More thread
- Log in to post comments
More like this
At Owlmirror's suggestion, this is a new thread to cope with the flaming wrongness of this recent creationist pimple, Teno Groppi, on the Entropy and evolution thread (which is now closed, by the way). This happens, now and then: some obtuse and confident creationist, made even more stubborn by an…
This may be the last update of the non-terminal thread for a while — I'm going to get beat up by some doctors today, and there are too many steps involved in thread closure and new thread creation and template updating to hand this job off to Mary. So the ol' portcullis may stay up for a while.
A…
After brutally splicing the insane Oprah thread to the perennially random thread, it is now my intent to infuse it more deeply with the crazy: Catholics and Oprah.
Mwahahahahahahahahahahahahaahaaaa!
Oprah vs the Catholic Church - Which is More Evil?Uploaded by wiredset. - Discover more gaming…
By the time this appears, I should be on my way home from the AACR. For some reason, the meeting this year didn't get me all fired up the way it usually does. Perhaps I'll post in more detail about why that may have been after I get home.
In the meantime, here's something I've been meaning to try…
#97 chek
“Not corroborated by the data, Spamkan”
Readers at home should be made aware that chek is attempting to push a cartoon as evidence that the variable energy from the sun does not change temperature, lol
Readers at home should also be made aware that the catoon that chek offers up is drawn by a failed cartoonist :)
Here is a science paper for you chek......................
Long-term Variations in Solar Activity
and their Apparent Effect on the Earth's Climate
Abstract
The varying length of the 11-year cycle has been found to be strongly correlated with longterm variations of the northern hemisphere land surface air temperature since the beginning of systematic temperature variations from a global network, i. e. during the past 130 years. Although direct temperature observations before this interval are scarce, it has been possible to extend the correlation back to the 16th century due to the existence of a series of proxy temperature data published by Groveman and Landsberg in 1979. Reliable sunspot data do not exist before 1750, but we have been able to derive epochs of minimum sunspot activity from auroral observations back to 1500 and combine them with the direct observations to a homogeneous series.
Comparison of the extended solar activity record with the temperature series confirms the high correlation between solar activity and northern hemisphere land surface air temperature and shows that the relationship has existed through the whole 500-year interval for which reliable data exist.
A corresponding influence of solar activity has been demonstrated in other climatic parameters. Thus, both the date of arrival of spring in the Yangtze River Valley as deduced from phenological data and the extent of the sea-ice in the Atlantic sector of the Arctic sea have been shown to be correlated with the length of the sunspot cycle during the last 450 years.
Conclusion
70-90 years oscillations in global mean temperature are correlated with corresponding oscillations in solar activity. Whereas the solar influence is obvious in the data from the last four centuries, signatures of human activity are not yet distinguishable in the observations.
Oh deary me, lol I forgot the link http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.html
I am sure everybody would luv to read the paper in it's entirety, enjoy :)
hehehehe, chek has run away and put his thick head under a rock again :)
You might like to notice how your claimed paper truncates its data in order to omit the modern era, SpamKan.
But then again,.reality isn't your thing, is it.
"But then again,.reality isn’t your thing, is it."
lol, you say that after you offered up a cartoon
Deadeye @ 91...
"I’m off on holiday tomorrow, so no more for a week"
Of course he'll be vacationing locally to keep his carbon footprint down....
Graph, cartoon, graphic - it's visual data SpamKan, simplified so that even a moron like you can comprehend .... something in that vacant lot you call your mind.
Greenland ice core 1550-1974
"Dansgaard et al. (1975) compared temperature variations derived from the 18-O concerntration in snow fallen in Central Greenland with temperatures in Iceland through the interval 900-1970. They concluded that most of the pronounced medium frequency (60ï 200 yr periods) oscillations back to 900 are essentially in phase, so that the 18-O curve is representative of climatic changes far beyond the Greenland area. In accordance with their conclusion we show in Fig.11 that the temperature data derived from the ice-core in Central Greenland like the variation of sea-ice extent at Iceland have varied in concert with the medium length solar activity during most of a 500 year period. "
What is it that JefFeRy say's ?
Was it something to do with 'scale' ?
A new climate science paper
Reviewing the effect of CO2 and the sun on global climate
Abstract
"This paper discusses the effect of the greenhouse phenomenon and CO2 on global climate and suggests that numerical models that lack adequate knowledge of fundamental related factors cannot be used to extract “sound” conclusions. A very basic demonstration of this is done through a simple comparison between estimates of the forecast for global temperature increase obtained by various independent studies. Observing the global temperature and the CO2 atmospheric concentration though the geological aeons implies no obvious correlation. Physical observation on other planets like Mars and Venus, needing no numerical modeling, demonstrates the effect of the atmospheric-CO2 partial pressure on the temperature of the atmosphere. Moreover the CO2 role as a factor of danger or a benefactor for life is also addressed. On the other hand the role of the sun in the presently observed global warming has been greatly underestimated. Scientific evidence shows that the orbit of the earth and the Milankovitch cycles greatly affect the climate. A discussion follows pointing out the prime role that the sun should have on the earth's climate with regard to solar cycles’ activity and irradiance, cosmic rays and cloud formation. The conclusion drawn here is that a natural signal of solar forcing has been mistakenly overlooked for an anthropogenic change, maybe owing to their quite similar effects on climate. For the moment science does not really have a complete and total understanding of the factors affecting the earth's complex climate system and therefore no sound conclusions can be drawn."
:)
Define 'Greenland ice core 1550-1974' for me SpamKan, before you explain what it has to do with disappearing Arctic sea ice?
Quick answer - you haven't a fucking clue you dumb bimbo copy/paster..
oh.....the linkie thingamajig :)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032113003651
Karen...
Yes, but when Hardley talks scale, 23 days is sufficient.
Hi Betula :)
It will be lovely to have a holiday from BBD, lol
Karen @ 10...
"For the moment science does not really have a complete and total understanding of the factors affecting the earth’s complex climate system and therefore no sound conclusions can be drawn.”
Science denying scientists!
Stuffed as usual when you're asked for explanation of how your whacky thought processes work, eh SpamKan?
No surprise there from someone who started out as a moron, but was found to be under qualified even for that.
And what do all the other papers published this year say, clowns?
Surely even you must be niggling aware of what hypocrites you are.
'Don't like that, so that's not science. Don't like that, so that's not science. Don't like that, so that's not science. Don't like that, so that's not science. Don't like that, so that's not science. Don't like that, so that's not science. Don't like that, so that's not science. Don't like that, so that's not science. Don't like that, so that's not science. Don't like that, so that's not science. Don't like that, so that's not science. Don't like that, so that's not science. Don't like that, so that's not science. Don't like that, so that's not science. Don't like that, so that's not science. Don't like that, so that's not science. Don't like that, so that's not science. Don't like that, so that's not science. Don't like that, so that's not science. Oh, look, one result I like, science! Don't like that, so that's not science. Don't like that, so that's not science. Don't like that, so that's not science. Don't like that, so that's not science. Don't like that, so that's not science. Don't like that, so that's not science. '
Pathetic
We already know the concept of 'context' is way above your head, Betty.
But never mind, a cretin like SpamKan won't allow a simple thing like intelligence to get in the way of intent.
Oh lookie what bob's up up and down when you flush the toilet :)
a chek, lol
Karen...
BBD reminds me of Barney Fife....only angry. The bumbling Deputy of Deltoid....a true "Deadeye Dickie."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9HDSQJdudM
Bill @ 17...
"And what do all the other papers published this year say, clowns? Surely even you must be niggling aware of what hypocrites you are"
"Don’t like that, so that’s not science. Don’t like that, so that’s not science"....etc.
Never said any such thing Bill. How about an example? Should be easy for you...
I've been reading Deltoid for a few years, along with a number of other blogs including RealClimate and DeSmogBlog. I've never posted previously as I have no relevant scientific education past high school and therefore don't have any expertise to bring to the table.
In relation to the postings of Betula, Karen, mike, Freddy, GSW, Olaus Petri et al, I just wanted to say that if you think that anything you have said thus far will convince the average person of the veracity of your position/s, you are sadly mistaken.
Jeff, BBD, Chek, Lionel, Bernard J, Craig, adelady and everyone else, thank you for continuing to correct the pseudo-scientific misinformation circulated here and elsewhere. I am sure that I'm not the only person who is appreciative of your efforts.
Oh, I'd have thought it might be your latest miscarriage
... of ideas, such as a credible answer (that holds .. ahem ... water) to my question @ #11.
how very tacky, cheky :(
I couldn't find anything in the literature that discusses melting of the Antarctic ice sheet as a consequence of solar activity ?
There is no warming in the Antarctic.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/antarctic.sea.ice.interactive.h…
It is looking like another bumper crop actually :)
Irony is only what iron things feel like to you, ain't it SpamKan.
And we already covered Antarctic melt for Freddy Fuckwit's benefit earlier in the thread, so you're wrong there too.
Don't worry though, as soon as a SpamKan post appears, it's taken as read that it's wrong. It's your speciality.
ARCTIC ICE FREE
Abstract
…….in the Early Holocene, probably for a millenium or more, the Arctic Ocean was free of sea ice at least for shorter periods in the summer. This may serve as an analogue to the predicted “greenhouse situation” expected to appear within our century.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AGUFMPP11A0203F
Abstract
Arctic sea ice cover was strongly reduced during most of the early Holocene and there appear to have been periods of ice free summers in the central Arctic Ocean. This has important consequences for our understanding of the recent trend of declining sea ice, and calls for further research on causal links between Arctic climate and sea ice.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379110003185
Abstract
Calcareous nannofossils from approximately the past 7000 yr of the Holocene and from oxygen isotope stage 5 are present at 39 analyzed sites in the central Arctic Ocean. This indicates partly ice-free conditions during at least some summers. The depth of Holocene sediments in the Nansen basin is about 20 cm, or more where influenced by turbidites.
http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/content/21/3/227.abstract
ARCTIC ICE FREE
Abstract
….in the Early Holocene, probably for a millenium or more, the Arctic Ocean was free of sea ice at least for shorter periods in the summer. This may serve as an analogue to the predicted “greenhouse situation” expected to appear within our century.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AGUFMPP11A0203F
Abstract
Arctic sea ice cover was strongly reduced during most of the early Holocene and there appear to have been periods of ice free summers in the central Arctic Ocean. This has important consequences for our understanding of the recent trend of declining sea ice, and calls for further research on causal links between Arctic climate and sea ice.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379110003185
Abstract
Calcareous nannofossils from approximately the past 7000 yr of the Holocene and from oxygen isotope stage 5 are present at 39 analyzed sites in the central Arctic Ocean. This indicates partly ice-free conditions during at least some summers. The depth of Holocene sediments in the Nansen basin is about 20 cm, or more where influenced by turbidites.
http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/content/21/3/227.abstract
hmmmm.......a double post ?
That idiot barnturd normally does that, lol
Hi Karen, good effort , you have singlehandedly taken over the place.
I don't see any of the old crowd, so maybe I'll get past the gatekeeper. If so, I will return.
Yeh, Karen has sure taken over the place fatso with her willful ignorance and abuse of the peer-reviewed literature.
The question, of course, is not whether there were ice-free periods in the Arctic in the past - of course there were - but how long it took to get there. And it certainly took more than half a century or less to change from the conditions of the 1970s to where it is now. We are talking about comparing mesocosms and microcosms - something the abusers of science do all the time. You'll also be hard pressed to find any of the authors whose work Karen routine distorts who would disagree with me and who would therefore not consider the present situation to be a serious one. I should know - unlike Karen, who clearly hasn't ever been within a sniff of a scientific conference or even a lecture theater, I have, and I have met and discussed these kinds of papers with the authors themselves. And they are well aware of potential consequences of processes that naturally take many, many hundreds or even many thousands of years being boiled down into half a century or less. And they would distance themselves by miles from the distortions if morons like Karen who clearly exhibit all of the pathological signs of the infamous Dunning-Kruger effect. You too, Gordo.
Again, as I and others have posted here many times, climate change deniers and other anti-environmentalists are, for the most part, clueless non scientists who are pushing other agendas. People like Karen would be eaten up and spat out in the halls of academia. Thats; why they end up on blogs. In this way they are intellectual detritus.
St Cyr: Many thanks for your kind words. We keep trying. The only reason I expend my efforts on Deltoid (rarely on other blogs) is that I think scientists have the responsibility to counter disinformation on important environmental issues. I learned fairly quickly that the blogosphere became the safe haven for abusers of science, since most of their 'science' is garbage, and they have therefore resorted to taking the findings of sound empirical science (where the authors generally have very different views from theirs) and distorting it in support of their own twisted political and economic agendas (see Karen's posts, as a good example of this).
I believe in fighting the good fight - and having just been appointed Endowed Professor at a University in the Netherlands, I will continue t do so. Incidentally my topic in this Professorship deals with the science-society interface, as well as countering distortions in environmental science. Countering some of the nonsense that appears on Deltoid is therefore an important part of the process.
Elsewhere on the blogosphere we are debating how to convince the brainwashed masses that nothing unnatural is happening with our earthly climate.
Anywhere up to 75% of the population is in a deluded state after years of propaganda through the msm and education system. Undoubtedly we have lost a generation of young people, who at some point will need to be debriefed.
Humour is the obvious mechanism, sprinkled with salient facts, intending to open their minds to an alternative vision.
Well ...thanx for that JH...
Perhaps you could enlighten me, on the evidence it appears the models are flawed. How do you intend getting around this problem in your interface?
Hi el :)
It would be fantastic if you would hang out here and and educate the dogmatic Dumbtoids,
Oh .............lookie here JefFeRy
Figure 2: Arctic sea ice extent from 1973 to 1990. From IPCC AR1 .
http://kaltesonne.de/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/screenhunter_170-jun-15…
now why did the IPCC change the evidence ?
Thanks for the warn welcome Karen.
--------
'I just wanted to say that if you think that anything you have said thus far will convince the average person of the veracity of your position/s, you are sadly mistaken.'
What would it take to convince you St C?
Hey Deltoids!
You know, guys, I've wondered of late just what's going on with this blog. You know, like, how a former, barely tolerated pariah, like moi, suddenly finds all his little "zingers" zip right through moderation and all (el gordo's up-thread comment is along the same lines). So what gives?
My "pet" theory?--the blog is now being run as a sort of lab experiment.
I mean, like, I can well imagine that the hive is somewhat perplexed by the ineffectiveness of its agit-prop flim-flam, to date, on behalf of its "signature" CAGW hustle, on the one hand, and likewise disturbed, on the other hand, by the apparent ease with which a despised "rabble" (H/T to BJ) of mere "denier"-peons, utterly lacking in any sort of party-discipline and respect for their betters and without the slightest direction from elite shot-callers of any stripe, have been able to so totally outclass, with home-brew, roll-your-own, guerrilla, blog tactics, the best and brightest the hive has had to offer.
Hence, an apparent editorial decision to just let this blog free-wheel and allow the deniers to go at it in a full "rip" mode, thereby filling the Petri dish with a rich assortment of samples of their work for further, furrow-browed analysis by some ad-hoc committee of useful-tool, trough-addicted, sell-out, hive-hack, smarty-pants functionaries with a genius for telling their hive-betters what they want to hear.
Also, the blog now undoubtedly serves as a "test-bed" for the hive's latest, prototype memes, bots, personas, false-flags, the "bait" portion of future "bait-and-switches", bogeymen, and the like. Case in point?--St. Cyr's no. 22.
It seems St. Cyr is the product of the same workshop that previously brought us freddy--both hive-confections suffering from a glaring "too-good-to-be-true", stereotype perfection. But let's examine the St. Cyr deal just a little:
-Our St. Cyr--a modest, everyman, just-plain-folks, kinda guy with no more than a high school education in science.
-And, in a break with the hive's past preference for trite-booger, motor-mouth, smart-lip, party-line, ego-maniac weirdos, our St. Cyr only speaks when he has something of substance to say--a dignified, well-spoken, manly man of few words, but one who commands a respectful listen when he does part his lips in, thoughtful moderate speech.
-An "average person" of very limited formal scientific education, our St. Cyr has, nevertheless, fortunately escaped contamination by any of the evil "denier" blogs that have ensnared so many other, callow unfortunates, and has gravitated, exclusively, through some sort of natural, naif, child-of-Rousseau instinct for the "good" and "beautiful" to those blog-founts of the "true faith"--this blog, DesMogBlog, and Real Climate. ( Wasn't this how all the kids you creeps worked so hard to brainwash in school from Kindergarten on were supposed to turn out, Deltoids?--must be such a shock that the vast majority of the kids you hive-bozos took such pains to corrupt responded to your best efforts by figuring out how to think for themselves anyway, while acquiring, in the process, a life-long grudge against the hive for screwing with their former kid-minds )
-And, finally, our St. Cyr is an artificer of lists-- "lists" of the "bad-guys" and the "good-guys", of course (you lefties and your "lists"--always the earmark of a hive-production). And, I deliciously note that bill got left out of the "good guys" list, at least by name. Not a good sign guy!--same thing happened to Yezhov (and Yagoda, too, for that matter), just before--well, you know.
At least, that's my latest, best thoughts on Deltoidland, guys.
It is refreshing standing in this empty shed, with Jeffrey monitoring every word the Denialati speak.... to be a part of his interface.
Do you hear me JF? Apparently CO2 does not cause global warming, or at least most scientists can't account for the drop in temperatures.
Sorry, cannot find that statement at the sources pointed to by any of my recent links. But then you avoid being specific do you not, it is one of your 'trade marks'.
Whatever that does not matter much, did you bother to read at that RealClimate Marcott post? Clearly not else you would have a better idea about the context of comparisons between then and now.
Hint, temperatures are now rising faster than at any time during the period from when humans started along the agrarian path. And this at a time when solar forcing are at their minimum.
This is the context that you would already have grasped if you had, as suggested, read some relevant literature from those scientists who do know what they are on about and are not afraid or purchased to keep quiet (as with the 'Greedy, Lying Bastards').
Such honest and knowledgeable scientists include David Archer and William Ruddiman. A host of others accessible by watching the right-hand side panel at Real Climate under the heading Books.
Now when you have completed some honest inquiry and research and avoid cherry picking quotes and quotes without sources then I may feel more inclined to engage further, 'till then I don't have time for a time wasting ideologue such as you.
Just for you Birch, another one for you to chew over, mind the splinters if you cherry pick:
Nonsense And Sensitivity: Top Climatologist Slams The Economist For Yet Another ‘Flawed And Misleading’ Piece
From Mike Mann, I have highlighted a different part of the quote in order to frame your thinking:
Context, context, context. Time you understood this principle.
"At least, that’s my latest, best thoughts on Deltoidland, guys"
... which give your track record of rank stupidity, means that your 'thoughts' can be immediately binned as being utterly useless.
Fatso opines: "Apparently CO2 does not cause global warming, or at least most scientists can’t account for the drop in temperatures"
First, temepratures are not dropping. This is a fallacious lie. May of this year was the third warmest on record - hardly indicitive of a drop. Second, you don't understand the concept of scales for systems that vary in size amd especially for systems at the upper end of the size threshold. I have gone over this before and I am not wasting my breath with a brainless twerp like you, Gordo. You were banned once - go away.
"What would it take to convince you St C?"
First, for all of the National Academies of Science on Earth to reverse their positions on the matter. Second, for the denialati to publish more than one or two papers a year and in better journals. The weight of empirical evidence, as described in thousands of peer-reviewed papers, dwarfs the output of a few outliers who are on the academic fringe. Biotic proxies indeed prove that it is warming. This is the nail in the coffin lid of the deniers. Heck, I work with several of those systems and we see clear evidence of both range shifts and changes in the seasonal phenology of species in Europe as a result of warming, and there are plenty more examples elsewhere.
So St. Cyr, take a word of advice from me: Karen, Betula, Mike, Gordo, et al. are NOT scientists but right wingnuts who are distorting science because the current state-of-the-art does not fit in with their political views. An important point is that a veritable know nothing, Karen, posts stuff up here as if she is the new Galileo, spotting data and papers that somehow have bypassed the academic community. If Karen is so up on her science, why isn't she writing this stuff up for the media and sound scientific journals or giving lectures to packed lecture theaters who want to learn the 'truth'? Instead, she's a complete nobody who doesn't do any scientific research and is confioned to blogs on which, because they are not peer-reviewed, is possible to paste up any ridiculous arguments and crazy ideas, as well as to distort the findings of scientists doing the actual research. Creationists do it and AGW deniers do it.
Well the first thing obviously is to have them know nothing about science whatsoever. But even destructive arseholes like the Koch Bros. balk at that one.
Thing is Fatty, being a fruitcake is a luxury afforded to you by the rational. Your fruitcake contingent may dream of it, but you haven't got the wherewithal or know-how to be anything other than fringe whackos, forever.
That's your chosen fate, and the world ain't gonna change to accommodate your fantasies.
Poor you.
Still, keep at it and you never know, you may yet achieve dribbling inanity.
Meanwhile, SpamKan copies'n'pastes history that she no doubt thinks means something or other.
I'd ask her how long ago the early Holocene was and it's relevance to whatever point she's trying to make, but I think she's too intellectually exhausted with all the clickety-clicking and lolling.
More data points for that extremes bell-curve:
consequences of human activity elevated temperatures having consequences .
What do you mean, check? Early holocene is what, 11ky ago? Totally relevant! 3 million hunter-gatherers and a few subsistence farmers, 7 billion humans sustained by industrial agriculture... totally comparable!
lol..............................
That Jeff Harvey is hilarious :)
He wanted me to post science, that is what I do,
climate science, from the journals, peer reviewed science.
I copy and past the abstracts from the peer reviewed literature, and poor little JefFeRy'S psychotic mind somehow has visions that I have lied about climate science?
How on earth could JefFeRy be offered a professorship? Astounding? Astounding? Astounding? Astounding?
JefFeRy, your demented self portrayals grandeur are sickening.
Mike, I don't doubt your theory, especially since spewendumbskies pathetic effort, lol, but I'm thinking that St. Cyr is JefFeRy'S reflection in the mirror, his sycophant self-adulating self so to speak, :)
[1] Provide counter evidence to over a century of research which proves different.
[2] Context for this claim, note that 'hide the decline' and similar are not what you think or may try to make out.
"He wanted me to post science, that is what I do,
climate science, from the journals, peer reviewed science."
Post all of the science you want, Karen, but stop cherry-picking and distorting the results to suit your own pre-determined views.
You do it. AGW deniers do it. Creationists do it. Anti-environmentalists do it. I've seen this bunch in action over my entire scientific career and they are masters at ignoring vast amounts of data they don't like and honing in on a tiny bit that they do. And in many cases they even are content to distort the findings and opinions of scientists whose views, were they to be known, are very, very different.
