...temperatures have been flat for more than a decade and I have no faith in AGW.
If you actually believe this why do you not have the guts to answer the questions at #57 and at #72?
That's a rhetorical question by the way... every intelligent person here knows that you cannot defensibly answer them without disproving your claims of no global warming.
And for what it's worth it's not about "faith"; it's about objective analysis and understanding, both of which you profoundly lack.
This brings us back to the lies spewed forth, daily, by denialist blogs. There is a rich irony here. All the deniers *think* they are being conned by some vast greenie-leftist conspiracy, but they are of course being conned by the chum-ladlers instead.
Deniers think they are smart and have seen the trick, but they are stupid and have been tricked.
The projection is so total, so complete, that reality is inverted. Scientists and science becomes "corrupt" while paid shills like Watts, Morano, Nova et al. are perceived as sources of untainted truth in a skewed world.
The madness of the deniers is by far their most interesting feature. What they say is dull crap, but the way they think - now that's bizarre enough to hold the attention.
And the dishonest blogger you link doesn't know that satellite-derived *surface* and *ocean* temperature estimates are not considered especially reliable.
Direct measurement by thermometer in situ is preferable to modelled reconstructions of the bottom of the atmosphere measured by MSUs in orbit.
Let's see what happens when we compare a few land surface and sea surface records...
One clue about the clueless is their use of multi-order polynomials. Fourth order is useless for describing anything resembling the physics of warming, but it pegs very well the idiot who used it.
You guys should learn what nature tells you and not try to impose your rotten ideological ideas on nature.
This is pure projection also your tone and phrasing reminds me of Luboš Motl.
Now you claim to 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
Now maybe you would care to come clean and inform where this is. After all you wouldn't like to leave the impression that you are making stuff up. Besides the late spring in some areas of the Northern Hemisphere was due to a sudden cold snap with much snow. The reasons for this are not inconsistent with a warming world and in particular Arctic amplification.
You claim to know more about climate than all of us put together, so why the anonymity? Could that be based upon falsehood too.
I mentioned Motl. above but we don't really have dear Svensmark paying us a visit do we?
Nah. Boris isn't Henrik. And HS would have the nads to post under his own name. He may be mistaken, but he's no coward.
Anyway, there is no need to worry about the details. The only thing that matters about Boris is that he's the smartest and best-informed non-climate-scientist in the world, evah.
And before anyone even thinks it, no, he's not insane.
Speaking of reality inversion (#3), I couldn't help but notice that a couple of Karen's pearls of wisdom on the last page had the header "Climate educator", while our Boris styles himself "Climate expert".
I hope we are all appropriately grateful that such expertise has deigned to spend time with us.
@Bernard, your reply to my last post adressed to you did not mention at all my central message to you. I phrase it now even more simplistic:
Experiment 1:
Take a chair on a sunny summer day and sit there for three hours while the sun warms you directly by its radiation.
Experiment 2:
Take a chair on a cloudy summer day and sit there for three hours while the sun cannot warm you directly by its radiation since radiation cannot pass the clouds.
You will detect that warming is dependent on direct insolation, while in Experiment 2 you will experience considerable cooler temperatures than in Experiment 1.
I wanted you to think about the question to which degree cloud cover can change in a specific area within a defined period and why this maybe can happen. If cloud cover in a certain region, e.g. in the Alpes during summer months, decreased during the last decades and there was consequently more direct insolation, the temperatures should be higher compared to times with less cloud cover, without CO2 influences.
Has cloud cover in your region been scientifically investigated and could a change in cloud cover explain the symptoms of warming in your region, which you reported?
When is the purportedly future PM of Australia being awarded his Nobel BTW?
And which journal published his paper overturning the scientific consensus on AGW? Somehow (so much to read) I managed to miss the overthrow of the paradigm.
Lotharson, you missed what I proposed to think about in my post to Bernard concerning cloud cover. You should accept the simple fact that clouds prevent sun rays to warm the surface directly and therefore exert a substantial cooling influence, even if you don't like this as this is not good for your warming hypothesis. You should also take note that albedo reduction of say 1% due to cloud cover reduction increases the air temperatues much more than any hypothetical (but never measured) CO2 sensitivity. The stance of your CO2 warming hypothesis is extremely weak, not substantiated at all by objective measurable data and the value of your "consensus" is of Null scientific value. In science only the scientific proof is valid, but never any "consensus" of a majority of opinions.
You cannot know this. What you say is just an unsubstantiated assertion. Provide proof of what you maintain by citing an article which presents observational data which supports your assertion. I am not aware of such a study. Until you provide proof your assertion cannot be taken as final true knowledge.
'And which journal published his paper overturning the scientific consensus on AGW?.'
Ah... I think he spoke to Plimer and now he's going with gut feeling.
He still has his own platform to reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (which is just as dumb) but he is aware that half the population has been brainwashed so he decided to remain a small target.... to avoid giving the Australian Brainwashing Corporation ammunition.
You should accept the simple fact that clouds prevent sun rays to warm the surface directly and therefore exert a substantial cooling influence
Clouds have two sides. Low cloud absorbs and re-radiates OLR and inhibits surface cooling. How could someone so expert on climate miss something so basic?
BBD: "Clouds have two sides. Low cloud absorbs and re-radiates OLR and inhibits surface cooling"
Nothing new what you claim, just an totally overestimated small warming effect which AGW propagandists like so much. You don't like the fact that by far the most important quantitative effect of clouds on surface temperatures is cooling by preventing direct insolation.
BBD, I have the impression that you really don't understand what warms the air. The decisive mechanism is direct insolation of the Earth's surface (land, water). Why do you have trouble that a factor (the clouds) which prevents very effectively direct insolation MUST exert a very substantial cooling effect. This is so obvious that I wonder how one can reasonably reject such a simple and easily understandable effect.
No you cannot, you are just arrogant and arrogance is never an argument.
"And the globe is not blanketed in cloud"
There is no logic in such an expression. You appear to dislike my argument as it troubles your ideology of a solely by CO2 warming world. A person able to think and argue objectively would not emotionally reject what I stated. You debunk yourself as partisan propagandist of CO2 warming who is totally uninterested in other ideas of mechanisms which could explain warming influences on the air.
You don’t like the fact that by far the most important quantitative effect of clouds on surface temperatures is cooling by preventing direct insolation.
Not if the oceans heat the troposphere. You is muddled, my genius!
BBD, why don't you talk politely about my arguments, but instead behave in such an incivil way. What is wrong with you?If you are unable to talk decently to other humans you might consider to take a timeout in order to calm down a bit. You did not meet one single argument with which I confronted the AGW supporters, instead your words are mostly very offensive and degrading towards individuals you obviously detest.
'Oh that’s wonderful! Plimer. I am *so* reassured.'
Good, I'm spreading a rumour that when Abbott seizes the Treasury Benches he will sack the Climate Commissioners and replace them with Carter, Plimer et al.
It will be a revolution of ideas and the people will laff like mad.
Boris, people don't talk to me in such a way. If you need to be told why, there really is no point in doing so. Go look up Dunning-Kruger, delusions of grandeur, irony and IT'S ALWAYS PROJECTION. Maybe you'll figure it out from there, but I doubt it.
By the way, you can stick your tone trolling where the sun doesn't shine. You haven't made a single coherent argument yet. Try doing that first before you start whining.
Really, you think that clouds are the reason for warming?!
You seem to miss the points of my observations - not only did we have warmer daytime temperatures over July (due to less cloud cover according to you, but that's another story...) but we had warmer night time temperatures, which requires more cloud cover if one is to insist that there is no enhanced 'greenhouse' effect.
This is a miracle! The clouds are nocturnal, hiding during the day and floating around with gay abandon at night. This begs the question - what incredible natural phenomenon is causing a proportionate increase in nocturnal cloud cover that has warmed the planet over the last 100 years? And why does carbon dioxide not in fact act as a 'greenhouse' gas as has been understood by physics for over 150 years?
That blood cascading from your throat... that's a consequence of Ockham's razor, a dangerous implement in the hands of the incompetent.
I'm glad Bloato isn't even pretending with his 'former Lefty' schtick anymore. A hysterical reactionary through-and-through, just like his heroes.
And, Boris, your self-importance is hilarious. Surprise us all and give us some notion of what, if anything, your sense of entitled grandeur is predicated on.
You should accept the simple fact that clouds prevent sun rays to warm the surface directly...
You cannot find a quote where I reject this simple fact, because I don't. It's written up in all the climate science books and in the IPCC reports. (You really should try to comprehend what you're attempting to critique. Otherwise you risk looking like a fool.)
...and therefore exert a substantial cooling influence,...
Sigh.
Firstly, disregarding any ongoing changes to the climate system, this claim is misleading because it is incomplete. Worse still, this simple facthas already been explained to you by about three different people.
Since you are apparently unable to even read summaries of climate science findings and ongoing research aimed at laypeople, and are apparently only able to think at a "simple thought experiment" level, ponder this simple thought experiment:
Why are cloudy nights following sunlit days over land generally warmer than cloudless nights following equally sunlit days over land?
Bernard J. has already posed an expanded form of that question, but feel free to take my simpler version if you're finding that too difficult to deal with.
"WUWT has been in the top 5 on wordpress.com lately, and recently often in the top 3. Today, we are number 1 in all the millions of wordpress blogs out there and we are number two for all posts system wide:"
The stance of your CO2 warming hypothesis is extremely weak, not substantiated at all by objective measurable data...
In particular, it's not substantiated at all by 150 years of basic science, nor by direct objective measurements of increased back radiation, nor by measurements of changes in top of atmosphere outgoing radiation, nor by any paleoclimatic data. (Why? Because you say so, that's why!)
...even if you don’t like this...
I neither "like" nor "dislike" it. You're projecting again. (See the previous quote.)
...as this is not good for your warming hypothesis.
That's stupid because it's based on your personal ignorance. It's even more stupid because my earlier post already explained why that claim is false, and yet you insist otherwise.
Speaking of rank stupidity, from your response to BBD:
In science only the scientific proof is valid...
Wait, wait, I thought you knew more about climate science than everyone else here put together? How come you don't know that there is no such thing as scientific proof, only the current best explanation for the current set of evidence?
From an hubristic entrance you've proceeded directly into an ignominious continuation. Better trolls please.
At least the Mad Monk knows global warming stopped 17 years ago...
Ah, Fatso, you're still jamming that old saw against the knots of ignorance.
Now would be a good time to address those long-ignored questions and explain to Betula, Olaus Petri, KarenMackSunspot, Mike@#!&$* why Abbott is displaying his scientific ignorance if he indeed thinks that global warming "stopped 17 years ago".
It might be an ocean overturning, or perhaps it has something to do with a loopy jet stream. Its regional now, but if it spread across the Pacific which, as you know, has been relatively flat for a couple of decades.
During neutral ENSO years the warm water may gravitate towards the poles. That's pure speculation.
Of course it might be your missing heat, apparently we'll know more by October.
Abbott is a pragmatist, he is already vilified for being a Catlick and doesn't want to appear as a AGW heretic in the run up to the election.
He is disingenuous at best, saying recently that he believed in climate change and wants to put the excess CO2 back into the soil. A ridiculous waste of time and money.
Bob Tisdale is a denialist crank, not an oceanographer. It pays to remember this when assessing his what-ifs and maybes.
You are still denying physics. The long-term forced trend can only be positive - increasingly so as the century progresses unless the atmospheric fraction of CO2 and other GHGs can be stabilised.
Whatever the crank physics deniers claim. Why go with the cranks and the clowns when there is real science? A bizarre choice. Perhaps you are insane.
And Gordy, repeating a lie doesn't transmute it into the truth. It just makes you seem dishonest to the point of mental instability.
You *know* that "global warming" hasn't stopped because you have had it pointed out to you many, many times now. You *know* that tropospheric temperature is only a small part of the climate system for the same reason.
Yet you carry on repeating a silly and obvious lie. But then, lying is all the deniers have. There's no scientific argument to back up denialism which is why it *is* denialism, not scepticism.
Yet on you go. On and on and on. Incidentally, I showed you at the end of the previous page that WTFUWT/Monckton lied to you about surface temperature trends. Why haven't you mentioned this? Instead, you repeat the lie.
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.
Don't you resent it when people lie to you and fool you into believing - and publicly repeating - things that aren't true? Doesn't it make you angry to be turned into a dupe and a laughing-stock?
Abbott is in a rather interesting position because while his base electorate is largely composed of squawkback windbags - such as el Gordo - he also has to appear at least somewhat rational and responsible to grownups in business and foreign elites.
Take comfort, Bloato, that at heart he's one of you, but he's also canny enough to understand that thinking people, some of whom are even conservatives, aren't.
If Tony is true to himself he'll lose the middle class, and if he's true to at least some extent to rationality he'll lose the squawkbackers and Labor turncoats. Thus I suspect Tony's popularity will rival Gillard's within 18 months.
Oh, and you can take further comfort in knowing that ultimately he's beholden to the coal lobby, Rupert Murdoch, and Gina Rinehart - I'll leave you to sort out in which order.
You haven't understood this paper at all. Nobody is arguing that CO2 terminates glacials, only that it acts (along with CH4) as a feedback to weak orbital forcing.
This study supports the existing hypothesis that the larger the NH ice sheets get, the more sensitive they become to changes in insolation (Milankovitch forcing). Hence the ~100ka cycle of deglaciation.
Don't reference paleoclimate studies that you haven't understood. It makes you look stupid.
Because they're pissing in his pocket and telling him it's gold. And he really really wants a pocket full of gold. He wants it so much that he won't check whether it's actually gold or not, because the disappointment would be worse than holding on to a fantasy, even if he strongly suspects it's a fantasy?
Or maybe just insanity. Or a number of other explanations...
El Fuckwit skips over the *fact* that his own sources are liars as if it was of no consequence, then continues his politicised, lying, anti-science polemic.
There you have it. Politicised lies are more important to this little monster than the truth.
BBD: "The long-term forced trend can only be positive"
Wrong, you and nobody else can know this. Your statement has nothing to do with science but with oracles. You should stick to facts and not to dreams and wishes.
