More thread.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
By popular request. Comments from Brent and folks arguing with him are cluttering up more useful discussions. All comments by Brent and responses to comments by Brent should go in this thread. I can't move comments in MT, so I'll just delete comments that appear in the wrong thread.
By popular request. Comments from El Gordo and folks arguing with him are cluttering up more useful discussions. All comments by El Gordo and responses to comments by El Gordo should go in this thread. I can't move comments in MT, so I'll just delete comments that appear in the wrong thread.
This thread is for people who wish to engage Ray in discussion.
Ray, please do not post comments to any other thread.
Everyone else, please do not respond to Ray in any other thread.
By popular request, here is the Jonas thread. All comments by Jonas and replies to his comments belong in this thread.
a propos of nothing at all... well, one of my favourite comic strips...
http://doonesbury.slate.com/strip/archive/2012/2/6
It had to happen in one hemisphere or the other- Sharknado, the sequel.
' the best estimate of the Holocene variation in global average temperature is under 1C since the preceding glacial was exited (although with significant uncertainty bands attached).'
Ah yes, 'average', but in northern Europe during the LIA temperatures fell 1.5 C degrees.
Ok, I know. I'm dragging last month's garbage to sit at this month's dinner table. Never mind.
Is this yet another iteration of ye olde *warmer temperatures will be just like holidaying on a tropical island* brand of bullshit? Because a higher average global temperature is just like a warmer, longer summer's day and we'd all like that, wouldn't we, boys and girls.
I thought that one had died and rotted away. Or perhaps it's fertilised the growth of some not quite replica that I've not seen before.
'How would our GDP like a 96% extinction of marine species, as has happened in the past?'
As I said, life on this planet is precarious. You are clutching at straws Craig.
So it's okay to let your nine year old do his imitation tightrope walker routine along the roof capping or to leave your henhouse unlocked after you saw a fox nearby?
It's one thing to know that life is short. It's another thing entirely to deliberately court disaster because you like to pretend you can't tell the difference between 'shit happens' and avoidable consequences. Between inevitable harm, harm avoidance and harm reduction.
I'm glad I never had you attending a health and safety lecture back when I did such things.
'Is this yet another iteration of ye olde *warmer temperatures'
I remember seeing a terrific moving graph at SS which showed the break points where there is a pause in temperatures for around 30 years.
For example, 1945-75 paused and 1976 to 2000 was warm again. So I'm suggesting the next 20 years could show a similar pause, then temperatures will increase again.
This will prove that our Modern Climate Optimum still has someway to run.
Just sayin'
Cynical. Bloated. Hack.
'Between inevitable harm, harm avoidance and harm reduction.'
That is Bob Carter's Plan B... be prepared for any eventuality.
'Cynical. Bloated. Hack.'
Pragmatic. Slim. ex-Hack.
Sunshine, if you can't see what a disgrace you are, after your contemtibly ignorant outpourings on the other thread, that's your problem.
Certainly fits with being a hack. But it never goes away, does it?
Here's the escalator I mentioned earlier.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47
'Certainly fits with being a hack'
Sports writer in the msm last century, but this science gig in the 5th Estate is much more fun.
'Sunshine, if you can’t see what a disgrace you are'
At least I'm not drunk like some of the larrikins around here.
Yes el gordo @ #11
Did you study that long enough to notice that the graph morphed into another version? Now what was the red line telling you?
Shakes head in disbelief!
I fully comprehend that, Lionel, it was warm last century.
Oh! Boy! And this is not about Buddy Holly:
I mentioned plague outbreaks in a warming world in last month s thread (el gordo check out conditions at the onset of The Black Death and other plague outbreaks e.g. high London Temp's 1665-1666) and here is another example of biological dislocation: Food For Thought: Brain-Eating Parasites Thrive As Global Warming Heats Up U.S. Lakes.
Now el gordo, imagine that you are a Thai fisherman reliant on trade with the locals and visiting tourists, how will you adapt to this?.
Clearly you don't!
Gawd. The link is not to the bare graphic, but to the article. Of which the first sentence reads ......
There's more, but there's no real need to read it. After all, the person who provided the link clearly didn't read anything there.
How on earth someone can overlook that is beyond me. Clearly I have some kind of block in my social skills. Being an adult in my seventh decade, I ought to have developed the routine skill of putting myself in others' shoes (or mind or whatever) by now. But I feel totally discombobulated faced with this level of whatever-this-is. I presume it's denial, but watching the process in action is seriously disconcerting.
Sorting out the 'signal' from the 'noise' is going to be tricky. The Klimatariat could say this is a natural 'break point' which has temporarily overwhelmed the signal.
They might then refer to the 'sensitivity' question, but I won't hold my breath waiting for that miracle to occur.
The heat in the ocean yarn is alright, we need more studies on the deep ocean ... just to settle the argument.
Indeed. There is little point in continuing to debate with this level of willful ignorance. Probably best left to fall through the cracks as any sensible lurkers are by now no longer taken in by this numpty.
"The only thing my theory is telling us is that the nature of the greenhouse effect is such, that under the conditions we have here on Earth, the atmosphere will maximize its cooling by keeping its infrared optical depth – or infrared absorption – at a preferred critical value.
“With relatively simple computations using NOAA's annual mean temperature, H20 and CO2 time series, I have shown that in the last 61 years, despite a 30 percent increase in the atmospheric CO2 concentration, the cumulative atmospheric absorption of all greenhouse gases has not been changed and has remained constant. There is no runaway greenhouse effect. The anthropogenic global warming theory is a lie, unless somebody proves otherwise."
Ferenic Miskolczi
hahahaha, I do enjoy watching the deltards get dragged kicking and screaming across the floor after being pummeled :) hahahaha
......LOL.......LOL.......LOL.......ROFLOL.......
The psychoneurotic rantings are true comedy gold :)
hehehehehe,
Karen you are nucking futs and here is your theme tune.
Both you and el gordo need to join in with whatever your local version of this is for then you will begin to get a grasp of the ecological disasters playing out around us.
Besides Karen, how are you going to adapt when a large oil spill or climate change invoked disaster happens? How will you survive in your padded cell?
Miskiolczi? We are going to relive the last 5 years over and over again are we.
Before you get too carried away, I suggest you read Dr Roy Spencer's not very favourable writing about his theories. It's a fairly longish piece but it's perfectly understandable. I only needs patience rather than a physics degree.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/comments-on-miskolczi%E2%80%99s-201…
I strongly suggest a bit of quiet reading time.
My fingers are making offerings to the gods of typos again. But I think what got through is perfectly understandable regardless.
Some more suggested reading on Ferenc Miskolczi.
Oh! Dear! Will e g never learn? Probably not.
So, Gordy, SpamKan is now your peer, probably in the laying down sawdust sense. If you've won the admiration of the kind of mouth-breathing cretin who cannot bring herself to butt out of this discussion despite being unable to comprehend the distinction between Celsius and Fahrenheit you can scarcely hope to fall any lower.
National Geographic map, which shows that there is a lot more Arctic sea ice now than there was 42 years ago.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/07/31/arctic-ice-growth-since-1…
Oh for pity's sake. Arctic ice.
I note no dates on the link in #28. Here we are with September 10,n end of summer - 1979 compared to 2012.
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=09&fd=10&fy=1979&s…
It's like a Festival of Stupid!
The whole idea that anyone who'd swallow crud like that would have the temerity to claim to be a 'skeptic' is just; well, let's just say we've reached a Twilight Zone beyond the reach of either rationality or satire...
Festival of Stupid?
I feel it's more like a super slo-mo replay of a whack-a-mole game with a novice toddler.
To see more engaged in that Festival of Stupid have a read down the comments here and sigh for the many ignorant comments . Since my last view at that Susan Anderson has dropped in some moments to counter that flood of stupid. Slapheads like K and e g should visit the links in the second one of Susan's posts there.
Oh, the humanity.
That North Pole thread is apparently a North Pole magnet for ice madness. That "submarine surfacing in open water at the North Pole in midwinter" myth is never gonna die apparently. At least wiki has the right picture for the event in March 1958. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USS_Skate_(SSN-578)_surfaced_in_Arcti…
That's some very fancy super solid open water right there.
Jesus, that's a piss-poor effort even by "Steve Goddards" Olympian standards of piss-poverty.
Karen's sight must be as weak as her cognitive faculties if she failed to read that the ice margin on that map is labelled "Limit of Multi-Year Ice".
By definition, multi-year ice in 2013 is anything that survived 2012, in which case the 2012 minimum is the correct comparison. That's the white area on the linked map.
Every time I think Goddard can't get stupider...he does! But not so stupid that Karen can't show herself to be even stupider. I think she's approaching some sort of singularity...
Can anyone comment on the latest from the climate depot article about the recent spate of low temperature records in the USA (1100 or so this week)?
I know since the 2000's record high temps have outpaced record lows by 2 to 1 (not that localized records mean that much to the AGW theory) but can anyone give me some more ammo to share on my little corner of the internet.
And note the dates - early August 1959.
Never fancied serving in sub's myself, jet aircraft fuel tanks and working up long jet-pipes was claustrophobic enough.
Freemike, that's pretty much all you can do.
Dr Jennifer Francis gives a presentation here explaining how Arctic amplified warming interferes with the Jetstream, and Rossby waves allow polar air to be drawn south.
Of course when you've got those more numerous record highs being disputed by UHI Wattbots (but they'll readily believe the record lows recorded on the very same apparatus), the recent cretinous dispute that Arctic melt is not so bad/is nothing new together with a fundamental cultivated failure to comprehend the difference between weather/climate, noise/signal, all allied with Morano's army of professional liars it's not easy.
But as our regulars here know very well, some ignorami seem to prefer if not actually revel in their dumb ignorance.
Thanx Adlady for that link, I'll have a quiet read after work, but I don't have much faith in some of Roy's stuff... him being a luke warmer and intelligent design theorist.
Lional, thanks for the pointer to Martin Rees' book. It sounds familiar, but I'll have to try the library as I either no longer have it, or I'd borrowed (and returned!) it in the first place.
freemike
I've always found the Capital Climate blog great for noting US record events. It keeps track of exactly the sort of thing you're talking about. The link here is
http://capitalclimate.blogspot.com.au/
Gordy, even you must understand that the ID stuff is what makes for a luke, not a warmer.
So you've turned the credibility issue on it's head. This is because think is clearly hard for you.
What's actually happened is even one of the few scientists who passes your lot's immediate prejudice test - and holds beliefs you find comforting precisely because he thinks his God wouldn't do AGW to us, as ridiculous a belief as a human has ever held, and a mirror to your own - believes your cited source is talking nonsense.
Geddit?
It's not hard, but having to skirt around the not wanting to know things bit will always make think difficult...
'Geddit?'
Not really.
According to the gospel of Judas the fellow who was crucified had a sardonic wit and was from another system.
What you seem to be in denial of is the fact that the vast majority of last century was cooler than every year this century so far.
Ah, so this is all 'sardonic wit'?! Good thing you've told us...
Just wanted to point out Roy Spencer spreading misinformation about the amount of warming in the Northern hemisphere last century (and hence claiming that it is no warmer than the MWP or RWP): http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/07/senate-epw-hearing-climate-change-i…
His cited chart claims less than 0.5℃ Northern hemisphere warming since 1900 when there was actually around 0.9℃ of warming.
The man is absolutely shameless.
1945 did not appear on that graph. You're hallucinating again.
'...cooler than every year this century so far.'
Yep, its plateaued and if the pause continues there will undoubtedly be many more opportunities to say that.
'Ah, so this is all ‘sardonic wit’?'
I'm being crucified but I'm not JC.
'1945 did not appear on that graph.'
No.
So in fact your previous statement was incorrect: lat century was "cool". This century is so far "warm".
Any ideas, anyone, as to why this century should be so much warmer than last century?
::waves hands excitedly over head::
Ooh, sir. I know, I know.
Pick me. Pick meeeeh!
And in the far north of the planet, 4C of global warming will translate into much much more - likely 10C and above.
You can't cite local amplification in a region without it cutting both ways (including undermining your own argument) - at least not if you value your intellectual dignity.
But given some of your recent postings, you clearly don't.
'Any ideas, anyone, as to why this century should be so much warmer than last century?'
Over short time spans of a decade its important to concentrate on trends and its been flat.
With the jet stream heading in zig zag fashion, closer to the equator, we have to put it down to variable weather ...its not in the IPCC bible.
You may have noticed the UK is experiencing a month long heat wave, while in the US they are feeling a chill and records broken.
Its not all that unusual.
'And in the far north of the planet, 4C of global warming will translate into much much more – likely 10C and above.'
That's highly alarmist and your figures are exaggerated.
Adelady I read through that Spencer paper and found it a little over my head.... being a 'umble scribe.
But the comments were interesting, at one point Spencer went head to head with Zagoni.
That's not what I've been told. If I recall correctly from 10 interminable years of Australian drought, we were being told by denier-type people that it's nothing to worry about. We've had droughts "like this" before. The rains will come.
(Anyone who's been reduced to keeping a few plants alive by getting up before dawn and staying out after dark with the mosquitoes, hand-watering to keep plants alive beside the already dead looking lawn, knows the meaning of interminable.)
Now, el optimist supremo is telling us that there's no problem. Can't see any heat or any droughts coming. Pull the other one. Bells will ring.
This so-called "hiatus" is only two or three years strong here. All we know is that we can expect sometime in the next 10 years an el Nino or two. Where I live the only thing we can hope for is that the Indian Ocean keeps its grubby fingers out of it when it comes. When the two systems act in concert, all those people now whining about paying for desal plants will be marching to a different drummer.
Wow
ENSO works outside AGW and this inhospitable island receives drought or flood again and again. Nothing unusual is happening.
Here's some hot nooze to amuse yourself.
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/august/climate-change-speed-080113.h…
Direct from BoM
Negative Indian Ocean Dipole; ENSO remains neutral
Issued on Tuesday 30 July 2013.
The El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) status remains neutral (neither El Niño nor La Niña), though areas of cooler than normal water have persisted in the eastern tropical Pacific. However, these areas of cooler than normal water are weak and fragmented, and models surveyed by the
Bureau do not expect these to strengthen into a La Niña event during the austral winter or spring. This means ENSO is likely to remain neutral over the coming months.
In the tropical Indian Ocean, the Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD) index has remained below −0.4 °C since mid-May, indicating a negative IOD event is currently underway.
The majority of climate models continue this negative IOD event through the austral winter and spring. A negative IOD during winter-spring increases the chances of above-average rainfall over southern Australia, while over parts of northern Australia it increases the chance of higher humidity.
Amuse myself?
As the great J McEnroe would say - you cannot be serious! I have children likely to still be living in the 2070s and their children long after that. 5 or 6 degrees by the end of the century is not joke material.
You found the link, not me ....
Talk about hell on earth.
Er, no.
What's important is NOT to draw trend conclusions from time periods where noise overwhelms signal of interest - such as "a decade" with respect to "global average temperature".
If you really want to pay attention to global temperatures over periods as short as a decade, you need to remove some of the non-signal influences, as was done here. I've previously pointed you to that analysis, and you have ignored it.
Why?
Because the trend is clearly not flat, and you flat-out reject evidence that your claims are wrong.
Is this sardonic humour?
Because if that were actually correct, how would you know? You show no signs of drawing valid conclusions from the full body of evidence, and many signs of working backwards from your position to some attempt, no matter how poor, to "justify" it by cherry-picking and misrepresenting the evidence...
BTW, notice how el gordo implicitly rewrites the question here to avoid answering it. The question was not about the trend over a decade. It was about "this century" versus the last century.
In other words, if we compare the 13 years or so of this century to (say) an equivalent time period at the end of the last, we're talking 25+ years. What does that trend look like over 25 years? Anyone except el gordo and Karen surprised that it goes against el gordo's position? Anyone?
'you need to remove some of the non-signal influences,'
That's classic, remove the noise to see the signal better.
Loth, with 97% of scientists agreeing that its been flat (Michael Mann for instance) who am I to doubt them.
Should I have more faith in the alarmist cranks around here?
Test?
chek
Don't bust a gut over finding a copy, I have been speed browsing mine and have yet to find anything of exactly the nature you described.
That is not saying that the book is not worth reading for there are many pointers to other matters that such as el gordo would find revealing, but I fear that his mention of JC and Judas indicates that his mind is closed to rational debate.
From that revealing article of Stanford linked to by e g at #57
You think that we would find this amusing, for similar reasons to adelady I find your flippancy here offensive in the extreme e g. Do you not realise the implications for millions of our fellow planetary travelers of where we are heading ?