You may fool a few sceptics, Karne, but you don't fool me or many others. Bill summed it up above when he described Karen's approach:
"Don’t like that, so that’s not science. Don’t like that, so that’s not science. Don’t like that, so that’s not science. Don’t like that, so that’s not science. Don’t like that, so that’s not science. Don’t like that, so that’s not science. Don’t like that, so that’s not science. Don’t like that, so that’s not science. Don’t like that, so that’s not science. Don’t like that, so that’s not science. Don’t like that, so that’s not science. Don’t like that, so that’s not science. Don’t like that, so that’s not science. Don’t like that, so that’s not science. Don’t like that, so that’s not science. Don’t like that, so that’s not science. Don’t like that, so that’s not science. Don’t like that, so that’s not science. Don’t like that, so that’s not science. Don’t like that, so that’s not science. Don’t like that, so that’s not science. Don’t like that, so that’s not science. Don’t like that, so that’s not science. Don’t like that, so that’s not science. Don’t like that, so that’s not science. Oh, look, one result I like, science!‘
And even here, the 'Oh look one result, I like science' is often a blatant misinterpreting of the results of a study that are not in line with the author's views or else a case of massive cherry-picking. Its dishonest but its the way that deniers play the science game.
"How on earth could JefFeRy be offered a professorship? Astounding? Astounding? Astounding? Astounding"
Could be becazuse I have 130 plus peer-reviewed papers, 3068 citations on the WoS as of this week and an h-index of 32.
For Karen the stats tally 0, 0 and 0. A bit of a difference there.
Lionel @ 38...
.”In any case, using tree rings and other records, scientists have documented droughts much worse than the current one”
"Sorry, cannot find that statement at the sources pointed to by any of my recent links"
Maybe if you had read your link, you would have seen that it links to the original article at Discovery Magazine..
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/2013/07/15/drought-turns-the-r…
I know, these things are difficult.
Lionel...
"Clearly not else you would have a better idea about the context of comparisons between then and now."
I thought it was "irrelevant"
Lionel @ 38...
"’till then I don’t have time for a time wasting ideologue such as you."
Lionel @ 39...
"Just for you Birch, another one for you to chew over"
BirchBarker
So that quote was not in the article that I pointed you at, which is what you tried to make out. Besides Discover is not well renowned for its complete and balanced coverage.
Havi8ng said that I will now provide the complete context as Discover put it:
And Wally Btoecker is another scientist who's writing will help unscramble your ill ordered mind.
And as for my 'irrelevant' remark it is irrelevant in the sense of that what is happening currently to climate is nothing like the periods studied by paleodata and I indicated one of the parameters where this is so.
You are playing word games like that dissembler Keyes another sophist who refused to consult the writings of scientists.
Hey Jeff (aka St. Cyr (good catch Karen!))!
Yr. no. "...I have 300 plus peer reviewed papers..."
Dear Jeff and his flashing credentials and Jeffry-genic, attaboy, mash notes to himself! One of Deltoids, true, epicurean delights.
You know Jeff, your little sock-puppet suck-up, St Cyr, is sporting the persona of an earnest, guileless, disinterested "layman" doing his best, within the limitations of his high-school-only science education, to truly share the "joy" you take in your motor-mouth self-praise.
And, in that regard, do you honestly think, Jeff, that St. Cyr is really going to knowledgeably appreciate and groove on your exquisite, "Endowed Professor" wonderfulness when you say stuffy, ivory-tower, B. S. things like: I have "an h-index of 32"? See what I mean Jeff?
No, Jeff, what you need is something that connects with the "little guy" and shows, in terms the "little guy" can truly understand, just what an important, authoritative voice, you are, in matters of climate science and put to rest, once and for all those old meanie, " right wing nutter" attempts to falsely and maliciously portray you as an intellectual air-head, lightweight who got to where you've gotten exclusively through hive-connections, a well-demonstrated reliability in the hive's party-line adherence department, and a genuine gift for little-operator, brown-nose schmoozing in the critical, party-time after hours of those eco-confabs you incessantly attend.
Here's my idea that will allow you to hit the "credibility-ball" out of the park:
-Post all your travel claims for the last two years.
-With each travel claim describe your trip's activities (yes, Jeff include the blow-out party-times and any "little adventures").
-Describe, then, how each of your trip's activities contributed to the advancement of scientific knowledge.
-Further describe the estimated number of tons of CO2-spew associated with your trip, to include those that are travel and accommodations related, together with your justification for your piggie carbon-footprint in terms of the trip's "scientific" value (might even detail why a given trip did not lend it self to low-carbon, Gaia-friendly video-conferencing).
-Finally, adress any public funds expended, directly or indirectly, on your trip and justify those expenses to poor, strapped-out, ripped-off tax-payers like St. Cyr.
Do the above, Jeff, and all of us--not just St. Cyr--can really begin to truly appreciate just what "treasure" you are to humanity. Or not.
In the meantime, I'll continue to write you off as a patent, geek-ball, booger-brain, big-mouth braggart and hypocrite who does not PRACTICE WHAT YOU PREACH AND PROVIDE LEADERSHIP FROM THE FRONT AND BY EXAMPLE WHEN IT COMES TO THE CARBON-AUSTERE LIFE-STYLE YOU URGE ON OTHERS.!
Hi mike! You do realize you are clinically insane, don't you?
Lionel...
"So that quote was not in the article that I pointed you at, which is what you tried to make out"
Your article linked to the original article in the first paragraph moron!
"Havi8ng said that I will now provide the complete context as Discover put it:"
"In any case, using tree rings and other records, scientists have documented droughts much worse than the current one. If the climate system is indeed an “angry beast,” as geochemist Wallace Broecker once said, I shudder to think what will happen if we keep poking her with our proverbial sticks."
So I quote the part that is fact, and you use the speculation part to put it in context.....as though that were the part that is fact.
"I shudder to think"
Genius.
So wait, Betula, you're saying that a drought as bad as one of these historical ones would be a good thing?
You know that's what you're implying, right?
The is a difference between speculation and informed opinion Birch, that is the trouble with you, you lack depth and breadth in this area.
And what I called you on was the absence of the statement you quoted in the article which I cited. Nothing more, nothing less.
You, once again, present as one of those tiresome idiots who like to play semantics and moving goal posts after the fact. The statement you quoted was NOT in the article that I cited, thus not 'from my link' and thus you were lying. Simple.
Far from it, Stu.
I'd posit that the current cloud of idiots with their even denser accompanying cloud of idiocy fancy themselves as the 'informed citizenry', rather than the all-too-obviously guided small-minded morons doing the bidding of vested interests in areas outside their collective comprehension we actually see in action here daily.
Stu
"You know that’s what you’re implying, right?"
Jeez Stu, I thought I was implying it wasn
You know that’s what you’re implying, right?”
Jeez Stu, I thought I was implying it wasn't unprecedented.
No, you SAID it wasn't unprecedented. At the very least you implied it was no big deal, and in context and from your previous comments, you implied it might be GREAT.
So what if it isn't unprecedented? Neither is sea level 100ft higher than today. Neither is most of the North American continent covered under hundreds of feet of ice. Neither is an atmosphere without oxygen. Neither is a planet without humans.
What do you think the current and already inevitable changes will do to the environment, and what those changes will do to human existence?
Lionel @ 49
'Provide counter evidence to over a century of research which proves different.'
So in order to prove that CO2 does not cause global warming it will be necessary to get a journal paper to back me up. Even though most scientists now accept that temperatures have been flat for 17 years.
The null hypothesis .... global cooling is just around the corner.
St C has been brainwashed and is 'rusted on' to watermelon thinking, primarily through our ABC.
It's worse than thar Fatso. The data don't accept it.
In passing, and as a floating moron - how do you explain that the record melt in the Arctic in 2007, was exceeded in 2012 (and ain't looking good this year either) during this period of 'flat' temperatures?
You don't think people cleverer than you and able to read newspapers have been feeding you shit you're too stupid to check up on, do you?
Here is a NASA animation of the Arctic storm that smashed the ice to smithereens in 2012
" Published on May 18, 2013
A powerful storm wreaked havoc on the Arctic sea ice cover in August 2012. This visualization shows the strength and direction of the winds and their impact on the ice: the red vectors represent the fastest winds, while blue vectors stand for slower winds."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQSyFi3NyEU
To all the piss-witted deniers on this thread.
What you haven't realised is that your fave blogscientists have sent you out, not with a knife to a gunfight, but armed with matchsticks up against a tank regiment of Abrams M-2's, backed by a squadron of T-90s, Leopard and Challenger IIs, aka the international science community.
That you place your faith in repeating memes debunked months ago, and whose debunkings are amenable to an average 12 year old capable of reading a non-tabloid newspaper demonstrates the shallowness of your understanding.
Stick to your 'what if fruitcakes ran the world' debates on your fruitcake blogs and don't venture out anywhere intelligent folk may frequent.
Consider yourselves warned.
Movement doesn't melt ice, SpamKan. The only thing that does is HEAT. Being an ignorant piss-wit, you may not already know that, but it's never too late to be educated.
Thank you for demonstrating the depths of your stupidity chek :)
The CYCLONE hit the ice at the peak of summer, lol
The storm brought unusually warm waters (el nino) to the East Siberian and Laptev seas and to the edge of the ice pack. It also pulled warmer air into the Arctic. It broke the ice pack into smaller pieces that are easier to melt. It also pushed the ice together making the pack smaller.
For which you read 'heat', you dumb cow.
Wait, the argument now is "cyclone caused the melt, har har, there is no warming?"
Karen? Seriously?
Yes, it is time for us all to review:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yptXkLglKkA
Seriously Stu, they're dumb enough to swallow a kilo of rat poison if their preferred blogscientist told them to.
'how do you explain that the record melt in the Arctic in 2007, was exceeded in 2012 (and ain’t looking good this year either) during this period of ‘flat’ temperatures?'
Its natural behaviour for our Modern Climate Optimum ... the refreeze in the northern winter was spectacular.
As for what is in store, my money is on another freezing winter in the UK.
It's just the sheer clod-hopping dissonance of it all. "No warming!" "No melting!" "More ice!" "More polar bears!" "Al Gore has a big house!" "More cod!" "Jeff flies on airplanes!" ... and now "It's cyclones!"
Oh, remind me, what state are we going to stash 150MM Bangladeshi in again?
I'm with Stu, I think we are all dumber for reading that. Still, there are some aspects so excellently wrong that they are worth running through:
1. Sea Ice was already melting in situ before the cyclone formed (at 3 to 5 seconds into Karen's linked animation). Sea ice melt leads cyclone formation (LOL).
2. Warm-core cyclones like this one form where water is warmer than its surrounds. The preceding sea ice loss contributed to the cyclone's formation
3. "(el nino)" = Bizarre. Warm El Nino water is 10,000 km's from the Arctic Ocean. Anyway, how could the storm have pushed warmer waters into the East Siberian and Laptev without first melting the intervening ice in the Chukchi? Overland across Siberia?
4. In any case, the ice margin in the Laptev doesn't change during the storm. So why the reference to the Laptev? BS intended to impress - Fail. I can only conclude that Karen is as ignorant of Arctic geography as she is of ...well, eveything that she's ever commented on, actually...
5. Finally, NSIDC find that increased storminess is associated with *high* sea ice years. Far from these storms "smashing the ice to smithereens" storms generally reduce ice loss by cutting insolation, causing compaction and rafting (reducing surface area), and creating local gyres which break up the steady forcing of ice out of the Fram Strait. So why would 2012 have been different? Do tell, Karen...
Proverbs 26:11. Its all about Karen.
Stu @64...
"No, you SAID it wasn’t unprecedented"
Wrong Stu....don't get your panties in a knot. At #11, pg 9, I asked if it was unprecedented...
"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?"
You ask..."What do you think the current and already inevitable changes will do to the environment, and what those changes will do to human existence?"
Which current changes are you referring to and can you link to the peer reviewed scientific paper that states changes are already inevitable?
As far as what
So now you are denying that we've already pumped sufficient CO2 and heat into the system to cause future sea level rise?
Is that what you're saying?
Stu...
"So now you are denying that we’ve already pumped sufficient CO2 and heat into the system to cause future sea level rise? Is that what you’re saying?"
Is this your way of denying to answer a question? Is that what you're saying?
It sjows a different world Betsy, and one you don't wanna be living in.
Mike
Oh really? And when someone, lots of someones, present material in simplified terms, what do you and all your mates do? Nag about evidence and data and details of scientific papers. There's a reason why they're called scientific papers and not newspapers - newspapers are written for a reading age of 12 or less. Scientific papers are not just written in more complex language, that language is representing concepts and using the technical jargon associated with those concepts that are waaay outside the conventional education of the "little guy" you're so fond of.
However, I take the view that most of the "little guys" I know are perfectly capable of learning the arithmetic analysis needed to analyse sports performance and results. They're also perfectly capable of comprehending the technical intricacies of the vehicles or the power tools or the golf clubs they're keen on, so the normal presentation of science is not really a huge obstacle.
What you're suggesting is that complex science should be presented more simply than the owner's manual for a car or a motorbike. And when it is done that way, say, by the straightforward statement that more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere leads to higher temperatures, (but not every day in every way) you want to complain in much the same way as someone saying that if they depress the accelerator in their car a set distance - it doesn't always result in exactly the same increase in speed.
A motoring writer might be very kind in pointing out that it makes a difference whether the car is on level ground, or on the up or the down side of a rise. There's more to speed of a car than the accelerator pedal, you have to look at the driving surface, the terrain and the weather. The embarrassed complainer nods and slinks away.
When a climate writer says much the same thing about climate, you and your mates just keep arguing. You need to understand that we see those arguments as being exactly the same quality as the befuddled car driver's argument about the accelerator pedal.
chek...
"It sjows a different world Betsy, and one you don’t wanna be living in"
No, it's the same world, only todays droughts are mild in comparison...
“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
Of course, we now know for a fact, that all future droughts will be caused by climate change, and we know for a fact, that all droughts will get worse over time....it's "inevitable"
Okay Betula, so you are denying that. Links to research on it have been provided many, many times.
I was merely making sure. You can stop JAQing off now, you're not fooling anyone.
Compared to 350AD, 400AD and 1600AD.
In New Mexico.
You're not even trying anymore, are you? Pathetic.
'What you’re suggesting is that complex science should be presented more simply...'
Its important that the electorate know the truth and reducing complexity into identifiable bites is entirely appropriate in a democracy.
I agree with Mike on this.
"all future droughts will be caused by climate change"
Who said that? What scientists are telling us is that we can expect that droughts of the future may be worse, and/or longer, and/or in more places, and/or with more extreme effects than what we've seen in droughts of the last few centuries.
No one is saying that without the current climate changes, Australia and the Sahara would become green and pleasant countryside. Droughts are expected in certain places for well-known climatic reasons (check out Hadley cells and ENSO for a start).
That sort of statement quoted at the top makes you look a bit silly.
Stu @ 84...
"Links to research on it have been provided many, many times."
Links to peer reviewed scientific literature stating changes are already inevitable have been provided many, many times? Yet you can't produce one?
"You’re not even trying anymore, are you? Pathetic"
You ignored them the first few dozen times, Betula. It is established science. I'm not about to waste my time digging up more links for you to ignore. Anyone who is genuinely interested can find them sprinkled liberally over any of the past five or so open threads, or -- the horror -- use them thar Google machine.
The electorate does know the truth. It is presented perfectly simply here:
http://www.csiro.au/en/Outcomes/Climate/Understanding.aspx
and here:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/
and here:
http://www.climatechange.gov.au/climate-change/climate-science
We live in a Democracy and our government funds the above professional and well-reputed organisations who present the facts on climate change.
Where it gets complicated is when idiots like El Gordo go to internet blogs run by cranks such as the university-dropout and ex-TV-weatherman Anthony Watts, and there people like El Gordo read a lot of nonsensical fluff posing as "science".
Here's a clue, El Gordo: ignore Andrew Bolt and Joanne Codling - they are not responsible nor even capable of informing us about climate change. Stick with the reputed professionals and you won't suffer the kind of misinformation that has been dogging you for years.
Oh look, more idiocy from El Gordo:
"the refreeze in the northern winter was spectacular."
Looks like garbage I saw on Watts's site a few months ago.
Let's steer clear of the crankblogs for a minute and find out what happened in the real world:
http://haveland.com/share/arctic-death-spiral-1979-201306.png
Yep - 2013 saw less "refreeze" than *any* previous winter in the last 34 years.
There's only one explanation for El Gordo's decision to believe something gleaned from cranks blogs that is the opposite of reality: he *wants* to believe in something. He does *not* want to be informed as to the facts.
adelady @ 87.
Lionel @ 6 on page 9 insinuated the drought in Mexico is a consequence of climate change with this:
"July 15 News: Ongoing Drought In New Mexico Turns Rio Grande Into ‘Rio Sand’."
"Human caused climate change is having consequences"
I have no doubt, every time there is a drought, we will see someone like Lionel blaming it on climate change....thus, the reason I made the comment.
Now a question: Does the comment by Lionel at #6, pg 9 make him look a bit silly...or does he get a pass?
Here's where we find out your true colors...
No Betsy, you even-dumber-fuckwit-than Spam,Kan, it was a different world.. World, not region.
The wilfully stupid and ignorant, along with the fruitcakes and whackos can't be catered to. They've chosen to no longer be amenable and instead actively fill their heads with blogshite provided by self-appointed nobodies.
When deniers with allegedly years of experience on blogs apparently can't yet grasp concepts like 'global', and are unable to make the mental leap between 'warm waters' and 'heat', then they're leaving themselves behind in the station of ignorance when the train leaves.
Stu...
"You ignored them the first few dozen times"
I ignored peer reviewed scientific literature that states climate change is "already inevitable"?
Can you give me some comment and page numbers? Were they in the July thread? Give me a hint...
You can do it Stu, c'mon this will be easy for you.
'He does *not* want to be informed as to the facts.'
The fact is, from real world observation, there has been no increase in temperatures over the past 17 years ... which is an indication that the models are flawed.
During this whole period CO2 has increased markedly, can you explain why temperatures are flat?
Look, the reason this clown was banned in the first place is there's no point responding to him. There must be something better you could be doing elsewhere. DNFTT.
Bill, I was banned because I was off topic, but this is an open thread so you can pull your head in. Its a robust environment, enjoy it.
Here's the latest on the global temperature malaise.
'During yesterday’s Environment and Public Works hearings, Sen. David Vitter asked a panel of experts, including experts selected by Boxer, “Can any witnesses say they agree with Obama’s statement that warming has accelerated during the past 10 years?” For several seconds, nobody said a word.
'Sitting just a few rows behind the expert witnesses, I thought I might have heard a few crickets chirping, but I couldn’t tell for sure.'
Climate Depot
....and then...?
It's OK fatso, you're not expected to think that far ahead. Morons will be morons appears to be Morano's motto. Can't say I disagree with that, at all..
Alright, here's Rupert Darwall in Huffpo
'Amidst all the agitprop, there is a nugget of science: no 15-year period of global temperature yields a statistically significant trend. But then, to its embarrassment, neither could the Met Office demonstrate a statistically significant trend in global temperature for the last 130 years.
'That doesn't mean observed temperatures did not rise - they did - or that global warming, whether man-made or not, did not happen. Rather it illustrates the sheer difficulty in demonstrating whether the rise is outside a range of random natural variation and of moving from the physics of the test tube to the immense complexity of the atmosphere.'
adelady,
@82
First off, thank you for your spirited but courteous comment. A rarity on Deltoid.
My comment no. 72, of June 15, 2013, appearing on page 5 of the June Open Thread, though originally addressed to BBD, also serves as my response to your comment no. 82, above, if it is of interest to you.
Is that from some comedy script?
'Is that from some comedy script?'
Huffington Post is a left wing bible.
The CET shows no statistically significant trend.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Screen-Shot-2013…
Huffington Post is a left wing bible. ????
So that makes the man who wrote (yet another) skeptics' bible The Age of Global Warming a left wing prophet?
Don't know that his fans would be too thrilled about that.
"The CET shows no statistically significant trend."
And the relevance to global warming is ..... ?
Unless you can use the CET set against the global dataset to show whether it's the same, a higher or a lower trend can't tell you anything about the CET's place in the larger scheme of things.
Yeah, mike, you're a real charmer. Of the wing-collar bodyshirt, chestwig, and gold medallion school...
'And the relevance to global warming is ….. ?'
Admittedly the CET is regional and lacks a hockey stick, but its a fair indication of what is happening in that part of the world.
'Don’t know that his fans would be too thrilled about that.'
The point I was trying to make, it surprised me that Huffpo ran the story.
Hey, where's Duffer? After all, he's the man we always look to when it comes time to point out that weather equals climate...
I mean, maaaate, you wouldn't want to be seen as a blatant hypocrite, now would you? ;-)
eh? linky
"how do you explain that the record melt in the Arctic in 2007, was exceeded in 2012 (and ain’t looking good this year either) during this period of ‘flat’ temperatures?"
Its called a LAG effect, Gordo. If you knew the first thing about cause-and-effect relationships in large scale systems, you'd realize that there is often a long temporal delay between process X and its effects on parameter Y. The extinction debt is a good example. All you demonstrate with dumb-arse comments like this is that you do not understand the basic tenets of scale.
Jeff, you answered cheks question :)
Thermal inertia ring a bell
Mike, I assume that you are what you define as one of the 'kittle guys', but you sure have a BIG mouth..... full of smears, insults, non-sequiters etc. And you certainly also have an extremely high opinion of yourself, much like other AGW deniers/downplayers here like Jonas, Karen, Betula etc. Their problem is that their boasts don not include any kind of qualifications in any scientific fields, so in the end, like you, you poor old sot, you are left with nothing but the usual semantics.
What is you day job, Mike? Care to elaborate? You seem singularly obsessed with my salary, where I travel, etc. etc. etc. I am sure that you must be hounding corporate CEOs and the politicians they effectively own over the their huge expense lists, or am I incorrect? And my guess is that you are irate over the huge amount of money wasted on the non-existant 'war on terror' and on expansionist wars being fought around the world. My salary is an insignificant drop in the bucket by comparison, and even when you combine the salaries of every scientist on Earth working in a similar field as mine you'll find that it doesn't add up to much compared with the funds sloshing around the military-industrial state.