Why are all the AGW supporters so agressive, angry, hostile towards climate realists? Is it because they increasingly feel that their case is weak and nature does not behave as they want?
Climatology is not able to measure CO2 sensitivity in nature, cannot show a correlation between CO2 levels and air temperatures 2m above the surface, and fails completely to proof that CO2 leads to rising sea levels.
That's even more foolish than your usual drivel, probably because you're wildly projecting again: I would prefer that my position were wrong, which is the very opposite of clinging to a fantasy.
Oh yes we can, Boris! Because we don't deny the laws of physics. And the laws of physics require that increasing GHGs cause energy to accumulate in the climate system warming it up.
Why are all the AGW supporters so agressive, angry, hostile towards climate realists?
Stu responded to your whining and tone-trolling at #35.
Saying it - especially the saying of it by one so demonstrably scientifically ill-equipped- does not make it so.
Climatology is not able to measure CO2 sensitivity in nature,...
Tosh!
Climate science isn't able to measure Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity with high accuracy, but that isn't the same as "not able to measure it".
You claim to understand climate science better than the rest of all us put together, but you don't understand this? You apparently don't even understand the nature of scientific measurement - there's always an uncertainty interval involved.
You are clearly self-deluded about your scientific prowess and knowledge. (And this is an dispassionate non-hostile calm observation, no matter what you project on to it.)
"Watermelons" is US wingnut slang and wingnuts tend to enjoy (on average) a certain detachment from reality. (Which fits in this case.)
Haven't heard it used much in Australia myself, but it wouldn't surprise me if our local wingnuts started using it. Senator Cory Bernardi (amongst others) is doing his best to import Tea Party wingnuttism to Australia, so some of the lingo will probably be adopted too.
Did you see the hilarious routine about one-sided global clouds upthread (#18 ff)?
Yep.
And his avoidance of straightforward evidence and fairly simple questions designed to illuminate his proposition. Followed by a switch to a set of unsubstantiated assertions, tone trolling and known-false claims.
It does get me wondering though. What kind of environment does one have to "graduate" from to arrive here proclaiming that one knows more about climate science than everyone else put together, only to immediately stumble in an embarrassing heap? One suspects the environment contains a large amount of delusion and inappropriate praise (and I bet most of us can point to a few), or the claims made about ones' own competence weren't even sincere in the first place.
Ooh, I think you'll find Bolt and Jones love talking 'watermelons' already. And the windbaggers have taken the term to their hearts.
Don't get me started on Cory 'Bestiality' Bernardi! If he's truly representative of conservatism here in SA - #1 on the frickin' Senate ticket, fer chrissakes - then I'm Lord Monckton.
(Of course, Nick Minchin was no less crazy, but he was considerably more urbane...)
You intentionally offend persons who don't agree with your faith? Why do you express yourself in such an incivilized manner? Your behavior does not correspond to what is usual among scientists. Real scientists, unlike you, Lotharson, Lionel and other AGW supporters, are open-minded, curious, open to new ideas, always willing to falsify their hypotheses. And you all behave completely contrarian to a real scientist. I think that nobody of you, in contrast to me, works as scientist.
Real scientists, unlike you, Lotharson, Lionel and other AGW supporters, are open-minded, curious, open to new ideas, always willing to falsify their hypotheses.
You are projecting, my dear.
I'm open-minded, but not so open I'll believe any old rubbish. Show me the weight of evidence leans away from my beliefs and I'll change them. I'm willing to falsify my hypotheses, but you haven't provided enough evidence yet (come to think of it, you may not have provided ANY) in order to do so (and you are pushing water uphill because there's a LOT of existing evidence lined up against some of the claims you have made). I would love to have AGW falsified because the implications are dire, but despite investigating claim after claim to that effect for the last several years, not one of them has stood up to scrutiny (and most fail immediately with merely cursory scrutiny, like your "maybe clouds done it" claim).
I think that nobody of you, in contrast to me, works as scientist.
That's hard to believe, given that you have demonstrated fundamental misconceptions about how science works. (Although the phenomenon of B.Sc. graduates who have fundamental misconceptions is certainly not unknown, but it seems to be less common with science Ph.D.s and even less with working research scientists.)
Feel free to point at your science publication record if you want to convince us that you do in fact work as a (research) scientist. Or are you merely working at a non-research job that requires a B.Sc.?
(And should you get that far: do you understand the fallacy of argument from personal authority? My bet is no.)
I mock you because you pitched up in comments here claiming vastly superior expertise to the rest of us, then proceeded to make a series of silly claims while ignoring correction - see Lotharsson, above. No point in repeating what has already been said with great clarity and concision.
It is very obvious that you do not understand the basics of physical climatology and that you are a posturing blowhard. There is no reason for me to tolerate your nonsense and your self-aggrandisement. None.
And to top it off, you whine and play the victim, which is vile and guarantees an extra-hard kicking.
It is almost as if Boris is channeling Monckton, and now playing the victim card. Sad to see a person reduced to such but then it is of their own making.
"... and fails completely to proof that CO2 leads to rising sea levels."
Proof? Proof's for alcoholic beverages and math.
Also: "Real scientists are open-minded, curious, open to new ideas, always willing to falsify their hypotheses"
Open to new ideas, yes, open to the same long-debunked ideas, no. Interestingly, in the first quote (in its complete form), you showed to be close-minded by making absolute claims without even the shimmer of a supporting argumentation.
So, if you indeed work as a scientist, you are not a real one (by your description of what a real scientist is, and your own behaviour that is directly opposite).
You intentionally offend persons who don’t agree with your faith? Why do you express yourself in such an incivilized manner? Your behavior does not correspond to what is usual among scientists. Real scientists, unlike you, Lotharson, Lionel and other AGW supporters, are open-minded, curious, open to new ideas, always willing to falsify their hypotheses. And you all behave completely contrarian to a real scientist. I think that nobody of you, in contrast to me, works as scientist.
English is obviously not this Boris's first language. Scandinavian Troll Collective?
Oh, and there are several contributors to Deltoid that I can think of who are scientists, and a number more who have PhDs in disciplines relevant to climate change. Given this Boris's inability to understand the strength of the consensus position on human-caused global warming, I seriously doubt that he "works as a scientist", unless it's in the latest production by the local amateur theatre company.
Crumbs, there was quite a rapid-fire spate of similar responses to Boris's tone trolling.
Great minds...
;-)
As to the "...always willing to falsify their hypotheses" line, Boris should consider some of the wagers I've put up in willingness to test my own acceptance of the consensus physical paradigm pertaining to human-caused global warming. There's a bit of a spat occurring just now at Brere Eli's burrow on just such a subject, and coincidentally that has been painted with tone trolling as well - these Denialati are nothing if not consistent in their response to scrutiny of their claims.
You do realise, though I guess not, that you and all your unscientific mates are constantly saying stuff that all the rest of us wish dearly was true. I would be delighted, thrilled to bits, if it turned out that the radiative physics of gases was shown to be wrong - so that the greenhouse effect operated in some other way than how we now understand it.
We really, really would like that to be true. So why don't we fall over in our rush to agree with you? Because we're grown ups who've learned that reality is what it is, we can't wish it otherwise. You should learn to do the same.
Who do you guys think is the bestest, real-sciency one of them all? Long-time champion J0nas or plucky "yes, I will have some cheese with my whine" upstart Boris?
Still assuming Boris isn't someone's puppet, of course.
Boris, what is your educational background?>/blockquote>
He is a scientist and what he says goes, don't you know!
I doubt he will come clean on that any more than he will tell us where on Earth he is having made claims about recent late spring and cold weather.
Scrutiny, that is for the like of Mann to endure and come out shining, again and again and again. Lindzen - now that is another matter. As for Michaels, Soon, Carter, Plimer, Baliunas, &co., &co, &co. well 'nuff said.
I've been getting the distinct impression that Boris is of the same school as Jonas when it comes to blog commenting, although not yet as obviously pathological, but that doesn't mean there was any connection. Is Jonas still hammering away on his thread?
Sheesh. Now I cannot comment over at Thinkprogress. My Facebook account is inaccessible, password not being recognized and no email with a 6 digit reset code ever arrives. I don't have accounts on the others. So as Joe says ' The world moves on'. Too bad!
Agreed - despite some tonal similarities, I don't think J0nas = Boris. Stu is right: by and large, J0nas doesn't whine. He also makes an art of saying *nothing* substantive so as to avoid getting ripped apart. Boris has not yet learned how to sneer and posture without risking an actual argument and consequent disembowelment.
Boris "The Climate Expert" on climate scientists and climate science:
I cannot understand your behavior, although I know enormously more about climate than you all warmists together.
* * *
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.
* * *
It is always the same with your green movement’s inaccuracies and non-scientific methodological flaws
* * *
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.
= = =
Why are all the AGW supporters so agressive, angry, hostile towards climate realists? Is it because they increasingly feel that their case is weak and nature does not behave as they want?
* * *
You intentionally offend persons who don’t agree with your faith? Why do you express yourself in such an incivilized manner? Your behavior does not correspond to what is usual among scientists. Real scientists, unlike you, Lotharson, Lionel and other AGW supporters, are open-minded, curious, open to new ideas, always willing to falsify their hypotheses. And you all behave completely contrarian to a real scientist. I think that nobody of you, in contrast to me, works as scientist.
= = =
Yeah, right, Boris.
* * *
And then there's this, which I am going to cut out and keep: previous page #22:
BBD: “Cloud cover is regional”
You cannot know this. [!] What you say is just an unsubstantiated assertion. [!] Provide proof of what you maintain by citing an article which presents observational data which supports your assertion. [Oh dear God my sides] I am not aware of such a study. [!!] Until you provide proof your assertion cannot be taken as final true knowledge. [Please stop!]
Oh crap, BBD, I missed that last one. No wonder the other trolls went silent. Now let me go get a towel for my screen while I explain to everyone around me what all the guffawing was about.
"Final true knowledge". Who is betting against me that this clown didn't make it out of high school?
I know, Boris, you're trying to have an intelligent discussion with the Deltoids, and all ( a lot harder than you thought it'd be, I imagine). And, I also realize you're a bona fide scientist and a grown man with a healthy sense of reality and everything and so adelady's improbable taunts to the contrary might make you think a corrective reply from yourself is worth your while.
But let me give you fair warning, Boris, you don't want to tangle with adelady--I mean, like, if you make her mad she'll call you a "SEXIST SCHWEINHOONT!"! and everything in front of THE WHOLE WORLD!, even. Bad juju, that, Boris!
And as a further warning, Boris, if you cross swords (figuratively, of course) with adelady, you'll be dealing, not with just one adelady, but with a whole pack-attack of adeladies:
-There's the adelady (not the one who comments here, of course), for example, who employs botany and chemistry in her scientific-to-a-fault efforts to all "grown-up" like deal with the reality "thingie" and all (Google: I'm an Adelady in Melburn Bluelight). I mean, like, potheads in Adelaide--who knew!!
-And then, for example, there's the adelady (not the one who comments here, of course) who is a "moderator", no less, at a quaint, local-yokel blog that goes by the absurdly pretentious moniker, "The Science Forum". And that adelady boldly pursues her adult, iron grasp of reality through a relentless, know-it-all, vapid, tedious, fakin'-it-big-time (hardly the first lefty to pull that trick), lecturing, trite-booger commentary that'll wear you down in a New York minute.
-And, finally, there's the most mysterious of all the adeladies (again, not the one who comments here, of course)--the insufferable, little, chatter-box adelady who stalks the greenshirt, blogospheric landscape firing off bumptious-nag, inane, breezy pontifications at the cyclic rate that, frankly, give the mature, adult-sense-of-reality business a really, really bad name. And most curious about this last adelady is the obsequious, deferential, super nicey-nicey, supportive way in which hive-bozo blog-masters and fellow, hive-retard commenters grovel before her every wound-up platitude. I've attempted to figure that last phenomenon out, Boris, but have yet had no luck.
If you want to try you hand at solving the puzzle, I'll save you some time and trouble--here are the "hypotheses" I've already considered and rejected as utterly impossible explanations of adelady's astonishing female-appeal to otherwise strictly mummy-centric, privileged-whiteboy, creep-out hive-dorks.
-adelady is some sort of super-cool hive-groupie who has somehow managed to acquire mummy's approval
-adelady is the snot-nosed spoiled-brat offspring of some hive-heavy who can make or break the career of eco-hack and enviro-leech wannabees jostling for the tenure-trough, big prize or, alternatively, controls the sluice-gate for the reasearch-grant big-bucks.
-adelady is a rather tiresome, wealthy eccentric who, nevertheless, can be a seedy, down-at-the-heels NGO's best benefactor with a just a little butt-kissing solicitude.
-adelady is a compulsive joiner, and is the token "gurrl" (that's how adelady spells things), on the FOIA-proof roster of innumerable greenwashed-cabals, and adelady's invaluable, team-member presence allows those various, clown-act, hive-hack troupes to answer "NO!" to the research-grant, application question: "Is the team you intend to employ in your boondoggle, CAGW-hustle, make-work, "research" (wink! wink!) proposal a "boys-only treehouse?"
Just thought you'd like to know what you're up against, Boris.
That's crap, your whole life is dependent on the world slipping into armageddon, which means you don't have to take your day job too seriously.
And of course your friends and family accept that you are knowledgable on the subject of CC, so you have a lot riding on the imminent destruction of the planet.
mikey, no-one cares what you think. Go plant a tree or something, and spare us all the energy wasted scrolling past your windy missives.
As to Boris could we please get an explanation for the 'works as a scientist' bit - last time I encountered something similar it turned out the guy making the hazy claims was a chem lab-assistant, but I suspect that's going to make him Gavin Schmidt compared to you. Feel free to prove me wrong.
And, where did you get the inspiration for the 'clouds not being regional' bit? That really is very good material - you should develop that one; whereas the tone-trolling and delusions of grandeur have been done-to-death by your side already.
(Oh, and 'rotten ideological ideas' and 'prone to data mixture' also possess a certain charm - certainly keep them in the act!)
Also, I suspect the unorthodox English construction isn't characteristically Scandinavian in your case. Am I right?