The quote above is probably revealing about why the PTB are encouraging the masses to sleepwalk, being drugged by the latest must have gizmos, celebrity gossip in those puerile weekly coloured rags, the hype that is the soccer norm etc, etc, sidetracked by whipped up political scandal and the long saga of the sociopathic banking sector. This all distracting from the dangers of the quietly (so they hoped) rolled out fracking expansion.
e g is a fine example of the Morano-Limbaugh-Hannity-O'Reilly (and their UK and Australian counterparts) school of thought. If their really is a GOD then these types should start behaving better for it would be them going to hell in a hand cart.
Actually it is 'classic' in the truest sense, in many science and engineering fields as is explained here. Hell, if you have kids interested in music systems even they'll know what it is.
But somehow I expect as a professed hack journo with likely zero technical expertise in anything, it's more of your ignorance fuelled 'sarcasm'.
Somehow I think that what you and Mike Mann understand the pronoun 'it' to mean are different things.
Yep, this one really, really thinks he's clever.
Don't reckon many other here do, though.
But that's alright, as it's only what Gordy thinks that counts. Oh, and maybe some of the other cynical smartarses in the gallery...
Ever wondered why journalists aren't much-loved, Gordy?
As opposed to leave the noise in, when you know how to remove it?
You really are crap at this "thinking" business.
I doubt you'll find any indication that it's 97% of scientists, climate scientists or otherwise...so chalk that up as another in a long list of falsehoods.
And I would pay good money to see you pitch your multitude of positions to Michael Mann - especially the implications you are trying to draw from your claim that "it's flat".
(That's assuming, of course, that Mann is feeling like providing a teaching moment rather than blowing you off immediately as a time-wasting crank...)
The trend proposed of 0.17C per decade is not disproved by the last 13, 15 or 17 years trend.
The heat scale problem again:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/08/uah-v5-6-global-temperature-update-…
;-)
Can anyone tell me when the warming stopped?
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap130731.html
E.G. at 54
‘And in the far north of the planet, 4C of global warming will translate into much much more – likely 10C and above.’
That’s highly alarmist and your figures are exaggerated.
Nope polar amplification is well known.
Look at the Zonal mean for Antarctica in the bottom plot here: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?year_last=2013&mont…
And for the Arctic in Winter here: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?year_last=2013&mont…
Freemike @ 35 see http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/08/unforced-variatio…
Post #2, gavin's reply.
'Do you not realise the implications for millions of our fellow planetary travelers of where we are heading ?'
The main thing to understand is that nothing unusual is happening with our climate and the warm weather of last century has been beneficial for the growth of humanity.
Equally important in this discussion is the MWP, which was warmer than our Modern Climate Optimum and populations boomed, then during the LIA population growth stalled around the world, aided and abetted by hunger, disease and war.
As I mentioned earlier, we are better equipped now with mass communication and transport to handle a few degrees of warming or cooling over the coming century.
'The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down in the growth rate of net climate forcing.' --James Hansen et al., 15 January 2013
'Can anyone tell me when the warming stopped?'
End of last century, around 1998.
Adelady,
That's not the correct picture. This is the correct photo for the first surfacing on March 17, 1959. Note that that is before sunrise in the arctic.
End of last century, around 1998.
Wrong: guess you didn't look at the animation.
I have to laugh: in #78 el gordo implies that the warming stopped in 2003 and in #79 he states 1998. Not often you see a flipflop that fast.
BTW e.g at #78, here's what Hansen also had to say on Jan 15: http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/719139main_2012_GISTEMP_summary.pdf
Although it is
too early to know whether the maximum of the present solar cycle has been reached, the recent prolonged
solar minimum assures that there is a recent downward trend in decadal solar irradiance, which may be a
decrease of the order of 0.1 W/m
2
.
So much for it being the sun.
And Hansen says more about the "standstill": Indeed, the current stand-still of the 5-year running mean global temperature may be largely a
consequence of the fact that the first half of the past 10 years had predominately El Nino conditions,
while the second half had predominately La Nina conditions(Nino index in Fig. 1). Comparing the
global temperature at the time of the most recent three La Ninas(1999-2000, 2008, and 2011-2012), it is
apparent that global temperature has continued to rise between recent years of comparable tropical
temperature, indeed, at a rate of warming similar to that of the previous three decades. We conclude that
background global warming is continuing, consistent with the known planetary energy imbalance, even
though it is likely that the slowdown in climate forcing growth rate contributed to the recent apparent
standstill in global temperature.
I can't recall exactly, but didn't Denial Depot or someone just as illustrious suggest those US (Uncle Sam) Navy subs were specially armoured for the coming ice age?
An ice age being just what those pre-dawn launchin' winter offensive luvvin' commies would just love, and NORAD still tracks that Santa character every Xmas Just to be on the safe side.
The evidence is mounting that the Younger Dryas was caused by a cosmic bombardment.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23536567
Truly alarming.
'Not often you see a flipflop that fast.'
The consensus is 16 years, with the 1998 ENSO spike obviously not effecting the trend.
El Fattiosi @ #88
You'll haver to provide a link, as your brain damaged understandings make no sense.
You just can't get climate trends in that time period. It's not possible, despite what despatches from crankland are telling you, so what 'trend' are you wittering on about?.
Obviously we have to wait 30 years to see a definite trend, but in the meantime it does appear to be flat.
And for the benefit of alarmist ratbags, this is what the UNEP web page originally said about climate change refugees, which failed to materialise.
'Fifty million climate refugees by 2010. Today we find a world of asymmetric development, unsustainable natural resource use, and continued rural and urban poverty. There is general agreement about the current global environmental and development crisis. It is also known that the consequences of these global changes have the most devastating impacts on the poorest, who historically have had limited entitlements and opportunities for growth.'
El Fatsunami, what size tyres do you use for your goalposts?
Don't know where they get the 16 years from, its closer to 13 years.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/global-land-ocean-mntp-ano…
Obviously we have to wait 30 years to see a definite trend, but in the meantime it does appear to be flat.
Why wait thirty years?
We've already got a hundred and thirty years to go by.
You can all see the blockquote . Can't you?
Yep.
Emerging from the LIA.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/crutem3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/ann…
Clap harder and you might be able to convince yourself that's true. But it doesn't work on most other people, you know.
You are truly and deliberately pig-ignorant, aren't you? You can't eat communications and transport.
Because he doesn't like what the 130 years of data tell him, and he's hoping that it will change (or it won't matter to him personally) 30 years hence?
'You can’t eat communications and transport.'
You may not be aware that the Chinese are setting up agricultural enterprises in Africa and Australia.... this is their Plan B for climate change.
Fast transport will be an integral part of the plan to feed people in situ, to avoid 50 million climate change refugees landing on our shores.
The Met Office graph takes us back further than 130 years, do try and keep up.
Looking further down the track, with the help of the paleo team, we can see the MWP was slightly warmer than now.
http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/AGW/Loehle/Fig2color.gif
Keep in mind the amazing strides humanity has made over the past 200 years in technological advancement. The tyranny of distance will soon be a thing of the past.
Imagine the top end of Australia covered in agriculture and feeding a world disrupted by climate change. Large satellite towns running on renewables and connected to anywhere in the country ..... very, very fast.
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2013/07/elon-musk-hyperloop/
Sea ice back to average parameters.
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
Didn't fat Al say the Arctic would be ice free by now?
I find it interesting that el gordo cites Hansen as an authority at #80, but doesn't seem to realise that what Hansen says in that quote undermines el gordo's interpretation of the recent surface temperature record and what it means for the future.
It's an interesting kind of cherry picking...either that, or not being smart enough/willing enough to understand the implications.
In other nooze, they found the missing heat and it was in the ocean after all. Or at least it explains why the ice is thin in that area, with a ridge of active volcanoes underneath.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/svalbard_volcanoes1…
Yes, I'm aware of it. It undermines your argument. Their plan is not to feed the globe, but to monopolise agricultural output in regions they hope will compensate for the insufficient levels of output from their own, in order to feed themselves.
And none of those plans demonstrates how agriculture can increase global productivity by (say) 50% to feed 50% more people under climatic conditions that are much more unpredictable and hence introduce significant volatility into productivity levels, significantly more aggressive pests and diseases, and shift climatic zones without shifting the underlying soils.
Remember folks, it's always projection.
Is el gordo a pathological liar, or merely deeply gullible, completely unable to read a graph and simply cannot comprehend the concept of basic fact-checking?
Firstly, that graph only goes up to 1935. Temperatures now are quite a lot higher now (Fig. 2). (That article also claims that Loehle recognises that his peak at ~850 A.D. is probably incorrect, and that's the highest temperature in the reconstruction.) Alternatively, even if you use a 29 year average of the instrumental data, it's still warmer now (see Fig. 3). And note comment #5:
And Loehle's reconstruction is one of the warmest out there around that period, and it's quite a bit warmer now than 1992...
So, yet another cited authority undermines your claims, el gordo. It's quite a habit. Have you wondered why it keeps happening to you? (Let alone why you keep bringing up the MWP as if it's somehow relevant to what will happen if we go about business as usual?)
That's idiotic. "The tyranny of distance" isn't remotely the problem here. It's the ecosystem issues that you've been given copious information on and have studiously ignored.
A utopian fantasy that experts think is unrealistic and deeply foolish.
If all it takes is imagination, then imagine that I have a magic wand that could just magic away excess CO2. Much simpler solution, so give up on yours and start backing mine, please.
In which el gordo proves his incompetence to discuss these topics, as he doesn't even know what "the missing heat" referred to.
It would only explain it if there was evidence that they had increased their heat output in the right quantity and timing to explain the ice changes, and the resulting heat output explains the geographical distribution of ice changes. I'm sure there's a peer-reviewed paper somewhere that does all the hard work of attribution, right?
Right?
Your own link calls you a liar.
Again.
Not as far as I'm aware, but I don't follow his speeches.
I suspect you're lying via misrepresentation again. I'd bet good money if you bothered to check you'd find out your implied claim isn't accurate. Let's face it, you've got an excellent track record of inaccuracy...
“These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.”
Al Gore 2009
'And none of those plans demonstrates how agriculture can increase global productivity...'
Humanity is making progress in agricultural production, aided by science, so on a supply and demand basis it should work fine.
'It’s the ecosystem issues that you’ve been given copious information on and have studiously ignored.'
Because its pure nonsense, the cane toad is more a problem than any perceived man made disaster on the horizon.
'And Loehle’s reconstruction is one of the warmest out there around that period, and it’s quite a bit warmer now than 1992…'
Hockey Sticks
For those suitably sick of the sofa-sized sophist, Tamino discusses the nature of 'proof', the latest canard that the bloated cynicosphere - hacks, if you will - pretends to believe connotes something, knowing all the while that the slaverers will slaver away...
I look forward to the day that Heartland's assets are seized to pay the fines and court costs.
'It would only explain it if there was evidence that they had increased their heat output in the right quantity and timing to explain the ice changes, and the resulting heat output explains the geographical distribution of ice changes.'
True, I'll leave you to look for that paper. In the meantime here's a bit of light reading on the subject.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/06/080626-arctic-volcano.h…
Readers who understand (say) grade 10 level English will note this is a different claim from the one that el gordo tried to put in Gore's mouth in his earlier comment.
Since el gordo doesn't seem to read at that level, here are a couple of points:
1) The time period is wrong. 2014-2016 is not the same as 2013.
2) The level of certainty is wrong - a 75% chance is not the same as "would be".
See? I was right - you were misrepresenting again.
(And at a meta level, you were trying to distract from the negative impacts of the waning ice for your pet theories...)
It's making progress in some areas, and progress is slowing dramatically in others. And that's happening already, without the full challenges of climate change being realised.
You're apparently choosing in this matter to extrapolate existing curves forward with no good reason to do so - research breakthroughs, and especially their timing, cannot be reliably predicted - but you choose not to apply the same methodology to other issues such as the effects of the ongoing radiative imbalance or the arctic ice volume decline or the worldwide species extinction rate or ... (presumably because if you did you would undercut your happy fantasies).
LOL! Of course you will!
You're not in the business of assessing the evidence and drawing robust conclusions from it, you're in the business of promoting happy fantasies and at best cherry-picked data points that suggest that if one is really lucky, your fantasies will this time actually be justified by looking at the totality of evidence. So instead of conceding or attempting to justify your claim you'll simply Gish Gallop to the next point.
What I'm curious about is this: who do you think you are fooling (other than yourself)? You've been exposed here by several different commenters as a thoroughly reliable source of false claims and disingenuousness, so it's not like you've much chance of fooling most of the regular readers.
'You’ve been exposed here by several different commenters'
Their thuggish behaviour is an indictment of their mental state and I'm not intimidated.
Here is a little more on the area in question.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NV.htm
(AFP) – Jun 25, 2008
PARIS (AFP) — 'Recent massive volcanoes have risen from the ocean floor deep under the Arctic ice cap, spewing plumes of fragmented magma into the sea, scientists who filmed the aftermath reported Wednesday.
'The eruptions -- as big as the one that buried Pompei -- took place in 1999 along the Gakkel Ridge, an underwater mountain chain snaking 1,800 kilometres (1,100 miles) from the northern tip of Greenland to Siberia.
'Scientists suspected even at the time that a simultaneous series of earthquakes were linked to these volcanic spasms.
But when a team led of scientists led by Robert Sohn of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts finally got a first-ever glimpse of the ocean floor 4,000 meters (13,000 feet) beneath the Arctic pack ice, they were astonished.
'What they saw was unmistakable evidence of explosive eruptions rather than the gradual secretion of lava bubbling up from Earth's mantle onto the ocean floor.
'Previous research had concluded that this kind of so-called pyroclastic eruption could not happen at such depths due to the crushing pressure of the water.'
So they threatened to ... what, beat you up? No? Oh, you mean they disagreed with you and justified their points with evidence and concluded that you were promulgating bullshit?
So you didn't actually mean "thuggish" - that was another misrepresentation?
Blockquote fail.
e g really needs to start paying attention to the reality of the problem if he thinks we can simply adapt, for he is wrong on so many levels. I figure that he is being paid to 'not see the truth' and to try to 'ensure that others' are confused.
More reality for the reality challenged el gordo, Sea Level Rise ‘Locking In’ Quickly, Cities Threatened now consider what I wrote in this post here which I'll bet you didn't bother reading. Now by reading I mean reading to understand and think more deeply than the standard of your recent posts history of posts suggests.
el gordo
Arctic ice melt is nothing to do with submarine volcanism on Gakkel ridge so you can shelve this denier misrepresentation now and we can move on to the next one.
When someone is forced to resort - time and time again - to misrepresentation, it demonstrates that they have no argument.
You go even further by demonstrating that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Your errors on the previous thread were too fundamental for you ever to be taken seriously here.
It's slightly amazing that you need to have this pointed out to you, but here you are, still blethering nonsense, so it has to be said out loud.
And here is a reminder of how warmer conditions may not be beneficial. Have you been invaded already el gordo?
Lionel, el gordo is perfectly safe from these organisms. They only eat brains and e g has shown us over and over again that he is, in in fact, brainless. These organisms would starve to death if they got inside his head.
The surreal thing about blog "discussion" of climate science is that a participant can demonstrate, unequivocally, that they don't understand the basics at all and then run away from that humiliation and just carry on on another thread as though nothing had happened.
This is not how real life works. In real life, when you have made a terminal arse of yourself, that's it. Party's over. Time to go.
Here in climate la-la land the clueless buffoons just keep on blabbering away as if they actually had some topic knowledge and an argument. There's no acknowledgement of the gross errors, no apology for being a dickhead know-nothing time-wasting arsehole of a serial liar, and very definitely no fucking shame.
Quite frankly, I'm getting a bit sick of it.
I mean just *look* at this prat. He lies and spouts the most unutterable nonsense despite incessant correction by everybody else here. After a while, we get irritated by this mix of intellectual dishonesty and refusal to acknowledge error. We call a spade a spade, or in this case, a lying toe rag.
This isn't thuggery. This is exasperation at serial and persistent dishonesty and complete lack of topic knowledge.
Then el fatuous blares that he isn't "intimidated", completely missing the point that intimidation is not the intent.
Education is the intent. What el fatuous *should* have said is "I'm not educated". That, at least, would be true.
The "indictment" of a mental state here is of yours, el fatuous. Yours. But as Lotharsson corrects out, with you lot it's always projection. Always. It really is a fundamental part of the pathology of denial.
Ian @ #25. Yes. I had included some words to that effect but then deleted them on thinking that one should not be cruel to dumb animals.
Whaaaat. Did you actually look at that graphic? If you can't see it clearly I suggest blowing up the image on screen and carefully tracing each line identified in the legend with a pointer of some sort. Or print it and do the same.