My point yesterday, and I reiterate it, is that the vast bulk of empirical evidence, from proxies through to contemporary biological data, reveals that the planet is warming and warming at a rate beyond the scale of natural forcing. You have, as far as I can tell, never once discussed any of this, but have instead launched into repeated attacks on those who tend to agree with my statement above, suggesting strongly that you are motivated not by empirical facts but by some wacky far right political ideology in which you connect the dots in your own distorted way and come up with environmental science=left wing communist/socialist conspiracy. To tell you the truth, I am quite sure most of your fellow luminary deniers here have the same general opinion, but most are at least clever enough not to wear their hearts on their sleeves (Freddy and PentaxZ notwithstanding).
My arguments are shared by the vast majority of scientists, a point loathed by the deniers here but simply a fact. Sure, there are a few outliers, most of whom are on the academic fringe (e.g. have few publications in the literature, but their celebrity in denier circles is a sure sign that their numbers are thin). Its interesting here how deniers constantly shift the goalposts whilst being unaware that this is what they are doing. Take Karen. She has been vehemently arguing for as long as I remember that all of the sings show that it isn't warming at all, or that it was warmer in the very, very recent past, then suddenly finds a paper that is doing the rounds through the denialosphere (where she clearly gleans her 'science') - the new paper by some Cypriot scientists - which claim that it is most certainly warming but that the sun is either the primary driver or else we still don't understand its role. So Karen goes from 'it isn't warming!' to 'it is warming but its the sun'! to 'it is warming but it was warmer in the Holocene' back to the beginning. What this clearly shows is that deniers constantly shift the ground of the arguments t quire different positions provided, of course, that the human factor is absent in all of them. This isn't scientific discourse; its a joke. As I have pointed out many times, often with a lot of empirical evidence, it is certainly warming rapidly as demonstrated by many studies looking at range shifts, seasonal phenology patterns and other trait-dependent aspects in plants and animals. Betula, one of the more brazen deneirs here, refuses to address a single one of these studies and is instead singularly obsessed with a trek I made across a Park in Ontario, Canada in 2012. This is because he does not read the primary literature and when this is pointed out, embarrassingly scurries back to his little corner. He can't discuss science, as was shown by his flippant comment on C02 fertilization and his examples on the health of eastern NA ecosystems. When he said the latter in a post a few weeks ago, it clearly told me exactly what level of knowledge I was dealing with. Not much.
And you make a number of arguments that are so utterly banal that they do not deserve a dignified response. The old, "you are arguing that C02 is a major driver of AGW, so do you calculate your carbon budget etc." is a direct corollary of the 'environmentalists want us living in caves' argument that I have heard a million times from guys like you. Again, not worthy of a response based on its sheer inane stupidity.
Get a life, Mike. You clearly are suffering from cabin syndrome.
What dolts like you clearly loathe are scientists. That is abundantly clear. I have been warned of this little tenet by a number of colleagues and the more I write here the more that the knives come out in an attempt to denigrate and smear me. Go ahead. Keep on trying. I know exactly what I am up against - as it turns out, intellectually speaking on Deltoid, you the deniers here are a bunch of lightweights. I have faced far more intense scrutiny in the broader scientific arena, so dealing with you and your acolytes is a piece of cake.
Another Freudian slip: but I think Mike is one of the kittle guys - little guys make a lot more sense!
bill!
Yr. no. 5
Took me a few moments to figure out what your latest was all about--but finally figured it out.
So I'm a "real charmer", huh? Well, bill, ol' sport, whatever I am, you, most certainly have never been accused of being a "real charmer"--right, guy?
As for the body-shirt/chestwig/medallion business, I'm thinking along the lines, bill, that you're dipping into your tyke-hood memory bank and dredging up an image of some one or another of the gentlemen friends mummy would occasionally bring home to meet her little "billy-boy."
And I imagine those occasions all conformed to some variation on this pattern:
-Gentleman friend is introduced to bratty-bill. Little billy, sensing a threat to his exclusive, "little snookums" place in mummy's affections, then proceeds to put on his center-of-attention, smart-lip, little-snot, obnoxious pest, creepy-kid act.
-Mummy meanwhile is taking all this in and with occasional, nervous, embarrassed side-glances at her gentleman guest, directs most of her attention to her darling billy in the form of pleading looks of the "please-don't-spoil-this-for-me-I-really-like-this-guy" type.
-The gentleman friend, early in the evening, realizes that mummy is a "package deal" and while mom is a lovely lady, the "package" is a non-starter. An obvious B. S. excuse is offered and the gentleman guest quickly departs with body language that clearly says he won't be back.
-Mummy is left sobbing while the evil, little billy is all triumphant smiles as he relishes his victory over yet another rival.
Get that about right, bill, ol' buddy?--you little shit!
Jeff,
Yr. no. 14
Basically my response, Jeff, to your last is a an unimpressed "Whatever". Though it is a bit "rich" you accusing me or anyone else of having (and I quote) a "BIG mouth".
And let me also separately note that I never asked you about your salary (and you never thought I did either, right Jeff?--just one of your little slicko tricks there to jerk my words around for your own rhetorical advantage--again, right, Jeff?) and could care less about salary--rather, I asked you to post your travel claims, not salary, for all to see. Just want to see what sort of an obscene CO2-spew you throw off as you flit about the globe, in high-carbon style, preaching the peril of demon-carbon. That's all, Jeff.
Sorry, I have a bit of a old-fashioned, "bug" about "do-as-say-not-as-I-do", "in-your-face" hypocrites. But maybe you're not one of those two-faced types, Jeff. In that case, posting your travel claims for public viewing will prove it!--and make me look bad, to boot. Can't beat that, Jeff, ol' sport, can yah?
One last thought, Jeff, I'm basically a counterpuncher. I respond in kind--not to the science, of course, but to all rest of your and others puffed-up, lefty bullshit. So, Jeff, if you just stick to your science, you'll never hear a peep from me. Likewise, if you conduct your advocacy with language that is courteous, temperate, and free of duplicities, scare-mongering, and agit-prop cant, and that is matched by deeds such as LEADERSHIP FROM THE FRONT BY PERSONAL EXAMPLE, then, again, you'll not hear from me--except for some admiring comments.
But all that would require you to toss your spiffy new "professor-grade" trough and get off the greenshirt "gravy-train", and, somehow, Jeff, I just don't see you as the kinda guy to do something like that.
Tosser.
Mann's lawsuit against the CEI and National Review to proceed after DC Superior Court tosses their motion to dismiss.
From 3:23:00
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, July 18th 2013.
That's your Guy!
h/t Sou
Spencer gets caught every time, he should learn to duck.
I see el gordo is back, and is essentially rehashing his previous comedy stylings.
They're a lot less entertaining the second time around, and they weren't particularly riveting the first time.
'previous comedy stylings.'
Now that's funny.
'Jeff, you answered cheks question'
The old fella might be losing it.
Hardley @ 12...
" And you certainly also have an extremely high opinion of yourself, much like other AGW deniers/downplayers here like Jonas, Karen, Betula etc."
This is a joke right? I can honestly say, I think I just witnessed shifting zones "in real"...
Hardley @ 12...
"Betula, one of the more brazen deneirs here, refuses to address a single one of these studies and is instead singularly obsessed with a trek I made across a Park in Ontario, Canada in 2012."
Because the studies have nothing to do with you experiencing climate change "first hand" and witnessing shifting zones "for real" on a 23 day trek where your friend got frostbite.....and then me getting you to admit "of course I couldn't describe things first hand" and then you later stating "I most certainly did"...
It's called lying.
Unless of course, you were reading the studies during your trek and you meant to say "I read the studies first hand" and witnessed shifting studies "for real" while my friend got paper cuts...
Hardley @ 12...
"He can’t discuss science, as was shown by his flippant comment on C02 fertilization"
Actually we did have a discussion about it, which reminds me, did you ever admit you have no idea what effect CO2 fertilization may or may not have in the scheme of things? I think you called it "unpredictable" with "negative consequences"....
Here it is, from June, # 51, pg 7....
"I never said that increased C02 was a bad thing, but that it would have unpredictable and perhaps negative consequences"
Ladies and Gentleman, Professor Hardley will now sum up his latest findings...
"It's not bad, it's just unpredictable and probably negative, which is predictably bad"....thank you.
You just can't help misrepresenting others and lying, can you Betsy?
No actually, Betsy the fake lying marine will choose and edit the 'summary and attribute it to him. Even more pathetic than your child deniers invention, which scraped the barrel then.
Hardley @ 12...
"The old, “you are arguing that C02 is a major driver of AGW, so do you calculate your carbon budget etc.” is a direct corollary of the ‘environmentalists want us living in caves’ argument that I have heard a million times from guys like you. Again, not worthy of a response based on its sheer inane stupidity."
Wait a minute!
I thought people like me were the problem just for putting thought on the internet!
I've been told by BBD that people like me should be beaten by the public while he watches, because he doesn't like my words...
Someone here wanted to piss on me because I post the words of scientists stating there may be a lack of data, along with uncertainties and assumptions....words of scientists!
And what did our newest Professor have to say about this?
Crickets.
Now, here we have Professor Hardley galavanting about the countryside recklessly emitting CO2, not putting words into the atmosphere mind you....but actual deadly CO2, as mother Polar Bears search for their drowning cubs.
And what does the newest Professor of egotism have to say about this?
"not worthy of a response based on its sheer inane stupidity."
So let's welcome Professor Hardley , who's "Professorship deals with the science-society interface, as well as countering distortions in environmental science. Countering some of the nonsense that appears on Deltoid is therefore an important part of the process"
Actually they were refusing to piss on you even if you were on fire, you lying toe-rag.
But I suppose when you're as consumed with envy and bitterness as you are Betsy, even comic metaphors go way over your pointy little head.
chek..
"Even more pathetic than your child deniers invention, which scraped the barrel then."
Got it.
It scrapes the barrel to ask the question what the criteria for Denier beating is, but suggesting someone beat deniers is perfectly acceptable....
Hardley, is it too late to put this in your dissertation?
chek..
"Actually they were refusing to piss on you even if you were on fire, you lying toe-rag"
I stand corrected.
They were refusing to piss on me even if I were on fire, because I post the words of scientists stating there may be a lack of data, along with uncertainties and assumptions…
Now it makes sense. Good catch cheky!
Tricksy Betsy in action. You selectively post some of the words that serve your purpose, a technique long used by dissemblers and sophists.
Unfortunately for you, your MO has long been obvious, yet you continue to repeatedly prance around in your self-perceived cleverness, thinking nobody else can see what you do. But of course everybody can, and because you're so shit at it, it's tedious in it's various repetitive iterations.
Anyways, enough of this Bettycentric tedium.
Looks like a bad week for deniers several leagues above Betty's pay grade.
The UK Guardian has the story here, although we already had the Salby lowdown direct from John Mashey here earlier this month.
Pat Michaels outright incompetence with predictions are skewered here
And Matt Ridley's well known scientific incompetence was further exposed againhere.
" You selectively post some of the words that serve your purpose"
The purpose being to post the words that you ignore or that you are kept from seeing by your blinding ideology.
You're projecting again, Betsy.
Lack of context is your particularly well-known method.
....."because I post the words of scientists stating there may be a lack of data".....
whilst ignoring the many times greater numbers of scientists who state that there there is more than enough data. Oh, and let's not forget Betty's habit of refusing to read dozens of studies shoved under his nose showing definite biological effects of warming.
"And what did our newest Professor have to say about this?"
Funny this coming from a guy who is a "non-Professor or non-anything of even bigger egotism".
But then again, the deniers on this blog all share the same puffed up egotism minus anything in the way of scientific expertise. What a bunch of clowns.
"“I never said that increased C02 was a bad thing, but that it would have unpredictable and perhaps negative consequences”
You are dishonest little weasel (with no disrespect to the4 Mustelidae intended). You brought up the C02w fertilization nonsense long before this on the basis of some web advertisement or the like stating how well plants grow in greenhouses under elevated C02 concentrations. You are even more predictable than the climate models. You and many other deniers constantly downplay the human link between increased atmospheric C02 - which most of you do acknowledge as anthropogenic - and climate warming. But then you go on to try and put a positive spin on the effects of jacking up atmospheric concentrations of this greenhouse gas on primary production and on natural systems.
This isn't a scientific discussion; instead its all about politics and economics masquerading as science. Its time you guys came out and admitted it.
Predictable Mike response:
"One last thought, Jeff, I’m basically a counterpuncher. I respond in kind–not to the science, of course, but to all rest of your and others puffed-up, lefty bullshit"
See my last comment. Exactly what I was saying. The climate change deniers on here share the same, deluded right wing corporate philosophy that repugnant groups like "Wise Use", many libertarian think tanks and the Koch brothers espouse.
And of course Mike doesn't respond to the science, because its all way, way over his head. But he does see a link between any form of government involvement in the economy and some rabid, left wing conspiracy aimed at subverting his freedoms. It doesn't matter what the empirical evidence says showing that humans are driving natural systems to hell in a hand basket - any mention of this with respect to limitations of so-called personal freedoms and those pesky government regulations are a left wing/communist/pinko et al ad nauseum conspiracy.
*Yawn*. Why do I waste my time?
Because, Jeff, someone has to think of the lurkers. I'd even check in on the Jonas thread more if I hadn't just been over at Orac's place and trawled through some pretty loopy stuff for that.
Hi Stu!
Haven't heard back from you yet with that link, I'm sure it was just an oversight on your part, that's ok, take your time.
Hardley...
““I never said that increased C02 was a bad thing, but that it would have unpredictable and perhaps negative consequences”
"You are dishonest little weasel "
So you're saying you didn't say that?
Hardley...
"of even bigger egotism”.
That's impossible.
Betsy fucks with context yet again.
Film at 11
Betula, if you're going to do the "har har you are all wrong" snide routine, it really helps to be right. Or informed. Or truthful. Any combination of those things.
Clown.
Frankly, the batty Batty show is dull, dull, dull.
But since we're taking a bit of a look at his heroes - see Spencer above - here's a nice little fact-checking run-down of soothsayer Pat Michaels.
As the Guardian piece Chek gave us - the source of this link - points out, the Denial Team really, really isn't having a great run!
And neither is the Little League in action here.
You're hopeless, guys! If you weren't too stupid to appreciate this you'd be seriously depressed. But even you must have some edgy awareness of the increasingly ramshackle incompetence of your enterprise...
And still no Duffer, despite the UK weather being so exceptional and all...
'And still no Duffer, despite the UK weather being so exceptional and all…'
During the LIA it was not uncommon to have heat waves in the UK. I don't mind discussing the CAO in southern Brazil ... it appears to be natural.
Buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuull-shit!
The primary purpose is to cherry-pick in order to falsely claim that the cherry-pick represents the full picture - the very same full picture that most people here already see, including the kinds of quotes you cherry-pick. More specifically, the purpose of the cherry-pick is to try to claim a different picture than emerges when one competently considers all the evidence which leads to the secondary purpose - to deny the conclusions drawn from the full picture, and to claim that they are "ideology" instead of evidence-based conclusions.
One can quibble about whether your purpose in doing so is to fool yourself, fool others, or both - but either way it's a standard denialist tactic across all forms of denialism. And you routinely play the same game with doctored quotes from commenters here, which would give the game away if the commenters here weren't already wise to your cherry-picking modus operandi.
When one zooms out from the cherry-picked quotes and evidence to look at all of it - which, sadly, I must point out includes taking into account the cherry-picked pieces - a different conclusion emerges. That conclusion, as all scientific conclusions do, carries with it uncertainties and a distribution of potential outcomes, but despite your fervent attempts to pretend otherwise, the range of most likely outcomes under the most likely future policy scenarios provides a strong cause for major concern - and for significant changes away from "business as usual" policies.
'the range of most likely outcomes'
If they took the CO2 component out of the models, we would have a better picture of what to expect on planet earth.
That's some A-grade stupid right there, given all the evidence to the contrary. I can't even plausibly interpret it as (attempted) comedy.
Greenhouse gas forcing ?
What does it force, more tax, lol
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/fig_tab/ngeo1797_F4.html
CO2 is obviously not contributing to temperature rise, and it didn't cause the temperature to fall before the temperature came back up to where it was, hmmmm.
......the ideological CO2 science meme seems to have stalled along with the global temperature gauge :)
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/2000-yr-temperature-vari…
Greenhouse gas forcing ?
What does it force, more tax, lol
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/fig_tab/ngeo1797_F4.html
CO2 is obviously not contributing to temperature rise, and it didn't cause the temperature to fall before the temperature came back up to where it was, hmmmm.
.........the ideological CO2 science meme seems to have stalled along with the global temperature gauge :)
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/2000-yr-temperature-vari…
'...given all the evidence to the contrary.'
Its heretical, but real world observations don't match up with models forced CO2.
So for the sake of humanity perhaps its time to consider Bob Carter's Plan B.
This is the Bob Carter who draws a line between the temperature in 1958 and the temperature in 2009 and claims that line between two data points tells you global warming is a myth?
The Bob Carter who says sea level rise hasn't accelerated?
The Bob Carter who is predicting global cooling, despite being unable to explain any physical mechanism that would drive it?
No thanks.
*I*'m in the business of informing myself.
Bob Carter is for the numbskulls who are in the business of kidding themselves.
Umm, yes they do.
'Umm, yes they do.'
I was under the impression that temperatures have been flat for 17 years.
'The Bob Carter who is predicting global cooling'
Thanks for that info, this would make him a member of the Denialati.
Carter for Climate Commissioner!
'...despite being unable to explain any physical mechanism that would drive it?'
Have you given any thought to our star on the blink?
'The science journal Nature said only last week that the global temperature standstill “is one of the biggest mysteries in climate science.”
'So many climate modelers have been waiting, with apparently increasing frustration, for the upward trend to recur. It’s in their models you see. The very ones they find very hard to tweek to reproduce a 15-year hiatus. The exercise is an important one, for it demonstrates, or undermines, faith in climate models. Can they reproduce the standstill, and predict its end?'
David Whitehouse
There's old Karen again, distorting the findings of another study, in contrast with the views of the authors. I am sure the Idso brothers would love Karen to work for them over at WFA supported "C02 Science". They are masters of taking peer-reviewed literature and distorting it to support their 2 positions (first, that climate change is not happening, and second, that taking stored carbon and putting it into the atmosphere is a boon for nature and the environment).
To be honest, the anti-environmental lobby as a whole is great at mangling the empirical data to support their own pre-determiend world view. If Karen were to ask most of the authors of the studies she mangles/mis-interprets if they are downplaying AGW, they would respond with a resounding NO. But since Karen has not got to answer to them or to peer-review on this or any other blog, she can write whatever piffle she likes and package this as 'sound science'.
As I have said before, thank heaven that science is carried out at universities and research institutions and through the peer reviewed literature and not via the internet. This is where the arguments of the Karen's of this world are flushed down the metaphoric toilet.
Its funny now how deniers like fatso are all crowding into the '15 year hiatus' corner when previously they were piled into the 'it isn't warming' corner. These clots are so utterly dishonest that it turns my stomach to read their bile. Its not warming, then it is warming but its due to the sun, then there is a hiatus, then it will be the sun again, then it won't be warming and so on and so on and so on.
This lot is so intellectually dishonest that it staggers the imaginations. Its interesting that while there is a so-called 'hiatus' the Arctic death spiral continue unabated and species continue to move polewards or to higher elevations. It is pretty hard to explain a hiatus to natural systems which simply respond to short and longer term ambient conditions.
Its also notable that I have asked Karen, Mike, Jonas, Rednose, and other deniers (Gordo) what their day jobs are and what therefore gives them a unique ability to be able to filter facts out of the empirical literature that have escaped the scientific community by-and-large. With the exception of Betula, who is a forester, not a single one responds.
What this should tell everyone is that not a single one of them has any qualifications in anything close to science. Yet their views contrast with the vast majority of my peers.
Betula, as usual twisting my words.
He raised the point about the benefits of increased C02 on the basis of a corporate advertisement based on greenhouses.
And ~I responded that these human constructs are lousy proxies for complex adaptive systems, and that the effects of enhanced atmospheric C02 are highly unpredictable and will certainly have potentially negative consequences on the assembly and functioning of natural systems, given that they evolved under relatively low ambient C02 regimes and that the current increase is well beyond any natural 'background' norm. In other words, its just an another anthropogenic experiment on systems that sustain us in a number of ways.
Of curse, given that Betula has never studied spatial ecology and ecophysiology, its hardly surprising that this all sailed over his head. So instead he focused laster-like on m word 'unpredictable' as if this justifies the current atmospheric experiment. There are a lot of unpredictable effects of a suite of other anthropogenic processes: habitat destruction, over-harvesting, over-grazing, the introduction of exotic species into non-native ecosystems, other forms of pollution as well as climate change and increasing atmospheric concentrations of C02. This does not mean that we should continue along the current trajectory until there is 100% concrete proof of negative consequences of these processes. There is enough known about the way these systems function to suggest that there will be serious repercussions on their health and stability and that these effects will rebound on us. On that basis we ought to be taking measures to reduce these impacts on our ecological life support systems.
End of story
Bulldust.
Flat like this, you mean? As in "flat, with the trend rising by 0.1 degrees"?
What explains your error - gullibility, lack of skepticism, incompetence or mendacity?
Worse still for your claim, models project periods of low surface temperature growth (in part because during those periods most of the heat energy accumulation goes into the ocean - exactly as we're seeing at the moment).
Even worse for your position, there is plenty of non-model evidence that has never been explained without invoking CO2 forcing. You're cherry-picking - without the cherry-pick your "argument" fails miserably.
The Bob Carter who has one (count them!) peer-reviewed climate science paper to his name? That Bob Carter?
The Bob Carter who is paid by various "think tanks" to make claims to the public (such as the one you repeated, IIRC) that he can't even get published in the literature? That Bob Carter?
The Bob Carter whose entire climate science repertoire consists of that one paper, which is widely acknowledged by competent climate scientists to be a strong candidate for the worst climate science paper ever? That Bob Carter?
If you've got to scrape that far down the barrel, you're demonstrating that your argument is unsupported by evidence.
Yes, as have a whole bunch of scientists. No-one has come up with a credible hypothesis that fits the available evidence and survives a bit of peer review. If you reckon you (or Bob Carter) are the first to do so, then please publish.
But you'll need to acknowledge that "on the blink" isn't an explanation. So you'll need to be more specific. How do you (or Bob Carter) think it might be on the blink, and by what mechanism might that cause global cooling?
You (or Bob Carter) might also note that if the sun were to provide a negative forcing in future, this STILL doesn't remove the role of CO2 in the climate system. So, if you are going to predict global cooling, you'll need to demonstrate that the net forcing is negative - in other words, that whatever solar forcing you are claiming is negative enough to counter the positive forcing we're experiencing from extra atmospheric CO2 and other anthropogenic forcings.
Bet you (and Bob Carter) don't.