'A new paper published in Climate of the Past finds climate models are unable to reproduce the climate change of the past 6,000 years found by temperature proxies.
'According to the authors, "Independently of the choice of the climate model, we observe significant mismatches between modelled and estimated SST [Sea Surface Temperature] amplitudes in the trends for the last 6,000 years," and climate model "SST trends underestimate the [proxy] SST trends by a factor of two to five. For [a different proxy], no significant relationship between model simulations and proxy reconstructions can be detected."
'The paper adds to many other peer-reviewed papers finding climate models are unable to reproduce the known climate of the past, much less the future.'
'Sea ice volume is an important climate indicator. It depends on both ice thickness and extent and therefore more directly tied to climate forcing than extent alone. '
"Using supercomputers to crunch through possible future outcomes has become a standard part of climate science in recent years."
lol
"My claim is that the global climate models underestimate the amount of heat delivered to the sea ice by oceanic advection," Professor Maslowski said.
"The reason is that their low spatial resolution actually limits them from seeing important detailed factors.
"We use a high-resolution regional model for the Arctic Ocean and sea ice forced with realistic atmospheric data. This way, we get much more realistic forcing, from above by the atmosphere and from the bottom by the ocean."
“Artic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000.” Christian Science Monitor, June 8, 1972.
lol
"When Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite weather data fro the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadia Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round.”
Here's my useful contribution: you seriously cannot comprehend that volume is indeed the key indicator? Can you understand why there'd be baffled expressions all round if, say, the BoM was to announce 'we had rainfall over a million square kilometres yesterday' as though that was all that needed to be known on the matter?
Volume / thickness / multi-year ice? These are all key components of the discussion. How have you managed to miss them? This is a rhetorical question - we all know the answer already, yourself included.
But, don't be lazy - find us the actual paper, and then perhaps tell us how representative your blogger friend's representation is.
Ah, but you're just a humble 'interpreter of interpretations', right?
“Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide two degrees by 2010.” Associated Press, May 15, 1989.
...its essentially a religion which naturally requires faith.
Sigh. It's always projection.
That’s crap, your whole life is dependent on the world slipping into armageddon, ...
Sigh. It's always projection.
...which means you don’t have to take your day job too seriously.
Sigh. Boris will be along any second to call you out for claiming things that you cannot know. Right, Boris?
And of course your friends and family accept that you are knowledgable on the subject of CC, so you have a lot riding on the imminent destruction of the planet.
As the hiatus continues the AGW zealots are in big shit and fight to remain relevant.
Sounds like a wish-fulfilment fantasy statement to me.
Now at this point in time it appears that massive amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere is not having the expected effect on temperatures.
So what you're saying is that "it's not relevant" that the planet continues to accumulate heat energy pretty much as predicted by climate science, because surface temperature rises aren't currently as fast as you reckon they should be under climate science, despite climate science pointing out that they're about as fast as predicted when you bother to take into account a few natural factors that are currently working against surface temperatures rises - factors that can't do so indefinitely, and some of them will at some point work to increase surface temperature rises? You're saying it's not relevant, even though that is a simple statement of the dynamic underlying the case for concern about AGW?
And you're saying this despite having it repeatedly pointed out to you?
Scientists discover glaciers in Asian mountain range are actually getting BIGGER.
Sigh.
See what Boris said earlier - the effects of AGW are not expected to be uniform across the globe.
And thus a hint: discovering non-uniform effects is expected and does not put a "question mark over global warming".
Furthermore, you've had this pointed out to you numerous times in that past. That makes you stupid, a Dunning-Kruger Effect exemplar, a Poe or just plain dishonest.
Their latest modelling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years.
Of course, what the researcher also said failed to register with Karen, who doesn't understand (or doesn't want to comprehend) distributions of outcomes in projections:
"It might not be as early as 2013 but it will be soon, much earlier than 2040."
Karen just treats the extreme end of a distribution as the entire prediction (when it suits her), ignore the inconvenient rest of the distribution.
She also doesn't seem to understand that his projections are much closer to what has been observed than most of the others in existence when that article was written, so unwittingly she has made a fool of herself by trying to ridicule one of the better historical projections...
...and none of that does anything to mitigate the problem indicated by the rapid heat accumulation that is melting the ice and causing even more planetary warming via positive feedback, a problem many of her fellow travellers tend to deny is even occurring.
But then Karen doesn't seem to understand anything she cuts and pastes...
'...a few natural factors that are currently working against surface temperatures rises – factors that can’t do so indefinitely, and some of them will at some point work to increase surface temperature rises?'
Australia should forget about moving people and agriculture to the country's north because the increased rainfall there won't last, scientist Tim Flannery says.
The Australian of the Year says people instead should learn to live in a permanently drier climate.
"Computer models indicate that the increased rainfall is most likely caused by the Asian haze, which has pushed the monsoon south," Professor Flannery wrote in the latest issue of New Scientist magazine.
"This means that as Asia cleans up its air, Australia is likely to lose its northern rainfall.
"Australians need to leave behind their dreams of opening a new frontier and focus on making the best of the water remaining to them where they live today."
The federal government's $10 billion national water plan includes
If you looked at the data directly from Piomas you see that Arctic ice volume has increased.
It is now greater than 2012, 2011 and is close to equal with 2010
A recovery! A recovery I tell you! The Ice Age is nigh!
Ever heard of 'regression to the mean', SpamKan? Of course you haven't. But the mean in this instance is trending steeply....down! Down down. Like those nice Coles ads you like to sing along to on the telly...
Odd. I'm sure Boris will be along any second now to castigate el gordo for his aggressive, angry and hostile interaction, right after he finishes castigating him for using TLT to represent surface temperatures.
Right, Boris? Right?
...the Arctic has gained ice volume.
We know. We already knew that. None of this indicates that the strong downward trend has changed in any way.
El gordo will be along any second to castigate your faith-based position.
So, back when you were working for Murdoch in a paid capacity, Gordy, it was routine to refer to paying attention to the key elements of a scientific question as 'splitting hairs'? Sounds about right...
If you looked at the data directly from Piomas you see that Arctic ice volume has increased.
It is now greater than 2012, 2011 and is close to equal with 2010
So you're thinking or hoping or wishing, maybe even predicting, that September this year will finish up above 4, even 5, thousand cubic kms? No need to put a number on it. The September average figure will be published in only a few weeks
time. So we'll just check back with you when it's confirmed.
Adelady #75 - Spamkan thinks 2 data points make a trend. Why would we expect any better from someone who has proven their innumeracy repeatedly?
Other Karen lowlights just on this page:"
Arctic summers ice-free ‘by 2013" - Bad reporting, that's all. Maslowski's paper projected 2016 +/- 3 years. Karen gets to LOL in 2019, and not before. Why do deniers always bitch about uncertainty when they are completely unable to incorporate it into their own thinking?
"Scientists discover glaciers in Asian mountain range are actually getting BIGGER" - from that reputable scientific source the Daily Fail. But even they couldn't hide the global decline: "The researchers are unsure why the region bucks the global trend".
Just because Karen doesn't read her own links, doesnt mean others don't. The fact is that Karen's LOL's are directed solely at her own gullibility and foolishness. If there was any art to her burblings, I would be faintly reminded of Zeuxis, who was so taken with his painting of an old hag as Aphrodite that he burst a blood vessel LOLíng at it.
"In the midst of July, Brazil gets snow and temperatures below zero Centigrade. The unusual cold has already killed three people. A cold front from Antarctica also affected Uruguay, Chile, Argentina and Paraguay."
My particular interest is to simplify the argument so that the masses can be efficiently debriefed. Deltoid makes an ideal sounding board.
You don't even understand the basics so this is just self-aggrandising twaddle. Everything you say here gets shredded, so the second sentence is also self-aggrandising twaddle.
We are discussing positive and negative feedbacks.
You have previously demonstrated that you do not understand the difference between the two. Just a random example of your self-aggrandising twaddle.
A ridiculous little monster as well as a faithful liar.
Ljubljana, the capital of Slovenia, has broken its all-time heat record five of the past six days, with each day hotter than the previous record. The newest record is the 40.2°C (104.4°) recorded on August 8th. Records go back 150 years at this station.
Strewth, good thing the Antarctic Sea Ice directly offsets all this!
And good to see you relying on Pravda, Comrade. Did you bother to read the article? Of course you didn't -
In Sao Paulo, a new temperature record has been recorded since 2000
Wow! Since 2000! That's, like, only 137 years less than 150!
And -
Some regions of Brazil have not seen snow for many years.
Many, eh? Sounds impressive!
Could you be more stupid? I'm sure we'll find out...
Oh stop posing, Gordy. You've proved yourself a know-nothing denier here. Nobody takes your spamming seriously and nobody believes you have the first idea what you are spamming about.
Now - what about your lies about polar amplification? Are you going to do the usual and refuse to admit your massive error and consequent implosion of your "argument"?
Oh, JFGI, Bloato! Loth was trying to get you to take it up only a couple of weeks ago. But seems you just can't take information in where it doesn't suit you... Where have I heard that before?
So; Paging Bernard!
We need you for the 'Yeah, I know just exactly what's going to happen at the Pole, cooling all the way, don't you worry about that... ah, a bet you say, yeah, bring it on! I'm 1000% sure of my shit. Real money, you say? Golly, well, I'd love to take you on, but it turns out I forgot to feed the cat... must be going...' ritual.
Its your faith in positive feedback that I dispute.
'Arctic amplification in models (and most likely in nature too) is a robust result of forced climate change, provided the forcing is sufficiently large to overcome internal climate variability.
'Antarctic amplification only occurs if a model is run long enough so ocean heat uptake in the Southern Ocean does not damp the positive feedbacks and if trends in stratospheric ozone do not cause compensatory cooling.'
In spite of a brief intense cold snap in July, Bolivia, Brazil, Paraguay and Argentina are experiencing unprecedented winter heat. Temperatures have averaged more than 10°F above normal for the past month with readings as high as 103°F in Brazil and Bolivia, 100°F in Paraguay and 97°F in Argentina. The very unusual circumstances of heat alerts in the middle of winter have been issued in some locations.
Oh FFS Gordy, you haven't got a clue. The data I showed you demonstrate NH polar amplification. The RC quote illustrates that models match observations.
Both underline that your original statement is utterly wrong:
AGW theory postulates that we can expect the greatest warming in the polar regions, I see no real evidence of this.
So admit your error and accept that your "conclusion" is obviously also *wrong*:
So its reasonable to suggest that we should see the recovery of sea ice in the Arctic over the coming decade.
I seem to recall Bernard J offering quite good terms for a bet on Arctic ice in the past, quite good for denialists that is, such that any "economically rational actor" who actually was convicted of what el gordo claims to be convicted of would take those terms.
The strongest current hypothesis is that for (almost?) all of them, their "convictions"...
Note that notrickzone, hockeyschtick, nova, bishop shill are on par with WUWT. As for climate despot well that is run by another blowhard like Limbaugh and his ilk on Faux News .
I have a vague recollection that one of our troupe of befuddled contrarians pushing a recent mathturbation paper. Was it by Akasofu of the infamous curve fitting paper or someone else?
Either way, it seems like publishing shit has consequences. And also tends to generate published responses...which should prove entertaining.
(And they reckon peer review is dead! Pshaw! ;-) )
'a superposed multi-decadal oscillation of a 0.2 °C amplitude and a 50~60 year period, which reached its positive peak in about the year 2000—a halting similar to those that occurred around 1880 and 1940.'
BBD the beauty of Deltoid at the moment is the balanced mix of contrarians and warmists, each side committed to their particular viewpoint and unlikely to change.
The fact that global warming stopped over a decade ago doesn't invalidate AGW theory completely, but if another decade passes without any warming (failing to find the missing heat) then you may need to consider your future.
If the hiatus stays in place for another decade then I will accept the Sceptics viewpoint, that this pause is a natural 60 year oscillation which dominates our climate system. Its commonplace throughout paleo history.
'Considering that Akasofu's paper almost entirely neglects physics and fails to address the causes of the observed warming trends, one might expect very little accuracy in his predictions of future temperature changes.'
From the SS gospel.
As I said, if temperatures remain flat we'll have to consider our future.
Gordo, Akasofu's paper is a goddamned joke. It proposes no mechanism, it proposes a cycle on the basis of two iterations (that vary in length and intensity), barely has predictive value and where it does has been proven WRONG already. Gordo, it's WRONG. You quoted something that has been proven WRONG. You're pathetic.
These oscillations cannot drive centennial trends. They are internal variability not a forcing. Internal variability cancels out over time.
Akasofu screws up by introducing a non-physical claim of "recovery" from the LIA to "explain" the C20th trend. Recovery forced by what? Where does the energy come from? Climate isn't a bouncing ball. It needs too be pushed because this is all about energy, which any fule kno doesn't just come and go as if by magic.
BBD the beauty of Deltoid at the moment is the balanced mix of contrarians and warmists, each side committed to their particular viewpoint and unlikely to change.
The beauty of Deltoid at the moment is that contrarians are revealed as demagogues trumpeting faith-based rejection of physics.
Every time you refuse to admit that you made a very stupid mistake, you bring clarity to the debate.
a balanced mix of creationists and evolutionists / fascists and humanists / moon-landing conspiracists and NASA technicians / anti-vaxxers and biomedical researchers / 911 truthers and construction engineers / Obamacare 'death-panel' hysterics and people who can read / GBNT carbon tax hysterics and people who can count, each side committed to their viewpoint and unlikely to change
Golly, there's '2 sides' to each argument; where could the truth possibly lie?
It is not, idiot. It doesn't even work before fricking 1880. It fits two cycles, badly. That 60 year "cycle" is the result of a clown playing with Excel too much. Evidence and reality do not support it. At all. That paper you like so much is (again, you dimwit) WRONG, no matter how much faith you have in it.
Yes, the last refuge of the clown. When one pet theory is refuted for being the absolute garbage it is, trot out another one.
Gordo. You are pathetic, and you're not fooling anyone. would you care to address the refutation of your previous champion Akasufo rather than trotting out something which I am sure is equally inane?