It shows without any confusion or overlapping or careful reading that this year's ice melt is proceeding, since the beginning of July, entirely below the decadal averages for the 10 years of the 2000s. And nowhere near the 80s or 90s decade graphs.
Average parameters? The only "back to average" feature of this year's ice melt is that it's just like the last few years - huge melt regardless of weather.
The prolifically ignorant and invariably wrong el fatuous strikes again:
No, it wasn't.
- Loehle is bollocks.
- There never was a global, synchronous MWP that was warmer than the present. That's a denier myth:
Everything you say is wrong and demonstrates absolute ignorance of the topic.
You know nothing.
Here is a chart for el ignoranti to play with. What does the grey area tell you oh blighted one?
Try 'Show All'.
Now do you get it?
Maybe we should revisit this when September is out. What do you think is likely to happen by then?
Craig Loehle is of course a dahling of the Heartland boondoggle and on the radar of ExxonSecrets and Sourcewatch which you will discover el gordo if you visit the link leading this post.
More astonishing bollocks from Teh Gordo (I missed this on first reading back):
No, that is completely wrong. Statistically significant trends cannot be extracted from short time-series. Moreover, given that natural variability (in this case of ocean heat uptake) modulates GAT over the shorter term and the forced climate signal is evident only over the longer (multi-decadal) term, short time-series of tropospheric temperature data effectively tell us nothing at all. That's the point of the SkS "escalator" graph that you are either too stupid or too dishonest (or both) to understand.
el gordo
You really don't get out much do you. Here try this The Montford Delusion and then watch McIntyre writhe here Yamal and Polar Urals: a research update.
Then of course there is always the Wegman trail thanks to DeepClimate and John Mashey.
Those with time to spare may have fun following 'The Borehole' at RealClimate described thus 'A place for comments that would otherwise disrupt sensible conversations'. I wonder how many of our numpty brigade turn up in there.
hey bill!
@the whole of your commentary on this post
You wanna know what I like best about you, bill? Well, bill, ol' sport, I'm gonna inform you anyway--asshole!
What I like best about you, bill, is that your comments all derive from that noxious reservoir of pea-brain, useful-retard, hive-implanted, B. S., agit-prop "ideations" of yours that are, in turn, wholly contained within that mental Deltoid-space of yours that is your exclusive, Pavlovian, conditioned-reflex, servile-toady, party-line, fantasy habitat, that is, again, in turn, bounded by your three, equilateral, core competencies: a mouth-off, whiny-geek, tag-along pest, "me-too!", suck-up, mummy's-precious-pet, spoiled-brat, cry-baby, attention-seeking, obnoxious-jerk, spastic-dork, personal-hygiene challenged, creep-out repulsiveness; zit-popping; and a dextrous, virtuoso mastery of a certain filthy habit that's gonna get your pee-pee slapped silly if momma ever catches you at it!
That's what I like best about you, bill. I mean, like, don't change a thing, bill, you're just perfect as you are. And, please, bill, don't ever, even once, so much as think about entertaining an original thought, O. K.?--you little eco-shit!
Oh look. Somebody just seeded a 'buzz-phrase generator' for retards and look what flooded out!
Lionel, from your link...
'Over the next century, plants and animals on land might be in for a wild and ultimately devastating ride.'
On the flimsy evidence available, I don't believe its possible to make a prediction 100 years in advance.
And the second link on SLR....
'To begin with, it appears that the amount of carbon pollution to date has already locked in more than 4 feet of sea level rise past today’s levels.'
In another five years, with 'carbon pollution' having reached the heights undreamt of in your vocabulary, temperatures will still be flat along with sea level.
You are full of fear and loathing for something that may happen a long time after you have been beamed up. Stop spreading lies about a harmless trace gas.
'Arctic ice melt is nothing to do with submarine volcanism on Gakkel ridge'
Do you have a link to back that statement?
The 50 million refugees was not a UN figure. See here http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/un_50million_11kap9c… and here http://www.grida.no/general/4700.aspx
The Grida site is not part of the UNEP and produces its own reports.
Oh, right. Sort of an attachment.
'You really don’t get out much do you.'
More than you and present a holistic version of delusion ....with which you will all agree.
http://www.climateaccess.org/sites/default/files/Breakthrough_Climate%2…
“We have to offer up scary scenarios… each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective and being honest."
Steven Schneider 1989 (IPCC leading author)
“Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.”
Sir John Houghton, ex ipcc chair
“The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.”
Daniel Botkin, UCSB
“We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing.”
Tim Wirth 1993
#39
Of course:
Beszczynska-Möller et al. (2011), A Synthesis of Exchanges Through the Main Oceanic Gateways to the Arctic Ocean:
There's a good overview here for sceptical readers.
Now, do you have a published reference for your claim that explosive volcanism on the Gakkel Ridge is responsible for the observed, extremely rapid decline in summer Arctic sea ice extent?
Please provide the link.
#39
Of course:
Beszczynska-Möller et al. (2011), A Synthesis of Exchanges Through the Main Oceanic Gateways to the Arctic Ocean:
There's a good overview here for sceptical readers.
Now, do you have a published reference for your claim that explosive volcanism on the Gakkel Ridge is responsible for the observed, extremely rapid decline in summer Arctic sea ice extent?
Please provide the link.
Stop repeating nonsense.
The troposphere ≠ the climate system
You are ignoring OHC.
The energy accumulation is there. The data show it.
Sea level rise is continuing apace. The data show it.
Look at the evidence and stop lying.
BBD, you're trying to reason with idiots are have less sensibilities than intelligent children.
El Fatty lives in a world he's quite content to have defined by partial quotes and denialist nonsense because that's the level he lives at. Think of any Murdoch rag reading moron and the inbuilt expectations they've been programmed with, and you'll realise that critical thinking isn't what they do.
You're attempting to talk to the shepherd, but the tabloid fed sheep don't know what the fuck you're on about. You're just using a lot of big words and references beyond their understanding.
Short of a machine gun, how do you deal with that kind of supercilious ignorance and irresponsibility? I don't think it can be done other than to ignore the cretins who have no influence anyway. Nobody in Gordon's social circle gives a fuck what he thinks about climate change anyway..
'Now, do you have a published reference for your claim that explosive volcanism on the Gakkel Ridge is responsible for the observed, extremely rapid decline in summer Arctic sea ice extent?'
No, it was only recently discovered so nobody was searching for the noise in the signal.
Returning to that National Geographic article I linked earlier...
'Seismic activity was previously detected in the same region in 1999, along the Gakkel Ridge—a 1,200-mile-long (2,000-kilometer-long) mid-ocean mountain range north of Greenland.
'Hundreds of earthquakes were observed over a nine-month period, with magnitudes between 4 and 6.
'This earthquake swarm was the largest in recorded history along a spreading mid-ocean ridge and prompted researchers to return to the area for further investigation.'
It might just be a coincidence that 1999 was about the time the alarmists started ranting the pole is melting.
Unfortunately for your sub-Plimer conjecture, Arctic melting doesn't correspond with your hare-brained Gakkal Ridge red herring.
But no doubt you'll continue in your customary believe-any-old-crap-no-matter-how-puerile fashion as you always have.
Have you ever looked up the definition of autism, Gordon?
Hey chek!
Yr. no. 47--"Short of a machine gun..."
Ah, yes, chek--machine guns, the hive's trite, reflexive solution to disagreement (curious how you lefties are all for "gun control", isn't it, chek?).
But for a party-line hack, slavishly-disciplined, hive-bozo good-comrade, like you, chek, you seem surprisingly uninformed with respect to the historical alternatives to the "machine gun". Poison gas?--see the "Tambov Rebellion". Mass starvation?--see the "Holodomor" and the "Great Leap Forward". Blokhin and his trusty Tokarev?--see Lubyanka, "oldies-but-goodies" re-runs. Boat-people? Killing-fields? Kolyma? Re-education camps of various stripes? The list goes on and on.
Jeez, chek, the alternative to "machine guns" is very nearly infinite--sounds like the hive is neglecting its "Young Pioneer" education duties. I mean, like, chek, there's lots of ways to kill off class enemies, slackers, cosmopolitans, Bonapartists, kulaks, technocrats, adventurists, right-oppositionists, wreckers, left-oppositionists, bourgeois sentimentalists, decadent intellectuals, Jewish doctors etc.
I mean, like, get with the program, chek!--you're embarrassing your youth-masters (not to mention putting them at "show-trial" risk). Be a good sport. Act like you know what I'm talking about, chek.
"It might just be a coincidence that 1999 was about the time the alarmists started ranting the pole is melting."
Questions: In which principal direction does the the ocean currents move under the Arctic Ocean? In which season does the arctic melt happen? Answer them and you will take significant steps to resolving your conjecture.
And when you've finished absorbing that, Gordon, perhaps your next half-baked mission can be explain how your ridge affects affects all that Antactic ablation 12.000 miles away,
Thanx Anthony I'll do some prep after lunch.
http://www.usc.edu/org/cosee-west/oceanglobe/pdf/climatecurents/current…
http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=7545&tid=3622&cid=69134
Check out the map, the North Atlantic Current is having an immediate impact on East Greenland glacial melt. In the early 1940s the same melt was happening, so it looks like natural variability and has nothing to do with AGW.
No signal, but plenty of noise for academics to sort.
Ah, yes, the fallacy of argument from personal incredulity, apparently combined with the argument from personal ignorance and from personal incompetence. Triple bonus!
I've been otherwise engaged and therefore late to this thread, but it wasn't surprising to see that Fatso is still in the starting block when it comes to even pre-teen level comprehension.
At #5 of page 1 he said:
in response to Craig saying:
Fatso, you are confusing two very different concepts. As I have already told you life on Earth is generally not precarious. It takes a profoundly global catastrophe to affect the progress of life, and what we are seeing with global warming is an impact on the scale of a major stochastic event that causes a major extinction.
Life for individuals is often precarious, but this is different from arguing about the precarious nature of life as a species, or as the life of an ecosystem. An average species lifetime is around a million years or more, and longer still for ecosystems. This is hardly representative of something that should make way for a new kid on the block just at that kid's say-so. When humans affect the biosphere to the extent that entire ecosystems are suffering as a consequence of actions, rather than just individuals suffering in the red-in-tooth-and-claw drama, then something different to the usual drama of an individual's (or even a species') life is occurring.
There is no direct scalar relationship betwen the life of an individual and that of a species. You are once again engaging in the logical fallacy of faulty generalisation - valid induction is not your thing, is it? What is showing through is your political inclination to look after yourself and damned be those who you have to step on to get your way.
Then there's the silliness at #7 of page 1:
No, Fatso. What you saw was the way in which denialists such as yourself use the noise around a signal to find a way to imagine flatness where none actually exists. It's telling that even with the instruction inherent in the escalator graph you still don't understand the point.
Only for purveyors of your brand of pseudoscience who are trying to ignore the objective truth.
"[N]othing unusual"?! When was the last time that the planet warmed from a mean global temperature of 14°C to around 20°C more more over the space of several centuries?
And again, the logical fallacy. The growth of human society since the Industrial Revolution was based on the energy obtained from the use of fossil fuels, and not from the warmth that occurred as a result of the atmospheric impact of the carbon dioxide by-product.
Once more I will direct you to some pertinent questions and links, which would help to clear your ignorance if only you could understand them.
And Fatso, you still haven't told us where the heat is coming from that warmed the planet over the last 100 years. I'm especially interested to know given that in my corner of the world we've just had record daily maximum July temperatures, and our hottest overall July ever.
How will this be fueled? Not with oil. With coal? How's that going to affect the African and Australian climates? And aside from the issue of other, concurrent limitations, what of the geopolitical consequences?
Have you actually thought this through?
Idiot. Fool. Buffoon.
Arctic sea ice volume is currently around 7 thousand cubic kilometres. Back in the 80s the August volume was a tad under 28 thousand cubic kilometres. A reduction to (at least) only 25% of pre-human melting is not "back to average parameters".
You are an ignoramus.
And/or a lying propagandist.
Pure and simple.
You know, I'm bored now Fatso. I can't be bothered to continue pointing out your errors. You're (deliberately or otherwise) so scientifically inept that cleaning up after you is more onerous that mucking out a pig factory, and less useful. I suspect the only people here who actually swallow your shit are KarenMackSunspot and Olaus Petri, and they're hardly stalwarts of intelligent comprehension.
Well, well, what have we here then? El gordo has now abandoned any pretence at merely being merely unconvinced by the scientific case, and is now sure of his predictions (after having shifted the goalposts, despite being called on it several times) and sure that CO2 can't possibly have any harmful effects, and is thus teetering on the edge of expressing full blown conspiratorial ideation.
Hands up who saw that coming? ;-)
And what is this "heights undreamt of" crap? Is it merely that he still can't read a graph, like the ones in the most recent IPCC report with projections to way beyond the levels we will see in five years time, is it complete pig-ignorance, or does his denial now extend to even plain facts on paper?
(I'd say the last few weeks have given us a very good picture of why he was sent to his own thread last time around.)
An obvious point that should be brought to the attention of the dumbtoids.
Is the FACT that in all of the years that you all have been trying (and losing) to convince yourselves that CO2 is causing the planet to warm, IT HASN'T :) for SEVENTEEN YEARS lol
Karen shills for attention in the Who's The Dumbest Contrarian Here stakes.
News at 11.
SpamKan's comment is not only a pointless restatement of a boring shibboleth, it lacks even internal logic. (HINT: who is it that is unconvinced, Spam Kan?)
She is the Dumbest Contrarian Here, but competition is fierce...
I would point out that a recent paper find that there's been more warming in the last 15 years than the 15 years before that when you account for warming of the oceans, but that would blow Karen and el gordo's tiny little minds (especially since both of them are absolutely determined not to notice the oceans).
Aw, heck, they're already blown so here it is.
Where do you get that idea? Of course it has.
Fake quote. Repeated here by a credulous fool.
#60 Lotharsson
so the greenhouse effect is now bypassing the troposphere and the sea surface ? Sure :)
and........the dubious OHC data tells us what? That the water temperature at 700 mtrs depth has risen by 0.0000002 o C ?
Great stufffffffffff :)
Sooo.....if this is true deary, how is 0.0000002 o C going to morph into a 2 or 4 deg C rise of the surface temperature ?
You do realise that the Skeptical Science website is just satire, yes it owned and operated by a failed cartoonist sweety, lol
And when they say the deep ocean temperature rise is 'unprecedented' you would have to ask how long this research has been going on?
'Fake quote. Repeated here by a credulous fool.'
Please yourself, the man is a fkn godbotherer and has apocalyptic visions.
http://www.john-adams.co.uk/2010/02/15/is-god-trying-to-tell-us-somethi…
On a lighter note, Fairfax has a story on climate change in its Entertainment section.
Where it naturally belongs.
http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/books/one-side-of-a-hot-issue-20130…
el gordo, that doesn't change it was a fake quote. Can you for once admit you have been duped by your preferred sources?
SpamKrank @ # 57.
Nobody cares what you 'believe'.
On every monthly thread you do this same tired routine.
You're given the data and every month it goes over your head because you're just too dumb to understand it as it conflicts with your preferred crankblog fairy stories.
However that's your problem alone, not anyone else's.
"And when they say the deep ocean temperature rise is ‘unprecedented’ you would have to ask how long this research has been going on?"
Hi el :)
The ocean is a great place to hide the booooogie man..... lol
Hi chek, and every day/month you sound like a soggy franga, lol
So desperate for attention she will post rank stupidity to get it.
News at 11.
To give him full credit - and I do mean full - he once admitted that his claim that there was no lake at the North Pole this year unlike last year was wrong, but only after being confronted with the live webcam feed (and much laughter).
(But IIRC he didn't admit that his sources were wrong, just the claim.)
[citation needed]
'soggy franga'? A new low...
It's like being taunted by yeast.
Hello Karen... the old men's shed is robust tonight.
I expect SpamKrank knows about that too.
'but only after being confronted with the live webcam feed (and much laughter).'
Yeah it was pretty funny picking the wrong camera, but I'm sure I'll get over it.
For the benefit of those who've not before seen this argument, it's inside out and upside down.
Radiation into the ocean is directly from the sun - that's why all those divers and documentary makers can see and film corals and pretty fish so many metres under the surface. (And that's why oceans absorb more heat - sunlight (radiation) doesn't get past the surface of the soil whereas it penetrates 10s of metres into the ocean in many places.
The greenhouse effect comes into play only when the surface radiates outwards - longwave invisible radiation, not at all like the visible radiation from the sun. Unsurprisingly, just like soil and buildings and everything else we're familiar with, when the surroundings are warmer than before, soil, buildings and oceans stay warmer than they otherwise would have.