'Flat like this, you mean? As in “flat, with the trend rising by 0.1 degrees”?'
I prefer a longer view, it looks flat to me.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/global-land-ocean-mntp-ano…
'most of the heat energy accumulation goes into the ocean'
Trenberth's missing heat could not be found, the amount of heat energy going into the oceans is negligible or close to zero.
Fifteen years to deniers like Gordo is a long time. For natural systems operating over huge spatial scales, it is the blink of a geological and evolutionary eye.
These clowns just do not understand the importance of scale and the time required to detect fingerprints based on it.
And before Betula comes riding in with his latest Algonquin remark, let me say that one can detect changes in systems on the basis of biological phenomena. or instance, a number of species are now found in northern Europe that are native to southern and central Europe but which have expanded their ranges northwards since the 1980s. So if I go out and see some of these plants and animals in The Netherlands over, say, the coming 23 days, then I can say with assurance that historical data shows that they were not present here until quite recently.
It is also being shown that some thermophilic species have only recently begun to successfully overwinter in regions further north. Some of these are serious crop pests - such as the Diamondback Moth (Plutella xylostella) which is native to the Mediterranean and Africa but which is now a worldwide pest of collard and mustard crops. In the early 1990s it died during north European winters and only re-colonzed later in the summer; now it survives winters in Holland and parts of the UK and as a result it builds up huge populations earlier in the growing season, with serious consequences for farmers growing these crops. It is interesting to note that caterpillars of this moth are attacked by tow species of parasitic wasps: one is more adapted to colder climates and the other to warmer conditions. Only in the past 2 years have we begun to see the warm-weather parasitoid replacing (or displacing) the cold weather tolerant species.
Winter is a major biological control agent. As these and other examples show, it is certainly still warming and species are moving up from the south to compete with and potentially displace species less adapted to warm conditions. And of course many serious insect pests die out in colder regions but, thanks to recent warming, are surviving in areas where they once were unable to.
Loth I was suggesting Carter should be Climate Commissioner instead of Flummery because he is not a climate scientist either, but knows the mantra back to front.
"Trenberth’s missing heat could not be found, the amount of heat energy going into the oceans is negligible or close to zero"
...so says Fatso, in his own uneducated opinion. Not based on any peer-reviewed research he has done, but because he, a non-scientist, says so.
This is the modus operandi of AGW deniers. No education necessary; just simply state their opinions as fact. As it turns out, I trust the science behind Trenberth a lot more than I trust the opinions of some layman sitting behind a computer.
I suppose we are talking about this Bob Carter:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bob_Carter
...who is affiliated with a lengthy list of corporate funded right wing think tanks and other anti-environmental groups.
More damaged goods. The AGW denial lobby has relied on the same sordid cast of characters as 'scientists' for the past 30 years. Lindzen, Soon, Baliunas, the Idsos, Carter, Michaels, Balling, Spencer, Singer, Christy and a few others, most of whom are on the academic fringe and don't publish much in the scientific literature.
What utter bollocks! You prefer no such thing!
Firstly, the longer view you provided clearly refutes your claim! You have to be particularly stupid to link to evidence that refutes your own argument. (And in your case that hypothesis is difficult to refute.)
Secondly, what you prefer is a cherry-picked view somewhere in the middle of those two time extents.
Thirdly, even then you only "prefer it" when you deliberately avoid analysis of the cherry-picked period. I provided analysis of the period you referred to above which refuted your claim, and you've ignored it. What you prefer is unreliable non-analysis such as:
Then there's this:
Er, no (see Figure 1 here). I'd say "do try to keep up" but you have no interest in the picture that emerges from the totality of the evidence in the first place.
Repeating previously debunked bullshit - like you just did - simply confirms that you're a bullshit artist. (And that hasn't changed since you were here last. Return to your jail thread please.)
The crucial difference is Carter egregiously misrepresents what the totality of scientific evidence indicates - just as you do - and Flannery has a reasonable go at accurately representing it (although he's not always as successful as one would like in that regard).
Worse still, Carter is clearly misrepresenting it deliberately, as he has been taken to task repeatedly for his misrepresentations and yet continues to make them to audiences that (he hopes) won't know any better.
It's rather telling that you want a deliberate misrepresenter to represent science to the non-scientific public. It suggests that your position isn't supported by the science.
'although he’s not always as successful as one would like in that regard'
I won't be illustrating his many failed predictions.
'It suggests that your position isn’t supported by the science.'
The science is flawed, because the models are faulty, I have no problem standing outside the collective thinking on global warming.
'the longer view you provided clearly refutes your claim!'
I think the flat bit on top is pretty impressive and if you use your imagination its possible to visualise a tipping point. On the other hand temperatures might bounce up, but with the sun in a funk its more likely they will be will be heading south in a couple of years.
'I trust the science behind Trenberth a lot more than I trust the opinions of some layman sitting behind a computer.'
The world has moved on, climate change is post normal science.
Fallacy.
The case for serious concern survives the complete removal of "the models", as has been pointed out any number of times.
(Never mind that the models are much better than you'd like to make out. Most of that class of claims are based on not understanding what the models claim and do not claim.)
Clap harder. Otherwise your bulldust might become obvious even to you. You've already mastered the "ignoring refuting evidence" part, so you're at least half way there.
Birchbrain bleated:
Now if you had been paying attention during this thread you would have noticed citations of talks explaining why the jet stream is being disrupted and what this can cause.
Clues, go looking up thread for an ABC talk including an explanation from Jennifer Francis and how this is linked to extreme weather events floods and droughts.
An excellent explanation of the jet stream can be found here , and another piece of the puzzle can be found here.
Now with all that in your mind can you now understand where I was coming from WRT the Rio Grande dry out?
If not then go do some more homework for it is you that needs a 'pass' and not I. IOW don't be a bozo all of your life.
Of course I quite understand that many words and concepts discussed in any of the above may be alien to you and cause cognitive issues. These can be addressed by consulting some of that alternative literature which I have pointed you at.
Of course you could be just suffering from cognitive dissonance and thus no amount of assistance is going to change embedded ideological constructs and you will remain a bozo. It is up to you to overcome this impasse in your cognitive development and not any of us.
"... looks flat to me."
I got my husband to look at this one for me. He agrees that it is a revelation. A new geometry!
"The world has moved on, climate change is post normal science"
According to a layman sitting behind a computer.
Sloth @ 75...
Thanks for the info, It's exactly what I have been saying all along. Glad you are finally coming around..
"Jon Gottschalck acting chief of the Operational Prediction Branch at NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center, told Climate Central in an email that it’s not yet clear exactly how unusual the recent weather pattern has been, or what has been driving it. “Yes, the evolution you describe of the upper-level low and high pressure ridge moving east to west is definitely unusual. But it is not easy to quantify really how unusual,” he said."
“It would take considerable time to crunch through the data and utilize a methodology to accurately pick events like this that have occurred in the historical record and quantify [them]. From a climate-forcing perspective, there is no clear climate pattern right now that we can point to as a contributing factor and so we can really only attribute this evolution to natural internal variability, at least at this stage.”
Betula, you really just see two sentences you like and think the article supports your point, don't you? You're as bad as Karen.
Fatso @ #65 claimed Trenberth’s missing heat could not be found, the amount of heat energy going into the oceans is negligible or close to zero.
This despite the deniers having their clocks cleaned on this very point at the beginning of this thread.
"[1] We provide updated estimates of the change of ocean heat content and the thermosteric component of sea level change of the 0–700 and 0–2000 m layers of the World Ocean for 1955–2010. Our estimates are based on historical data not previously available, additional modern data, and bathythermograph data corrected for instrumental biases. We have also used Argo data corrected by the Argo DAC if available and used uncorrected Argo data if no corrections were available at the time we downloaded the Argo data. The heat content of the World Ocean for the 0–2000 m layer increased by 24.0 ± 1.9 × 10^22 J (±2S.E.) corresponding to a rate of 0.39 W m−2 (per unit area of the World Ocean) and a volume mean warming of 0.09°C. This warming corresponds to a rate of 0.27 W m−2 per unit area of earth’s surface. The heat content of the World Ocean for the 0–700 m layer increased by 16.7 ± 1.6 × 10^22 J corresponding to a rate of 0.27 W m−2(per unit area of the World Ocean) and a volume mean warming of 0.18°C. The World Ocean accounts for approximately 93% of the warming of the earth system that has occurred since 1955. The 700–2000 m ocean layer accounted for approximately one-third of the warming of the 0–2000 m layer of the World Ocean. The thermosteric component of sea level trend was 0.54 ± .05 mm yr−1 for the 0–2000 m layer and 0.41 ± .04 mm yr−1 for the 0–700 m layer of the World Ocean for 1955–2010."
Attention Deficit Disorder, And Why A Career In Science May Not Be For You.
Stu..
"Betula, you really just see two sentences you like and think the article supports your point"
Unlike you, who can't link any sentences to support your point (see #40).
Stu, tell me, what do you think was the purpose of putting those two "paragraphs" in the article?
It's absolutely amazing that these fuckwit deniers can not only miss the press coverage of the record Arctic melt last summer and still buy their 'hiatus' lie, but also miss recent news coverage of some of the largest solar flares seen this year.
It truly is like they're on another planet.
Fatso @ #72 claimed
Going for the full set of pig-ignorant denier memes in a single day, eh Fatty? The reality is of course completely different
Why are climate models reproducing the observed global surface warming so well?
adelady
indeed, flat in the sense that one may find some flat ground at the top of Ben Nevis. And this ignoring the fact that the underlying country rock is still rising due in part to isostatic rebound.
What theses idiots will not appreciate is the devastating impact just a one degree Celsius rise in water temperature (one place all that heat is going - those four Hiroshima bombs a second worth) is having on the vital coral reefs. Vital as nurseries for many oceanic species. Huge areas of coral have died in the Maldives alone over the last couple of years and it has been estimated that about eighty percent of reefs are under stress. US war planes (probably Marine a Marine unit at that) dropping bombs on them recently does not help.
It is ironic that the extravagant life styles that support tourism in the Maldives could in part be responsible for their future destruction.
They were Marine Harriers, but at least the bombs were inert.
Still, I expect the sudden arrival of multiple 500lb-ers travelling at 300Kts apiece would not be a welcome addition to the days events for your average Aussie crustacean.
I had heard that they were Harriers and thus guessed that they belonged to the US Marine Corps.
I once had some small help from a US Marine Skyhawk squadron at NAS Roosevelt Roads in the 1970s, I was flown in by Sea King helo from Ark, when I managed to find a suitable adapter to connect US a nitrogen rig to the fuel system of a new gas turbine starter that I had fitted to one of our F4Ks which had diverted ashore with rocket hang ups. The starter fuel system needed purging of the inhibiting oil used to prevent corrosion during storage and transit.
So Betula now admits to not knowing what the word "link" means.
Can we just put this clown in the Jonas thread? It's getting way too boring now.
El Gordo demonstrates he can't think straight:
Um....seriously?
Maybe get somebody to read that out to you and think about what you're hearing.
Basically it's an abject bit of stupidity.
Par for the course, I suppose.
Universities these days - churning out non-thinkers who do not understand rational analysis.
Now, look at this again:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Escalator_2012_500.gif
The "model" that is wrong, is that model used by dimwits such as yourself, consisting as it does in ignoring the totality of the facts in favour of a carefully-cherrypicked subset of data that can be twisted to your self-deluding purpose.
Have a think about the "new normal" in Arctic sea ice:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/
'It truly is like they’re on another planet.'
That's funny.... in reality our star is very quiet, considering we are at solar max.
http://www.solarham.net/regions/map.htm
Craig I have seen the SS graphic before and I'm not disputing that it was warm at the end of last century, but this century temperatures appear to have gone flat.
'The reality is of course completely different'
The Knutti paper is old hat (2008) do try and keep up.
Huston .... we have a problem.
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/ssn_predict_l.gif
The lack of sunspot activity or the length of the solar cycle may be irrelevant in your minds, but over the fullness of time it will prove to be the main driver of CC.
a/ Temperatures aren't "flat". If it was "warm at the end lf last century", and that warming has not reversed, but has continued to occur, then your "flat" is utter nonsense.
b/ The energy imbalance caused by CO2 in the atmosphere is something you appear to be ignoring. Heat continues to accumulate.
c/ The solar cycle isn't relevant to the AGW trend.
Stu..
You're having a difficult time now, aren't you?
Tell me, what do you think was the purpose of putting those two “paragraphs” in the article?
And still waiting for that peer reviewed paper....
Feeling Stu-pid yet?
GMO harming agriculture:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2013.806408
Actually checking the TSI, it can be found that for the period within the solar cycle, activity is holding up very well (as suggested by those massive solar flares mentioned earlier).
Graphic Graphic here and data here (not sure if it'll work like a WFT plot for anyone else).
But as Craig points out, the warming does not match the sunspot cycle and is irrelevant, as NASA confirms
"A prolonged solar minimum left the sun's surface nearly free of sunspots and accompanying bright areas called faculae between 2005 and 2010. Total solar irradiance declined slightly as a result, but the Earth continued to absorb more energy than it emitted throughout the minimum".
Check, are you saying that El Gordo could have checked his beliefs against information easily found on the internet and thus saved himself the embarrassment of having posted incorrect assertions on this page?
I'd go further Craig.
Sometimes it does appear they're trying to construct some alternate reality based on a kind of Chinese Whisper model in which boneheaded, anything-but-CO2 ideas are agreed to be correct by blogscience echo chamber repetition until .... wait ...no, that's just too ridiculous.
'warming has not reversed, but has continued to occur, then your “flat” is utter nonsense.'
It looks flat.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997/trend…
'The solar cycle isn’t relevant to the AGW trend.'
The AGW trend is not existent, having been swamped by the solar signal.
Fatso, Your definition of 'flat' isn't the same one as used by people not fucked in the head
And who's been telling you that surface temperatures are the only way heat is accumulating and being detected in the climate system? Some self-appointed blogscientist, by any chance?
It doesn't look flat at all:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2008/plot/rss/from:2008/trend
Looks like a steep increase to me.
Yes, as we all know, variability in solar irradiance accounts for the long-term increasing trend in atmospheric temperature:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Solar_vs_temp_1024.jpg
Ooops. El Gordo just did it again.
Does he specialise in being a know-nothing twit?
Nice graph... assuming the sun theory is correct there appears to be a 30 year lag.
a. There is no "Sun theory". You may be confusing the concept of "theory" (being a detailed explanation for an observed set of facts) with the concept of "arrant nonsense", the latter being nonsensical tall stories propagated by crank blogs and repeated by twits.
b. What "lag? Temperature is obviously trending independently of the effects of the variability in solar irradiance.
Unless you can point us to any science to the contrary...?
Fatso, you can't just make things up out of thin air by eyeballing a graph, on the assumption of anything-but-CO2.
Unless you're a denier and then of course, that's all you can do.
"Because, Jeff, someone has to think of the lurkers."
Stu, you're nuts if you actually think that, not only are there lurkers who are watching this unending repetitive "debate" between people who know stuff and the ignorant, stupid, and oh so intellectually dishonest deniers, but that it is actually important to convince them that the deniers are wrong.
There are things you can do that actually matter, like http://climaterealityproject.org/leadership-corps/
Continuing to debate denier trolls here is itself a form of denial ... denial that all the time you have spent doing so was wasted. It's hard on the ego to admit such things, but not doing so and continuing in behaviors that don't serve you is textbook neurotic behavior.
"Continuing to debate denier trolls here is itself a form of denial"
I agree Ianam. There are certainly way better ways to invest time in a constructive manner than to 'debate' some of the denier numbskulls who write into Deltoid. I will check out the link you supplied.
Ha ha ... gorebull worming.
'Unless you’re a denier and then of course, that’s all you can do.'
CO2 does not cause warming.
And your evidence to support that is ......?
Evidence? I think it's based on a model.
If CO2 increases each and every year, and it increases warming, then the temperature should rise steadily each and every year - by the same amount - every single year. Obviously, there's no need to rethink or rework or reword this model. It fails.
Surprisingly enough, deniers are the only ones who think this is a model worth considering, then dismissing. They also think that this is much the same as the models that scientists use - after all scientists say that increased ghgs cause warming - and they can confidently dismiss scientists as well.
Done! And dusted! Game over!
'And your evidence to support that is ……?'
I assumed on the evidence, after 17 years of non warming as CO2 continues to climb, that CO2 isn't the main driver.
Try this ..... http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2012/04/about-the-lack-of-warming/ Check the last graph, the one with three parallel trend lines.
I realise that this means we have to think about more than one thing at a time - but you'll get used to it.
And something else The Gordian Knot needs to think about concurrently with your source adelady is the heat capacity of water.
I wonder if The Gordian Knot has ever pondered why water is used in ICE cooling systems, power station cooling towers, and why ice is added to drinks. That latter of course introducing something else, the concept of latent heat in relation to melting ice. Maybe it is too much of a leap for this denier to wonder why the temperature (sensible heat) of a drink does not change whilst there is still ice to melt.
Here is more to refute The Gordian Knot's red herring.
And here is another uncomfortable factoid for The Gordian Knot Record Heat in June Extends Globe’s Streak to 340 Months.
The Gordian Knot begins to smell something like His Moncktonship of the purple gates (and florid language).
So, Tubby Twat, you claim the temperatures have been stationary for 15 years?
WRONG, asshole. They've gone up and down lots. Every night's temperature is different from every day's temperature.
"CO2 does not cause warming"
Sigh. So says a layman sitting behind his computer. No empirical evidence countering conventional wisdom needs to be produced. Instead, an army of scientific illiterates knows more about this complex field than the experts who have been trained in it.
To reiterate, Ianam is correct. Engaging this army of bozos is a waste of time.
"I assumed on the evidence, after 17 years of non warming as CO2 continues to climb, that CO2 isn’t the main driver"
Again, this clown expects an instantantous increase in process X in response to an increase in parameter Y. There are no such things as LAGS in Gordo's lexicon. The time scales this guy works on are essentially today and tomorrow in geological terms. I will repeat: processes generated locally but which have global effects can take decades to be manifested. At shorter time intervals there is a lot of noise. This is well known in the study of the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning as well as between habitat loss and extinction rates. The loss of habitat over time does not result in an instantaneous loss of species or genetcially distinct populations; instead, the effects can take decades or even generations to be manifested. Its likely that habitat destruction in North America as long ago as a century or even more is still rippling through many of the ecological communities there (knows as the extinction debt).
Its the same with respect to climate. Gordo, because he probably has a grade-school science education, thinks that cause and effect relationships between C02 concentrations and temperature are linear and virtually immediate. He does not understand the concept of temporal lags nor of short-term or local noise that can mask underlying trends.For a large scale system such as climate control, this lag can be a long, long time in the concept of a human life span. But the trouble is our species has not evolved to respond to threats which we perceive as gradual but which are, in geological and evolutionary scales, extremely rapid. Its the boiling frog syndrome writ large.
Consequently, for deniers like Gordo 15 years (or is it 17? He likes to play with numbers) is a long, long, time whereas for large scale natural systems its the blink of an eye. This in effect is one of the worst examples of the human malaise: to expect almost instantaneous consequences generated at huge scales. It does not work that way, but many non-scientists just cannot grasp the importance of scale.
I have just revisited Neven's Arctic Sea Ice blog and found myself nodding in agreement with R. Gates | July 22, 2013 at 01:44 suggestion to name Arctic cyclone storms that break up melt weakened ice after deniers. R. Gates specifically mentions Watts, Monckton and Soon bit I guess we could work up our own list here, for extreme weather events maybe.
Another illustration, by cello, of why The Gordian Knot is wrong about warming A Song of Our Warming Planet. We are now unlikely to hear the like of the deep sonorous notes from the viola da gamba (Jonathon Manson) heard in this recording Rameau - Cinquième Concert in D Minor - Mov. 1/3 .
Just been browsing over at Rabett Run and in particular the latest 'Deja Vu All Over Again' thread where Hank Roberts provided a link to this excellent CO2Sciene inoculation piece More for the annals of climate misinformation.
I have noticed a propensity for some of our trolls to drink at that poisoned pond. So be warned trolls, your intellectual health is at risk every time you visit such places as CO2Science.
Your great optimism is touching, adelady ;-)
Andrew Neil has an interesting put down of that annoying little prick Nuttyjelly.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23405202
Well apparently Dana works for Big Oil.
What do you know?
Just for the record.
Once I smoothed out the noise, I think I picked up on a signal. Sure, 3 months is a short time scale, but it is much larger than the 23 days that has been used by the Professor.
Next time Hardley accuses someone of having a big ego, this is the mirror:
MAY THREAD
#76, pg 2.... "I’ve met", "in my career", "in my career" (again) , "I have" , "I presented" , "I met" (again), "I’ve attended"
#75, pg 2...."Well Mack, in terms of ‘pedigree’ I am certainly miles ahead of you"
#96, pg 3...."you don’t even reach up to my shins in terms of your scientific ‘expertise’
#31, pg 4....”your understanding of environmental science doesn’t even reach up to my ankles.”
#36, pg4.... "I’ve published 128 papers in my career, and have bee cited almost 2984 times"
#37, pg 4...."I am an expert based on 20 plus years of research, many publications, conference and university lectures etc"
#70, Pg 4...."My intellectual superiority in environmental science"
#1, pg 6...."you and your equally dumb buddies don’t reach up to my shoelaces,"
#2, pg 6...."In the last 14 years of my career as a senior researchers"
JUNE THREAD
#26, pg 4...."Turns out I am in pretty good shape for a guy of my age as I work out twice a week at the gym"
#16, pg 5...."for a 55 year old guy, I keep myself in pretty good shape"
#6, pg 8...."I also have a doctorate in Population Ecology, with 130 peer-reviewed publications and over 3000 citations. My h-factor is 32"
#65, pg 10...."Of course scientists (like me) know better"
#72, pg10...."eminent shcolars as Michael Mann, James Hansen, Paul Ehrlich, Jared Diamond"..."They and others (including myself)"
#81, pg 11...."I am a senior scientist"
JULY THREAD
#90, pg 7.... "I, as a working, publishing scientist
#65, pg 8....I got my PhD”, “my career”, “looked me up and are extremely envious", "I was top in my undergraduate classes and received many awards", "yesterday I was offered a Professorship".
#80, pg 8...."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"
#92, pg 8.... "my 130 plus publications"
#99, pg 8...."As you well know by now, I do have a PhD and a lot of publications"
#31, pg 11...."having just been appointed Endowed Professor at a University in the Netherlands"
#51, pg 11.... "I have 130 plus peer-reviewed papers, 3068 citations on the WoS as of this week and an h-index of 32."
