast majority of statured scientists. Whatever were you thinking fawning and drooling over nobodies like Jonas?

Any bets that this is Freddy taking a little down time from posting here?

Jp - ah, me losing track there! I confess I don't generally bother to read anything Batty says - it's a safe bet that there'll be little enough to be detected in the way of content on offer.

Speaking of which, did you notice SpamKan is actually saying Freddy is the fool - and, for once we agree on something - because SpamKan runs a mile from that bet herself.

How does it feel to be seen as a useful idiot by your own fellow-travellers, Freddy?

And don't think anyone's forgotten your Antarctic humiliation Spammy.

And, yes, kai with his impressive best grasp of most excellent English speaking is also Freddy the very same. All that remainder fools and puny are.

Is Olaus finally coming to his senses?

Vince, I'd bet that Olap is channelling some Goddard-type 'recovery', which being slightly less worse than last year (so far and maybe) represents some sort of magical rubber ball style 'rebound'.

That's his usual depth of comprehension, plus he doesn't have any sense, singular or plural.

No Birch, I did not skip over the question you refer to in your p9 #11", I ignored it because of its irrelevance.

If you wish to know why it is irrelevant the consider the response by Marcott at Real Climate. taking note of the comment by raypierre in response to a question by John Mashey at No. 5 and pointers to Tamino.

WRT India monsoons I fail to see what you were attempting to point at at Jeff Master's place at your p9 #81it not leading where you thought.

And yes monsoons are a part of the climate in India/Bangladesh but you seem to have missed the phrase
even when highlighted:

The monsoon started in South India near the normal June 1 arrival date, but then advanced across India in unusually rapid fashion, arriving in Pakistan along the western border of India on June 16, a full month earlier than normal. This was the fastest progression of the monsoon on record.

Now I don't have any further time or energy to argue the toss with a goal-post moving, strawman tosser, slippery word mangling, time waister like you. The sheer fact that you mentioned paleo data in this context is indicative of your deep ignorance. I have a number of situations unfolding here.

Who the likes of Betula & Co rely upon for their information sources Greedy Lying Bastards.

Time-wasting physics denier # 45

The truth:

You wouldn't know the truth if it IDd itself to you in good light.

I've dealt with the misrepresentation you repeat at #45 already and am now utterly fed up with dealing with your stupidity, politicised bias and bottomless dishonesty.

GFY.

My senses are still intact, thank you Vince. ;-)

The sea ice extent looks quite alright at the moment. No death spiral so far. The polar bears are also doing fine at the moment. ;-)

Y'see Vince? That's the level of fuckwittery that's to be expected from Olap.

I wouldn't expect him to know when the period of maximum melt is without looking it up, or a disappearing habitat either, dumb, spoonfed delivery boy that he is.

Of course Arctic Sea Ice looks about average when you only compare it to the eight lowest years on record. How about we compare it to the last 34 years? When you don't cherry pick, it looks shitful.

I think Olaus has a scale problem...;)

Ah, the scale problem! :-) It might be that Dr. Pachauri has a real scale problem:

http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2013/07/18/the-ipcc-chairmans-fake-secon…

I think Olaus has a scale problem…

Yes, they fail to drop from his eyes.

I'll take your sudden change of topic as a concession you were wrong about arctic sea ice, shall I, Olaus?

"The polar bears are also doing fine at the moment"

Yeh, I am sure the American settlers were saying that about Passenger Pigeons in the 19th century, even as they were being blasted out of the sky in huge numbers and their forest habitats were being cleared. It was unthinkable that in 1800, an estimated 10-20% of all birds in North America were Passenger Pigeons, and a century and 14 years later they were wiped out.

Polar Bears are anything but 'doing fine at the moment'. If one looks at recruitment (natality), which is down, and the population age structure, which shows an increasing skew towards older bears, then the prognosis is anything but 'fine'.

But of course, given that Olaus doens't even possess a grade-school-level education in ecology, big words like 'recruitment', 'natality' and 'demographics' are going to sail way, way over his simple little head.

Olaus probably thinks that 'recruitment' is something like Birch would have, according to his US Marine tale if true, gone through.

Hey Deltoids!

Hey guys! Do yourselves a favor--just step back from your engagement on this blog: First, imagine yourself a "normal" person (I know it's hard), then strive mightily to drudge up a modicum of "self-awareness", and then just scan the comments appearing on this page. Pretty obvious isn't it, Deltoids, that the "denier" comments are all far superior, in a "normal person", rational discourse, sense-of-a-real-human-being-behind-the-words sort of way, right? And, in contrast, the eco-puke, hive-retard comments, in support of the orthodoxy, are all fatally infected with Pavlovian-reflex, spastic-dork, weenie-boy, mummy's-pride, whiny-pest, booger-brain, eco-hysteric mental-illness and just plain, old-fashioned silliness, like big-time. Right?