Perhaps we should draw up a roster for who gets to do each new month's version of each of the. same. old. answers.
There's an SkS page devoted to each of their old saws anyway.
@Karen: "0.0000002 o C"
Its preety simple maths, but she still manages to be out by about 5 orders of magnitude. About par for the Dumbest Contrarian on the Thread.
Is it time to recite (again!) all the maths crimes committed by Karen?
Perhaps it's SIMISS: the "Saying It Makes It So Syndrome" that many denialists suffer from. They say what they wish were true for whatever purpose they have at the time, and then proceed as if they can rely on it in their "argument" merely because they said it.
Stupid non-argument by unreferenced assertion. Not worth shit:
No, it was only recently discovered so nobody was searching for the noise in the signal.
Returning to that National Geographic article I linked earlier…
‘Seismic activity was previously detected in the same region in 1999, along the Gakkel Ridge—a 1,200-mile-long (2,000-kilometer-long) mid-ocean mountain range north of Greenland.
‘Hundreds of earthquakes were observed over a nine-month period, with magnitudes between 4 and 6.
‘This earthquake swarm was the largest in recorded history along a spreading mid-ocean ridge and prompted researchers to return to the area for further investigation.’
It might just be a coincidence that 1999 was about the time the alarmists started ranting the pole is melting.
Read the fucking references you tool and stop lying.
#45
#46
Read. Learn. Understand. Grow up.
You are right chek and others. The yeast on this thread is effectively beyond the reach of reason.
Since non of the fuckwits here actually understands *anything* about the topic, they aren't capable of understanding referenced responses to their nonsense.
Not that they ever bother actually reading a word of the science they profess to understand better than the actual scientists themselves. Oh no. Too much like hard work.
Just look at that tool gordy. He asks me for a reference then utterly ignores it when provided and continues to repeat the same fucking nonsense as before.
The very definition of total fucking prat.
GFY, gordy.
el gordo wrt species loss
We do not need to make predictions for there is ample evidence that a new geological age is on us with the anthropocene as another mass extinction is underway with our activities being the major culprit a part of which being rising temperatures.
Now if you had bothered reading instead of making this flippant remark:
@ #85 here where you you ducked answering the question.
Once you have caught up with Jared Diamond's three books here is another reading suggestion:
The Future Of Life. I suggest that you take advantage of the 'Frequently bought together' offer.
Note this under product description
Now educate yourself and stop wasting time with idiotic posts that reveal your deep, blinkered, ignorance.
Lionel A
Remember that this is the buffoon who admonished me to:
So this clown is a fully-fledged physics denier. Not much hope for people who are that detached from reality.
He's also one of the breed that sets human life and suffering at nothing:
This is somewhat similar to the argument that if I poison a reservoir and in a few weeks kill millions, but know I won't be caught, then it's not a problem for me. I can live with it.
These insights into the mindset of denialist scum are as interesting as they are unpleasant.
A pattern definitely emerges. An ugly one.
Fellas, especially Bernie dear, remember when I informed you guys that the Emperor penguines could be in trouble if the ice kept on growing in Antarctica? ;-)
"They have a high survival rate compared to other penguins, with an average of 95% surviving the year. However, if it is a harsh sea-ice year, many chicks will die of starvation. Emperors are the least common Antarctic penguin, with only about 200,000 breeding pairs.”
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/about_antarctica/wildlife/birds/penguins/em…
Yes I noticed that egregious statement given the times that he has been appraised of the science from Fourier, through Tyndall, Arrhenius, Callander, Keelin and Revelle.
So Gordo, you are the liar here.
Why do we keep responding?
Simple, the lurkers here can see for themselves that the deniers are 'Emperors without clothes' and that the really ugly are the likes of el gordo. Each post he makes he digs his pit of lying filth deeper.
And another one falls on his face whilst holding his hand uppermost.
OP ask yourself why the sea ice in some areas of the Antarctic is growing, and other areas shrinking.. You will almost certainly need to do some HONEST research to find the answer for it is not a simple one.
Ah..Lionel! I see, the impressive sea ice extent in Antarctica must be due to Global warming?
Did I get it right? ;-)
#89
Quite probably yes.
Inform yourself.
Also see this.
I certainly do li'll mike. You're clutching your pearls in one hand and having a big bad greenies victim wank with the other.
So, you go and froth yourself off about hives and whatever other airy-fairy, needlessly-hyphenated, piss-arse, pissant concerns that really concern you, and leave dealing with the nonsense of unthinking moron repeaters to those who can recognise and expose the moronic.
Try to remember Olaus that argument from ignorance and argument from incredulity are logical fallacies.
You do know what a logical fallacy is, I presume?
They are best avoided if you want to engage in a rational discussion.
It's ironic, isn't it, chek, that Mike thinks it's all reds-under-the bed when the distortion of public policy is actually being done by vested corporate interest and its enablers on the political right.
I sometimes wonder if Mike has really thought this through.
I think already we know the answer to that one. Plus as Lotharsson reminds us, it's all projection with that crowd. Very like a hive mind in their constantly repeated similarities from supposedly different entities.
It's so true. Projection is everything with this lot. It's all self-description, really.
Paranoid, frightened, dishonest, mean-spirited and desperate.
BBD, educate this instead:
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/index.html
Your link, a summary: Frist they couldn't find the accelarting global warming in the atmosphere, then they found it deep down in the seas, where they can't measure.
Very solid BBD! ;-) Like the Yetis, the creatures that lives where you just can't find them, but believers like yourself know they exist anyway. ;-)
What about the Emperor penguines? Can they take more heat? Or do they need new clothings? ;-)
OP, your problem is that you have no competent scientists to give you reasoned arguments. And that's why you're like a little child pulling faces at the window, because you've got nothing except blogstupid from stupid bloggers to inform you.
Rubbish. OHC 0 - 2000m layer.
Data denial. AKA argument from incredulity and from ignorance.
RTFL.
You aren't saying anything.
Dear BBD, you don't measure the heat down there, but I'm sure you believe it. Let..ooops..Sceptical science get it right for you:
"As the ocean heat data only goes to 900 metre depth, Trenberth suggests that perhaps heat is being sequestered below 900 metres. There is support for this idea in a later paper von Schuckmann 2009. This paper uses Argo buoy data to calculate ocean heat down to 2000 metres depth. From 2003 to 2008, the world's oceans have been accumulating heat at a rate of 0.77 W/m2. This higher trend for ocean heat would bring the total energy build-up more in line with satellite measurements of net energy imbalance.
A subsequent study by Balmaseda, Trenberth, and Källén (2013) determined that over the past decade, approximately 30% of ocean warming has occurred in the deeper layers, below 700 meters. This conclusion goes a long way to resolving the 'missing heat' discrepancy. There is still some discrepancy remaining, which could be due to errors in the satellite measurements, the ocean heat content measurements, or both. But the discrepancy is now significantly smaller, and will be addressed in further detail in a follow-up paper by these scientists."
Get the difference, yeti-man? ;-)
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Kevin-Trenberth-travesty-cant-account-f…
You fuckwit.
Unbelievable. What are you on?
Read the words.
Read these words:
Now read them again:
Now read these words, twice, as above:
Get it yet?
BlarrghDenyaarghBlaaaahNonononnoonooonoo!DenyurghYarp!!
'He asks me for a reference then utterly ignores it when provided....'
It was primarily about the research effort and generalities. Amongst that stuff I was looking for an indication that the North Atlantic Current is being warmed by volcanic activity from the ocean deep, which is speeding up the East Greenland glacial melt.
If you could pinpoint that paragraph....
Thanking you in advance.
"Typically most Argo floats in our present database
reach a maximum observed depth of 1970 m. Thus, these
profiles only extend down to the 1750 m standard depth
level of our analyses. Our temperature anomaly fields could
be considered to be more representative of the 0–1750 m
layer of the World Ocean however we have compared the
OHC1750 and OHC2000 and find no difference between
them. We hope to acquire additional deep ocean data from
research cruises so we have opted to present results for the
0–2000 m layer."
Try understanding some real science Olap, and not just the context-free fragments picked out for you by your stupid blogs.
Gordy
Your assertion was that volcanism on the Gakkel Ridge is responsible for the observed trend in Arctic sea ice melt.
You cannot support this claim.
Read the fucking link, please.
If you want to make people dance for you, go learn to play the fucking accordion, Gordon. Or give just one example of ever reading and understanding a reference you've been pointed to, ever, in your life.
It seems we cross again, Mr. BBD.
Those stupid deniers will never know our secret weapon, being papers that have been linked dozens if not hundreds of times here in the past three months alone.
Which leads me to conclude double-BD that they cannot read. At least, certainly not to any effect.
It's just... not what happens in real life.
Imagine, Gordy, that you and I were in the pub. I start spouting crap about a topic you understand reasonably well. Something about sport, perhaps. You repeatedly correct my errors but I keep on repeating the same bollocks as though nothing had happened. I just ignore your informed view. You start to think you might as well be talking to the cat.
How would you feel about this?
- Happy
- Neutral
- Fucked off to the back teeth
Please pick one.
#9 chek
Can't read? Won't read!
;-)
http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=7545&tid=3622&cid=69134
From that link.
'Straneo adds that the study highlights how little is known about ocean-glacier interactions, which is a connection not currently included in climate models.'
'Imagine, Gordy, that you and I were in the pub.'
In that unlikely event I suspect we wouldn't talk about the weather. This election is all about weather and boats.
What usually happens in small gatherings is that somebody raises one of these two festering sores and a heated conversation follows. Best to avoid.
In the past my global cooling meme got plenty of laffs, until they realised I was serious.
#13
And climate models also underestimate Arctic ice melt.
You think this is a reason to be cheerful?
Why is the subtropical water flux to high NH latitudes so warm?
This is interesting:
This discussion is about physics, not politics.
Imagine, Gordy, that you and I were in the pub. I start spouting crap about a topic you understand reasonably well. Something about sport, perhaps. You repeatedly correct my errors but I keep on repeating the same bollocks as though nothing had happened. I just ignore your informed view. You start to think you might as well be talking to the cat.
How would you feel about this?
- Happy
- Neutral
- Fucked off to the back teeth
Please pick one.
And what followed? An awed hush? Did the New Galileo wow his crowd?
You utter fucking buffoon.
"In the past my declaration I was King of All the Elfin Folk got plenty of laffs ...until they realised I was serious".
Nope, I really don't see any substantive difference between the two statements. One is of course slightly more credible than the other, but then again I just can't bring myself to believe in elves, climate or otherwise.
FIFY
hey chek!
Yr. no. 93 (previous page) "...clutching at pearls..."
Let's see now, chek, ol' buddy, you proposed to BBD that the best course of action, if the discussion with el gordo was to be continued, was to take a "machine gun" to el gordo (yr. no. 47 (previous page). O. K., chek, an impressive bit of an upgrade of BBD's rather tepid, earlier notion that unrepentant "deniers" are best dealt with by means of a near-death-experience, coma-inducing mob-beating in the streets (with BBD looking on and enjoying the spectacle, of course!).
Yeah, chek, like, I mean your "machine gun" idea has that good ol' fashioned, lefty, lethal, "revolutionary ruthlessness" quality to it that your genocidal forbears so prized in their contemporary, de-humanized, sociopathic, brain-washed tools like you (see my comment no. 50 (previous page) for a stroll down the memory lane of some of the hive's more notable mass murders--reading my comment no. 50 gave you a nice, glowing, warm-and-squishy, inner feeling, didn't it, chek?).
As for BBD, chek, I'm afraid he has way too much of a residual, pudge-bucket, bourgeois-softie streak left in him--I mean, like, I really don't think BBD's going to survive the revolution once his wishy-washy, useful-idiot status has ended--right, chek? I mean, like you greenshirts always say, chek, the winning, climate-change argument comes out of the barrel of a "machine gun." I mean, like, that's how brave-new-world, carbon-friendly "omelets" get made--everyone knows that. And those who can't get on board with that just have to "go" (BAM! BAM! BAM! BAM! (you note, chek, I'm crediting you with a "sustained rate of fire", short burst--lots of bodies to pile up and we don't want the barrel to over-heat, do we?))--agree, chek?
Rather refreshing too, chek, to see that the "Green Terror" is now being openly--nay, matter-of-factly--discussed. I mean, like, raw, naked, no-bullshit, no-sugar-coating-it, boot-stomping-on-a-face-forever coercion is you, chek, in your glorious, energized element, I know. And, chek, ol' sport, I can only imagine the ill-tempered frustrations you must have endured in the past, when the hive was committed to temporarily hiding, for tactical PR-advantage, its grinning, death's-head, "Mr. Cool" good-looks behind that ridiculous, obviously phony, nicey-nicey, ill-fitting mask the squeamish, lumpen-hack, agit-prop hive-apparatchiks came up with. I mean, like, I can feel for you there, chek, only being able to discuss your grand, serial-killer, Philosopher-King wannabe "big-plans" for us expendable, despised, hoi-polloi nobodies behind our backs (chek knows what I'm talking about, but casual readers might google: "youtube larry grathwohl interview about William Ayers", to understand just what it is that gets chek off). What a relief it must be for you, chek, to be able to finally, show-off--indeed, flaunt!--your bloody-ambitions for all to see. Right, guy?
Finally, chek, you had me, in your comment no. 93 (previous page) "clutching my pearls", with one of my hands, over your self-proclaimed , "machine-gun" eco-activism. Given the figurative character of your pearl-of-wisdom metaphor--I'll give you that one, chek. But you got the activity of my other hand wrong, chek. You see, chek, when you started talking "machine guns", my other hand was sent reaching for my...well..let's call it my other "string of pearls". I don't underestimate you, chek, but as one pal to another, I offer for your consideration the thought that you probably want to confine your hot-shot, bold-dude, gun-slinging romps to locales where the populations has been reduced to a cowed, disarmed, peon status. I mean, like, nothing personal, chek, but you seem like a "sitting-duck" soft-target kinda guy. You know what I mean, chek?
Li'll mike - you're so full of assumptions and presumptions and bitterness not to mention shit, you just can't help it.
Do come back again when you've finished jacking yourself off.to your righteous climax.
Anyone care what l'il mikey thinks types? No, I don't think so, either.
So when you realised that it was impolite to inflict your bullshit on the people right in front of you, you decided to take your act global instead?
That's quite an insight into your world view.
hey chek!
Yr. no. 22.
My oh my!--what a super quick, pathetic, piss-poor, limp-dick, weenie retort, there, with your last, "Gunner"! I knew it! You can't handle return fire--what a complete wimp-toid you are chek!
Do you know how ridiculous you look, chek, standing there all worked-up in to a little fuss-budget, totally rattled snit-fit and flicking, like a girl, trite, phony-big-talk, geek-ball meanie-boogers?--and all this with a smokin' machine gun in hand, even!
Good Lord! Us doomed serfs, peasants, coolies, and helots deserve better than this! Hey, hive-masters! Show some class! Quit hiring a bunch of creep-out, clownish, nerd-puke, cutie-pie, Mummy-recommended rejects, like chek, to do a man's work in the killing-fields, will yah? Jeez... And these hive-bozo, dorked-up, greenshirt-retard weirdos want to be our Philosopher-Kings and Cull-Masters! Double Jeez....
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/election-2013/rebels-t…
"Dear Karen,
Today I confirmed that, if elected, the first priority of a new Coalition government will be to abolish the carbon tax.
To ensure we are in a position to move immediately on our promise, I have today written to the Secretary of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet to advise him of our plans. I have asked the Secretary to have the necessary arrangements ready so that we can move swiftly, if elected.
Click here to read the letter.
http://static.liberal.org.au.s3.amazonaws.com/13-08-05%20Signed%20Carbo…
With unemployment having risen by 75,000 since the introduction of the carbon tax and Labor itself forecasting that unemployment will rise to nearly 800,000, the carbon tax is the worst possible measure to hit the economy and families.
Abolishing the carbon tax is at the heart of our Plan to build a strong, prosperous economy and ease cost of living pressures on families.
By contrast, Mr Rudd is all talk when it comes to the carbon tax. If Labor is re-elected, the carbon tax will go up and up. On the Government's own figures, the carbon tax will increase six-fold between mid-2014 and mid-2019!
That means, if Labor is re-elected, average families will be hit with $3,000 in carbon tax over the next six years. It means even higher electricity prices and higher prices for the necessities of life.
By abolishing the carbon tax, the Coalition will help families with cost of living pressures and we’ll help pensioners who will keep their fortnightly pension and benefit increases without a carbon tax.
Above all, abolishing the carbon tax will help the economy – which means more jobs and less pressure on families and small businesses.