1)That you've got nothing substantive
2)That a course in remedial reading might help your comprehension.
3)Deniers are still under the impression surface temperatures account for all the heat introduced into the climate system
4)And if you really want to do guilt by association, that an ex-Murdoch lackey currently employed by Britain's own version of the Koch Bros - the Barclay Bros - has any inkling of impartiality as evidenced by calling on entirely unscientific GWPF stooges like Tol.
Bitter little obsessive creep-stalker, ain't'cha Betsy.
Rednose
WRT Andrew Neil, what else would one expect from a Murdoch puppet,
For the other, and factually correct version see Debunking New Myths about the 97% Expert Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming
and
So Neil is telling porkies like the good little Murdoch trainee that he is.
As the melting Arctic and glacier ice tells us, as does the weird weather being experienced around the world and the indisputable continued heat build up in Earth's systems, nature does not give a flying fuck about politics or jumped up pundits.
Dana must be doing something right to drawing such venom ('annoying little prick') from an ideologue such as you.
Betula mistakenly conflates egoism, which is the mental state of exaggerating one's sense of self worth despite a lack of real world accomplishment, with an individual defending himself against personal attack by pointing to an actual record of real world accomplishment.
This is symptomatic of psychological projection, which is a primary excuse making strategy commonly employed by persons suffering from psychological denial.
What is worse is that betula's denial is DARVO. Denial And Reversal of Victim and Offender, commonly used by domestic abusers to bully those they abuse, implying that the abuse was justified.
Despicable behavior by any measure.
Shrek#25
Is that the same Dr Tol whose CV reads:
It must be just a slightly more impressive than our resident prof here.
Still more news about Dana's financiers:
Tetratech awarded 400 million contract for clean energy in the third world
http://www.tetratech.com/investor-relations/press-releases.html
Tetratech acquires Canadian oilfield and pipeline company
http://www.tetratech.com/investor-relations/press-releases.html
Lionel
Well if they are so confident in their results why doesn't Cooke publish his data.
Apparently he has been asked for this three times by the Editor of Environmental Research Letters and 5 times by Tol
Perhaps its crap.
Redarse, he's an economist, not a scientist.
At best he could aspire to be a contributor to AR6 WGII, if his ideological baggage allowed it. Read the fucking bio you offered moron, then try comprehending what it tells you. Of course most here already knew that
And still thrashing hoping to dig up something ... anything ... vaguely ...something ... on Dana Nuccitelli. Unsuccessfully.
You deniers really are a desperate bunch of know-nothing no-hopers
Forgot to mention that Dana also writes for the "loss making" Guardian which is owned by the same company as Autotrader which is profitable.
These big oil tentacles get everywhere.
Of course you did, because you're a denier with a brain the size of a pea.
Who thinks that a car recycling rag is damning evidence and therefore no AGW.
Can you see why your stupidity is so despised yet?
Shrek
That's at least one more piece of original peer reviewed research than Dana.
MSc in Econometrics- that's a hell of a lot more background in Statistics than little Dana has shown with his crayons.
I'll repost that so you can go look it up then come back and tell me which physical science that is.
I expect you'll try. And of course fail, once again.
Shrek
And who employs Dana, again, anointed spokesperson of the great God Gia
BirchBark at #24. Now you are becoming real creepy. That is what jealousy does to people, makes stalkers out of them.
Redshonk,
WTF is Gia?
Lionel
You will probably read it in Retraction Watch fairly soon.
Try Gaia and Cook. The effects of the red wine are taking their time wearing off
Translation: Don't ask me! Some blog gobshite said so and I'll believe anything.
Well I guess when YOU only have a few functioning brain cells that would be the case.
check aye, Redshonk's source was sure to be some prat like Watts, Tol or one of the other pond poisoners, a web search did bring up the usual suspects, that is why I asked Redshonk.
Betla,
You're one creepy dude. You certainly seem obsessed by me - at least you seem to have searched out just about everything you can find out about me. Even if I knew your real identity, I wouldn't bother with you.
And I most certainly am not going to waste my time going through your loony posts with fine-toothed comb. Clearly my academic qualifications drive you batty or else you are envious as hell.
Glad to oblige and show up your knowledge of environmental science and ecology for what it is: crap. Seems like running a tree pruning company does not suffice for a good old post graduate education and years or research. At least I say this judging by the garbage you write.
As for arrogance, you have it in buckets. Just not with any formal qualifications to go with it.
"That is what jealousy does to people, makes stalkers out of them"
Lets put it this way...the next time the egotistical, lying embellisher pretends to turn the mirror away from himself, maybe he can attempt to back it up with a few copy and pastes of his own.....until then, he can shut his pie hole.
Hardley...
"at least you seem to have searched out just about everything you can find out about me"
Some comments on a dying blog and an obscure article about Algonquin....sounds about right.
Lets put it this way Betsy …you're an exposed envious stalker creep who LB precisely nailed @ #28:
".Betula mistakenly conflates egoism, which is the mental state of exaggerating one’s sense of self worth despite a lack of real world accomplishment, with an individual defending himself against personal attack by pointing to an actual record of real world accomplishment. This is symptomatic of psychological projection, which is a primary excuse making strategy commonly employed by persons suffering from psychological denial."
and again @ #29
"What is worse is that betula’s denial is DARVO. Denial And Reversal of Victim and Offender, commonly used by domestic abusers to bully those they abuse, implying that the abuse was justified. Despicable behavior by any measure.
It's eating you up inside and it'll spit you out, Betty.
The seams are already giving way as seen in your performance today. All those wasted edit hours to make yourself look an even bigger schmuck than was already generally thought.
LUMY!
It's been a while...
No Lumy, I wasn't talking about egoism...nice try though:
"Egotism is intimately about adoring oneself. Egotism is a disguise we wear to secrete the blunders or faintness we deem we have. The basis of egotism is the misconception that we’re special and the misbelief that some of us are better than others."
Now, see #24.
"Lets put it this way…the next time the egotistical, lying embellisher pretends to turn the mirror away from himself, maybe he can attempt to back it up with a few copy and pastes of his own…..until then, he can shut his pie hole"
Talkin' about yourself again Betty? You are still suffering from the 'I think I know a lot but in reality I am a dipstick' syndrome. And you really hate it when posters here - including, but certainly not only me - pull the rug out from just about every stupid argument you make.
Many of the posts you cut-and-pasted were in response to several idiots like Freddy who claimed to have PhDs or else questioned my academic background with smears etc. This happens time and time again when I strongly disagree with their comments on topics dealing with the environment. A number of similarly ill-mannered folk as you would bait me with comments like, 'what the f*** do you know Harvey? What do you know about ecology or the environment'? When I respond by telling them my academic background, the smear tactic switches invariably and inevitably to 'oh yeh, Harvey's in love with himself, full of self-idolatry' et al ad nauseum. Its the same b* tactic every time. Claim to know more than I do about ecology, demand to know my background, then when that is produced to come out with the 'self-loving' crap.
To reiterate, I have merely obliged with facts - none of it made up or remotely untrue. And like it or not, my knowledge in environmental science shits all over yours. I've worked in the field for more than 20 years. Get used to it.
Besides, I've been called a lot worse stuff by a range of wingnuts on the political right or in think tanks and anti-environmental groups. It shows that I am hitting a nerve. And I will continue to do so. Its clear what happens to scientists who step,outside of the laboratory into the public arena. The hyenas like you are out there waiting for us.
See the invective that has been hurled at the likes of Michael Mann, James Hansen. Kevin Trenberth, Gavin Schmidt, Ben Santer, Jared Diamond, Paul Ehrlich, Tom Lovejoy, Peter Raven and even the mild-mannered Edward O. Wilson. Scientists are loathed by climate change deniers and anti-environmentalists on the basis of the fact that most of us are qualified to speak out on various issues relevant to our academic backgrounds but that most of us also agree that a range of human activities - climate change being prominent among them - are threatening the future of humanity.
Those with vested interests in the status quo don't like it one bit.
Finally, where were you when Freddy was telling everybody here that he was a leaned scholar and was 'top of his class' during his PhD (something that, as has been pointed out, does not happen during a PhD). Where were you Betty? Huh? Where were your putdowns etc? Or was it that a nut-job like Freddy can say anything he likes if you agree with the AGW that underpins his rants?
Lumy @ 29...
"Denial And Reversal of Victim and Offender, commonly used by domestic abusers to bully those they abuse, implying that the abuse was justified."
Finally, someone agrees with me about BBD...thank you Lumy for being honest.
BBD...June, #21, pg 9
" 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".
Hardley...
"A number of similarly ill-mannered folk as you would bait me with comments like, ‘what the f*** do you know Harvey? What do you know about ecology or the environment’?"
If you are talking about me, it's never happened. Not once.
I've questioned your claims about your Algonquin trip and I've pointed out your arrogance. I can back up both.
"I’ve questioned your claims about your Algonquin trip and I’ve pointed out your arrogance. I can back up both"
We goodie for you. Want a medal? You aren't exactly Mr. Humble Pie yourself, Betty. Think about it.
And I will admit that you have never baited me with comments. But others have. And you've merely used my replies to them against me.
If it keeps you happy, go with it. I don't really care.
Like your long, long lists of 'citations' that invariably turn out to not support whatever your current denier spiel us? The ones you're renowned here for?
You're a joke Betty, and one that everybody's already heard.
Betula's inability to perceive his projection is really something, isn't it?
Denial of denial. It's denial all the way down.
I wouldn't piss on him if he were on fire, either.
As per Betty's questionable claims vis~a~vis Jeff's Algonquin trip he is assuming a literal interpretation of 'observing climate change first hand' with the implied observing the 'effects' of climate change, which is the most reasonable interpretation of what is ultimately merely an off hand, informal and indirect quote on a blog and nothing remotely like a statement of scientific import.
In other words, he is drawing a very long bow to shoot a very short arrow.
"I wouldn’t piss on him if he were on fire, either"
I think I'm supposed to be insulted because you don't want to piss on me. Let me get back to you on that one...
We haven't had 17 years of non-warming.
Look:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2008/plot/rss/from:2008/trend
5 years of definite warming.
You seem to be allowing a bit of variabillty to confuse you.
Perhaps you should spend less time at crank blogs absorbing non-information and instead get some real information from places such as:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/
http://www.csiro.au/Outcomes/Climate.aspx
"As per Betty’s questionable claims vis~a~vis Jeff’s Algonquin trip he is assuming a literal interpretation of ‘observing climate change first hand’"
Actually, he said.... "we experienced climate change at first hand".
He also said ...."In my work as an ecologist I work on shifting zones, and here I could see it in real."
Of course, when I read the article, I noticed he didn't list any of the climate change of shifting zones he experienced, so I asked him about it...
His reply..
“I haven’t answered your question because I think you may be too stupid to understand it.”
Of course, I forgave him for this because, as we all know, he has a superiority complex.
I asked again..
”Jeff, I don’t doubt that plant zones are constantly shifting to some degree, but could you share some, if any, of the ecological consequences you experienced first hand?”
The reply....(after more ramblings about himself):
“As far as first hand goes, I’d need to look into the soil. But given I was there in winter (a warm winter at that), of course I can’t describe things first hand"
But never let the facts get in the way of a good story, right Lumy?
http://www.nioo.knaw.nl/en/node/2137
That should read..."climate change or shifting zones he experienced"
Betty Birch the bot fly doesn't give up, does he? Having confirmed Jeff's status, seniority and qualifications, he (Bot Fly) still choses to side with the petulant toddlers like FREDDY THE CRAZED COPROPHILE!11!l!!1! and lil'mike, Murdorc minions like Redarse , and Koch-sucking, Randroid spambots like Karen McSpotty - not to mention the fatuous rural contrarianism of the Fat one. Since Tim has relaxed the moderation (I suspect under pressure from the his full-time job as well as the UNSW's Chancellor's cronies), a once useful and influential clearing house of info about the push back against the planet rapers' groupies has become the site of choice for a particularly pathetic collection of denier trolls to posture and throw shit at the few stoic souls who struggle to open the intellectual shutters and sweep the stable. The return of Fathead is just the brown, smelly stuff leaking from the ring. Perhaps we need to shout down the trolls with more persistence, rather than watching the few struggle with the stupid. I suspect that a vote would favour Jeff over Betty Birch by several orders of magnitude. Aye!
Thanx for those links Craig.
There has been much debate on the blogosphere about the veracity of the data in Australia, but I'll have to leave that 'til later.
And indeed Jeff does say: "It was 12 degrees warmer than average, with around -2 oC during the day and -10 at night."
Betty wants this to be just 'weather' and while it is, it's also the manifestation of arctic amplification in which AGW predicts and we see elevated temperatures affecting the arctic permanently (in human terms). There's a link coming shortly.
So what might the consequences of that ongoing temperature rise be? JH again: "When they (the wildlife typical for these boreal forests) move north, what’s going to replace them? Just south of the park lies the life zone of the eastern deciduous forest, with soils that have a much higher pH and their own communities of plants and animals. These species can’t simply move north into Algonquin. And most animals are closely linked with the plants, so what will happen to them? In a way climate change is a live ecological experiment."
Nothing difficult or controversial there, unless of course you're a dedicated denier for whom the very acknowledgement that AGW is actually happening is an anathema to be stamped out at once.
So then Betty pipes up: " I noticed he didn’t list any of the climate change of shifting zones he experienced, so I asked him about it… Which is odd, because noboby mentioned that shifting zones would be experienced, and Betsy's question is worded in quite a tricksy manner.
To which Jeff replies “I haven’t answered your question because I think you may be too stupid to understand it.”
Which I guess is polite if blunt Jeffspeak for 'read the fucking text'. Missing the point (of course) Betsy interprets his own inability to understand as JH's fault viz. "Of course, I forgave him for this because, as we all know, he has a superiority complex. Yes, because it couldn't be anything like not suffering sly fools with tricksy questions and a history gladly. It becomes readily apparent why Betsy's regarded as he is.
Wanting instant results as proof Betty tries again: "Jeff, I don’t doubt that plant zones are constantly shifting to some degree, but could you share some, if any, of the ecological consequences you experienced first hand?” The reply….(after more ramblings about himself):
And JH replies "“As far as first hand goes, I’d need to look into the soil. But given I was there in winter (a warm winter at that), of course I can’t describe things first hand”
So it seems that no soil samples were taken from frozen ground to test the Ph, but observations of wildlife were made,
and the elevated temperatures were experienced It may be noted that over the past 70 years highs struggled between highs of -8C in the early '50s and -5C in the early '90's, so +3C in twenty years is quite an increase. Which to recap, was the point of the expedition.
chek @63....
"And indeed Jeff does say: “It was 12 degrees warmer than average, with around -2 oC during the day and -10 at night.”
"Betty wants this to be just ‘weather’ and while it is, it’s also the manifestation of arctic amplification in which AGW predicts"
Thanks for clearing that up chek..... I want it to be just weather and it is......brilliant, you really got me there.
So Jeff not only experienced weather, but he also experienced a prediction.
And this...
"So what might the consequences of that ongoing temperature rise be? JH again: “When they (the wildlife typical for these boreal forests) move north, what’s going to replace them?"
So, not only did he experience weather and a prediction, he also experienced what the consequences of the prediction "might" be....got me again there cheky.
And this...
"So it seems that no soil samples were taken from frozen ground to test the Ph, but observations of wildlife were made"
Cheky, when someone states they experienced something first hand, and then state ““As far as first hand goes, I’d need to look into the soil", that would mean they didn't experience anything "As far as first hand goes"....which is why he stated "of course I can’t describe things first hand"
Chek, I expect nothing less of you, you'I give you credit for dancing up a storm though..
chek @63....
"And indeed Jeff does say: “It was 12 degrees warmer than average, with around -2 oC during the day and -10 at night.”
"Betty wants this to be just ‘weather’ and while it is, it’s also the manifestation of arctic amplification in which AGW predicts"
Thanks for clearing that up chek..... I want it to be just weather and it is......brilliant, you really got me there.
So Jeff not only experienced weather, but he also experienced a prediction.
And this...
"So what might the consequences of that ongoing temperature rise be? JH again: “When they (the wildlife typical for these boreal forests) move north, what’s going to replace them?"
So, not only did he experience weather and a prediction, he also experienced what the consequences of the prediction "might" be....got me again there cheky.
And this...
"So it seems that no soil samples were taken from frozen ground to test the Ph, but observations of wildlife were made"
Cheky, when someone states they experienced something first hand, and then state ““As far as first hand goes, I’d need to look into the soil", that would mean they didn't experience anything "As far as first hand goes"....which is why he stated "of course I can’t describe things first hand"
Chek, I expect nothing less of you, you'I give you credit for dancing up a storm though..
cheky...
"Which to recap, was the point of the expedition"
Nice try again cheky...
Hardley...June, #12, pg 5:
"Finally, to put this sucker to bed, the Algonquin trip wasn’t for research – I was on vacation"
El Gordo makes an admission about where he gets his misinformation from:
In other words, he hasn't bothered to read the facts about climate change, as presented by the professional, reputable government science organisations whose websites I provided a link to.
But he *has* had time to read the nonsense at the crank-blogs like WUWT and Jo Nova.
What's more, he is so devoid of scepticism that he has fallen for the crank-nonsense purveryed by the likes of the uni-dropout ex-weatherman Anthony Watts.
Hmmm.....CSIRO? ....uni-dropout ex-weatherman?.....Who to believe?
I see Watts as the editor of a very popular science blog, with mostly guest posts.
The general slant is sceptical and as climate change is post normal science... its an interesting source.
I look at your woodfortrees and wonder .... one of us is wrong.
Betty is sticking to his last refuge, as I said before. A 23 day trip i made across a provincial park in winter. Why? Because every last one of his arguments on AGW and on the general state of the environment under the human assault has been shredded. Some of it by me, of course, but much of it by other posters on Deltoid.
He keeps calling Deltoid a 'dying blog' but if one notices Betty is posting more than just about anyone else here. If this blog is on the way out, then why does Mr. Birch Pruner expend so much effort here? He can't debate worth a sack of s***, simply because he doesn't know very much about the topics he discusses. To reiterate: climate change was one theme of our mini-expedition, given that Algonquin Park lies on the northern boundary of the transition forest and boreal forest zones. Zones bordering distinct biomes are particularly under threat from rapid AGW because plants characteristic of one biomes cannot just uproot and move to another zone. Colleagues at the University of Toronto are examining this area and I have listened to several lectures outlining possible scenarios under climate change.
I also posted up here a Master's thesis written by a Queen's University (Kingston, Ontario) student who also discussed the effects of climate change on Algonquin Park and other biomes bordering one another. Betty, true to form, ignored it, as he has all of the articles in the peer-reviewed literature examining the effects of waring on biodiversity I put up here.
So what is Betty's point for remaining here? To go on and on and on and on and on and on forever about a web page written by our press officer about my trip in January and February of 2013? Clearly, the majority of posters on Deltoid are sensible and support my arguments and those of other scientists arguing that humans are the main culprit behind the recent warming. Betty isn't winning over any converts here, that is for sure, and in his corner only has a people like Karen and Rednose who made up their minds years ago and who have no scientific pedigree. Oh, he also had Freddy, who appears to have been a recent escapee from some psycho ward, and Mike, a self-professed far right gunslinger, but that is it.
If you can counter any of my scientific arguments, Betty, give it a try. But you won't because you know that, once we start debating environmental science, you're toast.
Craig, apologies for Watts, but it looks flat.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/clip_image0364.jpg
Do you have any other graphs to prove temperatures are still rising?
#2 & #3 . And crank blogs aren't accessible through my academic network. But whatever williwatts post, you can count on it being wrong.
You're a bitter, twisted moron Betsy, with a fixation and almost zero comprehension. And that's all I can add by way of observation without becoming even more bored with your attention seeking drivel.
Okay chek here's a warmist organ talking about the hiatus.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23409404
Very easy to read, no confusion.
I see Watts as the editor of a very popular nonsense blog, with mostly guest posts from scientific illiterates.
There fixed that for you Gordian Knot who is a post-normal Renaissance bod.
What gibberish you write but the that is what happens when you read the likes of WeUseWishfulThinking.
Your record is stuck BirchBark, stuck on stupidity and crass, Keyes style, evasion and duplicitous use of language. If you were a bit more intelligent you could have been a lawyer, or maybe a lawyer's assistant.
The problem Fatso is that you're getting your information from crank blogs and journalists and have half-baked misconceptions about what AGW even is. Your cranks are pushing the notion that the 2% of warming of the atmosphere is all there is to be measured. However, you've already been disabused of that mistaken notion and referred to the Levitus paper to boot. Which you are obviously ignoring as it exposes your preferred crank blogs for the providers of shoddy and false information they are.
But climate science is concerned with the amount of heat entering the Earth system as compared to the amount re-radiated back into space.
As you seem to prefer press reports, here's one by a scientist
In the 1980s and 1990s when air temperatures were warming in step with the overall warming of the planet, that was fine. However, over the past decade, the warming of surface air temperatures has slowed. At the same time, the overall warming of the planet has continued, and if anything it has accelerated. The ocean measurements quite clearly show that global warming continues at a rapid rate, equivalent to 4 Hiroshima atomic bomb detonations per second."
You won't understand any of this, but it will hopefully expose the stupidity deniers prefer to any others following.
Right you who try to make out that warming has stopped take a comfortable seat and listen very carefully HT once gain Climate Crock of the Week :
Now if you had been paying attention up-thread you would have noticed this fact about water heat capacity before, recall mention of ICE cooling systems. Those with mechanical experience will note that a flywheel is attached to the crankshaft to provide the energy to smooth over the pauses between cylinder power strokes. Flywheels have also been used in engine starting systems, an inertia starter being used e.g. on the Fairy Swordfish. Anybody who has had to crank one of these up will appreciate the significance only to well.
So, Gordian Knot you can take your charts from WoodForTrees created using cherry picked data points etc and sling them.
Warming has stopped, Lionel, there is a consensus on that. Before we move onto the OHC to see if Trenberth's heat is in the oceans, here is the reality of atmospheric temperatures.
http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Images/ice-HS/noaa_gisp2_icec…
It's amazing the lengths Betula will go to to pretend to himself that a comment wasn't about him - rather than demonstrate that it does not apply. Why, it almost looks like a standard denial mechanism in action...one favoured by five year olds ("No I'm not, but you are too!")
No, the general slant is to dress up bullshit as gold, and the presumption you rely upon there is not in evidence.
True, it is an interesting source - if you want to study the ways people deceive themselves and others, including via the construction of epistemic closures that are totally impervious to evidence that refutes their positions - and the projection of that construction onto others who aren't doing that.
Liar - as evidence by this thread. You state what you wish to be true without evidence because you can't demonstrate it. The only one you're fooling is yourself...