Oh wait, it took me a minute. Scafetta? Seriously, f*cking Scafetta?
This Scafetta?
"Scafetta was a speaker at the Heartland Institute's Sixth International Conference on Climate Change."
"When the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency called for alternative views on climate change, three skeptics presented: Richard Lindzen, Jean Lind and Nicola Scafetta."
"Scafetta suggests that "a significant portion of climate change is natural and linked to changes of solar activity."and also discusses "the possibility of an imminent global cooling."
Anyway, let's just PRETEND for a moment that Scafetta is not a fully bougt-and-paid-for Heartland/Scaife/etc stooge. Let's just look at those pretty graphs he makes.
“Scafetta suggests that “a significant portion of climate change is natural and linked to changes of solar activity.”and also discusses “the possibility of an imminent global cooling.”
Yes. And he is WRONG. Ten seconds perusing that link I posted should tell you that, Gordo. Why do you keep quoting people who are objectively, provably WRONG?
#7 Vince Whirlwind
"Curtin was a fuckwit and a bully with a ridiculous over-confidence in his meagre understanding. Max Planck’s idea applies to Curtin in spades."
A picture of Vince.....
No doubt your religion is the true religion Vince, and your football team is also the most talented and has the nicest jumpers, undeniably your political party is also the ultimate choice at the polls and of coarse all of your neighbors are all stupid, their house's are painted the wrong colours, they have dumb cars and the wrong plants in their gardens, and their kids are ugly !
You Vince, in your own mind are the perfect human specimen, yes you Vince, you are the god of beauty, knowledge and know how !
WAKE UP VINCE>>>>>>>>>> YOU ARE A FUCKING MORON AND A PIECE OF SHIT
That one feeble old man took you SLIMY MONGRELS on, and from my perspective he SMASHED your ego's and exposed your cultist psychopathy for what it is, BULLSHIT !
You all demonstrated what a bunch of know all know nothing BULLYING LYING CRETIN'S you all can be, supported in numbers like a pack of rabid dog's.
You people reek with the smell of fear of being wrong !!!
...and Stu, way back in 1995 Mann wrote a paper in Nature where he said...
'THE recognition of natural modes of climate variability is essential for a better understanding of the factors that govern climate change. Recent models suggest that interdecadal (roughly 15-35-year period) and century-scale (roughly 50-150-year period) climate variability may be intrinsic to the natural climate system.'
Paper finds lifetime of CO2 in atmosphere is only 5.4 years
A paper presented at the SEVENTEENTH SYMPOSIUM ON THERMOPHYSICAL PROPERTIES finds that the lifetime and residence time of man-made CO2 in the atmosphere are only about 5.4 years, far less than assumed by the IPCC. The paper corroborates prior work by Salby, Humlum et al, Frölicher et al, Cho et al, Calder et al, Francey etl, Ahlbeck, Pettersson, Segalstad, and others which has demonstrated that man-made CO2 is not the primary driver of atmospheric CO2.
Fossil Fuel Emissions and Fossil CO2 in the Atmosphere
...each side committed to their particular viewpoint and unlikely to change.
You've got that right - but for two entirely different reasons.
Your "side" simply ignores the weight of evidence, so they are unlikely to change. See, for example:
The fact that global warming stopped over a decade ago...
...which is a lie, given that you have been corrected on this point any number of times by being pointed at evidence of large ongoing heat energy accumulation in the "globe" to which the "global" in "global warming" refers.
And given a great deal of historical evidence, it is difficult to believe that your "side" is going to stop lying any time soon.
Our "side" generally follows the evidence, and given how heavily the weight of evidence has built up for the core findings of climate science, more evidence is unlikely to change where the weight of evidence lies on those core issues.
On less core issues the weight of evidence isn't so clear, and if you look back over history you'll see that when the weight of evidence shifts, the weight of consensus follows (not always immediately and not uniformly, but it follows in the end).
So el gordo skips from Akasofu - which el gordo is unable to defend, except through blustering unsubstantiated assertion - to Scafetta - which el gordo is likewise unable to defend - to Tung and Zhou 2013 - which I doubt he will be able to defend either.
It's a veritable Gish Gallop, which is usually a hint that the speaker doesn't know what they're talking about...
...and speaking of el gordo not knowing what he's talking about,
it broke another irony meter when he touted a paper that removes some of the effects of known sources of internal variability a la Foster and Rahmstorf 2011!
I've pointed him to Foster & Rahmstorf several times now because it clearly shows that the anthropogenic forcing is still forcing the surface temperatures (i.e. ignoring ocean heat content) without any evidence of a slowdown in the resultant warming rate. He has completely ignored this inconvenient analysis and has not changed his position that "global warming has stalled" which doesn't yet "invalidate AGW theory completely" but will (in his mind) if it continues. That position is untenable in the face of Foster & Rahmstorf's analysis.
Now he cites a paper that allegedly does the same kind of analysis as Foster and Rahmstorf, and also finds that anthropogenic surface warming continues unabated, which refutes his claim that "AGW theory" might be "invalidated" after a few more years of surface temperature records. It's really not a good look to post a link to a paper that rebuts your own argument.
(And icing on the cake is that Tung and Zhou made a fundamental error (see link above) in their analysis - and make assumptions which are not supported by evidence - which invalidates most of their conclusions. And I'm not even going to go in to their inappropriate use of the CET to address questions about global warming. It's not a good look to cite a broken paper when others have already pointed out it's broken.)
This Epic Multiple Fail is yet another illustration that he is trying to fit the evidence to his views and not the other way around.
Your comprehension is suspect. No-one is disputing the existence of certain pseudo-cyclic phenomena.
We - and the evidence - are disputing claims that:
a) The known cycles explain all or even a significant part of the warming trend over the last few decades.
b) That AGW theory will be invalidated if the surface fails to warm as much as el gordo thinks AGW theory predicts over the next few years by pretending AGW theory's treatment of "intrinsic modes of natural variability" doesn't exist.
c) That non-trivial surface cooling is to be expected based on current climate science understanding over the next few years or decades
If you can't even understand these distinctions, then you are in over your head.
Paper finds lifetime of CO2 in atmosphere is only 5.4 years
Yes, it's a well known finding that the expected residency time of any given CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is only a few years. It's been known for many years. You and your inept sources really should try to keep up!
...which has demonstrated that man-made CO2 is not the primary driver of atmospheric CO2.
It's also well-known that this conclusion does not follow, and it has been well-known for many years. Heck, one can demonstrate this in terms even your simplistic brain can understand. Humans emit a certain quantity of CO2 from fossil fuel sources every year. We've got a pretty decent handle on how much. The atmosphere gains a certain quantity of extra CO2 every year which we can measure pretty well.
When we add up how much fossil fuel CO2 we put into the atmosphere, we find that it is more than the extra CO2 we find in the atmosphere.
It takes really deep stupidity to argue that (a) the CO2 we put there actually didn't go there, but (b) something else coincidentally put a whole bunch of CO2 there at the very moment that our CO2 was magically diverted to places unknown. It would be as if I had a 2 litre bottle that suffers from a slow leak containing 500mL of water. I then poured 1000mL of water into it and observed that it contained 1400mL of water. So I conclude "The extra 900mL isn't due to me pouring 1000mL of water into it, it came from somewhere else".
Your sources are lying to you, or they are incapable of primary school level logic. And available evidence indicates that you like it that way. This behaviour over an extended period looks pathological. My advice is to seek professional help.
You, of course, will reject this entire comment - although I hope I am proven wrong on that.
That's how I work best. If you ever get the urge to say a few chosen words at Trash I would greatly appreciate it. At the moment the blogmasta has me in the back room talking to myself.
You people reek with the smell of fear of being wrong !!!
Incorrect.
As I explained above I want to be wrong about the seriousness of anthropogenically driven climate change. Show me I'm wrong and I'll not only publicly applaud you but nominate you for at least one Nobel Prize.
So are you projecting, or simply rationalising a rejection of inconvenient data?
...from my perspective he SMASHED your ego’s and exposed your cultist psychopathy for what it is...
Apart from the observation that your scientific competence verges on the negative which renders your judgement on scientific discussion worthless, my ego's done just fine despite past interactions with TC. For it to have been "SMASHED", "SMASHED, I TELL YOU" it would had to have been invested in a particular understanding, but it's not.
If Curtin had been able to demonstrate that the weight of evidence favoured his claims over any others, I would have changed my position in response. (I suspect that will be very difficult for you to imagine because you don't seem to operate that way.) Instead, his claims varied from the merely dodgy to the deeply ludicrous, which whilst amusing from time to time was also very sad.
Deltoid CO2 addicts (BBD, Lotharson, Bill, Lionell A, etc.)!
Look at the phrasing in Wikipedia about Climate Sensitivity:
quote
Consensus estimates[edit source | editbeta]
A committee on anthropogenic global warming convened in 1979 by the National Academy of Sciences and chaired by Jule Charney[9] estimated climate sensitivity to be 3 °C, plus or minus 1.5 °C. Only two sets of models were available; one, due to Syukuro Manabe, exhibited a climate sensitivity of 2 °C, the other, due to James E. Hansen, exhibited a climate sensitivity of 4 °C. "According to Manabe, Charney chose 0.5 °C as a not-unreasonable margin of error, subtracted it from Manabe’s number, and added it to Hansen’s. Thus was born the 1.5 °C-to-4.5 °C range of likely climate sensitivity that has appeared in every greenhouse assessment since..."[13]
end quote
Questions to the Dumbtoids:
A:
Are you able to understand how ridiculous such a definition of climate sensitivity is?
B:
Can you describe on your own (please without copy paste this time, in own non-offensive words), why such a process has nothing to do with science.
The best answer which comes close to truth qualifies for a premium of 100 $, which I will pay the winner.
Now try your best, Dumbtoids!
PS: only Dumbtods addicted to CO2 global warming can qualify for the premium
I see Boris the fake expert, after having been shown not to be a real scientist by his own definition, now goes around cherry picking a quote from, ultimately, Richard Kerr.
A *real* scientist (let's call him Marco) would have noted the paragraph right below:
!In 2008 climatologist Stefan Rahmstorf wrote, regarding the Charney report's original range of uncertainty: "At that time, this range was on very shaky ground. Since then, many vastly improved models have been developed by a number of climate research centers around the world. Current state-of-the-art climate models span a range of 2.6–4.1 °C, most clustering around 3 °C."[8]"
Or the whole section right below that:
"The 1990 IPCC First Assessment Report estimated that equilibrium climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling lay between 1.5 and 4.5 °C, with a "best guess in the light of current knowledge" of 2.5 °C.[14] This used models with strongly simplified representations of the ocean dynamics. The IPCC supplementary report, 1992 which used full ocean GCMs nonetheless saw "no compelling reason to warrant changing" from this estimate [15] and the IPCC Second Assessment Report found that "No strong reasons have emerged to change" these estimates,[16] with much of the uncertainty attributed to cloud processes. As noted above, the IPCC TAR retained the likely range 1.5 to 4.5 °C.[3]
Authors of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (Meehl et al., 2007)[17] stated that confidence in estimates of equilibrium climate sensitivity had increased substantially since the TAR. AR4's assessment was based on a combination of several independent lines of evidence, including observed climate change and the strength of known "feedbacks" simulated in general circulation models.[18] IPCC authors concluded that the global mean equilibrium warming for doubling CO2 (a concentration of approximately 540 parts-per-million (ppm)), or equilibrium climate sensitivity, very likely is greater than 2.7 °F (1.5 °C) and likely to lie in the range 4 to 8.1 °F (2 to 4.5 °C), with a most likely value of about 5 °F (3 °C). For fundamental physical reasons, as well as data limitations, the IPCC states a climate sensitivity higher than 8.1 °F (4.5 °C) cannot be ruled out, but that agreement for these values with observations and "proxy" climate data is generally worse compared to values in the 4 to 8.1 °F (2 to 4.5 °C) range.[18]
The TAR uses the word "likely" in a qualitative sense to describe the likelihood of the 1.5 to 4.5 °C range being correct.[17] AR4, however, quantifies the probable range of climate sensitivity estimates:[19]
2-4.5 °C is "likely", = greater than 66% chance of being correct
less than 1.5 °C is "very unlikely" = less than 10% " " "
These are Bayesian probabilities, which are based on an expert assessment of the available evidence.[19]"
Marco, first you must qualify to be considered a "real scientist". BTW, Stefan Rahmstorf is more a political propagandist as eco-fundamentalist than a true scientist.
Your answers regarding the premium questions fall short. I give you another chance: try again.
Boris, having ignored all the problems pointed out with his earlier claims, is now shown to be ignoring current science in favour of attempts to ridicule climate sensitivity estimates by lying about the evidence they are based upon.
You know, just like a REAL "climate expert" would, right?
And in response Boris plays dumb and simply pretends not to have been caught out - and not to have been acting just like a climate ignoramus - just like all the other times. Boris is a mendacious charlatan, and a boring one at that.
Here's a concept, Boris: many many subsequent studies have been made by various groups into sensitivity.
Do you suppose that,
a/ All the world's scientists have ignored all the research conducted since the early studies you've familiarised yourself with?
b/ Do you suppose all the world's scientists have adjusted their understanding of sensitivity based on all the subsequent studies with which you have apparently not yet familiarised yourself?
And here's an additional question just for you, Boris:
c/ Do you really think you are smart enough to understand radiative physics better than all the world's scientists understand it? I mean, really?
Boris, I am quite certain that in terms of what people generally consider to be a real scientist, I qualify more than you do. I'm not so much a fan of comparing the size of manhoods, but I doubt you work as a tenured staff member (which I do). If you do, I can only pity your students.
Good grief! You really aren't cut out for this, are you?
See the paper that you cited above that does a Foster and Rahmstorf style analysis - the surface warming trend in response to continues pretty much unchanged once you account for certain sources of natural variability, hence there is no justification for revising the implied sensitivity estimates on that basis. That analysis was mistaken, but they mistakenly got the same relevant result as Foster and Rahmstorf - no change to the trend once those factors were accounted for. (I'm pretty sure if you were smart enough to do the analysis on the observed temperatures, uncorrected for those other influences, you'd find no statistically significant change in the trend yet either.)