Regards, Tony Abbott"
:)
Dear "Karen"
Please explain how Tony Abbott first priority is to change the fixed-price emissions trading scheme when the Senators elected on 7/9/2013 won't take their seats until July next year. So even in the unlikely circumstance that Tony Abbott wins a majority in both the HoR AND the Senate (which is extremely unlikely), the current Senate (minus the Territory Senators who are re-elected at every election) won't change until July next year.
Please show your calculations...
[In the interest of fairness, Kevin Rudd won't be able to change the fixed price into a floating price from July 2014 either, with the current Senate in which the Greens and Independents hold the balance of power.]
BBD dear, its not observations that underpin the results of the 2013 paper, its based on a model with some data put in to it.
What are you on? ;-)
I was well aware of the Trenberth and Källén paper, and I don't mind at all their efforts. Its interesting stuff but very preliminary but hopefully we will se more research on the topic. :-)
While waiting I think we should pay some more attention to the Emperor penguine (not Jeffie Harvey mind you) and the ice problem.
Clearly you didn't work out all the other times Abbott told you porkies about the carbon tax - $100 meat cuts, Whyalla to be wiped off the map, and a massive inflationary impact on the economy.
Here we are, inflation is if anything is on the low side - I've had Liberal supporters argue to me that it's too low as "evidence" that the government is "mismanaging the economy" - and Whyalla still exists, meat prices seem to be pretty much the same and no-one, not even the LNP, can find the massive economic impacts they forecast.
So here, he's telling porkies again. Most families are no worse off, and quite a few are better off, with the carbon price (which isn't even a tax, but it's harder to persuade gullible mugs to vote against their own interests without misrepresenting things to them, so why not take the easy way out, eh?)
Good of you to point out his mendacity.
While we're speaking about misleading the gullible:
The LNP have simultaneously attempted to criticise the ETS because:
a) It will be too expensive due to potential prices rises over several years, based on old forecasts that aren't considered credible under current conditions
b) It won't bring in anywhere near as much revenue as previously anticipated (by those old forecasts), based on the price staying at or around the current unusually low market levels overseas
I'm sure if we tried we could get Karen to be totally outraged about both of these things at once.
'This discussion is about physics, not politics.'
Political science.
“Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don’t mean to do harm — but the harm does not interest them. Or they do not see it, or they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves.” (T.S. Eliot)
Loth:
'Tried'?! She doesn't even comprehend what's going on with your comment! I mean, are you implying there's some sort of a contradiction, or something?
Sadly there's a lot of other deeply Stupid people available to lap this kind of crap up...
"Australia's highly unpopular carbon tax, set to take effect from July 1st, is set to be policed by laws which forbid business owners from criticizing it for causing price rises -- with thought criminals who do so under threat of being hit with huge fines of over $1 million dollars."
"SHOPS and restaurants could face fines up to $1.1 million if waiters or sales staff wrongly blame the carbon tax for price rises or exaggerate the impact," reports the Daily Telegraph.
According to ACCC deputy chairman Dr Michael Schaper, the warning applies, "to comments made by staff over the phone, on the shop floor or in meetings. It also covers advertising, product labels, websites, invoices, contracts and contract negotiations."
"This draconian measure will be enforced by teams of "carbon cops" who roam the streets conducting snap inspections of businesses to ensure they are not making any reference to the tax."
==========================
"CSIRO managers are narrowly interpreting the agency's charter to effectively ban scientists from publishing any critique of emissions trading schemes, in a decision that has sparked alarm among the organisation's climate change experts.
The move comes amid a crackdown by the CSIRO on public comments by scientists in their personal capacity.
The organisation began rolling out a new public comment policy three weeks ago that limits what scientists can say publicly about issues within their area of expertise.
The new policy forbids scientists from making comments, even in their private capacity, if the remarks might affect "public confidence in CSIRO as a trusted adviser". If such a perception could arise, scientists are required to discuss the issue with their supervisor to "effectively manage risks".
Scientists told The Australian yesterday the vague wording of the policy meant they would be forced to seek permission before making any public comments, even if the comments were not associated with the CSIRO."
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/csiro-gagging-clima…
ect ect...etcetera
Back to the physics, apparently Greenland melts every 150 years.
http://www.livescience.com/28399-clouds-greenland-ice-melt.html
The steaming Delturds have ignored that inconvenient truth before el :)
#29
Wrong paper, tool. Read #1 - #3 again. Von Schuckmann et al. (2009) is all about MEASUREMENTS. I knew you'd try to wriggle out of the pool of shit you have sunk yourself in, but you can't.
Two things are unavoidable here:
- You are shown to be an idiot who doesn't even understand the references you quote
- OHC 0 - 2000m confirms that energy is accumulating in the climate system as expected and transient variability in *surface warming* is of no significance
* * *
Also you misrepresent Balmaseda et al. (2013) (WTF can't you reference anything properly? I think you are trying to hide your mess by adding extra confusion). That study uses a reanalysis, which is a model parametrised and tuned by observations until it reproduces observed behaviour. Reanalysis is a powerful technique for understanding past observed behaviour better.
Stop blethering about penguins you dishonest plankton. Instead, read the links explaining why Antarctic sea ice is increasing because of AGW. Try to understand the implications of what is happening here. It is serious.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/08/01/august-2013-open-thread/comm…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21991487
Yes, well we know what result el Presidente Murdoch, himself one of the greatest threats our democracies face, wants for his election - what his thinktank rag claims is entirely predictable. Of course, the idiots buy it, but that's what idiots are for - so what? El Bloato and SpamKan, Loyal Footsoldiers of the Oligarchs! Next.
#32
Oh no. Not so fast. You have well and truly outed yourself now. Your denialism is political. You have no scientific argument and you know it. So you lie.
And lie.
And lie.
It's about physics.
BBD#10
Obviously no need to go down the pub in your case BBD. Feel free to carry on as you were on this blog.
#35
Another denialist misrepresentation. Unusual cloud formation plus long-term anthropogenically forced trend = record 2012 GIS melt.
Just don't bother. It makes you look like a dishonest little shit.
Fuck off, Clown.
With a stunning lack of self-awarness, el fatuous quotes Eliot at me:
Look at the troupe of denialist clowns, el fatuouso. Just look. There are the little twerps wanting to feel important. And they are the ones causing harm.
As ever, as always, 100% projection.
A typical BBD retort
At least he recognises the fact
'Your denialism is political.'
As a left wing supporter all my life, it came as a shock to see jools tax the air we breath. I turned my back on them, arm in arm with the coal miners, agriculturalists and small business.
Exampled by the stunning success of Barry O'Farrell in NSW.
More on the physics....
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/06/02/1930s_greenland_glacier_retreat/
'Look at the troupe of denialist clowns, el fatuouso. Just look.'
Yeah, not a bad troupe.
El fatuouso confirms that he is a politically motivated physics denier and then references El Reg...
Hopeless case.
Then thinks that Monckton, Watts, Morano et al. are "not a bad troupe".
Beyond help.
Rednoise, fuck off.
All-time temperature record for Greenland broken on 30 July 2013. Instead of rubbish by the deniers at El Reg, why not read what real scientists - world experts on the GIS - have to say?
http://www.meltfactor.org/blog/?p=1204
Warming baseline (AGW) = extremes become more extreme and more frequent.
Climate science basics.
"In a moment of refreshing candor, the co-chair of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) working group III told the truth about the global warming scare. The real point, according to Dr. Ottmar Edenhofer, is to “redistribute the world’s wealth.”
What he said is no surprise to those of us who have been paying close attention to climate science and policy.
The surprise is not what he said, but that he said it at all."
http://www.cfact.org/2013/07/30/cfacts-new-billboard-exposes-global-war…
Oh dear BBD, as always you try to hide your lack of scientific understanding behind another majestic owngoal: :-)
"That study uses a reanalysis, which is a model parametrised and tuned by observations until it reproduces observed behaviour."
Like a told you in the frist place dear BBD. Stop trying to hide, your nakedness behind half foot long words you don't understand.
Reanalysis is a technique, damn correct of you by the way. It might be powerful but still not anything near observations.
Get it this time?
And what about the Harvey penguines and the ice problem? ;-)
Olaus
I made no mistakes. My descriptions are accurate. What I say is correct.
You have been shown up to be a liar and a fool. Now, in desperation, you resort to absolute nonsense like #51.
It doesn't work. You just look even worse. Best stop and go away now.
Let's not forget what we are talking about here.
You cannot get out of this, Olaus. You are buried in your own stupidity and ignorance. This was your own reference, remember?
:-)
I know you are too stupid really to understand this, but Balmaseda 13 confirms VS09.
Your stupid denialist squeaking about models is meaningless in this context, not least because you don't understand what reanalysis is.
Liar, liar, pants on fire.
Are you truly foolish enough to not understand the difference between taxing "the air" and putting a price on CO2 emissions from fossil fuel sources into the atmosphere?
My guess is yes, after the rank stupidity you've previously exhibited. If you can't understand this, maybe see if you can get a friendly high school student to explain it to you.
I know you are a religions nutter BBD, but the antiscience straight jacket of yours are now strapped so tight that you must be close to death from lack of breathing possibilities. You repeated my claim by these words:
“That study uses a reanalysis, which is a model parametrised and tuned by observations until it reproduces observed behaviour.”
Amazing!!! Only in the church of Deltoid. :-)
Gullible Karen is gulled again.
That's not what the quote on the billboard says - not even according to your own link. Again, ask a high school English student if you don't understand the difference between what the quote says, and what the article claims the guy meant.
And then ponder why you so eagerly swallow their lies.
"FORMER ABC chairman Maurice Newman claims ABC staff are biased and preach the global warming faith."
"A powerful group has captured the corporation, at least on climate change," he says."
Andrew Dessler on Climate Sensitivity, h/t the Rabett.
So Karen, Maurice Newman speaks similar BS to you and el gordo. Now there's a surprise.
Which latter is flooding out with the verbal diarrhea of his vacuous posts. Anybody got use for gallons of slurry here? More waste than from fracking.
Someone mentioned politics.
Here's Tony Abbott hopelessly misrepresenting the impact of the carbon price again.
It's a bit of a pattern with him - he ALWAYS seems to get the numbers wrong, and the error is only ever in one direction. Perhaps that explains why he thinks removing the ETS would make a much bigger difference to families than (say) the economists who follow these kinds of things...
...and funny how Joe Hockey never corrects him on it either.
(Then again, Joe seems to have his own credibility problems. Today he claimed that perceived pressure to cut interest rates showed that the government wasn't managing the economy well. So apparently, John "Interest rates will always be lower under a Coalition government" Howard was arguing that the Coalition is always a worse economic manager than the ALP? Who knew?!)
Well obviously feelings in Australia are running high at the moment due to the forthcomming election and we in the Home Country should but out and leave them to it.
Obviously the fact they lost to the Lions and are about to lose the Ashes again has nothing to do with it.
#56 Wittering changes nothing Olaus. You have just had your arse handed to you - again. Hope it still fits!
Olaus is channelling that dishonest and content-free Jonas idiot near-perfectly at the moment.
Let's remember that we are actually talking about von Shuckmann et al. (2009) and *measurements* of OHC by ARGO:
What O'Louse is desperately trying to distract from is that this little episode demonstrates two things:
- O'Louse is an idiot who doesn't even understand that his own references directly contradict his rubbish
- AGW continues apace, just as expected, and transient variability of the rate of surface warming is an irrelevance
Poor O'Louse. To be so stupid, and to have it illustrated - yet again - in public.
Sigh.
It's always projection.
Perhaps someone could explain this in clear terms.
Does it mean they have very little reliable data but keep fiddling with it until they get the results they want?
The clue is in those final eight words Redarse. And if you need that explained (not a Dellers style re-interpretation according to personal ignorance and ideology) you really want to be on a remedial reading course, not a science comment section.
blockquote>... like a girl, ... Mummy-recommended rejects
Oh dear.
Now the little chap thinks Deltoid is a boys only treehouse? No gurrlz aloud!!
Or is this what passes for adult conversation with Mike.
mike has... problems
shrek#69
Quoting from a paper published in 2009?
Perhaps you might like to comment on "the observations" and the confidence you have in their findings.
Just remind us when exactly the ARGO system came fully on stream, and what percentage of the ARGO measurements are taken at depths below 700m
Read the Levitus paper you've been referred to multiple times now, sections 5 through 8 Redarse.
Rednose #69, that is exactly what it means. Poor frothing BBD. The little tentshaker has, as always, a hard time dealing with reality. :-)
Not that it is something wrong with rsearch of that kind Rednose, the faulty thing is when secteristic haters (e.g. catastrophic lobal warmers like BBD and chek) claim the outcome of such studies as sola scriptura
Interesting is it not that SpamKan turns up spouting her cluelessly ludicrous 1/500,000th of a degree accuracy claim, and now Redarse and Olap, accompanied only by their heavy-duty stupid turn up - again - to take on the oceanographers.
With nothing at all.
I don't like the shape of this hockey stick:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/arctic.sea.ice.interactive.html
Let us prey! ;-)
adelady,
Yr. no. 71
Uh oh! I'm in trouble now! adelady has played the "sexist schweinhunt!" card on me! The ultimate in rhetorical "spike-strips"!
And the "little chap" business is a nice touch, adelady--I always think the ladies of the left are at their best when they roll out their judgmental, disapproving, school-marm frown. Indeed, some enterprising lasses have even based whole careers on that very deal. And no one does it better than you, adelady. Brava!
Dr. Ottmar Edenhofer's quote in context:First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.
The deniers tried to make a big deal of it when he said it back in 2010. It flopped for them. But three years later they must have concluded that their target audience is thick enough to fall for it.
Those ditto-heads who have little understanding of how we are screwing the planet's ecosystem would do well to pick up on this series Indian Ocean with Simon Reeve. I managed to watch about three episodes and can assure you it is worth watching. Be concerned, very very concerned.
# 79 mike
Why do you invest so much time pretending to be stupid when you clearly aren't?
Even your Italian gender agreements are right. Bravo.
What a waste of an educated mind.
Rednoise still trying to play the data denial card. Deny away, clown. It makes no difference to the actual evidence. But you do look like a complete prat with eyes squeezed shut and fingers jammed into ears doing this:
BlarrghDenyaarghBlaaaahNonononnoonooonoo!DenyurghYarp!!
#77 chek
I'm curious about the way the trolls post in groups. Either they are being co-ordinated, or they are one person, or they lurk all the time here and when one musters up the courage to come out yapping and snarling the others follow.
It's odd though, the way they *all* go quiet at the same time and for a week or so, then all reappear simultaneously.
So species can adapt eh?
Trouble is not as fast as they need to, and the same will be true of humans ere long.
'AGW continues apace, just as expected, and transient variability of the rate of surface warming is an irrelevance'
Wow! Transient variability is noice.
Lionel A
They say predictions are risky, but not this one. The response, if any, to what you are repeatedly and patiently trying to convey to the boneheads here will be:
BlarrghDenyaarghBlaaaahNonononnoonooonoo!DenyurghYarp!!
#86
The words mean what they say. You need only understand them, and we'll be foine.
'I’m curious about the way the trolls post in groups. '
Let me assure you its just a coincidence, but I agree we make a good flash mob.
Aye, whenever you bozos get anything right it is a flash in the pan, i.e. lots of noise but to little real effect.
Flash mobs aren't useful when discussing physics. Mobs are for politics.
Lionel there is a better than even chance that Abbott will win the election and dismantle that fkn tax.
As a watermelon junkie this may come as a shock to you, but with no global warming they have little choice.
Gordy
As a Pom, I won't comment on Australian politics. Except to say this: whoever wins what and whatever happens about that "fkn" tax will not change the laws of physics.
Calling people who do not deny physics "watermelons" won't change the laws of physics.
What will happen is that the laws of physics will eat denialism in their own time. As this happense, very public denial of the laws of physics as exhibited by various politicians and parties here and there will be remembered by a frightened and angry public looking for someone to blame.
Gordon, in the same vein in 1897 Indiana legislated that the value of Pi should be 'rounded down'.
You don't need me to tell you that the value of Pi remained what it had always been - i.e. an infinitely long number - or the parallel in ignoring reality.
Your denier 'data' are that Indiana bill, and those acting on that faulty 'data' are dangerous cranks. If they weren't, they'd have better science but they don't. They're cranks.
Levitus started off as an updated estimate of OHC before it became written in stone by the prophet Dana.
A recent conclusion by the UK Met office would probably be considered heresy.
OHC. Under-sampled you might argue. I would agree.
For weeks now you just haven't been able comprehend what those words mean, have you Redarse. Let me make it easier for you.