...same as the last time you were active here.
You mean, other than the one I posted earlier that you ignored? The one that refuted the claim over your very own cherry-picked time period?
There's no point providing refuting data to you. You ignore data that doesn't fit your preconceptions. Go back to your thread instead of violating the terms under which you are allowed to post here.
Bollocks!
That's the same distortion that has been debunked over and over again (a favourite distortion of Bob Carter, IIRC). It fallaciously compares historical temperatures from one ice core at one location with global average temperatures. Worse still, the ice core comes from a region known to be subject to polar amplification, so it's a cherry-pick on top of a cherry-pick.
Even worse for your position: the case for concern about AGW is not predicated on absolute temperatures being unprecedented in earth's entire history, even if you are gullible enough to be fooled into thinking it is. And neither is the case predicated only on what has happened in the past century or two - it's based on our understanding of how the climate system responds.
So the entire animation is fallacious - and is apparently designed to fool people. That shows that you're clearly not skeptical and wouldn't know how to avoid being fooled by bogus pseudoscience if your life depended on it.
Hardley...
"Clearly, the majority of posters on Deltoid are sensible and support my arguments and those of other scientists arguing that humans are the main culprit behind the recent warming."
I never argued this with you, so I'm not sure who you are talking about. In fact, all I have done is post evidence of you embellishing about what claim you experienced on your trip.
"I also posted up here a Master’s thesis written by a Queen’s University (Kingston, Ontario) student "..... "Betty, true to form, ignored it"
What do your claims have to do with a thesis written by a Queens University student? Was he with you on your trip? Did he include what you said you experienced, and then didn't experience, and then did experienced in his thesis? Please explain the correlation....
If you are willing to embellish (or lie) about such things on your trip....what else are you capable of? Are you going to embellish just a little in every paper? Are you going to embellish just a tad in every class? Are you going to downplay or ignore everything that doesn't fit your view and exaggerate those things that do?
It's obvious, why those here are stretching their imaginations in every way to try and help you explain away the "first hand" / "for real" comments...they are your "peers" and they are "peer reviewing".
So the question is, when you talk about "peer reviews", do these reviews involve as much bias and protection as we see here on this site? I wonder...
I note that equivocation over two different definitions of a term is a favourite Betula tactic for generating a fallacy.
Projecting yet again Betsy.
What is actually obvious is that you stretched your imagination reading into something that wasn't there and that only you see, and have no exit other than to accuse others of what you're actually doing.
The salient point is that Jeff witnessed temperatures north of the arctic circle rising due to polar amplification as expected by AGW, increases sustained over at least a 70 year period.
That's experiencing climate change first hand, so choke on that, moron.
On Green World Trust
From Fact Sheet: Roger Cohen :
So what do we find, yet another organisation bent on distorting the message because otherwise their business model would be damaged. Note also the inclusion of dodgy diagrams ala Monckton from WUWT etc.
It should be noted that Cohen has written for SPPI thus providing another link to the Discount Viscount.
Gordian Knot, you must be a paid up fossil fuel minion, or an idiot.
Another place where that heat is going:
July 23 News: Melting Glaciers Across The Globe Experiencing ‘Jokulhlaup,’ Icelandic For ‘Glacier Leap’.
More context:
Mendenhall Glacier, Now and Then by Gary Braasch.
For those who have never heard of Gary Braasch he is a conservation photography who has contributed to works on climate change such as this one: Climate Change: Picturing the Science, which would be a good base level starter for the ignoratti around here.
Now in case Rednoise reappears with his Andrew Neil disinformation trailer then I am pleased to note that a response to this latest misdirection from Neil has appeared The climate change policy discussion I wish Andrew Neil would have on BBC.
, note this section:
There we have it, the factors I have been pointing out in recent posts, and many others in the past. The denilati/ignrati here should learn to to as Davey did.
E.G at 78: why is the data shown in that link only until 2000?
chek
I think I've got it this time...
"Betty wants this to be just ‘weather’ and while it is"
"The salient point is that Jeff witnessed temperatures north of the arctic circle rising due to polar amplification as expected by AGW, increases sustained over at least a 70 year period"
So we've confirmed that it's just weather, but we've also confirmed that it's not just weather.
So if I stick my finger in the air for 23 days, and get frostbite while doing it, that would be a long enough time scale for me to distinguish between weather and climate change "first hand", or in this case chek, with The Finger.
"Warming has stopped, Lionel, there is a consensus on that"
In your dreams, kiddo. No, the warming has not stopped at all, and certainly not regionally.
Since Betula's obsession with my Algonquin Park trip continues unabated, my best advice for others here is to just ignore it. He's won no converts over here with it, and thus he's only preaching to the converted. The reason he sticks to it like glue is because he has nothing else to debate. Everything he proclaims is consigned to the bin, so its back to Algonquin. And he's gonna be doing this in 10 years time at this rate.
He's a bore.
Gordian Knot spewed @ 73:
The BBC can hardly be called a warmist organ and the title of this misdirection by Shukman, who has a record with such shite, is typical. The Beeb is currently worried about its license and will seed articles with enough wibble to keep the fracking maniac Osborne off their backs.
This piece, with its mixed messages, is utter bollocks:
No. It is not ONLY climate models that form the basis of knowledge that warming continues - physics and observation tell that this is so as indicated in many recent posts above.
But then a preceding paragraph does contain elements of truth:
However, the way the article has been arranged with a prominent misdirection headline (IOW BS) and a wibble towards the end it is clearly designed to fool the ignorati, that's you BTW, and draw the government watchdogs off.
As I remarked, we have seen much of this from Shukman over recent years. IIRC Shukman has been to the Arctic and/or Greenland to report so should know better than to write a piece like this.
Hardley...
A more precise Jeff:
Betula keeps bringing up evidence how I lied about what I experienced, along with evidence where I then admitted that I didn't experience what I said , followed by my continuing to lie about what I experienced......so my best advice is to help me make it go away by ignoring it.
Thank you for your understanding and cooperation, my loyal fellow ideological Deltoidians.
By the way, I'm a scientist.
Betsy, your feelings of personal inadequacy, bitterness and your compulsive need to project them onto others are your own business, and do not belong here.
Nobody is buying your version, just you. That would be reason enough for pause for most people, but not a denier operative like you whose stupidity - as JH already observed - will only cause you to double down, if only to wallow in your own intellectual envy like a pig in shit.
Lionel#88
Dana's latest crap has already been trashed
So it looks like Dana has lost the second round as well.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2013/7/23/keep-digging.html
And on the 97% consensus:
And Tol still maintains Cook has only released 15% of the data requested.(see comments)
What is the betting it ends up in Retraction Watch like that other supposedly peer reviewed paper Cook co-authored
Redarse, once again you only hear what you want, and that's articles by unqualified opinion piece writers like Ben Pile given space on conspiracy crank blogs like Pope Montford's
Pile (and you) could have checked out Dana Nuccitelli's article and links properly but you didn't, preferring instead to declare your premature 'victory'.
Once you understand that the recent lower sensitivity estimates are based on the lack of warming fallacy (dealt with ast length and ad nauseam but still way over your pointy little head) it all falls into place and exposes the cranks and fossil fuel operatives game. Take no action, business as usual.
I expect Dana will have a fuller response to Pile's bollocks once he stops laughing
Tol is pissed at being lumped in with the cranks and pseudo-scientists. But then again, nobody forced him to associate with the GWPF.
With Richard Betts all part of the 97% consensus apparently.
http://www.bishop-hill.net/discussion/post/2125495#post2165275
I had always assumed proper scientists would ensure all their data was available for inspection at the time of submitting their work for publication unless they had something to hide of course.
Redarse who cares about the crap emanating from crank'n'shill blogs like Montford's et al?
Apart from all you cranks'n'shills of course.
What you do in the real world isn't to bitch and moan on blogs that nobody but the aforementioned cranks'n'shills read.
No, what you do is to conduct your own research and publish it. It's really very simple, although not as exciting as playing conspiracies for all those retired middle managers who now wish they'd inhaled 50 years ago , .
Shrek
So you keep referring to the crap which emanates from "Big Oil" shills who write for SKS, whose readership is only slightly larger than Deltoid, and the loss making Guardian, whose circulation figures are plummeting.
Perhaps if you inhaled less your mind might be a little clearer, or does a drug induced torpor help with the visions of all those 10^29 ergs mysteriously somehow travelling to the deep ocean.
You already tried that one Redarse. The only thing is you've nothing but disbelief and personal incredulity (the weakest of all fallacies) to challenge the science.
But how do they get there Shrek?
Enquiring minds need to know.
One up from unquestioning, blind religious like belief.
Radiation, followed by conduction and convection.
Fucking moron.
Rednose: are you labouring under the misapprehension that "heat rises". Cos it ain't necessarily so.
Rednonsense,
Science that makes its way to influence the prestigious national academies is not gleaned from blogs - whether they are excellent ones that stick to the empirical science like SKS or agenda-driven loopy right wing ones that shill for industry like the crap you tend to read. Moreover, number of hits is not an indication of scientific accuracy either - it just shows that there are a lot of clowns out there like you who wish to believe in the tooth fairy.
No, the science that is so often butchered by the sites you like to read is performed at research institutes and universities and is published in scientific journals. You know - places that many of the AGW deniers have never apparently heard of and sources they apparently never read. Instead, like you, they tend to love to get it through second or third hand sources that are not at ll interested in the truth, but, as I said, in bolstering political and economic agendas.
As an aside, its amazing how you, Betula and Karen appear to be a tag team writing into this blog. Fortunately very few AGW deniers write in here, but the downside is that you appear to be a tag-team outfit in order to maximize your coverage.
A more precise Betula:
"I am an politically right wing guy who loathes government in all of its guises. I also think I know a lot more about science and the environment than I actually do, which in reality is peanuts. My arguments have been shot down dozens of times on a blog (Deltoid) but at least I can have the satisfaction of going after a guy (Hardley) who knows tons more about environmental science and ecology than I do. What I do is focus on a web article that Hardly admits he didn't write, but in which he suggested that he saw climate change first hand while crossing a park in Ontario a couple of winters ago. But that's impossible in 23 days! OK, so it was a record warm winter and so what that climate change was only a theme of his crossing. And so what if there are dozens and dozens of peer-reviewed papers showing climate change related effects on biodiversity. I don't read scientific papers anyway, and if I did they'd further prove how little I know. So what I'll do is keep hounding Hardley until kingdom come about AP/2012. Given my ritual dressing downs on Deltoid over subjects like C02 fertilization and the wonderful state of ecosystems where I live on the basis of three admittedly lousy examples, there's little else I can do".
"Nobody is buying your version, just you."
This is Deltoid. You can't seriously believe that I ever expected like-minded Deltoidians not to cover for each other?You know the truth, and I know you will never acknowledge it, that's not and never will be the point, after all you are Cmdr,Cheky of The Lost Planet Airheads.... that title is something that is earned.
The point is that Hardley knows what he did and he knows I know it. He also knows he has a safe haven here at Deltoid, where he can talk about himself and people pretend to appreciate it.
As far as I'm concerned, 23 days is the new timescale needed to distinguish between weather and climate, so at least I learned something on this site.
Betsy, you're talking shit. No surprise there.
We had the very coldest winter here in Northern Ireland around Xmas 2010 that I can remember with icy streets, sub-zero temperatures and snowdrifts for two weeks. No big deal to those who endure such every winter, but a big, infrastructure-testing deal (intermittent transport and electricity for those of us in urban areas plus no water for those in rural areas) for those of us not used to it. Otherwise known as T-shirt weather for Geordies (a joke, not for your merkin shill ears Betsy)_
Meanwhile in Greenland, it was 20 degrees warmer than here. Had I had the opportunity of visiting Thule AFB again at the same time, I - sans parka - would be claiming to have witnessed global warming first hand.
You're a busted flush and an embarrassment Betsy.
But on reflection when has that ever stopped you spewing your pigshit that you seem to feel the need to do here
Shrek#5
Unfortunately, radiation only penetrates up to several metres, depending on the wavelength, water is a very poor conductor, so any substantial conduction requires time scales which are orders of magnitude too long to ferret away all those ergs quick enough so they don't show up, and we all should now that warm water rises and cool water falls, so that seems to rule out convection.
Maybe you know of some new laws of physics that can account for this, quantum entanglement perhaps.
JH#8
If only it did, but first it filters the science for its cultists followers, and then embellishes it with its agenda driven spin.
Are you claiming we are all involved in some sort of conspiracy?
Talking about tag teams, cannot wait for you to team up again with your brother Matt.
Redarse - Why haven't you read the Leviticus et al paper you've been referred to multiple times now? Are some of the big words beyond you?
These conspiracy c*nts really can't help projecting their own limited blogshite experience, can they.
Rednose: you ruled out convection. But as any fule know: it isn't the heat that rises but the less dense fluid. Can you work out what would cause warm surface SEAwater to sink?
Shrek
Leviticus, the paper that claimed to measure to 0.001 degrees to a depth of 700-2000m using a bucket.
Besides some vague handwaving, there does not appear to be a plausible explanation of how all those ergs get there
and why perhaps they all suddenly decided to go there at a particular time instead of warming the surface temperature.
Perhaps you could explain in more detail the processes involved. Please don't use big words so we can all follow the explanation
Redarse, I see then that you haven't bothered, and instead are relying an the interpretation of some Ben Pile-style moron to tell you what to think.
I see, so one of 3 things has occurred then:
1/ Solar irradiance has suddenly dropped, thus reversing the energy imbalance that was heating up the planet
2/ The greenhouse gas content of the Earth's atmosphere has suddenly dropped, thus reversing the energy imbalance
3/ The laws of physics have changed, allowing outgoing radiation to balance with incoming solar radiation.
So, El Gordo, which is it?
Because unless one of the above has occurred, then the planet is still warming.
Maybe you can have a think about how little you understand about physics?
Maybe you can accept that when some people who are fairly clever spend their lives studying this stuff and trying to explain it to us, it is extremely unlikely that a uni-drop-out ex-weatherman and his crank followers on his nonsense-blog is going to be able to present further and better information?
Good morning Craig, it does appear that Gaia has a hand in it.
http://www.csiro.au/en/Portals/Media/Tropical-ecosystems-regulate-varia…
As you can't work it out for yourself Rednose... surface sea water heats up and water evaporates. Because of the increased concentration of salt it becomes more dense. ..
You should check out "Thermohaline circulation". There's also a dynamic effect called gyres where currents meet.
Shreks given up then.
Well it could be evaporation causing cooling and increase in salinity and density.
But these major downwelling regions are in quite specific areas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulation
So we still have the problem of all these little ergs having to travel and queue up at these specific areas, and remain undetected, as sea surface temperatures have also shown a hiatus, before disappearing into the abyss only to reappear in about 1600 years or so.
LOL, now what was that about ruling out convection?
And if the surface water has evaporated, the surface remaining must have cooled, indicating its lost heat. so how is this loss of heat to the atmosphere supposed to warm the deep ocean.
Has there been a corresponding increase in cloud cover or humidity for this hiatus period?
'Because unless one of the above has occurred, then the planet is still warming.'
No its stopped, which suggests CO2 is not the boogeyman.
Do you understand the argument about black body radiation?
Anyway, can you explain the build up in northern hemisphere snow extent?
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/images/nhland_season1.gif
It is you Redarse who has given up, it being all too obvious that sections 2 through five have never entered your field of view.
Perhaps you'll share with us the source and significance of your dearly believed "that claimed to measure to 0.001 degrees to a depth of 700-2000m using a bucket. (Hint: they don't) when heat content isn't measured by the temperature scale.
.
Oh dear scrabbling desperately now: not all the heat is lost by evaporative cooling. How about you concede that ruling out convection was wrong?
As we say in France, roughly translated... "You'll go to bed less stupid tonight."
Oh for fucks sake Redarse, now you're just making shit up to suit your stupid story
BTW Rednose, you already have the requisite information to work out why not all the heat is lost by evaporative cooling. Can you work it out for yourself this time? Hint: the answer is in one of your earlier posts.
Fatso, you cannot present the evidence that its stopped,, so stop falsely claiming it.
Just because you and your crank posse believe it, does not make it so. You have to be able to show it, which you and your brethren with your endless, badly supported braying around the climate blogs hoping sheer repetition will make it so, can't do.
Did you get that?
It can't, only you're too stupid to realise it yet.
Number 25, El Gordo: snow requires cold and water. Increased global temperature increases the amount of water vapour available for making snow. Once temperatures are below freezing, it doesn't matter if it's now -5, where it was -6 before.
Rather than just the Winter snow cover, you should look at the monthly anomaly over the whole year http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_anom.php?ui_set=1&ui_region=…
'as sea surface temperatures have also shown a hiatus'
tru dat
Fatso, I just showed it's FALSE
You're deniers are mental in your faith for falsity..
That makes sense Turbo.
I'm trying to turn the conversation towards the possibility of global cooling and longer trends are useful.
For example the build up of sea ice surrounding Antarctica is fascinating and I wonder how long it will take before we see icebergs off Margaret River.
The irony burns.
.. doesn't do what you think it might, i.e. cover for your obscene ignorance and lack of data.
Hardley @ 8....
So much for ignoring me eh Hardley?
1. “I am an politically right wing guy who loathes government in all of its guises"
Hardly, I'm an independent who worked for the Government for years...
2. "My arguments have been shot down dozens of times on a blog (Deltoid)"
Hardly, usually the arguments are unrelated to what I posted, and the rest is all about you.
3, "What I do is focus on a web article that Hardly admits he didn’t write"
Hardly, because I have no idea why who wrote it has anything to do with what you said ( see answer to #2)
4. "in which he suggested that he saw climate change first hand while crossing a park in Ontario a couple of winters ago. But that’s impossible in 23 days!"
Hardley, in your own words you couldn't see it first hand., unless "as far as first hand goes" means something other than first hand, and “of course I can’t describe things first hand” means of course you can!
5. "And so what if there are dozens and dozens of peer-reviewed papers showing climate change related effects on biodiversity"
Hardly, once again, this has nothing to do with your personal claim (see answer to #2)
6. "I don’t read scientific papers anyway, and if I did they’d further prove how little I know."
Hardly, if I didn't read them, then how is it I'm always posting the words of the scientists that write them?
7. "Given my ritual dressing downs on Deltoid over subjects like C02 fertilization"
Hardly, you can't dress down someone over a subject when you yourself have no idea about what role, if any, it may play in the future...which was the point.
8. "and the wonderful state of ecosystems where I live on the basis of three admittedly lousy examples"
Hardly, I never said they were lousy examples, you did. (see answer to #2). In addition, the examples were used as a few of the many changes I've seen over some 40 YEARS....not 23 days! What were your examples again?
You see Hardley, there's a reason I call you Hardley.
Build up? Sea ice? Around Antarctica?
The sea ice around Antarctica is basically a seasonal phenomenon. The recently increased extent is basically a combination of changed wind/ currents and of increased meltwater flowing off the continent. Both attributable to warming, not cooling. http://www.timeslive.co.za/scitech/2013/04/01/warming-linked-to-spread-…
Why would there be "global cooling"?
What mechanism will drive this, especially given the fact there is already a positive energy imbalance between the solar radiation received and the energy re-radiated to space?
No idea? Of course not. It's all throw-away lines gleaned from know-nothing crank blogs.
What a monumental waste of time El Gordo is.
Again, El Gordo's "build-up in Antarctica" is clearly fiction he has gleaned from his favourite crank-blog authors:
http://climate.nasa.gov/images/newsPage-242.jpg
Build-up? No, of course not, if El Gordo said it, we know it's bound to be pure rubbish.
So, does El Gordo aim to ever contribute anything useful, factual, and/or constructive to this discussion?
Let's save El Gordo the trouble and embarrassment of repeating here any more ice-related fictions devised by his favourite cranks by looking at the rest of the ice:
Greenland:
http://climatesignals.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Greenland_Nov2010…
....dwindling....
Glaciers:
http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/images/glacier_thickness.gif
...dwindling...
Arctic ice:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Arctic_models_obs.gif
...dwindling...
Now, let's see if I can put two and two together here:
- greenhouse gases have increased
- there is a measured imbalance between energy received and energy re-radiated
- this imbalance persisted through the period of the current solar minimum
- polar ice and glaciers are all in the process of dwindling.
On the other hand we have the argument El Gordo has put forward:
- If measured temperatures don't show a steady linear upwards course, then the above facts can be ignored because it means it must be cooling, and just to make sure we convince ourselves, we will also invent some fairy-stories about Antarctica "building-up" and stuff like that.
How stupid would you have to be to find the 2nd option attractive?
Why would there be “global cooling”?
Why not?
The mechanism is the sun's effect on the NAO and AO.
'Build up? Sea ice? Around Antarctica?'
Naturally it waxes and wanes, but the winter extent is increasing.
And that's probably why they are getting CAOs in Brazil.
A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing, especially when one (a) fails to grok key caveats such as "all other things being equal" and (b) rejects out of hand a little more inconvenient knowledge, even when it's been provided on a platter.
It is useful to have Rednose (and others) here demonstrating how certain positions can only be "reached" by rejecting readily available and widely understood knowledge - and helpfully pointing out various and sundry blogs that do this by citing them in support of his positions ;-)
Er...starting at the most simplistic level, because of what the "O" stands for in NAO and AO, as has been pointed out many times before...
Ah, so what you are saying, Lotharsson, is that "oscillations", or variability is not the same thing as a trend introduced to the system by a change to the value for radiative forcing?
Maybe what El Gordo is saying, is that once there has been a change to radiative forcing, then the observation of any subsequent oscillation (or variability) proves the change to radiative forcing never happened?
Brad Keyes is at it again.
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2013/07/21/currys-wide-sargasso-sea-of-st…
I assume he's paid to do this.
Me, I think Keyes is foolish enough to do it for free - noting that foolishness is not precluded by the possession of some forms of intelligence.
Ian Plimer has plenty of intelligence.
And yet, he published a book full of the most incredible collection of arrant nonsense this side of Velikovsky.
Ditto Bob Carter, of course.
I showed my 11-year-old a graph illustrating Bob Carter's "no warming since 1958". She looked at it and said, "I don't get it. How can he say there is no warming when the right hand side looks bigger than the left hand side?".
I wonder what El Gordo's response to Bob Carter's "no warming" would be?
Is he as smart as a 11-year-old?
Betula, you just can't give up being hammered. What a clown you are. Until you are capable of getting out of your intellectual sand-box, go away.