And see the sensitivity implications of paleoclimate data which are not predicated on either "pauses" or "lack of pauses" because they are taken over long enough time periods for this kind of short term variation to be ignored.
...or your own argument that the "pause" is due to natural cycles, which by definition don't affect the calculation of climate sensitivity - unless you can quantify the forcing they provide, which I'm confident you won't be able to do since you tend to favour people who find "cycles" using mathematics without identifying any kind of physical mechanism behind them.
It's almost as if you're not here for the hunting...
'The rate of global mean warming has been lower over the past decade than previously. It has been argued1, 2, 3, 4, 5 that this observation might require a downwards revision of estimates of equilibrium climate sensitivity, that is, the long-term (equilibrium) temperature response to a doubling of…'
Lotharsson, especially you! I do really not understand why you so desperately try to elicit the impression as if you would be a climate expert. From all what I have read from you (also from previous threads at deltoid) that you are not at all a scientist, but rather an economist or something similar strange and distant to natural sciences and climatology in specific. You should not open your mouth so wide with a natural sciences basis so shallow of copy paste. Maybe you succeed for once to abstain from your most low-intellect expression: "it's projection".
You were not able to answer my questions on CO2 sensitivity. But I give also you a second chance. Try it again and do better.
Boris, especially you! I do really not understand why you so desperately try to elicit the impression as if you would be a climate expert. From all what I have read from you that you are not at all a scientist, but rather an assistant dental hygienist or something similar strange and distant to natural sciences and climatology in specific.
I do really not understand why you so desperately try to elicit the impression as if you would be a climate expert.
You are mistaken on a number of grounds:
I am not a climate expert.
Nor do I claim to be.
I am not a climate scientist, nor even a professional scientist.
Nor do I claim to be.
I have in fact pointed out at Deltoid several times that I am none of those things. If it makes you happy I'll do so again.
And since I don't claim to be any of those things, and in fact periodically point out that I'm not, I'm not trying to give the impression that I am.
And since I'm not trying to give the impression that I am, I'm not desperate to do so.
It's impressive that you can pack so much wrongness into one sentence. (Never mind that it smacks of rampant projection. And calling projection "a low intellect expression" doesn't make it irrelevant, nor does it suppress my intellect or elevate yours.)
I am curious who Boris thinks he is fooling with his "I am so a climate expert!" schtick (especially coupled with his egregious misunderstandings of basic climate science, horrendous gaps in his basic knowledge and a complete unwillingness to point us to his climate science publication record). One has to be either deeply mistaken about the world or think you are addressing complete chumps to think that will work.
Since Boris has helpfully pointed out the previously known fact that I am not a climate scientist, and yet I can near-instantly see through most of his claims because they fail basic tests of evidence and logic, one might be tempted to think that would make him twig that the game is up, but no.
It's pretty sad when a contrarian's argument can't even rise to the level of the Fallacy of Argument From Personal Authority, instead scraping the barrel with the Fallacy of Argument Because I Said So (and the Fallacy of You Did Not Just Refute My Argument With Evidence Because I Ignored It So It Doesn't Count).
El gordo curiously omits a relevant part of the quote and conveniently forgets the link. Don't take my word for it, check it out for yourself. Perhaps "splitting hairs" means omitting parts of a quote that you don't like?
All the models and evidence confirm a minimum warming close to 2°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 with a most likely value of 3°C and the potential to warm 4.5°C or even more.
15 years ago the most likely range for equilibrium climate sensitivity was considered 2 - 4.5 C with a most likely value of 3 C, and values as low as 1.5 C and as high as 6 C or more could not be ruled out. So this quote is entirely consistent with that.
What has changed in that timeframe (IIRC) is that 1.5C is looking considerably less likely, and there's some evidence that the tail on the high end may not be as extended as previous evidence suggested - but from what I recall even that is a matter of some debate. But I don't recall any of those changes being traceable to any "pause".
Loth I assumed you knew about the old values, we are talking about the new values for a doubling of CO2.
'But I don’t recall any of those changes being traceable to any “pause”.
The Pause according to Henrik Svensmark.
'Since the 1940s and up to 10 years ago we have had the highest solar activity in 1000 years. The last time we had solar activity that high was when we had the Medieval Warm Period from year 1000 to around 1300.
'Historically there has been a close connection between solar activity and temperature for the last 1000 years. Therefore the sun’s activity will also have influence the coming many years.
'The unusual thing right now is that sun’s activity is decreasing while there’s a great increase in atmospheric CO2. For that reason the question is how much the earth will cool in a time of decreasing solar activity.
'The development is beautifully consistent with a cooling effect of the solar activity in the same period. This could mean that the temperature will not rise for the next 30 years or maybe begin to decrease.'
You know exactly nothing about the topic or you wouldn't come up with a wiki link and such a stupid set of questions. It's just trolling and idiot-level trolling at that.
El gordo, speaking of Svensmark, known mechanisms by which the sun affects climate are already accounted for in "AGW theory". That analysis you refuse to take into account removes most of the effect of solar irradiance from the surface temperature record, as just one example, and that STILL doesn't explain the warming trend. (It makes the warming trend stronger and hence in need of a more powerful forcing to explain it, since the sun has been waning a little...)
Svensmark has been entirely unable to substantiate his wilder solar theories in the scientific literature, the wilder ones generally being of the form "the sun did most of it, and CO2 did very little of it" - especially since (as previously pointed out several times) solar influences and temperature have moved in distinctly different directions over the last few decades. If Svensmark were right that the sun's influence is much stronger than (say) that of CO2, then it becomes very difficult to explain this divergence. (Note that as far as I can see this analysis applies to his galactic cosmic ray hypothesis, which further suffers from having no decent evidence in support of any substantial effect.)
Loth I assumed you knew about the old values, we are talking about the new values for a doubling of CO2.
What "new values"? You mean low-ball estimates by Otto et al. based on - and extremely sensitive to - guesswork about aerosol negative forcing not to mention decadal variability in ocean heat uptake and vertical mixing. If you had a clue, you'd know that so-called observationally-derived estimates of TCR and ECS are speculative and arguably uninformative.
But of course you know absolutely fuck-all about sensitivity and are once again just posturing. So you can piss off too. We've all had enough of your ignorance, dishonesty and demagoguery, your Gish gallops, your constant refusal to admit colossal, argument-destroying errors and your blind faith.
I've had enough of el lying shitbag. I showed him *repeatedly* that modern warming cannot be attributable to the sun, and here he is again, repeating debunked rubbish.
In five minutes he'll be banging on about global warming having stopped and how this means estimates of S have to be revised down to just above zero etc etc.
These fucking clowns don't deserve the time they consume.
And non of these fucking clowns knows that the Laschamp excursion drives a very, very large stake through the "Svensmark hypothesis". Paleoclimate behaviour is inimical to fake sceptics.
Lotharsson, you behave as you would be an climate expert, but you are none (your own testimony). Your testimony about your incompetence regarding science in general and your special incompetence in climatology honours you. I would like to see similar testimonies also from BBD, Lionell, chek that these individual are no scientists.
Marco and Bernard appear to be scientists but not in the field of climatology. I think both are active in biological fields given their laymen copy paste statements in climatological matters.
And none of you Dumbtoids was able to answer my two questions.
Most of the warmist Dumbtoids are neither scientists, neither climatologists, but rather eco fundamentalists (maybe Greenpeace activists, WWF agents, or similar partisan CO2 fanatics without the ability of objective thinking).
Go to # 60 and RTFR. You are just another posturing clown.
You didn't understand the key point Lotharsson made. He - like myself - doesn't claim to be a climate scientist. We are not liars and fantasists, after all.
But we can see through your effortlessly. That's how crap you are.
... you behave as you would be an climate expert...
Nope. That's entirely your projection.
Some failures of evidence and logic do not require one to be a climate expert to detect. And the detection and pointing out of those errors is not invalidated by the fact that this is done by a non-expert, as any expert in objective thinking must agree.
Others such failures require expertise that I do not have, and that kind of error will likely slip past me. That's why I defer to the strong consensus of those so qualified on what stands up to scrutiny - because I know my skills in this area are insufficient to weed out the subtle problems.
Now, how about you point to your own publication record in climate science, since you've testified that you are a climate scientist?
(My bet is you cannot afford to do so, because your imagined credibility rests on your unsupported claim to authority.)
...(maybe Greenpeace activists, WWF agents, or similar partisan CO2 fanatics without the ability of objective thinking).
Oh, dear. Projecting much, especially on the "without objective thinking ability" part that you display so strongly here?
And paranoid much?
And none of you Dumbtoids was able to answer my two questions.
Marco eloquently pointed out that they were predicated on lies, which is a complete answer. You are apparently not even sufficiently competent to recognise an answer. Sad.
I'm still curious who you think you are fooling. Maybe the other kids in your high school class? And you give a very strong impression of being the kind of liar BBD is calling you out as...is that intentional?
…(maybe Greenpeace activists, WWF agents, or similar partisan CO2 fanatics without the ability of objective thinking).
Oh, dear. Projecting much, especially on the “without objective thinking ability” part that you display so strongly here?
And paranoid much?
And none of you Dumbtoids was able to answer my two questions.
Marco eloquently pointed out that they were predicated on lies, which is a complete answer. You are apparently not even sufficiently competent to recognise an answer. Sad.
I’m still curious who you think you are fooling. Maybe the other kids in your high school class? And you give a very strong impression of being the kind of liar BBD is calling you out as…is that intentional?
Why are Bill, Lionel and chek so silent and and did not join so far the other warmist Dumtoids to testify that they are neither scientists nor, more specific, climatologists? What's the problem with you, Bill, Lionel and Chek, to be honest about your non-climatological background?
Why are Bill, Lionel and chek so silent and and did not join so far the other warmist Dumtoids to testify that they are neither scientists nor, more specific, climatologists? What’s the problem with you, Bill, Lionel and Chek, to be honest about your non-climatological background?
While we wait, here's some *science* from Hansen & Sato (2012) (links #60):
Global mean temperature change between the LGM and Holocene has been estimated from paleo temperature data and from climate models constrained by paleo data. Shakun and Carlson (2010) obtain a data-based estimate of 4.9°C for the difference between the Altithermal (peak Holocene warmth, prior to the past century) and peak LGM conditions. They suggest that this estimate may be on the low side, mainly because they lack data in some regions where large temperature change is likely, but their record is affected by LGM cooling of 17°C on Greenland. A comprehensive multi-model study of Schneider von Deimling et al. (2006) finds a temperature difference of 5.8 ± 1.4°C between LGM and the Holocene, with this result including the effect of a prescribed LGM aerosol forcing of ‒1.2 W/m2. The appropriate temperature difference for our purposes is between average Holocene conditions and LGM conditions averaged over several millennia. We take 5 ± 1°C as our best estimate. Although the estimated uncertainty is necessarily partly subjective, we believe it is a generous (large) estimate for 1σ uncertainty.
The empirical fast-feedback climate sensitivity that we infer from the LGM-Holocene comparison is thus 5°C/6.5 W/m2 ~ ¾ ± ¼ °C per W/m2 or 3 ± 1°C for doubled CO2. The fact that ice sheet and GHG boundary conditions are actually slow climate feedbacks is irrelevant for the purpose of evaluating the fast-feedback climate sensitivity.
This empirical climate sensitivity incorporates all fast response feedbacks in the real-world climate system, including changes of water vapor, clouds, aerosols, aerosol effects on clouds, and sea ice. In contrast to climate models, which can only approximate the physical processes and may exclude important processes, the empirical result includes all processes that exist in the real world – and the physics is exact.
"Boris" was lying about his credentials ;-) As I know you know perfectly well, but "Boris" has fucked himself here forever now.
Anything else he says = strikeout because he has made an utterly dishonest claim (that he's an active research climate scientist) the basis for his challenge to the competence of all commenters here. Argument from a lie.
Now that I do find plausible. This has several commonalities with "Freddy". In fact all that's missing is spittle, fucks and caps...
You should not open your mouth so wide with a natural sciences basis so shallow of copy paste. Maybe you succeed for once to abstain from your most low-intellect expression: “it’s projection”.
"How should ocean water under 700 meters be warmed up without a warming in the upper part? … In the period 1990-2000 you could see a rise in the ocean temperatures, which fit with the greenhouse effect. But it hasn’t been seen for the last 10 years. Temperatures don’t rise without the heat content in the sea increasing. Several thousand buoys put into the sea to measure temperature haven’t registered any rise in sea temperatures.”
‘We now have the lowest solar activity in 100 years,’ David Hathaway from American space research institute NASA newly concluded in connection to the release of new figures for the sun’s activity. He said the activity for the ongoing cycle is half of the previous cycle, and he predicted an even lower activity for the next cycle, which will hit us in few years.”
David Hathaway
"It indicates that we may be on the path to a new little ice age. It seems likely we are on the path to a period with very low solar activity, which could mean that we may have some very cold winters.”
Warmist Dumbtoids, believe it or not: I am really an active climate research scientist with peer-reviewed publications, but I will not disclose here my name and research institute, in order to prevent damage to my career for being honest and strictly scientific, i.e. unconditionally objective.
We now have the lowest solar activity in 100 years
apparently climate change is ruled by the sun
Fatso, please explain how the global temperature for the past 15 years is the highest it has been for the last 800 or so years. You can't have it both ways, If the sun is at its lowest activity in 100 years how come the temperatures are so high? Only idiot AGW deniers would be so stupid to make comments like that. Maybe "climate expert" Boris will enlighten us.
"Senior active Climate Research Scientist self-kicking, clog-dancing clownshoe.
There, fixed that for you 'Boris'. It accords much better with the rational perception of most here now.
Best wishes - chek
(not a climate scientist), more a layman caller outer of lying, fuckwitted, politically motivated bullshitters. Like all rote-learned, meme-spouting deniers such as you are. Especially those claiming ludicrously false credentials. Should you prove to have more than a Good Luck! diploma for successfully completing primary school (seventh grade), I shall drink a pint of Curtin's Potable Sea Water™.