Not a good public impression, don't you think, Deltoids, for a bunch of hive-bozo, Philosopher King wannabees, like you guys, lookin' to lock in that do-as-we-say-not-as-we-do-you-despised-peasant-nobodies!, taxpayer-rip-off gravy-train of yours with that Gaia-hustle deal of yours, huh, Deltoids? I mean, like, especially since you Deltoids have gotta actually get the "little guys", you're doing your best to screw over, to "buy-in" to your flim-flam puffery and scare-mongering chicanery if you're ever to realize that brave-new-greenshirt-world of yours you've got cookin'. You know what I mean, Deltoids?

Let me take Jeff's comment no. 4, above, to illustrate what I mean. Jeff says: "...Mike et al. support a complete maniac in freddy...". Oh! Is that so, Jeff! Well, then, Jeff, let me just contrast your scurrilous libel with what I actually said about freddy in my comment no. 1 "...he's [freddy] a hive-bot 'provocateur'". So, I'll let you be the judges, Deltoids, does me calling freddy a "hive-bot provocateur" sound like I "support" freddy? Crickets. O. K., let me make this easy on you dim-wit Deltoids--me saying that freddy is a "hive-bot provocateur" does not--repeat, does not!--sound like I "support" freddy. Got it, now, Deltoids? FINALLY!? See what I mean, guys?

So did you Deltoids notice, then, how Jeff got so pre-maturely eager-beaver and over-exited to score a point that he lost all his impulse control and FALSELY accused me of showing "support" for freddy, without taking the time to read my previous comment on the matter?! Does it get any worse than this, Deltoids? And let's be honest, Deltoids, Jeff isn't the only one in Deltoidland with that "little" problem.

And, as far as freddy goes, Deltoids, I think it's fun to see that your little hive-bot creation appears to have gotten just a bit out of your control, though not so much as to loose freddy's usefulness to the greenshirt propaganda organs and their stooges, like Jeff, as a "point-to", false-flag "stereotype" of your typical, right-wing nutter.

Jeff's comment no. 4 also contains a denunciation of the whole of my contribution to Deltoidland that, frankly, struck a nerve and really hurt me! To quote Jeff, mike "has never made a single scientific contribution here." So this is the sort of thing you catty, little gossips here in Deltoidland have been saying about me behind my back? I feel so betrayed!

I mean, like, jeez, guys, I know don't like go around spouting smarty-pants things, like, e=mc2 and using umlauts in my comments and quoting the collected works of Dr. Gergis to prove my points, and, otherwise, playing like I'm some sorta hot-dog, atomic-brain, master-mind expert and all like that absurdly pretentious, Craig Thomas, phoney-baloney guy and others here in Deltoidland. No! I know that!

But, fair's fair, give me some credit for what it is that I do do, Deltoids. I investigate the "scene", get behind the superficial hive-B. S. and comment on the colorful personalities involved in the CAGW hustle and their real motivations. You know, I'm a sort of the white-boy version of that San Diego Prof named Naomi Something-or-Other, and all. Same schtick, exactly! So give me a break, guys!--you too, Jeff!

But since Jeff is trying to get me banned using a trumped-up claim that my comments lack "scientific" content, I taking some precautions and I'm now working away at a really, really scientific study inspired by the work of Prof. Lewandowsky--you know, the guy who found "correlations" between "deniers" and conspiracy-theory "ideations" and all (hive-friendly conspiracies like "Merchants of Doubt" excluded from consideration, of course).

Well, I don't want to give too much away about my study, and all, because when I release the finished product here on the Deltoid blog, I want it to hit the world-stage like a super-surprise "bomb-shell" and go all viral amidst a circus-like extravaganza of media hype and everything.

But I will say this much as a teaser. You know, how, up above we discussed how you Deltoid dolts tend to get all over-excited and eager-beaver about things and, then, prematurely shoot your mouths off and make complete fools of yourselves when you're shown to be wrong (made all the more delicious by your mulish inability to ever admit a mistake). Well, my research will show a correlation between the lack of impulse-control shown in the commentary of party-line hive-hacks, like you Deltoids and your lack of impulse-control in another area. Sorry, but that's all you get for now. Stay tuned for the release of my report, if you want to know the rest.

And, oh by the way, Jeff, I want to make you a part of the study. Could you please answer the question, "Do you have serious issues with premature ejaculation?"