The three examples you gave on the health of eastern NE ecosystems stink. Two involve habitat generalists (the deer example is more egregious when considering the elimination of its natural enemies is a major factor as well as the fragmentation of forests), and wild turkeys were restocked over much of their range under strict protection. In other words, their 'come-back' as not a natural one. Coyotes thrive in disturbed anthropogenic landscapes. They are intelligent and adaptable. But what about habitat specialists?
If you understood basic ecology - which you don't - you'd have seen that there are far more examples of species undergoing demographic meltdowns at the moment. Species that were once common - like Rufous Sided Towhees - have seen populations decline by up 90% since the 1980s. Loggerhead Shrikes are extinct in the Northeast. Bewicks Wrens ditto. Many other birds that were once common are declining, some at the heart of their range. I could go on with examples with many other vertebrate and invertebrate taxa. But since bozo here won't digest them I won't waste my time.
As for the supposed C02 fertilization argument you posited I know a helluva lot more about plant ecophysiology than you ever will. I study plant stoichiometry and its effects on the nutritional ecology of insects (amongst other things) and the 'C02 is plant food meme' that kicks around the anti-AGW blogs is pure and utter bull***. It greatly oversimplifies non-linear effects and ignores, amongst other things, competitive hierarchies in communities, species-specific responses to elevated C02 and also plant primary and secondary metabolism.
I don't want to waste any more of my valuable time on Betula the bozo.
I think El Gordo is starting to answer his own questions:
As we have established the mass balance is on a downward trend, if you are positing an extent increase, what do you think that would mean?
Less mass covering a greater area say anything to you yet?
If not, you could try this simple experiment: get one of those squat candles and leave it outside on a piece of slate in the sun after drawing a chalk circle around the candle base on the slate with a thermometer attached to the underside of the slate.
Make the following observations at hourly intervals:
- temperature
- height of candle
- "extent" of candle, eg, area beyond the chalk circle that it occupies.
And you could thus vastly increase your experience of performing some actual science, rather than the usual imbibing of stupid from crank blogs.
"The point is that Hardley knows what he did and he knows I know it"
Know what? Good grief, this guy is bonkers. Sure I know what I did. I spent 23 days hiking across a park in winter. A temporary PR person asked me about it when I got back to NIOO. She wrote it up. One of the themes was to consider the effects of climate change on ecosystems that border distinct biomes. You (Betty) clearly were rattled by my responses to your crap and wanted to know if I was a qualified scientist like I said I was, so you started googling my name to find out if it was true. Your aim was to latch onto anything - no matter how insignificant - that you think you could hang over me. You focused laser-like onto a short clip on our web site. Its all you have - although given what appears to be a case of cyber stalking I am sure you looked elsewhere.
At least I had the integrity not to use an anonymous handle like you do Betty. Otherwise, you wouldn't have been able to find anything. That being said, since you appear to have no notable background in anything I am sure that the real Betty is just as much a nobody as the anonymous Betty.
The crux of the matter is that you are well over your head in areas discussed on Deltoid. I will admit, that when it comes to climate and atmospheric physics, I am too. So I leave that part up to the experts who have worked in the field for years. And most of them agree that humans are forcing climate. My interest is in the biotic effects of warming. You write as if you are an expert in areas well beyond your competence. When this is shown, you respond predictably. You once even used the Dunnng-Kruger effect as an example without realizing that you are a model example of it.
Shrek#28
Interesting you are lengthening the Hiatus period when the MET Office are trying to shorten it to starting 2001 ish.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1990/plot/hadsst2gl/fro…
Sea surface seems to be cooling so all those ergs are not hiding here. You would think if they were all massing together to go down those few sink holes it would show up. And its not as if they would be moving to quickly to detect as the round trip is about 1600 years apparently.
Still what have the Romans ever done for us?
Turbo#29
Oh you are a tease.
Pleeeese explain how all this is supposed to work
'a graph illustrating Bob Carter’s “no warming since 1958″.
That sounds dodgy, do you have a link for that graph?
A la the thread at The Stoat, is that a trick question?
;-)
Is Rednose as smart as an 11 year old?
I guess not.
'And most of them agree that humans are forcing climate.'
Is that the 97% meme so popular with warmists?
'As we have established the mass balance is on a downward trend, if you are positing an extent increase, what do you think that would mean?'
Eventually, if it persists. an increase in mass balance. Following on from that would be the appearance (over time) of large icebergs in the southern ocean.
Rednoise (with a Pinocchio effect shonk), is there enough red paint in the store?
You really don't understand this do you.
What happens to the near surface water as evaporation takes place, note that this is the main heat transfer path and not radiation?
Hint, think what Plimsoll lines are for and that there are two components to the cause of the effect.
Now what happens to the SG of that body of water?
This mechanism is not necessarily confined to polar areas.
Some more for your consideration (although Ray Pierrehumbert, David Archer and Spencer Weart' to name but a few would be worth your consulting):
Scientists Predict Looming Climate Shift: Will Ocean Heat Come Back To Haunt Us Once Again?.
Now on the Shukman nonsense cited up-thread here is an illustrative exchange with many useful links.
As for Cook & Co, maybe you could provide evidence for paper retraction. Note that Cardinal Puff is not qualified to comment but then maybe you and he are the same.
Its generally agreed that there is a reduction of mass balance in west Antarctica, while east Antarctica has increasing mass balance through extra precipitation.
Little sea level rise in this, it balances perfectly.
Icebergs?
Icebergs don't come from seasonal/ one year's worth sea ice. They come from glaciers and ice sheets calving or breaking up. You're doing well to find more than a few bits of sea ice thicker than 2 metres, let alone icebergs.
http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/characteristics/difference.html
Another nail for the growing Rednoise nose:
In Hot Water: Ocean Heat Content Continues To Soar.
There was huge iceberg earlier this century, broke off from Ross and took a few years to fully break up.
In the future east Antarctica will be ripe for calving.
Antarctic sea ice has increased, well has it?. I guess that all depends upon where and when you measure.
That against the background of this warming and this mass loss.
As for East Antarctic 'ripe for calving', well now you know why although there is less ice shelf for calving than found in West Antarctic, most of the continental Antarctic being in the East as you can see. Note where the higher ground is.
Teh Stupid - or Teh Determined Avoidance Of Teh Point - is strong in this one.
Rednose: you showed in post 11 above that you understand that radiation penetrates below the surface of the sea. Now ask yourself how the surface loses heat differently from the layers underneath... it's all in your earlier posts, you just have to make the connections.
That confirms that you didn't read Levitus et. al. Rednoise and are thus a fraud.
Firstly Leviticus is a book in the OT of the Bible and secondly there is no mention of 'a bucket' in that paper.
Oh! Dear! Nought out of ten again. One strike for a detention.
There will shortly be more shite coming from the usual suspects WRT a warming pause. This because the UK Met' Office Hadley Centre has, yesterday 23.07.2013, released a three part report.
In part (paper) one, on page 22 we find this apposite (re. comments on Levitus) statement, my emphasis:
Now do you get the picture Rednoise?
And, I do hope David Shukman is now paying attention, for his sake otherwise foolish he will look too.
"Is that the 97% meme so popular with warmists?"
No, its the simple fact of me being a scientist and working 'on the inside' of an academic environment. I have met lots of climate and atmospheric scientists over the years and I have yet to meet one who denies the reality of AGW.
Trouble is Gordo, you clearly don't go anywhere near academia and are stuck in front of a computer monitor; that's where you got your 'education' so to speak. You ought to get out more.
Back to the Arctic with this in the near future maybe The Great Arctic Flush!
Lionel#59
An interesting link.
However the author proposes increased deep ocean heating due to wind driven gyres driven by intensified trade winds.
However several sources, including the one below are reporting decreasing average global wind speeds, particularly over the hiatus period (2000 onwards.) when this lost heat became an issue.
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101017/full/news.2010.543.html
He also persists in talking about the continued warming of the surface layer, when from 2002 at least it has been cooling.
So this is not an entirely convincing piece.
Whats the next method you are suggesting?
Why not a teleporter?
Decreasing global average wind speeds and intensified trade winds are not necessarily mutually exclusive, just like increasing average global temperatures and decreasing average temperatures in (say) the UK are not necessarily incompatible.
Rednoise at 71,
Do try to keep up and also look back up thread for hints on other ocean heat exchange mechanisms. The Earth's fluid systems are complex and concentrating overmuch on one explanation is not an adequate methodology.
Who says?
Average Global Sea Surface Temperature, 1880-2011 and Climate Change: Global Temperature. Note click and drag bar chart and SHIFT/Click and drag to stretch you will see that 2002 is a tad lower than 2012-2013.
You should have left of the 'card carrying warmist' bit for all that does is make you look a total jerk, one not interested in the truth. Little wonder Cardinal Puff figures so much in your thought processes.
And we must not forget this one:
Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content and note Figure 1 which is also available here with more context.
So Rednoise, since 2002 eh?
It must be becoming harder and harder to NOT see the truth of matters. But then I suppose if your income depends on not understanding the issue then that would explain.
More context on this warming stopped, hiatus, stupid:
The answer is blowing in the wind: The warming went into the deep endand also from the ever useful OSS .
Lionel#75
See Red nose #53
Sea surface temperatures decreasing since 2002
No Rednoise, that will not do, Go Back to #74. Don't be such a tosser!
Hardley @ 52..
For what it is worth, if you really want to influence people as a Professor, the first thing you should do is get over yourself.
Try it for a few days, then a week, then a month etc...baby steps.
Something you are an expert in, baby steps to learning about climate change. You have taken the first step by coming here and then got stuck. So sad to see a grown-up regress like this.
"card carrying warmist"
So that's why Redarse acts so stupidly. "Card carrying Communist‘ being the Red Scare phrase it's derived from, for the benefit of our younger readers.
A superannuated Pope Montford true believer in worldwide conspiracies with a McCarthyite anti-communist club for protection from all those Red hippy eco pre-verts intent on sapping his vital bodily fluids hiding under his bed. (Bit of a Dr. Strangelove mashup going on there for we older readers).
Cheer up Redarse, Viscunt Popeyes is sure to be along soon to read you one of those nice scary bedtime stories that you like so much, or perhaps an interpretation of an interpretation by Dellers or Pile.
Heh - you ain't 'people' Betty.
'I have met lots of climate and atmospheric scientists over the years and I have yet to meet one who denies the reality of AGW.'
C'mon, you didn't ask 'em. They also have mortgages to pay and cannot risk having doubts about the veracity of AGW.
Fatso, anyone worried above all else about their mortgage would be on the denier gravy train like the CEI, the AEI, the Donor's Trust, AFP, Heritage, Cato et fucking cetera..
Do you never get tired of the limitations that your infantile bullshit runs into after more than 30 seconds of critical thought? Evidently not, or like most deniers, you can't maintain an attention span that long.
Well that's not entirely true, chek. i have taken on board the Klimatariat argument (presented by colleagues here) that this temperature pause is caused by a negative PDO.
Cycles are distributors Fatso, not creators.
Ans as as it's even more apropos to your interjection, I'll repeat what I just said:
<Ii "Do you never get tired of the limitations that your infantile bullshit runs into after more than 30 seconds of critical thought? Evidently not, or like most deniers, you can’t maintain an attention span that long"
Read a fucking book or some papers for fucks sake and stop snuffling about in semi-pro denier blog bullshit.
One thing is patently clear, you are not a scientist and have to resort to one of your bibles for direction from the faith.
You should get a life.
So says the moron without the brain power to process or even examine the meaningless, unsupported crap he spouts.
He thinks he's being funny.
He's pretending to be too smart to actually believe the satire he presents here, but deep down he clings to the notion that somehow all the scientists are wrong and Tony Abbott will save him from the nasty Greenies.
What he is avoiding coming to terms with is the fact that he actually is a science-denying calcified-brain dupe of the crank-blogs he gets his humour from.
Rednose, what on earth is this "hiatus" you are talking about?
As you can see, temperatures have increased:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2008/plot/rss/from:2008/trend
I suspect the denier clownshoe market is already way oversaturated, Craig
I'm flattered that you think my serious comments are considered parody.
Jeff Harvey elsewhere they are discussing Abbott's DAP and the idea of putting CO2 back into the soil. The consensus is that its a total waste of money, do you have an opinion on this|?
The Klimatariat is strongly pushing the line in the msm that the heat has gone into the deep oceans and cannot be monitored by satellites.
unfknbelvable
I couldn't make this shit up... its classic.
Your comments aren't even remotely serious.
To be serious, they would need to refer to some checkable facts.
30 seconds?
Way too generous! Much of it is dispensed in one second, and most of the rest within 3.
If you get sick of hearing the uneducated opinions of cranks and ex-TV-weathermen, you can have a listen to what a real scientist actrively researching and publishing in the field has to say:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022/pdf/1748-9326_6_4_044022…
'Something is happening to our sun. If history is anything to go by, the sun’s change of mood could affect us all by cooling the earth and throwing our climate change calculations into disarray.
'It might even be the case that the earth’s response to low solar activity will overturn many of our assumptions about man’s influence on climate change.' Cold not warmth might be our future. We do not know. We must keep watching the sun.'
–David Whitehouse, Public Service Europe, 24 July 2013
If "history is anything to go by", the anthropogenic forcing we are already applying will have very serious consequences as strongly implied by the paleo data, and even if we (say) experience another Maunder Minimum. Note that even such an unusual "change in the sun's mood" would only be temporary and would have a much smaller impact than the anthropogenic impact we're currently on course for.
But you don't really want to go by history now, do you? You want to ignore everything we've learned about climate response from data about the past in favour of crank theory, rolling the dice hoping the sun will temporarily mitigate some of the warming so that you can kick the can down the road and let someone else deal with it.
And you just want to mention "going by history" via a writer for the denialist organisation GWPF - in the hope that it will fool someone, whether yourself or others.
As that link points out where Whitehouse has made wrong claims many times...if you're appealing to his authority (which you are, seeing you don't seem to be able to provide any actual evidence), you're admitting that your argument is most likely wrong.
But even there you're mediocre. Karen/Mack/Sunspot does the clown-trolling pie-in-one's-own-face thing much better than you do.
'But you don’t really want to go by history now, do you?'
As there has been a pause in global warming we should lean on the 'precautionary principle' in case of global cooling.
It comes back to CO2 sensitivity and I don't believe a Maunder will be over in a couple of decades, overwhelmed by AGW.
guffaw
What pause?
It's obviously increasing:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2008/plot/rss/from:2008/trend
David Whitehouse works for the GWPF, a non-science denialist lobby-group.
Why not get your information from reliable sources instead?
If you wonder about Whitehouse's reliability, ask yourself why he would say,
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/Sea_Ice_Extent.png
The record low of 2007 was beaten by a new record low in 2012.
Whitehouse was wrong. And he was predictably wrong: he bases his assertions on belief and ideology rather than on research and analysis.
You're in flat out denial - but we all knew that, yourself included.
There's no pause in global warming. The top of atmosphere heat imbalance continues.
When you remove various short term natural influences as Foster and Rahmstorff showed, EVEN the surface warming trend hasn't noticeably changed.
The paper I just linked to showed that even a Maunder Minimum would result in ONLY about 0.3C of temporary cooling - compare that with 0.8C of warming we have experienced since pre-industrial times. You want to invoke the precautionary principle in case we have a hypothetical event that (if it happened all at once right now) would take us back to 0.5C above pre-industrial times, but not apply it to long term behaviour that will take us to 2C and likely well beyond?
Your positions are based on abject foolishness and a complete unwillingness to take into account all the data and to apply the very principles you claim to be espousing. They amount to nothing more than wishful thinking with a dash of slapdash rationalisation thrown in.
Go back to your jail thread instead of spamming this thread with stupidity.
The price of coffee is set to increase because of that CAO in Brazil.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-23/arabica-coffee-gains-before-br…
'Go back to your jail thread instead of spamming this thread with stupidity.'
Much amusement.
'a Maunder Minimum would result in ONLY about 0.3C of temporary cooling'
If it happened at the same time as a cool PDO and the hypothetical warmth stayed in the deep ocean, I reckon it could fall by a degree over a decade.
"One thing is patently clear, you are not a scientist and have to resort to one of your bibles for direction from the faith"
Hey! Like Betty, now Gordo's looking in the mirror and espousing his true, inner self. Note how none of the deniers has any scientific pedigree, yet their views contrast with those of the vast majority of statured experts. Must be some sort of pathology.
You can reckon what you like - and you frequently do, sans evidence or logic - but the precautionary principle still doesn't recommend what you claim it does.
"C’mon, you didn’t ask ‘em. They also have mortgages to pay and cannot risk having doubts about the veracity of AGW".
This absurd response alone disqualifies - or indeed should - Gordo from being taken seriously in any way, shape, or form. Its the last refuge of this sordid bunch of liars. I do know plenty of climate scientists, and indeed have spoken with a fair number of them. Their jobs in now ay depend on their maintaining certain view. What fatso is doing here is smearing an entire profession to come up with some wretched justification for the fact that the vast majority are on one side of the debate.
Moreover, if a scientists jumped ship and went to any number of far right think tanks, lobbying groups and the like, the bucks waiting for them there are significantly greater than their current take home pay. The problem for slimy dudes like gordo is that there is no other way to explain the strong scientific consensus amongst climate scientists. All that is left is a baseless smear.
Jeff, it's the usual projection: they are dishonest and assume everybody else is like them.
What you reckon is demonstratedly of no value whatsoever.
Can we agree there is no polar amplification in Antarctica?
Are we talking about the Antarctica that is showing a strong trend of mass loss,
http://climate.nasa.gov/images/newsPage-242.jpg
or some other Antarctica from an alternate reality wherein El Gordo has a clue?
In other news, seeing as El Gordo is keen to talk about the weather - Melburnians seem to be enjoying their warmest July in 150 years:
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/melbourne-catches-up-with-syd…
Ah... that would be the wayward jet stream in blocking mode.
-----------
'I take issue with the claim the models are “fundamentally wrong“. They actually appear to be correct – for the case where there is no CO2 forcing.
'It seems strange to me that both the alarmists and the skeptics forget that the climate models were run to show two diverging scenarios. And the one scenario that has been born out in the measurements is the one where there is no CO2 forcing.
'Seems we have validated the models – just not the way the IPCC and alarmists wanted.'
The Strata-Sphere
This.
Bollocks.
When you remove CO2 forcing, the models diverge badly from observations over climate-scale time periods, even when you just consider surface temperature trends. When you put CO2 forcing in they are fairly close to what is observed.
Yes, there are metrics on which the models aren't as good, and if you compare them to observations over time periods that are too short they aren't going to be a close match. None of that should (nor does) surprise anyone competent in the field, but it is useful to gull the gullible.
And worse still, if you pretend that CO2 forcing doesn't exist you can no longer explain a whole load of other data including the paleo data so the observations CANNOT validate the models sans CO2 forcing. It's a stupid claim because it is wrong without even referencing models.
In other words, someone is lying here - either to you, or it is you, and someone else is stupid or gullible...
(At least you're consistent though. I think just about every claim, implied or explicit, that you've made is wrong.)
Clueless El Gordo again - his model seems to assume the enhanced greenhouse effect causes a linear increase in temperatures and the total elimination of variability.
You'll notice temperatures did not increase for about 35 years from 1942 - and yet, CO2 retained its known physical characteristics and continued to drive global warming in the long term.
Here is a nice summary of all the stuff El Gordo doesn't seem to know:
http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators
Tell us, El Gordo, is NASA in on some kind of conspiracy? Or could it be that your crank-bloggers are lying to you?
Scary stuff, Craig.
That's why the precautionary principle was put in place, but if temperatures should fall suddenly then there is only one conclusion.
Paleo evidence suggests CO2 follows temperatures and not the other way around. Carbon Dioxide is a beneficial trace gas, innocent of the charges laid against it.
It was just a coincidence that temperatures rose at the end of last century, in tandem with human activity, the null hypothesis is that an active sun caused the warming.
OMG...
"Paleo evidence suggests CO2 follows temperatures and not the other way around"
Pure and utter nonsense. Its been debunked a billion times already, and yet our chubby contributor brings it up again.
Know-noithings like gordo qualify for the D-K prize. They somehow think that being non-scientists sitting at their computers they discover scientific 'truths' that have somehow escaped the vast majority of the scientific community.
Gordo was banned once; hopefully Tim comes to his senses and boots him out again - this time for good.
It reads like Fatso took in a Viscunt Popeye lecture seven or eight years ago, stocked up on a shedful of lies and distortions and hasn't wanted to learn anything since. At least, that's the charitable version.
Pause in temperature increases granted (let's ignore the absence of a significant el Nino year during this time). And ignore all the analyses showing that La Nina and neutral years are showing steady increases anyway.
Check out John Nielsen-Gammon's list of 13 datasets.
http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2013/06/what-i-didnt-say-to-fred-sin…
Then let's go with him discarding the surface temperature records from any consideration. I'd be interested in anyone coming up with some number other than one in a trillion for the likelihood of all these datasets being biased or wrong - to the same extent - in the same direction.
This graph from Law Dome is intriguing.
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/ld2_1kyr1.png?w=720&h=4…
'The subject was not the past 15 years of flat temperatures, which would make for an interesting scientific debate. '
Oh wait... Craig said it hasn't been flat.
Correction, Craig's (and others) data show that temperatures haven't been flat. That's a major difference you're likely too stupid to comprehend.
In the same way as you likely don't comprehend your posted graph.
The Dome graph suggests the Medieval warming first began in Antarctica.
Climate variability the spanner in the works, sea level rise uncertain.
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1874.html
OK Gordian Knot, in your opinion what makes a Law Dome graph intriguing? Come on don't be shy, Some things to think about.. And I have more up my sleeve.
And if your car slows suddenly there is only one conclusion, right?
Teh Stupid is very strong indeed in this one.
Given the continued Earth energy imbalance and the fact that the oceans ate continuing to warm then the physics suggests that you are clutching at straws. The way this is echoing through the deniersphere/delayersphere is another example of 'let's not do anything right now because we don't have enough data', which as always is the BS line.
From your link at #23 I point you at New study indicates need for continuous satellite monitoring of ice sheets to better predict sea-level rise. Once again you need to explain the Medieval warming connection.
And you people do like posting links to unsupported and unreferenced graphs (your #20) - that is a big clue that this is also a BS line. Besides, McIntyre has been called out on what Steve Metzler calls a 'spitball', now do follow the comments down from Steves post taking in Chris Colose's response at 195.
Did the fat spaniard just paste a link to serial FOI-pest and mining-stock spruiker McIntyre's crank-blog?
and then followed that up with some assertions about the mythical "Mediaeval warm period" based on some regional data?
Wottaclown.
el gordo
you should read the Shakun 2012 paper and not deny physics.