There is more to the climate system than surface temperatures. Imagine the Earth is like a ball in space, radiated at most strongly by it's nearest star.
Now imagine that ball is covered by all three states of matter - solid, liquid and gaseous, all absorbing solar radiation. Why are you fixated on just one of those material states?
And why do you have such trouble comprehending statements by scientists? (Leaving aside the fact that you're a dumb moron who goes out evangelising like a fucking Jehovah's Witness whatever your crank blogs tell you to).
But even so, the robust ARGO data from 2006 - present for global OHC 0 - 2000m show the continuing warming very clearly.
As I keep pointing out.
IIRC all ARGO floats dive to 2000m then return to the surface and transmit the temperature and salinity profile for the full depth. So the sampling density for 0 - 700m should be about the same as 0 - 2000m.
Which makes this comparison interesting.
Even if you insist on throwing away everything pre-2006, there's clear evidence that warm water is mixing down and the *total* rate of energy accumulation in the ocean continues to rise strongly. Ignoring/denying 1300m of OHC measurements isn't very scientific.
Is this the new hide the decline chart ?
http://s23.postimg.org/6fo2euggr/Photoshop_Blurometer.gif
BBD, would you care to convert your pathetic charts from joules to temp C ?
Abstract
The strong climate-forcing effect of rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations advocated by the IPCC, is at odds with climate developments during geological, historical and recent times. Although atmospheric CO2 concentrations continuously increased during industrial times, temperatures did not increase continuously to the present level but stagnated or even declined slightly during 1880 to 1900, 1945 to1977 and again since 1998. Total solar irradiation rose from a low in 1890 to a first peak in 1950 that was followed by a sharp decline ending in 1977, giving way to a period of rapidly increasing radiation peaking in 2002 when solar activity started to decrease, possibly declining to a new Little-Ice-Age type low. The Greenhouse Effect of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations, claimed and widely propagated by IPCC, is particularly vexing as it is widely over-estimated without adequate scientific justification. Large observed climate variations documented for geological and historical times, as well as the lack of insight into the behaviour of complex systems, seriously question the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) concept propagated by the IPCC. The climate variability during industrial times was essentially governed by changes in solar activity with increasing atmospheric CO2 content playing a subordinate role. The climate controlling effect attributed by the IPCC to increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations is rejected since supporting models are not compatible with observations. Lastly, the authors consider from a historical and philosophical science point of view why current mainstream climate change research and IPCC assessments may have been on an erring way for several decades.
http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/961682462j36717l/
New paper finds Greenland temperatures were ~8C warmer than the present during the last interglacial
"Various Greenland ice cores show lower rates of depletion for the Eemian, suggesting that the Greenland Ice Sheet had a significantly warmer climate during the Eemian than today (Johnsen et al., 1997). For example, Eemian δ18O values at NorthGRIP and NEEM are about 3–4‰ higher than present. Using the temperature-δ18O relation observed for the present interglacial, this represents an Eemian warming of 8 ± 4 K (NEEM community members, 2013)"
http://www.clim-past.net/9/1589/2013/cp-9-1589-2013.html
New paper finds another non-hockey-stick in Siberia
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1040618212033095
New paper finds climate sensitivity to CO2 is 'close to zero'
http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/k7v3v4173346317x/
Swedish scientist replicates Dr. Murry Salby's work, finding man-made CO2 does not drive climate change
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&…
:) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)
:) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)
:) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)
:) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)
:) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)
Two different things, SpamKan.
But you're too dumb to ever know why.
My. isn't the SpamKanner busy.
With the usual crap.
SpamKan you don't even know what the Eemian is, or what relevance it would have to the present.
But it succeeds in making you look a full hundred points dumber than was already thought. Why are deniers so brain-achingly stupid and easily led? Anybody??
SpamKan, turning up regional variations does not invalidate the global data, no matter how many smiley faces you RSI yourself with.
Finding a crank to back up the lies of Murray Salby will not affect his loss of reputation, which is forever now.
Cross posting the crap you submerge yourself in does not affect the worldview of anybody sensible here.
Fuck off back to your stinking anthill SpamKan.
'SpamKan you don’t even know what the Eemian is, or what relevance it would have to the present.'
Actually the Eemian was warmer, as were the other interglacials prior to that, the big difference with the Holocene is that its not a peak and more a plateau.
The reason this has come about can be seen at the Younger Dryas boundary, when a heavenly body broke up over the northern hemisphere.
The upshot was that temperatures plummeted then bounced back to a couple of degrees higher than now. It had a dampening effect and temperatures have remained in a narrow band ever since.
It wiped our the Clovis people, while indigenous Australians survived.
There really are no depths of stupidity and ignorance that prevent you plumbing ever deeper, are there Gordon.
Oh yes, the Eemian! Please remind me, what was the world's population back then?
ARE YOU WELSH?
No humans during the Eemian Stu, but we do know from the ice core that it was a rough ride at the end ..... before the final tipping point.
Oh my, the abstract Karen cut and pasted at #1 is a stew of Logic and Evidence Fail! Perhap that explains why Karen was so pleased with herself for posting ti?
And perhaps that's why the authors couldn't find anywhere more reputable to publish it than E&E? It's so good of Karen to illustrate that the contrarians can't seem to make a robust case...
Here's more on the Eemian, it was warmer.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v493/n7433/full/nature11789.html
And most importantly for the Denialati, Eemian's end.
http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2010/11/the-end-of-an-interglacial/
There is a consensus that this winter in the UK will be bitter, with Increased blocking and low NAO.
I thought consensuses count for nothing in science?
BBD#96
Whats this BBD agreeing with a "lying little shit of a clown".
I am choked. I am not sure how to respond:-)
shrek#97
the Met Office
SKS site tells you
'I thought consensuses count for nothing in science?'
Only the 97% consensus is unbelievable.
Autoparodyagogo.
x2
Oh no. Teh Clueless meets the Eemian.
A few facts for the clowns:
- Yes, peak Eemian global average temperaturewas about ~1C - 2C warmer than the Holocene.
- This was a consequence of slightly different orbital dynamics driving even warmer NH summers during the deglacial and early - mid postglacial phase.
- NEEM group findings suggest that the GIS may have contributed up to ~2m to peak Eemian sea level highstand.
- Peak Eemian MSL was about 5m - 6m above Holocene MSL.
- So the NEEM group findings confirm something very important:
When GAT increases ~1C - 2C above the Holocene average, melt from the GIS contributes about ~2m to MSL.
But the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) collapses, raising MSL by ~3m - 4m, resulting in a full MSL rise of ~5m or higher.
Thanks to Karen for drawing attention to this potentially catastrophic consequence of even quite modest temperature rise.
:-)
Utter crap. Even if the impact hypothesis for the YD is correct - and it almost certainly isn't (proglacial lake Agassiz draining into the NA is a much more plausible mechanism, latest platinum spike in the ice cores notwithstanding) - the YD had no effect whatsoever on Holocene average temperature.
This was modulated by precessional forcing, which predominantly warmed the NH during the early - mid Holocene with a generalised cooling becoming evident ~5ka as precessional forcing waned.
You know absolutely fuck-all about paleoclimate in general and this topic in particular, so shut up. You are once again embarrassing yourself with a vociferous display of ignorance.
'But the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) collapses, raising MSL by ~3m – 4m, resulting in a full MSL rise of ~5m or higher.'
Sure but that's dependent on CO2 causing global warming, so we need to discuss the pause.
Trying to separate the noise from the signal to find the truth.
http://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/1/1/4
More from the Met Office re OHC
The whole thing is an interesting, easy to follow read
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/q/0/Paper2_recent_pause_in_global…
Horse-shit. Check your facts, you clown.
No. Just STFU and admit your errors. You can't come out with bollocks like you do and then just charge on with more utter shite like this.
Admit your fucking errors. Man up.
Rednoise, you are quote-mining a paper you do not understand.
You don't need to invoke the deep ocean (below 2000m) to account for the majority of the reduction in the rate of surface warming. Nobody is arguing this.
Read this again.
We already have.
It's an irrelevance.
All this guff is coming from WTFUWT via cut and paste. Nobody is fooled (apart from the Climate Clowns, of course). We know where you get your spam from.
The mystery of the Younger Dryas
'In an attempt to save the Croll-Milankovitch theory, Broecker and Dention (1990) published a paper postulating that large amounts of fresh water discharged into the north Atlantic about 12,800 years ago when retreat of the Laurentide ice sheet allowed drainage of glacial Lake Agassiz to spill eastward into the Atlantic Ocean.
'They proposed that this large influx of fresh water might have stopped the formation of descending, higher-density water in the North Atlantic, thereby interrupting deep-water currents that distribute large amounts of heat globally and initiating a short-term return to glacial conditions.
'If indeed that was the case, then the Younger Dryas would have been initiated in the North Atlantic and propagated from there to the Southern Hemisphere and the rest of the world. Since that would take time, it means that the YD should be 400-1000 years younger in the Southern Hemisphere and Pacific areas than in the Northern Hemisphere. However, numerous radiocarbon and cosmogenic dates of the Younger Dryas all over the world indicate the cooling was globally synchronous.
'Thus, the North Atlantic deep current theory is not consistent with the chronology of the Younger Dryas.'
Don Easterbrook
Who to believe?
http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2013/08/05/23rd-daily-record-of-year…
Easterbrook is a notorious liar and has been ripped apart times beyond number by real paleoclimatologists. Your quote is worthless and reveals you to be a clueless dupe of liars.
Instead of demonstrating integrity and admitting your errors, you have simply added to them.
Don Easterbrook? You're not serious?
Do you have an inkling of how ridiculous you are, Bloato? I suspect you actually might...
You're smarter than SpamKan (read 'you're smarter than cheese'), but not much.
A correction to Easterbrook's lies:
Shakun & Carlson (2010)
When is this clown going to grow some balls and admit his string of horrible mistakes? Just the recent guff about paleoclimate will do.
Let's see some fucking integrity and good faith for once, eh?
Come on.
NEEM surface temperatures after the onset of the Eemian (126,000 years ago) peaked at 8 ± 4 degrees Celsius above the mean of the past millennium, followed by a gradual cooling that was probably driven by the decreasing summer insolation. Between 128,000 and 122,000 years ago, the thickness of the northwest Greenland ice sheet decreased by 400 ± 250 metres,
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v493/n7433/full/nature11789.html
BBD is a pertinacious onanist, lol
Greenland will never melt, nor will the Antarctic ice sheet, tiz pure alarmist wank
Isn't it funny that suddenly nobody wants to talk about the Eemian and all that sea level rise you get when it's just 1C - 2C warmer than the Holocene?
I think we should talk about that more. It's interesting.
BBD is right, karen, and you are an idiot.
Please explain why what I say is wrong:
Here it is again:
- Yes, peak Eemian global average temperature was about ~1C – 2C warmer than the Holocene.
- This was a consequence of slightly different orbital dynamics driving even warmer NH summers during the deglacial and early – mid postglacial phase.
- NEEM group findings suggest that the GIS may have contributed up to ~2m to peak Eemian sea level highstand.
- Peak Eemian MSL was about 5m – 6m above Holocene MSL.
- So the NEEM group findings confirm something very important:
When GAT increases ~1C – 2C above the Holocene average, melt from the GIS contributes about ~2m to MSL.
But the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) collapses, raising MSL by ~3m – 4m, resulting in a full MSL rise of ~5m or higher.
Thanks to Karen for drawing attention to this potentially catastrophic consequence of even quite modest temperature rise.
Don't call me a wanker karen. Explain why I am wrong.
So where did all that extra sea come from during the Eemian, karen?
Did it just materialise out of thin air and then vanish again?
You have a very serious problem with conservation of mass here.
"Don’t call me a wanker karen."
wanker
BBD#31
I did link to the whole report so anybody could read it all.
The OHC to 800m (figure 10 in recent link) seems at odds with the graphs you linked to.
Not shown on yours
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/q/0/Paper2_recent_pause_in_global…
You can't back your horse-shit up, can you, karen? Because it is indefensible. And I am right.
So thanks for reminding us that when global average temperature rises ~1C - 2C above the Holocene norm, sea level rises by over 5m.
Why don't you fucking clowns learn to leave paleoclimate alone? Every time you try to use paleoclimate as a sandbox for your stupid denial, you get shredded.
Rednoise
You haven't understood (or read?) the report. And yet you quote-mine it.
Fuck off with your nonsense, eh?
From The
recent pause in global warming (2): What are the potential causes? UK Met Office 2013:
And:
Stupid fucking trolls.
BBD the Eemian peaked at 8 ± 4 degrees Celsius above the mean of the past millennium you pertinacious onanist.
I see troll Gordo has run away rather than acknowledge his catalogue of stupid errors.
From this:
To this:
Via this:
All utter and complete bollocks.
The guy in the pub who's wrong about everything but won't shut up. Just keeps yapping away, on and on and on.
You never were much good on distinguishing regional from global.
The paper you didn't understand is about the GREENLAND ICE SHEET you stupid fucking tool.
I have repeatedly highlighted the phrase global average temperature in my responses to you above, but you are apparently just too stupid to understand what is being said.
Try again!
BBD, the guy who’s wrong about everything but won’t shut up. Just keeps tugging away, on and on and on.
BBD, are you in the position to understand why Prof. Lindzen, who knows infinitely more about climate than you, stated that he does not believe at all in palaeodata?
Baby steps for SpamKan:
"The Eemian" didn't just happen on the Greenland Ice Sheet.
Also google "polar amplification"...
This is actually very funny karen. Have a smiley!
:-)
Yes Boris, I am.
Lindzen is a denier (his own word) and paleodata drive a very large truck through his nonsense. So he denies the data. A sure sign that someone is wrong and attempting to make an indefensible argument.
Come on karen = admit your horrible error in confusing the GIS with the entire planet...
You people are absolutely unbelievable.
Howling, astonishing errors. Real four-bell doozies. Again and again and again and again.
Every one pointed out. But not a flicker of acknowledgement that you are laughing-stock wrong about everything. Instead you sneer and posture and condescend.
Unbelievable.
'The magnitude of the Younger Dryas climate anomaly (cooler/drier) increases with latitude in the Northern Hemisphere, with an opposite pattern (warmer/wetter) in the Southern Hemisphere reflecting a general bipolar seesaw climate response. '
It makes sense, I'll follow it up.
When are you going to acknowledge your many errors Gordy?
When?
'I think we should talk about that more. It’s interesting.'
Get a grip man, we are at the end of the Holocene and it appears that CO2 has little impact on temperatures.
Have you heard of a slippery slope? They are projecting another cold winter in the UK and I'm thinking of having a bet.
BBD, so you don't contend that Prof. Lindzen knows inifintely more about climate than you?
'When?'
I picked the wrong north pole camera and have already taken my punishment, sir.
Oh FFS Gordy. When are you going to admit your recent and astonishing errors?
Come on. When?
boris - I answered your question. You can piss off now.
Another stupid lie that has been totally debunked on this thread:
Yet you repeat it. You repeat a stupid lie. You add to your catalogue of errors instead of acknowledging them.
What the fuck is wrong with you?
boris
Lindzen has a latterly poor record for valid research papers and likes to blind lay audiences with his version of the science. Indeed he had a session in the UK hosted by Monckton - that should inform you the quality of Lindzen's opinion on climate sensitivity which is doubtless the angle you have in mind.
Lindzen may know something about climate but fails to produce convincing research from that knowledge.
In that respect here is a still respected scientist on that very issue: Is the climate sensitivity less than 2°C? .
Next sock please.
@Karen #100 (previous page) "BBD, would you care to convert your pathetic charts from joules to temp C ?"
Karen has to ask BBD to do her homework for her because her first bullshit figure was out by five orders of magnitude. LOL!
I've already done the conversion (to inform Karen of the scale of her error). BBD can no doubt do the conversion. But I'm much more interested in seeing what number Karen comes up with. I'm torn between whether it is more likely to be "minus 2000 degrees" or "my cats breath smells like cat."
Just to inform you about some real data:
Arctic sea ice extent: 6,692,344 km2 (August 5, 2013)
This indicates that there might be no record minimum this year. In fact, the August 5 value is the third highest of the last 10 years.
Karen is just trying to get a low-sounding number so she can pretend that the staggering amount of energy that has accumulated in the global ocean over the last few decades is teensy-weensie.
Just another stupid denier trick.
'Come on. When?'
Was it the stuff about undersea volcanoes melting east Greenland glaciers at a rapid rate?
The scientists don't know enough.
Or perhaps it was the comments on the Younger Dryas?
Debate on this issue will continue for many more years before its resolved.