Neither will Olap have seen this graph to know what 'death spiral' means.

Simple, self-explanatory graphics and sharp objects are kept well away from the dimwits.

Wtf are you wittering on about, l'll mike?

Presumably it made some kind of sense in your head, at some point...

mike

Pretty obvious isn’t it, Deltoids, that the “denier” comments are all far superior, in a “normal person”, rational discourse, sense-of-a-real-human-being-behind-the-words sort of way, right?

Nope. Unadulterated bollocks for the most part. Physics denial at heart mixed with ham-fisted misrepresentations of actual science. Contrarian comments referencing paleoclimate are invariably - as in without one single exception, ever - a hopeless mess.

When you start off being this badly wrong, it's hard to see how you can ever get anywhere near right.

# 69 Lionel A.

Arf, arf.

Oops, sorry, forgot the hive-bozo smileys to irritate Mike!

:-) ;-) :-)

Pretty obvious isn’t it, Deltoids, that the “denier” comments are all far superior

Oh Mike, you're such a card.

Lionel.....

I understand why you would ignore this question from #11, pg 9...

"Second, do you know if the drought in New Mexico is unprecedented? What does the paleo data that you here at Deltoid rely on so heavily have to show?"

It's because the answer doesn't fit the narrative, so it's "irrelevant".

From your link...
."In any case, using tree rings and other records, scientists have documented droughts much worse than the current one"

Those pesky scientists and their documents, cling to them when you need them, always in the way when you don't need them...

" the major 20th century droughts appear to be relatively mild in comparison with other droughts that occurred within this time frame."

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/drought/drght_2000years.html

"The 1950s drought was the most severe 20th century drought in this region, but when viewed in the context of the past three centuries, it appears to be a fairly typical drought. However, when the 1950s drought is compared to droughts for the entire reconstruction, back to 136 BC (bottom graph), it is clear that the 1950s drought is minor relative to many past droughts"

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/drought/drght_grissno.html

Bill @58...

"I don’t generally bother to read anything Batty says "

That would explain why your responses don't make any sense...

2ka of so-fucking-what. You are denying physics again.

You make a false equivalence between past droughts and their natural causes and present-future climate change (including drought) caused by increasing GHG forcing.

False equivalence is a logical fallacy. Once again, you fall flat on your cap and bells.

adelady @ 55...

"You can’t possibly put “double CO2″ and “hyperthermal” in the same sentence – unless you put a lot of other words in between."

Really? Let's see..

BBD @ 47 pg 8 stated... "We aren’t currently experiencing a hyperthermal, but are potentially headed for one. Arguments to the contrary are physics denial"

At # 53 I asked him...."What do you mean by “potential”?"

BBD @ 55 responds... "the potential is determined by when *we* stop – or do not stop – increasing CO2 ppm."

So adelady....What BBD is saying is that "We aren’t currently experiencing a hyperthermal, but are headed for one"... "if we do not stop – increasing CO2 ppm."...."Arguments to the contrary are physics denial"

That's the only scenario if CO2 continues to rise. That's it. Any other scenario, according to BBD, is physics denial.

So tell me adelady, how is this, as you said... “outside the scenarios normally projected by the IPCC"

And demonstrate just how astonishingly wrong Mike was.

Deadeye...

"You make a false equivalence between past droughts and their natural causes and present-future climate change (including drought) caused by increasing GHG forcing"

Let me correct that sentence for you:

"The scientists make a false equivalence between past droughts and their natural causes and present-future climate change (including drought) caused by increasing GHG forcing"

That's better.

For a second there, I thought you were denying the scientist's words again.

Check your definition of hyperthermal. ~3C in a couple of centuries qualifies effortlessly.

Anything to try and avoid the skewer of physics denial.

Let's twist again...

;-)

#85

“The scientists make a false equivalence between past droughts and their natural causes and present-future climate change (including drought) caused by increasing GHG forcing”

No they don't. Scientists don't do physics denial.

You can't get out of this, Betty. You are trying to force a false equivalence to conceal your physics denial.

Deadeye...

"Check your definition of hyperthermal. ~3C in a couple of centuries qualifies effortlessly"

Whew! So we have some time then. Do you have an approximate year?

Oh, and what are we going to do with adelady, it appears she may be one of those physics deniers. She thinks CO2 and hyperthmals can't be in the same sentence, unless the words "outside the scenarios normally projected by the IPCC” are included. She may even be implicating the IPCC!

I mean really, the nerve. Makes one want watch a good UFC match if you know what I mean...