Channeling Bishop Hill
‘The prominent climatologist Mike Hulme has slammed the Cook et al 97% “nonsensus” paper in a comment at the Nottingham University Making Science Public blog.
The “97% consensus” article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country that the energy minister should cite it. It offers a similar depiction of the world into categories of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ to that adopted in Anderegg et al.’s 2010 equally poor study in PNAS: dividing publishing climate scientists into ‘believers’ and ‘non-believers’. It seems to me that these people are still living (or wishing to live) in the pre-2009 world of climate change discourse. Haven’t they noticed that public understanding of the climate issue has moved on?
‘This is an interesting development since nobody is going to finger Hulme as any kind of a sceptic.’
Hardley
"yet their views contrast with those of the vast majority of statured experts."
Actually Hardley, my view is that the effect of predicted future temperature on the interactions of natural systems is extremely complex and in many ways unpredictable. I'm sure you "statured" types would agree...
You study noise Hardley, and you try to "unmask" the noise to predict the responses and consequences of processes that for the most part, react "in very unpredictable ways", yet in your predetermined mindset, can only be negative in totality.
So as far as views go, we agree on things being unpredictable, and we agree that knowing how the "reassembly of ecological communities and ecosytems" plays out, as a result of a predicted increase in temperature...."is anybody’s guess".
What we disagree on is this....even though you admittedly don't know what the consequences will be, you assume that the "unpredictable" effects of predicted temperature increases on complex systems (that need to be "unmasked") can only lead to negative consequences, and that you feel a need to embellish about those guessed consequences and even pretend to experience them "first hand" over an inconsequential timescale in order to satisfy your ideological mindset.
The irony! This comment posted by someone posting meme after meme that was debunked years ago. The implications for the thesis of that comment are left as an exercise for the reader (along with the implications of appealing to an authority who lambasts the state of public debate...)
Also if I correctly recall, the Cook et al paper didn't divide scientists into believers vs non-believers so much as it divided papers into the range of levels of support for the position that humans are causing global warming, ranging from supporting through no opinion through to rejecting. So it appears that either Hulme or Bishop Hill has a fundamental misconception about this paper (or has at best expressed a fact about Anderegg et. al. in a way that is almost certain to be misinterpreted as being about Cook et. al.)
It's impressive how you know this despite having a clear lack of understanding of the field as evidenced time and time again at Deltoid.
Do you perhaps possess mindreading skills that you haven't revealed to the world yet? James Randi is still offering $1M, I believe.
Only if you live on the deny-o-sphere.
... and have not the faintest idea what it means (h/t Lionel @#26) but it looks kinda sciencey (which is a step up from clueless to ridiculous) for El Fatso.
Sloth..
"It’s impressive how you know this despite having a clear lack of understanding of the field as evidenced time and time again at Deltoid"
It's impressive how you know this despite having a clear lack of examples, time and time again.
Please proceed.
So Betula's argument boils down to this: AGW is going to have unpredictable effects on ecosystems across the biosphere. There may be winners and losers. Since the effects are unpredictable, keep on burning fossil fuels and putting stored carbon into the atmosphere.
That's about it. Its an experiment - so what? If it goes terribly wrong, so what? What is the worst that can happen? OK, OK, it may well drive much of human civilization down the toilet, but heck, that's for future generations to deal with. Until then, let's just keep on what we are doing.
This is the thrust of what Betula is saying. Humans are carrying out an unpredictable experiment on the atmosphere and on systems that sustain us. Since we don't know what the outcome of the experiment is with any kind of certainty, let's just keep on doing it.
As I said, why the guy writes in here is anybody's guess. Certain.y not to enhance the level of the debate, that s for sure.
El Gordo: do you serve any other function than to copy and paste stuff, without providing any further added value?
That's it exactly.
Betty's whole schtick is along the lines of: yes the car is travelling at 90 mph, and is going to crash into that concrete wall but hey, you safety engineers only seem to see the negative results. Mangled cars can have benefits too, just look at any scrapyard.
That's just it, it hasn't and will not as long as the likes of Shukman and the BBC continue pumping out willfully deceptive pieces with egregious headlines such as this: Why has global warming stalled?.
I guess you Gordian Knot were not paying attention enough to catch this one first time around.
Kevin Rudd will be on the Bolter's Sunday show and he is bound to ask where the heat has gone.
Hardley...
"Since the effects are unpredictable, keep on burning fossil fuels and putting stored carbon into the atmosphere.."
Now, why don't you show me where I stated this.
As a Professor, do you think it's a good idea to jump to conclusions, make assumptions, put words in peoples mouths, embellish and lie? What exactly is your job description again?
Please proceed.
It needn't be stated explicitly bozo, it is the ultimate aim of denialism in a bite-sized candy-coated nutshell.
Next you'll be denying your a denier and making similar bozo demands, to which the answer will be 'fuck off, this blog isn't the all-about-Betty's-weasel-words show'/
Shorter chek..
You're a denier for not denying and I can prove it by denying to give you an example of what it is you denied...so fuck off.
Cmdr. Cheky, you've outdone yourself here at Deltoid. Keep it up and you may get promoted to Captain...
Yes it's absolutely and astoundingly amazing how everybody has the same wrong impression about you, isn't it bozo.
"Yes it’s absolutely and astoundingly amazing how everybody has the same wrong impression about you, isn’t it bozo"
The ideologues on Deltoid? No....you have the wrong impression about most things.
What is absolutely astounding is the fact that you can't give an example that backs up what you believe it is that I deny, if you could, you would have....so fuck off.
Note...credit for that last part goes to Cmdr. cheky.
Which is ironic, given that you're the one shown to be consistently wrong year after year with your trademark selectivity and misrepresentation. Which makes you both dishonest in making false claims and stupid for thinking they'd be accepted.
Cmdr.
Like I said, you have the wrong impression about most things.
This time last year the North Pole was melting and a large pond developed. At the moment that isn't happening.
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/northpole/NPEO2013/9.jpg
Last years ice cover stepped over the cliff at the end of July, beginning of August.
Not many expect last year's record be matched so soon, but then again with all that rigorously denied ocean heat slopping about, you never can tell.
The vagaries of variability.
Only deniers seem to think AGW should exhibit a linear increase.
North Pole webcams. I notice that the picture in #47 looks to be from webcam 1. If you look at both of the North Pole webcams you'll see that No 2 is a bit different. (These images are updated regularly so anyone reading this later may see something quite different.)
https://sites.google.com/site/arcticseaicegraphs/webcams
Yeah - Camera 2 - talk your way out of that one, Smeghead.
Wow, failing at primary school level snark as well? Epic!
(Hint: it only works if your version has a reasonable correspondence with reality. And denying reality denies yourself the means to determine whether it does or not, thus leaving you prone to making yourself look stupid...like you just did.)
...in which el gordo reveals that his sources are lying to him, that he hasn't a skeptical bone in his body, that he doesn't have access to any credible climate science news sources, and that he is functioning here as little more than a gullible cut and paste bot.
As I said before, at least he's consistent...ly wrong.
The funny thing is that El Gordo, despite his trying to be funny,manages to *also* be unintentionally funny.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/07/25/newser-north-pole-l…
North Pole has become a lake, again
Matt Cantor, Newser 11:46 a.m. EDT July 25, 2013
north pole
Shhhhh - I've been hoping no-one would give the game away...
Thanx for those links, I stand corrected.
Betula goes all innocent on us. He's been defending his contrarian views by arguing all this time that the effects of increasing the atmospheric concentrations of C02 on climate are unpredictable. He goes on to argue that the so-called effects of fertilization on larger scale communities and ecosystems are unpredictable. So, putting 2 and 2 together, its easy to come up with this conclusion that I posited yesterday:
Since the effects are unpredictable, keep on burning fossil fuels and putting stored carbon into the atmosphere..”
The he comes back asking to know where he had said it. As Chek correctly responded, its implicitly implied. Why else would Betty write in here? He clearly downplays the effects of greenhouse gases on climate and has used corporate greenhouse advertising to suggest that C02 will be a boon to natural systems through increasing primary production. When it was pointed out to him that natural systems are inherently complex and exhibit non-linear dynamics, he then reverted to the 'its unpredictable' meme. So given this clowns past behavior, its obvious - or should be - that he believes that since we don't know enough then we don't need to take remedial action.
So I say this and he unbelievably responds with his, "where did I say that?' riposte.
Clearly, Betty is either a loaf sort of a dozen, has a bad memory, or doesn't know what his position is. Whatever, he's a joke.
Arctic summers ice-free 'by 201?'
"Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice.
Their latest modelling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years.
Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss.
Summer melting this "...
and.....
"Our projection of 201? for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007," the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC.
"So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 201? is already too conservative."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7139797.stm
oh deary me... that was sooo scary !!!! !o!
"The 15-year stop in global warming is now outside the range of climate ‘noise’ and climate models. It is statistically significant. [...] from a science point of view, it is sheer absurdity to want to maintain ‘a nice, comfortable, stable climate’ through a few turns of some sort of CO2 control-knob.”
Klaus-Eckart
SpamKan lol you have lol no idea lol whatsoever lol what it means lol in the lol bigger picture lol.
How cute - El Fatso's on first name terms with Klaus-Eckart.
Klaus-EckartPuls that is, whose organisation is 'advised by' the creme de la cranks Lubos Motl, Nils Morner, Ian Plimer, Richard S. Courtney, Lord Christopher Monckton and - I kid you not - Marcel Leroux (deceased). One wonders how many casting votes Marcel's contribution decided.
Perhaps the luminaries iof crankdom he's connected to also think (or rather, they'd like some of us to believe) surface air temperatures are the only metric for heat entering the climate system.
Interesting too, the cognitive dissonance require by El Fatterachi to alert us to the North Pole melt lake forming whilst simultaneously pushing the no warming meme.
At least we can agree that Arctic sea ice disappeared completely during the summers of the early Holocene.
Abstract
Paleo-sea-ice history in the Arctic Ocean was reconstructed using the sea-ice dwelling ostracode Acetabulastoma arcticum from late Quaternary sediments from the Mendeleyev, Lomonosov, and Gakkel Ridges, the Morris Jesup Rise and the Yermak Plateau. Results suggest intermittently high levels of perennial sea ice in the central Arctic Ocean during Marine Isotope Stage (MIS) 3 (25–45 ka), minimal sea ice during the last deglacial (16–11 ka) and early Holocene thermal maximum (11–5 ka) and increasing sea ice during the mid-to-late Holocene (5–0 ka). Sediment core records from the Iceland and Rockall Plateaus show that perennial sea ice existed in these regions only during glacial intervals MIS 2, 4, and 6. These results show that sea ice exhibits complex temporal and spatial variability during different climatic regimes and that the development of modern perennial sea ice may be a relatively recent phenomenon.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379110001691
hmmm......."and that the development of modern perennial sea ice may be a relatively recent phenomenon."
lol
Antarctic ice cores tend to show a fairly high and stable CO2 concentration throughout the Holocene, but this maybe incorrect. There are other methods which indicate CO2 actually falls during cold times.
'Records for the past millennium indicate significantly reduced CO2 levels from A.D. 1550 to 1800, which are temporally related to the historical Little Ice Age climate deterioration.'
Wagner et al
Now it may sound bizarre, but I simply can't accept that a drop in CO2 caused the LIA.
... but still considerably older than recorded history, which is the world human civilisation grew up in.
Seriously SpamKan, it's obvious these Cliff-note gobbets of history lessons you're being fed are just as free of context and over your head as the climate science you can only lol at.
"A relatively recent phenomenon" in your terms is fucking Facebook..
Believe it or not El Fatso, the internet can supply you with a lot more than wanking material, and in the case of the LIA it will show many causes - cyclical lows in solar radiation, heightened volcanic activity, changes in the ocean circulation, inherent variability and human activity (or inactivity) affecting global climate have been proposed.
Interestingly, paleoclimatologist William Ruddiman has indeed proposed that massive reforestation took place following the Mongol invasions and their accompanying world-class massacres (40 million by some estimates) in the 13th Century, and the de-population (150 million estimated) of Europe during the Black Death in the 14th Century. The resulting CO2 sequestration by the forests that encroached onto once arable land may well have been a contributory factor to the LIA around 150 years later.
#68 chek
There is no need to prove that you are gullible and stupid.
we already know :)
The 'we' presumably being the other voices sharing the inside of your head.
"the development of modern perennial sea ice may be a relatively recent phenomenon."
Credulous Karen fooled by the words "'relatively recently". 5ka too sciency for him. lol at the wanker.
Gordian Knot, please explain why when I enter the following text string into Google with enclosing quotes I only get three hits, two to the well recognized contrarian (that is denier in simple terms) and the other to here,
As for Klaus-Eckart Puls's umbrella organisation the EIKE we find an entry here at Sourcewatch .
Now lookee here:
Oh Dear, not a science based group after all but another propaganda outfit promoting obfuscation and falsehoods, R Courtney also being know for such, we had examples recently.
Now Gordian you are either posting in bad faith or an idiot. That does not rule out the possibility probability that you are both.
Fellas, the humble Dr. Humle one or two things to say about the Cooked 97 % figure.
DK anyone? ;-)
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/7/25/hulme-slams-97-paper.html#com…
It's very confusing Olap. One moment they're all crooks at UEA hiding the decline and manipulating the data, the next they're trusted oracles of wisdom whose words are infallible. As long as you like what they're saying.
But being a moron, you won't understand the mental impairment required for holding simultaneously contradictory views. You likely just think your hat's on bit tight.
The fact is, these things are challenged by submitting better science in another paper, not by bitching and whining on blogs. Especially not toxic blogs frequented by as many cranks as the Notts. Uni. one. Mike should know better.
For the regulars, there was an astute comment at Eli's pointing out that the paper in question - one single paper - has so rattled the crank battalions it's created a denial sub-industry rivalling that of MBH98
I wonder if all Mike's new denier friends who place such great store by his words now, would equally like to get hehind him when he speaks of decarbonising the economy, by 2030 if possible
Hardley @59...
"He’s been defending his contrarian views by arguing all this time that the effects of increasing the atmospheric concentrations of C02 on climate are unpredictable"
"He goes on to argue that the so-called effects of fertilization on larger scale communities and ecosystems are unpredictable"
Not an argument, an agreement...with you. Obviously we agree on this, it's just that you seem to deny it while agreeing with it at the same time...
JUNE THREAD
Pg.11, # 81..."So increased atmospheric C02, in answer to Betula’s nonsense, is most certainly a BAD thing in the short term because it alters a range of ecophysiological properties in very unpredictable ways"
It's certainly bad short term...yet it's unpredictable? How about long term?
pg. 10, #45..."At the same time, local increases in termperature lead to reassembly of ecological communities and ecosytems. How this will play out is anybody’s guess"
So now it's a guess?
Pg. &, #51...."it would have unpredictable and perhaps negative consequences on ecological systems as a result of a complex interplay of physiological changes in plant properties, responses up the food chain, and effects on processes like competition, community assembly and plant-consumer interactions"
Unpredictable and perhaps negative consequences? What are the other consequence options?
Pg.3, #61...
"Given that there are significant differences in soil properties of these biomes, as well as in plants and animals, a warming climate will certainly impact them. The problem is that there are very few scientists studying these effects, but that does not mean that there will not be responses and consequences"
So, a warming climate will certainly impact them, it's just that we don't know exactly how much warming or how fast the warming will occur and we can't know exactly what the impacts will be....except that it's "most certainly a BAD thing", we are sure of that.
chek @p10 #98
Very pleased to report that good time was had ;-)
Weather also excellent. I really do *love* North Cornwall when it's hot.
Betty-John @ p11 #7
Nothing to do with carbon footprints, but yes, I holiday locally. I like the British coast, especially the North of Cornwall.
Betty-John @ p 11 #20
I don't bumble, Betty. I can show you up for the confused, dishonest physics denier that you are with nary a bumble in sight.
Karen p 11 #14
All good things come to an end, Karen.
St. Cyr @ p11 # 22
Sorry for the slow response but I've been away. Many thanks. Most heartening.
@74 OP
Two things.
First, irrespective of quibbles over a per cent or two, there is a strong scientific consensus over AGW. No amount of argument over methodology changes this.
Second, it is a distraction. It's something to argue about endlessly that doesn't make a whit of difference to the actual problem or the physics and paleoclimate behaviour that demonstrate that there *is* an actual problem.
In summary, Mike Hulme isn't saying that radiative physics is falsified and thus no CO2-forced warming.
Give it up Betty, your schtick is tiresome. Taking individual phrases out of a totality of work - indeed a field of work - and micro-parsing them isn't very clever. It's a layman denier tactic.
No doubt you can turn these into the opposite of what the authors are saying too, but it doesn't mean you have a clue, it means you're a denier..
Carbon Dioxide Enrichment Inhibits Nitrate Assimilation in Wheat and Arabidopsis. Bloom et al (2010)
Photosynthetic inhibition after long-term exposure to elevated levels of carbon dioxide. (DeLucia 1985)
Sharply increased insect herbivory during the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum. (Currano 2007)
Insects Will Feast, Plants Will Suffer: Ancient Leaves Show Affect Of Global Warming
Insects Take A Bigger Bite Out Of Plants In A Higher Carbon Dioxide World.
Global scale climate–crop yield relationships and the impacts of recent warming
“Shredded Heat” – Crop Failure and Climate Change
Russia's Heat Wave Wilts Crops
Historical Warnings of Future Food Insecurity with Unprecedented Seasonal Heat – Battisti & Naylor (2009)
Welcome back, BBD.
Although I know the south coast of Cornwall far better (St Austell/Fowey area) there really is nowhere better than the UK in simmer when the weathers as fine as it's been for the whole of July. Even Scotland, according to reports.
You just don't get our long, long days in the more southerly sun meccas.
BBD, glad that you are back.... you've missed the usual nonsense from the usual suspects....
So Betty, I want to ask you this. Given you continually accuse me of making things up, see if you can have a stab at this easy Q...
What do you think ought to be the immediate and longer term response of governments around the world to AGW and the burning of fossil fuels and potential effects on terrestrial, freshwater and marine ecosystems, given what you think we know now.
Let me see.... hmmmmm.... my guess is that you will say 'business-as-usual until more data are in'. Am I correct? So please, put us all out of our misery now. I am waiting with baited breath. Or will you try and slip-slide your way out of this corner and be all non-commital again?
What also do you think should be done about other "alleged" (that a safe enough word for you?) anthropogenic threats to the environment? Do you thin acid rain was ever a threat? Or ozone depletion? What about over-harvesting? Destruction of tropical forests? Invasive species? Eutrophication of wetlands? And what can you tell me about the effects of these on ecosystem services? Do you think that these alleged threats matter? Or do we continue with a slash-and-butn approach to the biosphere until all the data are 'in'?
Balls is your court John Birch.
By the way BBD, my vacation begins next week at Land's End: I am in a group of three cycling from there to John O' Groats.... I have a 27 speed Santos Touring Bike for the task, to be completed over 19 days.
And just for Betty: in 2015 the same friend who crossed Algonquin Park with me will join me on a 3 glacier hike across Iceland (first time these three will have been crossed in a single journey). Its a hike of about 200 km...
Expect old Betty to search the internet for anything about my trek where I mention global changes...
And I should also add my thanks to St Cyr whose comment I didn't see at the time. (Sometimes I notice the numbering has gone wrong and go back to see what's been added, but then again sometimes I don't bother).
But don't do yourself down St C. - some of us here are only interested amateurs, and it's good to get the chance to sometimes add to the comments of the professionals and those far smarter than I here.
chek #83
Used to do the other side when I was a kid, based on the Lizard, so I miss it. But, but... It's all new on the north coast, which is fun and Mrs BBD nailed it with standard precision: on the north coast the sun sets into the sea.
Good cliffs, too. I don't know enough geology and cliffs always make me want to know more. The mind just boggles at rocks, really. The slate terrace at the cottage burning my feet all week... ~360 million year old. At least.
#85 Jeff
!
But remember, I was born in Macclesfield, so am automatically 'arder than you.
;-)
Macclesfield??
Ya soft southern bastard :).
'the LIA it will show many causes '
You are suggesting a combination of factors came together to force CO2 down during the LIA. Fair enough.
OK what about the Younger Dryas? Surely it had nothing to do with a large fresh water lake or an asteroid breaking up?
There appears to be no definitive answer, but we do know CO2 dropped significantly and cooled things down quite a bit.
Smart wife!
The last time I was there was for the total eclipse in August 1999, and the ring of primrose yellow sunrise forming a surrounding edge in every direction to a dark sky was unearthly. It confused the hell out of the bird population too.
Apparently 95% of greenhouse gas is water vapour and a couple of percent to farting cows, so before we turn off coal fired power stations we should consider eliminating our domestic animals and becoming vegans for the sake of the planet.
... or you could consider reading some actual science before taking your orders from cranks. God forbid.
el gordo #92
You don't understand the basics.
Start here.
The null hypothesis for global cooling?
You really don't know what you're on about, do you Fatso.
The Making of An Extreme Event: Putting the Pieces Together
Abstract
We examine how physical factors spanning climate and weather contributed to record warmth over the central and eastern U.S. in March 2012, when daily temperature anomalies at many locations exceeded 20°C. Over this region, approximately 1° C warming in March temperatures has occurred since 1901. This long-term regional warming is an order-of-magnitude smaller than temperature anomalies observed during the event, indicating the most of the extreme warmth must be explained by other factors. Several lines of evidence strongly implicate natural variations as the primary cause for the extreme event. The 2012 temperature anomalies had a close analogue in an exceptionally warm U.S. March occurring over 100 years earlier, providing observational evidence that an extreme event similar to March 2012 could be produced through natural variability alone. Coupled model forecasts and simulations forced by observed sea surface temperatures (SSTs) show that forcing from anomalous SSTs increased the probability of extreme warm temperatures in March 2012 above that anticipated from the long-term warming trend. In addition, forcing associated with a strong Madden-Julian Oscillation further increased the probability for extreme U.S. warmth and provided important additional predictive information on the timing and spatial pattern of temperature anomalies. The results indicate that the superposition of a strong natural variation similar to March 1910 on long-term warming of the magnitude observed would be sufficient to account for the record warm March 2012 U.S. temperatures. We conclude that the extreme warmth over the central and eastern U.S. in March 2012 resulted primarily from natural climate and weather variability, a substantial fraction of which was predictable.
Received: December 10, 2012; Revised: June 26, 2013
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00069.1?af=R&
lol
'You really don’t know what you’re on about, do you Fatso.'
CO2 is not the main driver of our earthly climate.
A trace gas which effects temperatures should be universally applied, otherwise it fails.
My money is on that bright orb which passes over my place everyday, probably has a bigger impact than the warmists are prepared to admit.