However, it's late, I just got home, and I'll deal with SpamKan's hagiography of that fuckwitted, dead old insane coot later.
I am really an active climate research scientist with peer-reviewed publications
No, no you're not. First of all, you've demonstrated no knowledge, have used nothing but denialist terms, tropes and falsified arguments, and would have a wonderful career shilling for Heartland if you had any credentials whatsoever.
So where exactly in the climate system was the energy stored?
If you think about his "lag", I think the pertinent question is, "Where is the energy going?"
According to El Gordo, climate change is driven by the Sun, and when the sun is hot, the earth is cold, then when the sun fades, the earth gets hot, and we call that a "lag".
I understand this because I am an active rocket surgeon with 400 sheets of peer-reviewed papers rolled up around a hollow cardboard cylinder.
Mind you, I'd still like to know where the energy was stored. To, you know, create a lag. Which requires storage and delayed release. These tedious old physical mechanism requirements will haunt us to our dying days.
Come on, clown - the lurkers are waiting. Two words won't cut it - but it's all you've got. I'll sum up for you, shall I?
'No clue'.
The mechanism, and its correlation with observed temperature changes in the oceans and ENSO cycles, please!
Since you apparently believe - and this is consistent with your general attachment to convenient fantasy, no matter how patently absurd - that 'Boris' is a 'Climate Scientist', perhaps you could 'phone a "friend"' and get him to explain for you?
OK, now I get it - you're actually expressing Poe's Law by taking absurd, easily over-turned positions to secretly undermine the lunatic anti-realists contesting the scientific consensus on AGW and Climate Change.
Thanks - nice job. Sorry for giving the game away!
A warm sun heats the planet and when the sun cools the lag is found in the oceans, which is perfectly understandable.
Gaia works in mysterious ways, but let me assure any quiet lurkers here that the heat they have found in the ocean deep will not be coming back to bite us.... its miniscule.
I don't use the term lightly - look back and check if you like - but you really are striking me as a dishonest fellow, unlike many of your peers here, who are simply too stupid to be any better.
'But most (more than 90%) of the energy imbalance goes into the ocean, and several analyses have now shown this. But even there, how much warms the upper layers of the ocean, as opposed to how much penetrates deeper into the ocean where it may not have much immediate influence, is a key issue.'
"Significantly more research into the potential role of solar variability is warranted, involving new assessments of potential transmission mechanisms to induce climate change and potential enhancement of natural feedbacks that may amplify the relatively weak forcing related to fluctuations in solar output.
"We only hope that more scientists will take note and examine the intriguing relations between our nearest star and our planet's temperature."
Either you've been dropped on the head a lot, inducing major amnesia, or you really, really hope to find people that are even dumber than you. Don't you realize how badly you are embarrassing yourself? How stupid and pathetic you look?
...in order to prevent damage to my career for being honest and strictly scientific, i.e. unconditionally objective making abjectly stupid and ignorant claims which reveal that I don't even know basic climate science facts that non-climate scientists do - facts that any actual research climate scientist would be expected to know.
FIFY.
Sorry for giving the game away!
The game remains a possibility ;-) There are very few people whose self-image is so far removed from reality - but they do exist.
...that may amplify the relatively weak forcing related to fluctuations in solar output.
So you're saying that feedbacks are stronger than previously thought, especially feedbacks associated with solar fluctuations? (So climate sensitivity is perhaps even higher than previously thought?)
‘No major hurricane strikes for eight years’, apart from Sandy.
That's not what you said, you pathetic lying sack of crap.
Anyway... you did know this, right?
The 2012 Atlantic hurricane season was extremely active, tied with 1887, 1995, 2010, and 2011 for having the third-most named storms on record.
There were 19 named storms in 2012 (1981-2010 average: 12.1), there were 10 hurricanes (1981-2010 average: 6.4), and there were 2 major hurricanes (1981-2010 average: 2.7).
So the only thing you COULD legitimately say about 2012 is that it fell one major storm short from setting records in every single category.
Let me guess, you read this bullshit on a denier blog somewhere and are STILL too stupid to go look it up for yourself? Because unless we come up with a magical new definition of "major" hurricane (which to the entire world means Cat 3+), you lied when you said there were none for 8 years, and you lied there were none for 8 years except Sandy.
And that's just 2012, moron. You have no shame, do you?
Doop-dee-doop, I have a minute or two more to kill. Let me just continue to use these highly secret sources called WikiPedia and Google.
2011? 4 major hurricanes (Atlantic only).
2010? 5 major hurricanes (Atlantic only)
2009? 2 major hurricanes (Atlantic only)
2008? 2 major hurricanes (Atlantic only)
Oh, and fair warning: if you are going to say those don't count because they didn't "strike", consider yourself pre-emptively slapped by ever metereologist who ever lived.
Also, you would be wrong. Again. Please. You're so sad. Please at least Google the next thing you say first.
‘So where exactly in the climate system was the energy stored?’
The oceans.
OK, let's ignore the bizarre idea that the oceans might not be thermally linked to the atmosphere and ask ourselves, how does you "lag" manifest itself? In cooling oceans, perhaps?
Seeing as the Sun is now cooler and your ocean-storage is no longer receiving as much energy, they must be cooling, right?
Not surprising, considering e.g. the spring snow cover http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_seasonal.php?ui_set=nhland&u…
which has gone done much more than winter cover has gone up. Now, it happens that spring cover is much more important for albedo...but I don't think gordo will ever understand that.
In the meantime, liar Boris continues lying. And I'll point out that freddykaitroll also claimed to be a "climate scientist" with a "research group" and all that.
Global warming is fascinating when you take out the CO2.
'Recent scientific evidence shows that major and widespread climate changes have occurred with startling speed. For example, roughly half the north Atlantic warming since the last ice age was achieved in only a decade, and it was accompanied by significant climatic changes across most of the globe. Similar events, including local warmings as large as 16°C, occurred repeatedly during the slide into and climb out of the last ice age….'
Apart from the fact that it's not flat, it's a piss-poor method of evaluating global changes in major storms. (A cynic might note that that doesn't invalidate it for the use to which Pielke wants to put it.)
It uses "days between landfalls", which is a bad way to measure whether there are more or less occurring and can have counter-intuitive results, and it measures them only for the US, which is a long way from global.
If it wasn’t for Sandy it would be dead flat.
Afraid not.
If the legend and data are to be believed, then if it wasn't for Sandy the counter on the most recent data point in that graph would be even higher as of Dec 2012, which would increase the slope of the trend line a little. (I did say it was a potentially counter-intuitive way to measure whether major storm frequency is changing...)
So if the energy is stored in the ocean and then leaves it to provided the lagged warming of the atmosphere, the ocean must cool down - right?
OHC must fall - right?
But OHC at all measured depths is increasing. So either energy is being created in the oceans by magic or your mechanism is bollocks and you are clueless.
Recovery at the end of the Younger Dryas was probably driven by the resumption of the AMOC and equator - > poleward ocean heat transport. The AMOC is thought to have been interrupted by abrupt drainage of glacial Lake Agassiz. All this is explicitly deglacial-phase climate behaviour and irrelevant to modern, GHG-forced warming.
.
Please stop using paleoclimate as a sandbox for your denial. You have no idea what you are talking about and you come across as a dishonest poseur when you do this.
While we're waiting for Bloato to attempt yet another wholly unconvincing weaseling-out; speaking of being, um, credible, or otherwise, did we see this?
Hadn't heard him speak before; I suspect Readfearn wasn't born in Blacktown. ;-)
‘Specific heat’ is a new one on me, could you provide a link?
Now there is a surprise.
Now tell us what type of heat you think thermometers record.
Oh! And Benny is a mendacious or ignorant prat and his piece in the Australian typifies (I cannot read it all because it is behand a stupid paywall and I ain't about to give Murdoch more monies) the lies and onfiscation that comes from that organ and its grinder. Idelogues all.
And no I am not a working climate scientist having retired. However I have been involved in occupations where ability in mathematics and phsyics, with qualifiactions to prove, were a requisit. I was once offered a post as a scientific officer with the UK Met' Office but chose another path that offered at the same time. I still consult my now well dog eared 1980s edition of 'Atmosphere, Weather and Climate' by Roger G. Barry and Richard J Chorley as well as many other texts on climate science and oceanography.
This lurker doesn't see the point of an el gordo. He hasn't let any fact influence his weak grasp of climate science for at least the past four years. I dimly recall this same tired old wankery where he went along with a piece of dreck from serial idiot, American Thinker, and got his asre handed to him by one of the posters here on Deltoid.
What a freakin' waste of a life. Incompetant, terminally dickheaded, transparently evasive, dishonest, and perhaps most cringeworthy of all ... allied with deadshits like Boris and Karen.
Embarassing really but I guess when you hang around Nova and Marohasy's blogs like some stale fart in a bottle you probably never had have much capacity for self-examination anyway, let alone critical thought.
Now we have testimonies from the Deltoid warmists:
- Lotharsson
- BBD
- Stu
- Lionel A
- Bill
- Vince Wirlwind
- Chek
that they are neither scientists at all, nor climatologists in specific, but partisan laymen with a firm eco fundamentalist commitment, most probably as Greenpeace (or of a similar movement) activists. Therefore the mentioned individuals are totally incompetent in climate research matters, as they do not the understand the fundamental processes of weather phenomena. Furthermore they pick out from their primary sources of information (SPM, SkepticalScience, WUWT, etc.) what fits their ideology of exaggerated warming fears due to little CO2.
I state that you have none. You are a fucking liar.
So:
Active Senior Climate Research Scientist
August 11, 2013
Now we have testimonies from the Deltoid warmists:
- Lotharsson
- BBD
- Stu
- Lionel A
- Bill
- Vince Wirlwind
- Chek
that they are neither scientists at all, nor climatologists in specific, but partisan laymen with a firm eco fundamentalist commitment, most probably as Greenpeace (or of a similar movement) activists. Therefore the mentioned individuals are totally incompetent in climate research matters, as they do not the understand the fundamental processes of weather phenomena. Furthermore they pick out from their primary sources of information (SPM, SkepticalScience, WUWT, etc.) what fits their ideology of exaggerated warming fears due to little CO2.
...with a firm eco fundamentalist commitment, most probably as Greenpeace (or of a similar movement) activists.
ROFL! Liar, liar, pants on fire!
I've said nothing of the sort, and neither have most of the people who have responded to you on this point. (Never mind that you are clearly lying about your own research status.) You are projecting again, and it says more about you than it does about those who have kindly responded to you.
Therefore the mentioned individuals are totally incompetent in climate research matters...
Epic Fail!
1) You presume facts not in evidence.
2) Even if the presumed facts were true, your conclusion does not follow from those "facts". This is a classic Ad Hominem Fallacy.
But do keep posting. I'm more than half way to completing my Boris's Fallacy Bingo card!
BTW, there are many Greenpeace and WWF activists working in the IPCC process. They do not consider being Greenpeace members a shame.
I admit that I am no Greenpeace activists, nor am I a member of a left or eco political party. I am a scientist and not partisan, unlike you warmist Deltoids who behave so badly and incivil.
Lotharsson, why would you be ashamed to admit to be a Greenpeace activist? Would being a Greenpeace activist be a shame, according to you?
ROFL! I never said that either! I merely pointed out that you presumed an explanation that was entirely unsupported by evidence, and then asserted it to be factual.
That, and this response of yours, demonstrates that your self-touted objectivity is a false image.
...who behave so badly and incivil.
Oh, dear. Lying about what other people said - and about easily verifiable facts - is bad behaviour and most uncivil. You should take the log out of your own eye.
Furthermore they pick out from their primary sources of information (SPM, SkepticalScience, WUWT, etc.)
What a dolt you are Boris, we most certainly do not use WUWT as primary material source. You are crazy to think we do. As SPM, WTF is that, Statistical Parametric Mapping, Special Piping Materials?
that they are neither scientists at all, nor climatologists in specific... are totally incompetent in climate research matters, as they do not the understand the fundamental processes of weather phenomena.
What about my declaration did you not understand? Most of it by the look of this latest diretribe from you where you proceed to kick out at the typical ideologues bogey men:
but partisan laymen with a firm eco fundamentalist commitment, most probably as Greenpeace (or of a similar movement) activists.
So you aren't a partisan layman who gets his information from krank-science, pseudo science blogs and the likes of Faux News. Sorry but the evidence you inadvertently present suggests that you are such and furthermore presenting symtoms of mental imbalance and need to seek professional help ASAP.
You an 'Active Senior Climate Research Scientist', I don't think so from the rapid promotion to 'Senior' and then 'Active Senior'.
OK so what is lapse rate, what forms does it take and what is the importance of WRT global warming?
>‘No major hurricane strikes for eight years’, apart from Sandy.
So, if it didn't happen in the US it didn't happen eh! Even Rush Limbaugh or the O'Reilly-Hannity tag team could manage better than that. Well maybe? Beck of course would fail.
There you go. That's all you need to know. Gordo does not care about the facts. Gordo thinks a Gish gallop is justified. Gordo thinks obvious liars should be tolerated (gee, I wonder why). Gordo thinks tone trolling is more important than fact. Gordo is a liar, a bore, a pathetic weevil and should no longer be allowed to derail the discussion.
No, I am not advocating banning. I'm advocating moderation on his comments. Binning any repeat of an "argument" that was JUST debunked (sheesh, look at the past few pages would cut down on the noise nicely.
If not, the "open" thread will be as dead as the Jonas thread soon.
As I was sayin’ … a negative feedback pulled us out of full glaciation within a decade.
No, read the words:
Gordy #65
Recovery at the end of the Younger Dryas was probably driven by the resumption of the AMOC and equator – > poleward ocean heat transport. The AMOC is thought to have been interrupted by abrupt drainage of glacial Lake Agassiz. All this is explicitly deglacial-phase climate behaviour and irrelevant to modern, GHG-forced warming.
Please stop using paleoclimate as a sandbox for your denial. You have no idea what you are talking about and you come across as a dishonest poseur when you do this.