Olaus is obviously confused about Arctic sea ice - it is much-reduced, just as in all recent years.
Clearly he doesn't have a head for data - I notice him linking to a crank-blog in relation to some information about the man George Bush had appointed to head the IPCC.
How that is relevant to the fast-vanishing Arctic sea ice is anybody's guess.
Here's a graph like Olaus' without the cherry-picking:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

If you're looking for some clueless idiot to go banging around like a blind bull in a china shop 'interpreting' never seen before data with no context, then Betsy's your go-to guy.

But it all falls apart for Betsy once context is added.

The bigger question of course is what inspires les fuckwitterati (pardon my French) to imagine even for a nano-second that their five minute, Google-imparted 'education' gives them special 'understanding', even by Koch Industries standards.

I predict that Betty continues to demonstrate politically-motivated physics denial with false equivalence as a favoured tool.

Betty needs to put the last century into its full Holocene context. (source).

Betty needs to ponder what constitutes a hyperthermal.

Betty must ask what happens when it gets too hot for the cod, in the end.

Betty needs to apply these insights globally: ~3C in a couple of centuries.

* * *

I'm off on holiday tomorrow, so no more for a week.

Bye for now.

* * *

I'm putting the Dr. Pachauri nonsense down to poor copywriting and nothing more. Let the deniers make the same long-lasting (which is to say not very) hay with it that made CG1, 2 &3 the runaway failures that they were.

If the best they can conceive ahead of AR5 is that the IPCC employs a lowly copywriter who doesn't comprehend what a joint PhD is, then they're even more fucked than was apparent up to now.

Still, I expect it's another £100 bill from Dave'n'Charlie in her Xmas card for Donna the Raspberry towards her life's work

Have a good time BBD, hope the weather for yours is as good as it was for me.

Multi-decadal variation of the East Greenland Sea-Ice
Extent: AD 1500-2000

Abstract
"The extent of ice in the North Atlantic varies in time with time scales stretching to centennial, and
the cause of these variations is discussed. We consider the Koch ice index which describes the
amount of ice sighted from Iceland, in the period 1150 to 1983 AD. This measure of ice extent is a
non-linear and curtailed measure of the amount of ice in the Greenland Sea, but gives an overall
view of the amounts of ice there through more than 800 years. The length of the series allows insight
into the natural variability of ice extent and this understanding can be used to evaluate modern-day
variations. Thus we find that the recently reported retreat of the ice in the Greenland Sea may be
related to the termination of the so-called Little Ice Age in the early twentieth century. We also look
at the approximately 80 year variability of the Koch index and compare it to the similar periodicity
found in the solar cycle length, which is a measure of solar activity. A close correlation (R=0.67) of
high significance (0.5 % probability of a chance occurrence) is found between the two patterns,
suggesting a link from solar activity to the Arctic Ocean climate"

Do read on here............http://www.dmi.dk/dmi/sr05-02.pdf

Dated 2005 SpamKan?
Do you seriously think we're all as fuckwitted as you?

Are you so completely batshit that you're unaware of what's been happening and the minima reached for the past nine years?

"A rapid increase in the solar activity in the first decades of the 20th century coincided with the
ongoing retreat of the ice in connection with the termination of the Little Ice Age. It is our
suggestion that this has contributed to the particularly rapid decrease in the extent of the ice"

Not corroborated by the data, Spamkan

You really need to learn to examine bollocks before you unconditionally swallow them, SpamKan. But then it's old data, which you were already told.

" Nevertheless, the similarity of the variation of the ice export through the Fram Strait and
the smoothed variation of the solar cycle length shown in Figure 1.7 speaks in favour of the
assumption that the solar cycle variation may include both natural modes. This conclusion is in
accordance with the finding by Bond et al., 2001 (their Figure 2) that a persistent series of solar
influenced millennial-scale variations, which include the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice
Age, reflect a baseline of the centennial-scale cycles.
The ’low frequency oscillation’ that dominated the ice export through the Fram Strait as well as the
extension of the sea-ice in the Greenland Sea and Davis Strait in the twentieth century may therefore
be regarded as part of a pattern that has existed through at least four centuries. The pattern is a
natural feature, related to varying solar activity. The considerations of the impact of natural sources
of variability on arctic ice extent are of relevance for concerns that the current withdrawal of ice may
entirely be due to human activity. Apparently, a considerable fraction of the current withdrawal
could be a natural occurrence"

#97 chek
"Not corroborated by the data, Spamkan"

Your grafffffffffff only goes back to the LIA ?

pathetic,lol

You're talking about the situation up to 2005 - or didn't you realise that, you typical dim-witted, dumbass repeater?