Can't think of anything else that I should receive a hard stick on my back, delivered by a cranky old pisspot.
What a lying shit you are Gordy. What a fucking worm.
At a glance -
And:
And:
And:
And:
All complete and utter bollocks.
The guy in the pub who’s wrong about everything but won’t shut up. Just keeps yapping away, on and on and on. Won't admit his mistakes no matter how many times they are pointed out and won't apologise for being a serial tit. A lovely guy we all want to have at the table.
BBD, no, you did not answer my second question (please allow me to remind you): "BBD, so you don’t contend that Prof. Lindzen knows inifintely more about climate than you?"
Could you answer also this question? Thank you.
Love it! Now we've got one who's playing the Argument from Authority card with all of one scientist, where we can produce, what, dozens, hundreds? that disagree with him.
So, how come you've decided he's the one that's right? Don't bother to answer on anyone else's account...
And, wow, there's a recovery in the Arctic Sea Ice! It'll last forever! The decades long downward trend is reversing. I know we said this in 2008, but this time it's troooooooee!
Be it written in history that August 5th, 2013, marked the beginning of the New Glacial... WUWT Without End...
Do you guys ever get any better?
I'm 48. You are projecting again.
BBD#47
So its ok for you to quote-mine from the same report but not when I hghlight uncertainties with the data or problems with your graphs.
Piss off.
Come back when you have something substantive to say
Boris, first read Bill's comment on your very stupid use of argument from limited authority. Then focus on the essentials: Lindzen is demonstrably wrong. My relative level of topic understanding is not at issue here and never will be no matter how hard you try to make it. So take my earlier advice and piss off.
Rednoise
You have been show up to be an arsehole again. And a poor loser.
From The recent pause in global warming (2): What are the potential causes? UK Met Office 2013:
And:
Bill, sorry, do you suffer from emotional problems with real data? Why?
There are no problems with the graphs I used. You are lying.
# 78 Another moronic troll joins the braying horde. Wonderful.
Not shown on your graph, the one you keep referring to.
Explain please.
Wanker
BBD, i take your statement ("My relative level of topic understanding is not at issue here and never will be no matter how hard you try to make it") as confirmation that you accept to dispose of far inferior knowledge in climatology compared to Prof. Lindzen.
Your low level of knowledge *is* at stake here as you behave as if you would be some knowledge person in climatology, which you obviously are not.
So tell us what we must learn from your 'real data' then? If the answer is, as it should be 'nothing', one wonders why you went to all the trouble of posting it.
'AGW stopped last Wednesday's comic value has declined over time. Try some new material.
And doesn't believe 'at all' in paleodata! Now, there's a skeptic! ;-)
You can't read graphs.
Fuckwit.
I know more than you, which is enough. I know that Lindzen serially failed to make a case for low S.
Now piss off boris.
Here is an incomplete list (abstracts only) of replies in the literature to Lindzen starting with his 'infra-red iris' hypothesis (Lindzen et al. 2001):
Hartmann & Michelsen (2002)
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0477%282002%29083%3C02…
Lin et al. (2002)
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442%282002%29015%3C00…
Harrison (2002)
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F…
Fu et al (2002)
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/2/31/2002/acp-2-31-2002.html
Replies to Lindzen & Choi (2009)/Spencer & Braswell (2009):
Trenberth et al. (2010)
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009GL042314.shtml
Lin et al. (2010)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022407310001226
Murphy et al. (2010)
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010GL042911.shtml
Dessler (2010)
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6010/1523.abstract
Replies to Lindzen & Choi (2011)/Spencer & Braswell (2011):
Dessler (2011)
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2011GL049236.shtml
Trenberth, Fasullo & Abraham (2011)
http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/9/2051/pdf
And poof! As if by magic, the trolls all disappear, simultaneously.
Weird, no?
And where is the decline post 2004 on your graphs.
Wanker
BBD, can you tell us in non-offensive words why your psyche is inclined to believe the AGW alarmists rather than the climate realists?
#90
You what?!
Can you really be this fucking stupid and blind?
Look at the red line (0-700m) and you will see an inflection at 2004. It is plainly visible. Shut your silly lying mouth and use your eyes. I have had enough of your bollocks for one day.
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content700m2000myr.png
# 91
Because I can tell the difference between science and a collection of shills and their deluded audience. See links above.
Goodbye boris.
No-one can, because your question presumes facts not in evidence. See if you can ask a question without an embedded fallacy. (Apparently it's not too difficult - most high school students can manage it.)
And poof! The trolls are back. Simultaneously.
Weird, no?
An inflection is not the same as a definite decline which the met office observes and comments on.
You must be a fuckwit for not realisng that
Lotharsson
Hard to believe that Rednoise the Clown is doing that thing of his with graphs again.
A redundant demonstration of Teh Stupid.
Oh you stupid, illiterate shit you. The decline is in the rate of ocean heat uptake not the absolute OHC.
You stupid, stupid fuck, you. Just go away. Please. It's painful.
So no comment on the decline in OHC 0_800m post 2004 as documented by the met office
Just LOOK at fig 1 in the report you very obviously have not read. Look at the OHC curve. Look at the vertical bands. Compare the rate of ocean heat uptake in the dark grey band with that later, in the light grey band. That is what this text is referring to:
You are not capable of discussing this topic at this level.
Rednoise
Are you doing this on purpose?
What did I just write, only moments ago?
Rednoise - stop. Just stop.
You have utterly misunderstood this report and what you are doing now is painful to watch.
So please - just stop.
And later it continues
As if content and uptake are not related.
Sloppy writing. Look at the OHC curve in Fig 1.
Still described as relatively flat post the initial rise which was put down to changing to the ARGO system.
Still rather more definite than your inflection
Rednoise, I assure you, no OHC reconstruction shows a *fall* in OHC since 2002. None of them. This is a fact.
They all show a reduction in the rate of ocean heat uptake for the 0 - 700m (or 0 - 800m) layer. You are just confused because you do not really understand this topic but are determined to deny, deny, deny. It gets you into the most horrible messes. So just stop.
# 5 Oh dear God. I'm NOT going through this again because you are too fucking dim to understand the explanation.
Just read the report *properly* instead of quote-mining it without getting any sense of what it actually says.
Read the bloody words:
And:
Read.
Rednoise has dipped his toes into water that we first had a look at WHEN this three part Met' office report came out and once again we have a ditto head going off because he read something at Cardinal Puff (Bishop Shill), WUWT, Novatwerp or similar.
He cannot pass these sections from page 3 of Part 2 without misconstruing the meaning, note the emphasis oh comprehension challenged one:
Little further warming NOT no warming.
Now do you grasp the thrust?
Arguing with you does help:-)
#10 I only wish you were a better student. My head hurts.
I did read the report. I thought it quite fair and balanced, unlike anything you might see on SKS.
Good
Lionel
I hardly dare introduce more complexity to the discussion given the way it has gone, but I very much want to point out to Rednoise that the thermosteric component of SLR does support the estimates for OHC increase. The problem is, he won't read Levitus 12 - except for his abortive attempt to misrepresent the basin data in the SI.
But thermosteric is the killer.
I am baffled by you Rednoise. You have spent a lot of energy denying the validity of the OHC data but this report - read carefully is a strong endorsement of that data and the hypothesis that ocean heat uptake is affecting the rate of surface warming.
Read the words:
Will have to wait for another time as off to dig up some spuds.
This is exactly what I have been trying to get across to you for what feels like half a lifetime but is probably only a couple of weeks.
And now you are okay with Report (2)?
Does not compute.
Trans - finally realised I am utterly scuppered so am running away.
Back with more misrepresentations and anti-science bullshit soon,
Love
Troll.
#15
But this report (2) puts in the doubts and discusses the different ideas in a way which seems more open compared to others I have seen.
No 3 which discusses sensitivity is more of a problem IMHO, but there we were discussing 2
Oh I see now.
Uncertainty uncertainty uncertainty. The bleat of the denier sheep.
The kinds of uncertainty that exist are not the kinds that undermine AGW or provide comfort and succour to deniers.
But deniers are generally far to stupid and ill-informed to understand this. So the bleat goes on.
I'm curious whether gordo and Karen not realizing the gobsmacking irrelevance of bringing up the Eemian was lunacy or stupidity.
Oh I dunno, Stu. As I said to karen earlier, the Eemian provides insight into where even quite modest increases in GAT can eventually take MSL.
Maybe our spud basher can consider this on his return having got to the root of his problem:
revised AGU statement on climate change, h/t the Rabett.
Can BBD, Lotharson, Lionel et al explain why they feel that they have some superiority over climate realists? I cannot understand your behavior, although I know enormously more about climate than you all warmists together.
Obvious and stupid lie.
Incompetent troll is incompetent; film at 11.
Stu, unfortunately you are wrong, because for instance you don't even know how OHC was measured prior to 1970. Be honest and humble in your ignorance.
You have repeated your embedded fallacy which I have previously rejected. If you are not smart enough to grok this, then you are not equipped to have this conversation.
If you are capable of asking a serious and genuine question without it I might engage in a discussion, depending on how much time I have to spare. You are, however, not giving a good impression thus far of asking serious and genuine questions.
(And the deep irony is that your question, when your fallacy is removed, appears to indict you rather than the people you are addressing it to...have you been learning clown-trolling at the foot of some of our accomplished practitioners?)
#20
Also leaves sufficient wiggle room to change tack if required. More diplomatic than in the past.
Then how is it that you are unaware that Lindzen is badly wrong? More profoundly, how can you be so knowledgable and so profoundly wrong?
Or are you more knowledgable that the vast majority of climate scientists alive today? That is, in fact what you are saying. And that's called a delusion of grandeur. Effectively, you are telling us that you are insane. Thanks for the heads-up.
If you are going to make a fuss about OHC measurements, you can - if you wish - ignore the data pre-1980. Review the previous ~100 comments. It makes absolutely no difference to the scientific - as opposed to farcically wrong - argument.
OHC 0 - 2000m showing error bars.
Note that the decadal slope exceeds uncertainty from ~1970 - present.
Teh Stupid really is out in force today.
I assume you are referring here to the Met Office report (2)?
If so, the implication appears to be that you believe that the science is just wrong and a brand new set of laws of physics are about to be discovered.
This is insane.
Boris on climate realists,
which definition is it you prefer this one implied by this article
M.I.T. joins climate realists, doubles its projection of global warming by 2100 to 5.1°C
or this one out of SourceWatch
Oh lookee, fruitcake Piers Corbyn is in the mix in that second category along with other nuts.
Climate Realists is a highjacked to Orwell speak term for those trying to make it anything but us and anything but CO2.
Now here is a trail on Lindzen .
Oh! Look! Corbyn turns up there too, along with Monckton and a certain Peter Lilley currently doing his best to push fracking in the UK. Fracking is a crime against humanity having led New Mexico farmers to pump aquifers dry to supply frackers with water no matter that their lands are parched, and will become worse.and about to be contaminated to boot.,
It will become harder for these farmers to, 'hic! Put food on their family'. This is insanity.
Osborne 'fracks' the country and the taxpayer:
George Osborne unveils 'most generous tax breaks in world' for fracking.
One comment has some context:
Conflict of interest - wassat?
First they came for the paleoclimateologists...
.. and had their arses kicked.
Then they came for the atmospheric physicists...
... and again had their arses handed to them.
Now they come for the oceanographers.
I wonder how that'll go?
Davey Jones' Locker.
I have long had an interest in oceanography and have recommended a good text for the basics - it is a very wide field.
It is no coincidence that many active and well respected climate scientists come from oceanographic backgrounds, <a href="http://forecast.uchicago.edu/moodle/David Archer for one .
Doh! HTM fubar!
It is no coincidence that many active and well respected climate scientists come from oceanographic backgrounds, David Archer for one .
'the implication appears to be that you believe that the science is just wrong'
This science on CC (aka gorebull worming) is biased, because the peer review system has become corrupted.
So the debate will continue until real world observations confirm or deny your bias.
Bloato: blah de blah de blah de bloody blah!
In essence, this is the sum total of the position of these arseclowns.
And they're destroying your posterity.
#39
This is a conspiracy theory. Tinfoil nonsense.
I'm not "biased". I accept the laws of physics and the considerable wisdom and expertise embodied in the strong scientific consensus that physics means CO2 means warming.
How could it not?
This isn't "bias". What you are doing is bias.
You continue to confuse (your) politics with physics. You are locked into an argument that you cannot possibly win because physics just is. It doesn't care and it doesn't vote.
Contemplate on why you reject physics. The truth is in there.
You obviously (for obvious reasons) not been made aware that the only documented case of corrupted peer - or 'pal' review was the denier Chris de Frietas and his pals Sallie Baliunas, Robert Balling, John Christy, Robert Davis, David Douglass, Vincent Gray, Sherwood Idso, “Chip” Knappenberger, Ross McKitrick, Pat Michaels, Eric Posmentier, Arthur Robinson, Willie Soon, and Gerd-Rainer Weber between 1997 to 2003?
It's always projection with you morons. Always throwing mud and hoping to transfer onto others how you vermin operate.
You do that because you have no science and therefore no means of making a believable case.
So you think like shit with your shit-for-brains cranial matter, you swim in shit concocting and repeating lies and distortions for your work (pro-bono or paid, it doesn't matter), and you throw shit because - like chimps - it amuses you.
But you can't make it stick, because you've got fuckall except dimwit morons who believe any of it.
'How could it not?'
It seemed to work well in the models, temperatures were in tandem until the wheels fell off.
From real world observations it has been flat and the models have been proven wrong. So where to from here?
We'll look into the deep oceans and we find the missing heat is a fiction.... its curtains.
Who has the curtains?
An 'I'll choose to believe whatever I want ' hissy fit does not an argument make. Your position is based entirely on a rejection of science. As you could scarcely have made more apparent.
You, Bloato, as with so many of your fellow-travellers, are a boon to our side of the argument.
It's got nothing to do with models, it's just simple, basic physics: increased CO2 in the atmosphere causes heating.
Where to from here?
Maybe view the following graphic, *again*,
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Escalator_2012_500.gif
And try to comprehend just how retarded is your ridiculous interpretation of the observed temperature rise.
Two obvious and stupid lies. Good God you're getting boring now.
'... a boon to our side of the argument.'
And vice versa.
'your muppet pack'
Our flash mob?
I'm just putting this link up for Jeffery.... as its in his line of work.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/06/fabricating-climate-doom-part-2-h…
Gee, now it's regurgitating a link from Watts - another round of autoparody.
Tuesday, August 6, 2013
MIT's Dr. Richard Lindzen defeats warmist opponents in rare debate
MIT Professor of Atmospheric Science Dr. Richard Lindzen was recently featured in a recommended debate at the Oxford Union broadcast by Al Jazeera. Dr. Lindzen defeats his hysterical opponents with calm logic and scientific reasoning, including the 'moderator' Mehdi Hasan, pie-throwing activist Mark Lynas, and warmist Myles Allen. Also included is journalist David Rose, author of skeptical articles published in the Daily Mail. Dr. Lindzen [and ironically even his warmist opponents] dismiss the notion of a 97% scientific 'consensus' or IPCC 'consensus'. It is one of the very few debates in existence in which an eminent scholar & skeptic is allowed to express his views without biased editing and is well worth the 46 minute viewing time.
"If I'm wrong, we'll know it in 50 years and can then do something." -Professor Richard Lindzen
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2013/08/mits-dr-richard-lindzen-de…
As I said, its in Jeffery's line of work.
'One species of the Blues not only beckons the ants to come to its protection, but then seduces the ants to carry it into the ant colony. Once inside, the caterpillar then mimics the sounds of the queen ant, demanding to be fed in royal ant fashion. This is not quite the royal treatment imagined by humans: the caterpillar’s instinctual impersonation induces the worker ants to approach and regurgitate their stomach contents, upon which the caterpillar gratefully dines.'
Sure he does. Do you really gain consolation from this kind of tendentios puffery?
It sucks to be you.
'Contemplate on why you reject physics. The truth is in there.'
I reject your interpretations of the physics, that is all, CO2 does not cause global warming and I will not recant.
Hot on the heels of record breaking Antarctic sea ice, we now have concerns at the other pole... of a similar nature.
http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/DMI-Arctic-sea-ice.g…
Fatso said:
Interesting.
So what "interpretatione of the physics" would you posit explains the change in infrared detection Iaian Stewart's demonstration?
And by the way Fatso, I noticed that you (and KarenMackSunspot et al) remain completely silent in response to my post at #54 on p2 three days ago.
Are you scared by the substantive points contained therein?
I rarely read your post's barnturd
'It’s got nothing to do with models, it’s just simple, basic physics: increased CO2 in the atmosphere causes heating.'