So if the energy is stored in the ocean and then leaves it to provided the lagged warming of the atmosphere, the ocean must cool down – right?
OHC must fall – right?
But OHC at all measured depths is increasing. So either energy is being created in the oceans by magic or your mechanism is bollocks and you are clueless.
How the heat got into the oceans is of no consequence...
OMFG ROFLMAO! This is unintentional comedy gold!
BBD, I reckon el gordo thinks "lag" is a magic word. All you have to do is incant it and you then pronounce that your "lack of a mechanism problem" is solved.
Or maybe he's a bit more sophisticated than that - perhaps he's saying there's ALSO a multi-decadal lag getting the solar energy INTO the oceans in the first place (via a mechanism of "no consequence", and where the energy hangs out for a few decades is also of "no consequence"), so we're gonna see ocean cooling...any day now...
any day...
any day...
any day for sure...
any day...
any day...
any day, just have faith...
any day...
You might have attempted to explain why you draw that conclusion from that graph, but perhaps even your poor cognition was aware that doing so would draw forth gales of sad laughter because you are relying on false presumptions and fallacy.
Especially since they have been explained to you before.
Stu's 3 options from the last page are looking to be inescapable.
Be aware people, those OHC cartoons that BBD keeps waving about (terrifying the climatologically challenged dumtiods) are an extreme misrepresentation of ocean warming.
Magdalena, Trenberth, Balmaseda & Källén said:
"while heating continues during the recent upper-ocean-warming hiatus,"
Does that signify that the heat is rising from below the 2000 mtr?
How much has the ocean actually warmed????
I'll let Willis explain the problem for you all........
"Here’s the problem I have with this graph. It claims that we know the temperature of the top two kilometres (1.2 miles) of the ocean in 1955-60 with an error of plus or minus one and a half hundredths of a degree C …
It also claims that we currently know the temperature of the top 2 kilometers of the global ocean, which is some 673,423,330,000,000,000 tonnes (673 quadrillion tonnes) of water, with an error of plus or minus two thousandths of a degree C …
I’m sorry, but I’m not buying that. I don’t know how they are calculating their error bars, but that is just not possible. Ask any industrial process engineer. If you want to measure something as small as an Olympic-size swimming pool full of water to the nearest two thousandths of a degree C, you need a fistful of thermometers, one or two would be wildly inadequate for the job. And the top two kilometres of the global ocean is unimaginably huge, with as much volume as 260,700,000,000,000 Olympic-size swimming pools …
So I don’t know where they got their error numbers … but I’m going on record to say that they have greatly underestimated the errors in their calculations."
Here is the lovely Jo on the subject........
"The oceans as measured by ARGO are warming, but that warming is not only far less than the models predicted, it is far less even than the instrument error."
"I’m sorry, but I’m not buying that. I don’t know how they are calculating their error bars, but that is just not possible"
Arguments from personal incredulity and self-admitted ignorance. I have a hint for Willis (I have no illusions Karen will understand): when I measure a temperature using 1000 thermometers, with each thermometer having a confidence interval of 1 degrees, the temperature I measure has a confidence interval that is enormously smaller than 1 degree.
Some pseudoskeptics like to refer to the significance particle physics use (at least 5-sigma). Guess how they get there. That's right, doing a lot of measurements, each with an individual confidence interval that is muuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuch larger than if you combine them all.
I recently had an exchange with Kevin McKinney on Tamino's, where I reiterated my commitment to democracy. It's this fundamental belief in the rights of the future and the rights of the biosphere to have a voice today that drives me - it all about the overarching benefit to the most.
Yet when I read the constant ignorant screed from Fatso, KarenMackSunspot, FreddyKaiBoris Coprolalia Mike and the rest, I realise that our implementation of democracy is broken. The biggest problem with decision-making in our country is that we keep electing unsuitable decision-makers, and we keep doing that partly because we allow ignorant people to vote.
We need licenses to drive cars in this country, and to fish, and to be married, and to use guns, and to own dogs. We need to demonstrate basic levels of competency when applying for a job, and when applying for a bank loan. And yet any idiot citizen over 18 who registers to do so is permitted to vote, even if they do not understand science, and/or economics, and or geopolitics, an/or any other of a whole range of issues that have profound bearing on the future of our nation and of the planet. Australian politics is replete with examples where this ignorance was used, in conjunction with the Pavlovian twiddling of the self-interested ideologies of the afflicted ignorants, to bring about decisions that were recognised a priori as being obviously and seriously bad. and proven in hindsight to be so
I've been wondering what the outcome might be if we had a form of democracy where candidates for office had to weight before an election how much of their garnered vote is apportioned to each of the various specific policy stances they announced, and where voters had to complete a test to weight their capacity to vote with competence on these same policy issues. After voting the weightings would be determined to give an overall outcome.
So, for example, if Tony Abbott decided that 50% of his vote was going to be apportioned to his climate change policy, and the Abbott voters had on average a competency that meant that their votes were worth only half a vote per person, Abbott's raw vote would decrease by 25%. A similar approach could be used for all of his other policy platforms. This would give the voice of rationality in the community a much stronger place in decision making, and as a spin off it would have Antony Green bursting with unbridled joy at every election.
Sadly, in the real world half of the population is of below average intelligence, and close to proportion that believe in sky fairies and in grand scientific conspiracies/incompetencies, so reason only gets the occasional nod, and even less so when fundamentalist megalomaniacs will "do anything" to get into power. All I can do is to hope that I can make a positive difference to the best of my ability, and to apologise to the future for the social ignorance and self-indulgence of my contemporaries that have meant that a better outcome could not be achieved.
Perhaps in the future there will be the Nuremberg equivalent for crimes against humanity and against the biosphere. If so I hope that the principles of due diligence and responsibility are kept front and centre, and that some people at least are held to account for their unconscionable influences in the economic and political manipulations of the governance systems of the world.
"...mother earth’s way of putting a blanket on in
preparation for the future cooling?"
I've been following these arguments by the denial crowd for a long while now and I have to say that this comment from "Karen" is the stupidest thing I've heard said about the climate.
How the heat got into the oceans is of no consequence and I have no faith in the idea that it might emerge one day to bite us on the bum.
Now you're contradicting yourself: you say the Sun put the energy in the oceans, and now despite a weaker Sun, we are experiencing warming because of a "lag" in the energy contained in the oceans now affecting the rest our environment.
This is why various people have been pressing you to elucidate your proposed mechanism for this "lag":
- where did the energy come from?
- where has it been?
- where is it going?
- where is any of this measured?
- what evidence backs up your belief?
So far, your answers (although highly evasive) seem to indicate:
- the Sun
- the oceans
- the atmosphere
- no idea
- none that you know of
So, as suspected all along, you have a belief in a mechanism which you cannot explain and for which there is no evidence.
Kind of like the god-botherers who flock to Lourdes.
Now, you are not dealing here with the kind of drooling halfwits who infest the other blogs you frequent - here your complete absence of intellectual rigour can only be interpreted as either incurable ignorance or compulsive dishonesty.
In conclusion, el Gordo either *is* an idiot, or he wants us to believe he is an idiot.
As previously stated by various people, el Gordo is thus demonstrated to be a massive, and complete, waste of space.
His twitterings should receive the same treatment as Trudeau meted out to Dan Quayle's in the early '80s.
'Now, you are not dealing here with the kind of drooling halfwits who infest the other blogs you frequent – here your complete absence of intellectual rigour can only be interpreted as either incurable ignorance or compulsive dishonesty.'
Great quote, I'll pass it on to my mates at Trash.
Spammy is indeed your peer, as in what you're both doing in the genetic pool. Swimming with pondlife really is the best you can do. Get used to it.
Deep down you know that all the smart money says you're wrong about the single-most -important-thing-to-get-right in the history of our civilization. One day all you arrogant, noisy tosspots are going to be so unpopular you're going to make Julia Gillard look like Nelson Mandela.
You're the authoritarians - how shall we punish you then?
'Deep down you know that all the smart money says you’re wrong about the single-most -important-thing-to-get-right in the history of our civilization.'
Global cooling is predicted to begin in a couple of years and thankfully there is nothing I can do about it.
How the heat got into the oceans is of no consequence and I have no faith in the idea that it might emerge one day to bite us on the bum.
This is yet another stupid misrepresentation. There's no need for the energy to be released for the rate of atmospheric warming to increase sharply. All that has to happen is for the rate of ocean heat uptake to fall slightly.
Of course much of the stored energy *will* eventually resurface to warm the atmosphere in addition to GHG forcing...
Interestingly, El Gordy has no confidence in exactly the mechanism he argues produced the "lag" he was wittering about earlier but cannot explain in detail when challenged.
Since there are clearly others following this "conversation", a brief update on real science.
Paleoclimate first.
The last glacial was terminated by an increase in summer insolation at high NH latitude. This was brought about by a combination of cyclic wobbles in the Earth's spin, spin angle relative to the sun, and the circularity of the Earth's orbit (technically "precession, obliquity and eccentricity"). These can be lumped together as "orbital dynamics" or orbital forcing aka "Milankovitch forcing".
The process of deglaciation was interrupted by an abrupt cooling to near-glacial conditions which came to an equally abrupt end. This cooling event is known as the Younger Dryas. It appears to have resulted from changes in ocean circulation in the N. Atlantic caused by huge pulses of meltwater to the Arctic ocean as vast glacial lakes drained.
* * *
Oceans and climate system.
The upper oceans are heated instantaneously by visible radiation, aka sunlight. They cool by radiating in the infra-red from the skin surface layer. This cooling represents an energy transfer from ocean to atmosphere and warms the atmosphere, which in turn radiates to space.
The rate of ocean cooling is *slowed* by a warmer atmosphere. Since the rate of solar warming is roughly constant, inhibiting the rate of ocean cooling causes energy to accumulate in the ocean - ocean heat content increases. This is how increased GHG forcing causes energy to accumulate in the oceans, as has been observed and measured by scientists and denied by deniers.
No, Gordy. Time to admit that you are stupid liar with absolutely no idea what you are bullshitting on about.
Time to admit that your claims about a "lag" are just guff, and that you are so confused that you argue *against* the very mechanisms required for your guff hypothesis to work in the first place.
This is the very definition of idiotic drivel and swivel-eyed confusion.
nsolation-driven 100,000-year glacial cycles and hysteresis of ice-sheet volume
"The growth and reduction of Northern Hemisphere ice sheets over the past million years is dominated by an approximately 100,000-year periodicity and a sawtooth pattern1, 2 (gradual growth and fast termination). Milankovitch theory proposes that summer insolation at high northern latitudes drives the glacial cycles3, and statistical tests have demonstrated that the glacial cycles are indeed linked to eccentricity, obliquity and precession cycles4, 5. Yet insolation alone cannot explain the strong 100,000-year cycle, suggesting that internal climatic feedbacks may also be at work4, 5, 6, 7. Earlier conceptual models, for example, showed that glacial terminations are associated with the build-up of Northern Hemisphere ‘excess ice’5, 8, 9, 10, but the physical mechanisms underpinning the 100,000-year cycle remain unclear. Here we show, using comprehensive climate and ice-sheet models, that insolation and internal feedbacks between the climate, the ice sheets and the lithosphere–asthenosphere system explain the 100,000-year periodicity. The responses of equilibrium states of ice sheets to summer insolation show hysteresis11, 12, 13, with the shape and position of the hysteresis loop playing a key part in determining the periodicities of glacial cycles. The hysteresis loop of the North American ice sheet is such that after inception of the ice sheet, its mass balance remains mostly positive through several precession cycles, whose amplitudes decrease towards an eccentricity minimum. The larger the ice sheet grows and extends towards lower latitudes, the smaller is the insolation required to make the mass balance negative. Therefore, once a large ice sheet is established, a moderate increase in insolation is sufficient to trigger a negative mass balance, leading to an almost complete retreat of the ice sheet within several thousand years. This fast retreat is governed mainly by rapid ablation due to the lowered surface elevation resulting from delayed isostatic rebound14, 15, 16, which is the lithosphere–asthenosphere response.
Carbon dioxide is involved, but is not determinative, in the evolution of the 100,000-year glacial cycles."
el gordo, that abstract (which is from 2009, in case you were duped by all those websites claiming it is "new research") is a good example of chemical engineers *thinking* they've discovered something new, but in reality (mostly, but not quite) discovered that which is known for a long time already: the residence (or turnover) time is about 5 years. What they *thought* they were contradicting was the adjustment time. Fail!
You haven’t understood this paper at all. Nobody is arguing that CO2 terminates glacials, only that it acts (along with CH4) as a feedback to weak orbital forcing.
This study supports the existing hypothesis that the larger the NH ice sheets get, the more sensitive they become to changes in insolation (Milankovitch forcing). Hence the ~100ka cycle of deglaciation.
Don’t reference paleoclimate studies that you haven’t understood. It makes you look stupid.
No it isn't cretin! You don't know the difference between hypothesis and theory, and your comprehension of the distinction isn't going to be improved by your denialism.
The bone-headed commitment to ignorance in the age of Google is astonishing.
Lord Mitty is a master of the Gish Gallop; you are just some inane old clown who's hopelessly out of his depth, but, thanks to the miracle of Dunning-Kruger, you will never have to experience the full horror of realizing just how far.
Its still hotly debated, but my feeling is that a asteroid may have broken up and showered the Middle East, North Atlantic and North America, shutting down the conveyor belt with fresh water flushing.
'The last glacial was terminated by an increase in summer insolation at high NH latitude. This was brought about by a combination of cyclic wobbles in the Earth’s spin, spin angle relative to the sun...'
That is truly fascinating, I was under the impression that the process was slower, but this is dynamic and would have happened relatively quickly.
Global cooling is predicted to begin in a couple of years and thankfully there is nothing I can do about it.
But you won't put money on it.
I seem to recall hearing predictions of cooling from you and others over the last several years, and similar predictions being made by other cranks for years before that. (Hi Mr. McLean!)
CO2 doesn’t hang around in the atmosphere for more than 5.4 years and certainly not the 30 something the IPCC claims.