Its a question of sensitivity and real world observations suggests the warmists have overplayed their hand.
It was all there in discussions on the Eemian and Younger Dryas, irrefutable evidence that CO2 follows temperatures.
And we have an upward trend in NH snow and ice, looks natural but I'm sure we could tweek it to fit your cosy perceptions.
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/images/nhland_season1.gif
A correction to my comment at #54 on p2 three days ago.
l said that the August Arctic sea ice volume in the 80s was "a tad under 28 thousand cubic kilometres". Looking at the graph again I realised that I was caught out by the similarity of the February and August line colours and the fact that in August it's winter here. In fact the August sea ice volume at the beginning of the 80s is 'only' around 18 thousand cubic kilometres - which was still over 250% more than it is today...
#56 el, that turn around for the ice is hardly surprising, the daily mean temperatures in the Arctic have been record low this year.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
Impressive considering the high water temps. :)
barnturds link
"Sorry, the page you were looking for in this blog does not exist."
KarenMackSunspot.
By the abysmal quality of your own posts and the appalling lack of scientific understanding that you exhibit, it is blatantly obvious that you rarely read anything that isn't written either in crayon or on denialist blogs.
KarenMackSunspot.
I guess that it is too difficult for you to figure out that the "l" was missing from the end of the URL. Seeing as you're so intellectually challenged, try this link.
A very nice crayon drawing barnturd, big deal !
Are you trying to tell us that the Arctic ice volume is different now to what it has been before ?
El gordo decides to refer us to winter snow cover, which any turd knows is irrelevant to albedo.
El gordo decides *not* to show the annual snow cover. One 'wonders' why:
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_anom.php?ui_set=0&ui_region=…
Of course, we cannot expect much from el gordo, who does not even know this relates to *snow* cover, not ice. It's not like the name of the link gives any hint about that...
Marco, are you saying there is no long term trend?
On a lighter note, camera 1 has been knocked over by polar bears.
http://sunriseswansong.wordpress.com/2013/08/06/north-pole-camera-one-p…
'Two minor parties, Family First and the Liberal Democratic Party, which have outlined their positions on climate change measures, oppose all such expenditure. Many in the Coalition also favour this approach, given the uncertainty about any damage done by climate change and the trivial effect Australia might have on this. Such views are consistent with those of Danish economist Bjorn Lomborg who, referring to Germany's climate policies, in an estimate nobody has contested, says $100bn of costs would delay the amount of global warming, should this be taking place, by just 37 minutes.
'Even for true believers in human-induced climate change the injurious effects appear to be receding. The Economist has published draft material from the next report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which appears to halve the 3C warming forecast of the 2007 report. This comes after 16 years of no global temperature change and is closer to the forecast by the world's leading atmospheric physicist, Richard Lindzen, of 1C human induced warming (most of which he estimates has already taken place). A 1C change is little different from the temperature oscillations over the centuries.'
Alan Moran / Oz
KarenMackSunspot.
Oo - a crayon reference - how original...
Not "trying"- I am telling you that.
Wakey wakey blockhead. This is common knowledge amongst the set of intelligent people.
And how many times must you be reminded that punctuation marks are not preceded by a space?
@Bernard
"l said that the August Arctic sea ice volume in the 80s was “a tad under 28 thousand cubic kilometres”. Looking at the graph again I realised that I was caught out by the similarity of the February and August line colours and the fact that in August it’s winter here. In fact the August sea ice volume at the beginning of the 80s is ‘only’ around 18 thousand cubic kilometres – which was still over 250% more than it is today…"
Response:
1.
It's really NOT necessary that you apologise that you have taken the wrong monthly data on arctic sea ice volume because accuracy and diligence with data from nature is one if the great weaknesses of post-modern climatology "science", which is rather an evironmentalist movement than real science. So you need not to excuse since nobody from climate realism takes your words, pretexts, assertions etc. seriously at all, because nearly everything from your warmists mouths is pure propaganda with political agenda.
2.
It is always the same with your green movement's inaccuracies and non-scientific methodological flaws, e.g. that you compare apples with bread when you compare arctic ice volume data from decades ago based on primitive equipment and incomplete coverage of the arctic at a time when many today's warmists expected a new ice age, with today's much better satellite equipment.
The general problem with you warmung guys is that you stick to political climatology, bend physics according to your ideology and are genuinely prone to data mixture. data inaccuracies and all further shortcomings of people who want to dominate the world based on their green lefty fundamenfalim and religious fervour for god gaia.
You guys should learn what nature tells you and not try to impose your rotten ideological ideas on nature.
Fatso.
I see that you are still avoiding the questions regarding detection of warming to which I referred you three days ago.
Perhaps your difficulty lies in following links. If you are unable to find the questions here, or if you are unable to answer 10 question in a row without spraining your brain, perhaps you could answer just one:
Given the noise in the temperature record, how many years are required on average to be able to detect a warming trend with 95% confidence?
Boris.
1) I correct my mistakes. It's what objective people do, especially when they are concerned with accuracy.
2) Comparing 1980s Arctic sea ice volume with 2013 Arctic sea ice volume is a legitimate exercise. In spite of the dough-brained disability in perception that afflicts your sorry excuse for an intellect, such an exercise is comparing big apples with little apples. Get used to it, because within ten years those are going to be mini apples.
Really?
Really?!
Where I live nature is telling us that the planet is warming at a rapid rate of knots. Vignerons are bringing in some varieties of grape two months earlier now than they were 25 year ago, because the vines start fruiting so much earlier. Rhododendrons and many bulbs are flowering a month and more earlier - as do many other plant species. Chill hours are decreasing to levels not suitable for stone/pome fruit-set. The waters off the coast are around 4°C warmer than several decades ago. There are many more-equatorial marine species appearing that have not been previously records in our waters. European wasp nests survive winter now with impunity. The list goes on...
Someone seems to have forgotten to tell nature not to have the "rotten ideas" of climatologists and ecologists imposed upon it.
Or - more likely - you are speaking garbage.
And Boris, in case you think that it is merely biology that is conspiring to hold to the "rotten ideas" of scientists, our temperatures are misbehaving too. Our numbers and intensities of frosts are down, and the (Southern Hemisphere) July just gone was both our warmest overall July and had record highest maximum daily temperatures.
What do you think that non-biological nature is trying to say?
The Arctic currently has a larger sea ice volume than 2012, 2011 and 2010
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ic…
barnturd, could you please give me the sea ice volume data for ummmm........say 1940 & 1520 ?
tks in advance
"Really?!
Where I live nature is telling us that the planet is warming at a rapid rate of knots."
Tasmanian tree ring data says that it has been warmer at banturds hovel many times before !
Welcome to Dumbtoid Boris :)
Bernard, you report some "anecdotal" evidence which is really of limited scientific value, especially as seen from a global perspective: "Where I live nature is telling us that the planet is warming at a rapid rate of knots. Vignerons are bringing in some varieties of grape two months earlier now than they were 25 year ago, because the vines start fruiting so much earlier. Rhododendrons and many bulbs are flowering a month and more earlier – as do many other plant species. Chill hours are decreasing to levels not suitable for stone/pome fruit-set. The waters off the coast are around 4°C warmer than several decades ago. There are many more-equatorial marine species appearing that have not been previously records in our waters. European wasp nests survive winter now with impunity. The list goes on…"
You will certainly find subjects around the globe who could tell you that there were they live the were not able to report symptoms of a warming climate. I live in a part of the world where the most recent winters tended to be colder and longer than in earlier years since 2000, and onset of springtime was especially late this year, pretty much the opposite of what you reported.
When you assume a warming world based at least partly on the observations you have reported, why is always the automatic reflex of warmists that this must be a consequence of more CO2 in th atmosphere, especially if this additional CO2 comes from humans. Why is not the first intention of finding an answer to explain the observations you have reported, something a much simpler consideration which even kids would be able to make: when it's obviously warmer on a site during a month then the simple reason was more sushine, i.e. less clouds. When it is colder on average in a certain week compared to a preceding or following week then it was most probably more cloudy and rainy than in other weeks. i.e, less sunshine. Why don't you ask the question whether cloud cover changes over years and decades in specific regions of the world and why?
Boris.
I reported some “anecdotal” evidence because you suggested that scientists are applying their "rotten ideological ideas on nature". If it galls you that nature listens to scientists rather than to physics denialists that's tough for you - get over it.
If you believe that the balance of natural response disagrees with the consensus about climate change and its effect on the biosphere, well, here's a little exercise for you:
1) Catalog the biological, cryological and climatological changes that have been documented around the planet over the last 50-100 years.
2) Account for the physics of greenhouse gases including CO2, and for the particular effects that an increasing level of atmospheric CO2 will have on the climate around the planet.
3) Compare the results of (1) with (2), and demonstrate how the biological (including phenological), cryological, and climatological disproves the fact of global warming, and the fact of floral/faunal response to it.
Oh, good grief!
Individual models have periods of ~15 years with little to no surface temperature rise, and occasionally even small falls. This fact gets written up in scientific papers. (When they look at why, quite often this turns out to be due to greater heat energy takeup by oceans. Which is rather consistent with the evidence of what's happening right now. Wait, I thought you said the models were wrong - how come they show the same kind of phenomenon as now appears to be occurring?)
You're stuck in binary thinking (the models are either "right" or "wrong", rather), which is almost always fallacious. The right question is "how useful are the models, and for what purposes".
But it's worse than that - you aren't even doing flawed binary thinking correctly! You compare the models' surface temperatures to a period that is not long enough for a CO2 forcing trend to overcome other natural and non-natural influences and you ignore various analyses that show that heat is accumulating in the climate system without any sign of a slowdown. Your comparison is invalid!
And it's even worse than that - you're then rejecting basic physics because you think the models are "wrong" for invalid reasons, when there's plenty of evidence that the basic physics is pretty well understood and that evidence doesn't rely on the models being "right" or even "useful".
This is incredibly foolish - or more likely (given your apparently compulsive need to regurgitate pre-debunked memes over and over again) simply abject denial.
Excellent! Please inform your fellow travellers that, as predicted by climate scientists, AGW does not cause surface warming everywhere over the entire globe, even though it causes the planet as a whole to retain more heat energy than it otherwise would!
'The right question is “how useful are the models, and for what purposes”.
They are a very expensive white elephant.
http://australianclimatemadness.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/cmip5-73-mo…
'Your comparison is invalid!'
Bollocks!
'...the basic physics is pretty well understood and that evidence doesn’t rely on the models being “right” or even “useful”.
Really, does Kevin Rudd know about this?
Recant... what an appropriate choice of words.
You have definitively rejected physics (not "my interpretation" of it but that of physicists) without even understanding what it is you are rejecting.
This is an act of faith. Simple, blind faith. It is also an act of the most grotesque stupidity imaginable.
You are beyond the reach of reason.
Boris (the most knowledgeable non-climate scientist in the world™) must be deferred to. Boris is more intelligent and better-informed than all the other scientists on the planet. Boris is most definitely not suffering from acute delusions of grandeur and Boris is most certainly not insane.
If Boris denies the data and asserts that the climate system isn't warming up, then Boris must be right.
Remember children: Boris knows best!
This is the madness of True Faith in action:
Lotharsson:
El Loco:
What is going on here actually transcends "normal" bad faith and politicised dishonesty. These people are all insane.
Not to mention too fucking stupid to understand the evidence or the basic physics underpinning what is happening.
'This is an act of faith. Simple, blind faith.'
Not on my part, temperatures have been flat for more than a decade and I have no faith in AGW.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/clip_image004.jpg
That "intention" has been explored and still fails to provide an adequate explanation for observations (despite the best efforts of even accomplished climate scientists like Richard Lindzen). Firstly, some types of cloud changes do make the planet warmer, but some make it cooler by reflecting more sunlight so it never hits the surface. So, it's already clearly not as simple as you or your kids suggest it might be. And secondly, when we look into it more deeply, the evidence does not indicate that "clouds impacting sunshine received" can provide a large enough effect to explain what is observed.
Worse still, we observe pretty consistent warming in places where they don't get much sunshine (e.g. the poles in winter, and cloudless nights everywhere). It's very difficult to argue that these are due to cloud changes.
CO2 forcing along with various other anthropogenic influences and natural influences provides a much more powerful explanatory framework. And it explains still other observations that "clouds did it" doesn't explain.
Not to mention that we can measure the longwave radiation that results from outgoing radiation being captured by CO2 and re-emitted in all directions, some of it back towards the earth. And we can measure changes in emitted radiation at the top of atmosphere. From there, basic physics provides some pretty solid implications about heat energy accumulation which mentioning "clouds" and "sunshine" do not alter. Any framework that seeks to explain all the observations must include those effects.
Saying it does not make it so, even if you are deluded enough to believe what you say. .
Saying this does not make the radiative imbalance go away, nor does it stop the oceans warming.
It doesn't make those analyses I referred to go away - including the one that shows that if you remove most of the effects of just three sources of natural variability, a strong surface temperature trend and a very similar tropospheric trend are obvious.
And it doesn't make the fact that you linked to an RSS TLT graph when talking about surface temperatures go away. (Do you actually know what RSS TLT measures? I'm sure Boris will be along any second to explain it to you.)
You shouldn't have "faith" in it. You should accept that it's a necessary part of any description of the climate system with decent explanatory power, because the evidence demands it and no-one can come up with a reasonable explanation without it - not even the sources you cut-and-paste from.
But you won't accept it - presumably because you don't like the implications.
And you attempt to "justify" this non-acceptance, as you have been called out any number of times for, by denying physics, denying basic evidence and using shonky "logic".
It really is time you trotted off back to your own thread.
In addition to Lotharson's clear exposition at #90 our latest sock Boris should consider what is happening to the diurnal temperature range.
And here is another marker for rising temperatures 2012 was one of the 10 warmest years on record globally.
All the ditto-heads here can do is practice sophistry in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence that we are going to change the nature of the Earth. They should consider that some organisms drove themselves extinct by changing the atmosphere by exhaling oxygen whilst concentrating the carbon from the GHGs then available. Some of their structures can be found in Australasia.
Your linked graph does not justify that claim. For one thing it has no uncertainty intervals, so comparisons between measurements and projections are difficult. For another it doesn't show whether the models used a realistic forcing trajectory or levels of natural influences that were observed during the projection/observation overlap period. (I suspect these problems had not occurred to you.)
But those are side issues, compared to the main error in your "reasoning". You're asking the wrong question - and so is the article you got the image from. Essentially, apart from trivial cases, all models - in all fields - are wrong. This is (a) expected and (b) not evidence that models are no use. Not even if your sources say so!
Again, it comes down to "how useful are they?" and the answer isn't the same.
But still worse is this: you ignore the fact that the case for concern remains even if all models are removed from play. This is by far the most egregious failure in your "thinking", and it remains even after you have been upbraided for it, complete with quite a bit of evidence and hand-holding through some of the basic arguments.
Barring evidence to the contrary, I can only conclude that you're not here for the hunting.
El Loco
I've provided supported argument that energy continues to accumulate in the climate system just as expected. I've explained that most of it is going into the oceans. I've pointed out again and again that the troposphere is not the climate system. Lotharsson and others been over the same ground with you, in detail. Lotharsson's explanations above are clear and correct - but what do you do?
You repeat your faith-based denial of the science, of physics, of the facts. You double-down on denial with all the zeal of the true believer. In fucking nonsense.
You are a waste of time.
* * *
IMO time for strike-through of any more of this cretin's denialist litany.
Starting with this repeatedly debunked crap and its link to horse-shit at WTFUWT:
* * *
As a side point, perhaps all links to denialist chum-ladlers should be struck out. Many blogs don't permit links to WTFUWT et al. Why should we put up with it? What do people think?
Should we tolerate repetition (by the same commenter) of debunked lies?
Should we tolerate links to denialist sites?
As far as I can tell, it's up to us now, so what do we think?
ALL LINKS TO SS WILL BE STRUCK OUT
By Order....
#89
The liars not only mislabelled a TLT reconstruction as surface temperature, they used the outlier RSS data set which is increasingly in disagreement with UAH (also satellite TLT) and the HadCRUT and GISTEMP surface temperature records. Note the close agreement between UAH TLT and HadCRUT and GISTEMP.
Using the outlier and hiding all the other data is deliberate misrepresentation. Lying with graphs. This is why sources like WTFUWT should not be used or linked.
You have been lied to by those in whom you have "faith". Your spiritual misleaders, as it were.
Look. See for yourself.
Your sources are lying to you.
Lying.
SkS is a reputable site that provides fully referenced discussion of real science.
See #98.
#97
I'd be careful, if I were you. I suspect there are limits, even here.