Shamefully, a day late and a dollar short. Even Karen beat you to that one, and she routinely chimes in with a clueless cut and paste anywhere from several days to several weeks after the meme echoes around the denialosphere.
Did you know that most/all of the greenies that have swallowed the co2 hypothesis also believe this.........
"In the modern Metaphysical community, there are many who believe that, not only is the Earth conscious, but is right now making a very deliberate change that we are all involved in creating. It is theorized that since 1987 and the Harmonic Convergence, the Earth has been slowly raising its vibration from a 3rd dimensional reality to the 5th. Some people believe that this culmination will take place at the end of the Mayan Calendar in 2012, and others believe we are already living in 5th dimensional energy right now.
Assuming this is true, is it possible that what we have come to know as "Global Warming" is simply a bi-product of this whole process? The very definition of temperature is the measurement of the speed of vibration of the air molecules. If the Earth is truly raising the speed of its vibration as a whole, it would simply follow that the temperature would increase along with it. Along that same line of thinking, maybe the recent string of Earthquakes is also a part of this transformation. After all, a literal change in the vibration of the planet would most certainly affect the tectonic plates."
Huh? "Mine" are pretty much on target, if you look at the full climate system rather than cherry-pick surface temperatures. And even that cherry-pick isn't too bad.
The earlier predictions of surface cooling have fared far worse to date. You can even find posts where people show them on graphs compared to subsequent observations...
Here is part of the conclusion from Archer et al. which tells a completely different story. Who to believe?
'Nowhere in these model results or in the published literature is there any reason to conclude that the effects of CO2 release will be substantially confined to just a few centuries.
'In contrast, generally accepted modern understanding of the global carbon cycle indicates that climate effects of CO2 releases to the atmosphere will persist for tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of years into the future.'
Its still hotly debated, but my feeling is that a asteroid may have broken up and showered the Middle East, North Atlantic and North America, shutting down the conveyor belt with fresh water flushing.
The evidence for the bolid hypothesis is very weak. Not that I'm going to debate the cause(s) of the YD with a know-nothing like you. What would be the point? You have no idea what you are talking about.
For example:
That is truly fascinating, I was under the impression that the process was slower, but this is dynamic and would have happened relatively quickly.
No, the YD was abrupt in inception and termination. Not the overall process of deglaciation, which took at least 8ka if not longer. Read the words.
Now, when are you going to admit to the depths of your stupidity and confusion?
You proposed an ocean heat storage and delayed return to the atmosphere mechanism for your "lag" silliness. Then you failed to explain why OHC at all measured depths is INCREASING instead of FALLING as it must if an energy transfer from the oceans to the atmosphere was responsible for this "lagged" warming.
Then, to top it all off, you assert:
- How the heat got into the oceans is of no consequence when by your own argument (and, miraculously, in actual fact) the oceans are heated by solar radiation
- that energy currently accumulating in the ocean won't ever come back to "bite us in the bum" - thus explicitly contradicting your own mechanism for the "lag"
This is beyond the usual range of stupid and confused. So when are you going to put your hands up and admit that you are blethering nonsense?
Come on. Same problem, yet again. You spurt utter shite then when confronted with the steaming mess, you refuse to acknowledge that the stinking pile is indeed bullshit.
It's astonishingly blatant intellectual dishonesty that would shame a child.
Ultimately, the bolide-forcing hypothesis predicts that the Younger Dryas is a unique deglacial event, as suggested by Broecker (2006). However, high-resolution proxy records sensitive to AMOC strength (Chinese speleothem δ18O and atmospheric methane) document a Younger Dryas–like event during termination III (the third to the last deglaciation) (Figs. 2B and 2C; Carlson, 2008; Cheng et al., 2009). The boreal summer insolation increase during termination III is similar to the last deglaciation, as is the timing of the event relative to the peak in insolation (Fig. 2D). While not as well constrained, both events occurred at approximately the same sea level (Fig. 2A), suggesting there may be a common forcing related to the size of the Laurentide Ice Sheet (Carlson, 2008).
You should consider this carefully. You should read the Carlson review.
It's not a completely different story. It's two elements of the very same one.
As explained to Karen a day or two before you regurgitated this meme, the average lifetime of an individual CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is quite short, due to large bi-directional fluxes between the atmosphere and other carbon repositories. However the change in atmospheric CO2 concentration due to adding extra CO2 to the atmosphere persists for much much longer.
This has been well known for a long time, and has been explained over and over again in any number of basic tutorials on climate science...you should probably try and understand the basics before commenting on it.
And like BBD I'm still waiting for you to explain the "lag" thing. You know, where a more active sun causes the oceans to warm and later release the heat, which implies that under current less active solar conditions the ocean should be cooling...but it's not.
In summary, none of the original YD impact signatures have been subsequentlycorroborated by independent tests. Of the 12 original lines of evidence, seven have so farproven to be non-reproducible. The remaining signatures instead seem to represent either (1)non-catastrophic mechanisms, and/or (2) terrestrial rather than extraterrestrial or impact-related sources. In all of these cases, sparse but ubiquitous materials seem to have beenmisreported and misinterpreted as singular peaks at the onset of the YD. Throughout the arcof this hypothesis, recognized and expected impact markers were not found, leading toproposed YD impactors and impact processes that were novel, self-contradictory, rapidlychanging, and sometimes defying the laws of physics. The YD impact hypothesis provides acautionary tale for researchers, the scientific community, the press, and the broader public.
A few pages back, Karen got this number wrong by five orders of magnitude. Now she's back quoting Wondering Willis, who also gets it wrong. WW is closer that Karen (not hard), but still wildly out.
It takes grade four maths skills (calculator optional) to estimate the real figure. Karen's inability to recognise where Wondering Willis is wildly wrong suggests she lacks even that minimal level of skill. Of course it is so much easier to just vomit out the latest undigested ramblings of idiots that to be actually sceptical.
Dumbest troll on the thread. But with a chance to redeem herself - Question for Karen: Whats the real number? Got grade four maths skills?
I am interested to hear from you in your *own" words (not copy paste this time please) how would try to describe the difference between a scientific hypothesis and a scientific theory.
It's always interesting for us scientists to hear how laymen think what science is and how science works.
I am interested to hear from you in your *own” words (not copy paste this time please) how would try to describe the difference between a scientific hypothesis and a scientific theory.
It’s always interesting for us scientists to hear how laymen think what science is and how science works.
The Missing Fingerprints of Global Warming: Part 3
http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2013/06/12/the-missing-fingerprints-of…
If you actually believe this why do you not have the guts to answer the questions at #57 and at #72?
That's a rhetorical question by the way... every intelligent person here knows that you cannot defensibly answer them without disproving your claims of no global warming.
And for what it's worth it's not about "faith"; it's about objective analysis and understanding, both of which you profoundly lack.
Crank blogs aren't science, karen.
This brings us back to the lies spewed forth, daily, by denialist blogs. There is a rich irony here. All the deniers *think* they are being conned by some vast greenie-leftist conspiracy, but they are of course being conned by the chum-ladlers instead.
Deniers think they are smart and have seen the trick, but they are stupid and have been tricked.
The projection is so total, so complete, that reality is inverted. Scientists and science becomes "corrupt" while paid shills like Watts, Morano, Nova et al. are perceived as sources of untainted truth in a skewed world.
The madness of the deniers is by far their most interesting feature. What they say is dull crap, but the way they think - now that's bizarre enough to hold the attention.
Just for entertainment value, Karen's link at #1
And the dishonest blogger you link doesn't know that satellite-derived *surface* and *ocean* temperature estimates are not considered especially reliable.
Direct measurement by thermometer in situ is preferable to modelled reconstructions of the bottom of the atmosphere measured by MSUs in orbit.
Let's see what happens when we compare a few land surface and sea surface records...
Oh look! The land surface is warming much faster than the ocean surface.
Your man is a liar.
Sorry Lotharsson - I didn't reload the page before commenting.
Just who the fuck do these bozos think they are?
And who but deluded denier muppets could possibly take this dreck seriously?
Lotharsson.
One clue about the clueless is their use of multi-order polynomials. Fourth order is useless for describing anything resembling the physics of warming, but it pegs very well the idiot who used it.
Ah! Yes. One of the spotlit magnifiers under which the denier blogs wither or run from, like the 'roaches they are.
Another regular contributor here puts flesh on the monster that hides under the bridge.
You know, Boris's delusions of grandeur sure remind me of someone.
Boris,
This is pure projection also your tone and phrasing reminds me of Luboš Motl.
Now you claim to live in a part of the world where
Now maybe you would care to come clean and inform where this is. After all you wouldn't like to leave the impression that you are making stuff up. Besides the late spring in some areas of the Northern Hemisphere was due to a sudden cold snap with much snow. The reasons for this are not inconsistent with a warming world and in particular Arctic amplification.
You claim to know more about climate than all of us put together, so why the anonymity? Could that be based upon falsehood too.
I mentioned Motl. above but we don't really have dear Svensmark paying us a visit do we?
Nah. Boris isn't Henrik. And HS would have the nads to post under his own name. He may be mistaken, but he's no coward.
Anyway, there is no need to worry about the details. The only thing that matters about Boris is that he's the smartest and best-informed non-climate-scientist in the world, evah.
And before anyone even thinks it, no, he's not insane.
Honi soit qui mal y pense.
:-)
Speaking of reality inversion (#3), I couldn't help but notice that a couple of Karen's pearls of wisdom on the last page had the header "Climate educator", while our Boris styles himself "Climate expert".
I hope we are all appropriately grateful that such expertise has deigned to spend time with us.
Now, back to reality inversion.
Personally, I was thinking more along the lines of J0nas with a spell-checker.
'What they say is dull crap, but the way they think – now that’s bizarre enough to hold the attention.'
CO2 does not cause global warming, it has been a huge miscalculation by the watermelons.
As Australia's next PM said... "the science on climate change is crap".
We are about to experience a revolution on this big sandy island and I wish you were here BBD.
'SkS is a reputable site that provides fully referenced discussion of real science.'
Joker, SS is a satirical blog.
As I said, back to reality inversion.
# 13 Stu
Delusions of grandeur are a shared pathology with this lot. So you could be right, but there's a significant chance of a false positive ;-)
TLDR: They're all barking; hard to tell them apart. Mad hive.
@Bernard, your reply to my last post adressed to you did not mention at all my central message to you. I phrase it now even more simplistic:
Experiment 1:
Take a chair on a sunny summer day and sit there for three hours while the sun warms you directly by its radiation.
Experiment 2:
Take a chair on a cloudy summer day and sit there for three hours while the sun cannot warm you directly by its radiation since radiation cannot pass the clouds.
You will detect that warming is dependent on direct insolation, while in Experiment 2 you will experience considerable cooler temperatures than in Experiment 1.
I wanted you to think about the question to which degree cloud cover can change in a specific area within a defined period and why this maybe can happen. If cloud cover in a certain region, e.g. in the Alpes during summer months, decreased during the last decades and there was consequently more direct insolation, the temperatures should be higher compared to times with less cloud cover, without CO2 influences.
Has cloud cover in your region been scientifically investigated and could a change in cloud cover explain the symptoms of warming in your region, which you reported?
When is the purportedly future PM of Australia being awarded his Nobel BTW?
And which journal published his paper overturning the scientific consensus on AGW? Somehow (so much to read) I managed to miss the overthrow of the paradigm.
Typical.
Boris
Cloud cover is regional. Forcing from well-mixed GHGs is global.
Confused crankery is likewise ubiquitous!
Go on, keep the comedy rolling...
Lotharson, you missed what I proposed to think about in my post to Bernard concerning cloud cover. You should accept the simple fact that clouds prevent sun rays to warm the surface directly and therefore exert a substantial cooling influence, even if you don't like this as this is not good for your warming hypothesis. You should also take note that albedo reduction of say 1% due to cloud cover reduction increases the air temperatues much more than any hypothetical (but never measured) CO2 sensitivity. The stance of your CO2 warming hypothesis is extremely weak, not substantiated at all by objective measurable data and the value of your "consensus" is of Null scientific value. In science only the scientific proof is valid, but never any "consensus" of a majority of opinions.
BBD: "Cloud cover is regional"
You cannot know this. What you say is just an unsubstantiated assertion. Provide proof of what you maintain by citing an article which presents observational data which supports your assertion. I am not aware of such a study. Until you provide proof your assertion cannot be taken as final true knowledge.
'And which journal published his paper overturning the scientific consensus on AGW?.'
Ah... I think he spoke to Plimer and now he's going with gut feeling.
He still has his own platform to reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (which is just as dumb) but he is aware that half the population has been brainwashed so he decided to remain a small target.... to avoid giving the Australian Brainwashing Corporation ammunition.
Clouds have two sides. Low cloud absorbs and re-radiates OLR and inhibits surface cooling. How could someone so expert on climate miss something so basic?
Oh yes I can!
If it ain't global, it's regional. And the globe is not blanketed in cloud. Is it, my genius?
Mind you don't trip over that stick with a pig's bladder tied to the top!
#23
Oh that's wonderful! Plimer. I am *so* reassured.
Which journal did Plimer publish his paradigm-shredding paper in and where's the Nobel? Are those buggers ignoring the man because he's Australian?
BBD: "Clouds have two sides. Low cloud absorbs and re-radiates OLR and inhibits surface cooling"
Nothing new what you claim, just an totally overestimated small warming effect which AGW propagandists like so much. You don't like the fact that by far the most important quantitative effect of clouds on surface temperatures is cooling by preventing direct insolation.
BBD, I have the impression that you really don't understand what warms the air. The decisive mechanism is direct insolation of the Earth's surface (land, water). Why do you have trouble that a factor (the clouds) which prevents very effectively direct insolation MUST exert a very substantial cooling effect. This is so obvious that I wonder how one can reasonably reject such a simple and easily understandable effect.
BBD: "Oh yes I can!"
No you cannot, you are just arrogant and arrogance is never an argument.
"And the globe is not blanketed in cloud"
There is no logic in such an expression. You appear to dislike my argument as it troubles your ideology of a solely by CO2 warming world. A person able to think and argue objectively would not emotionally reject what I stated. You debunk yourself as partisan propagandist of CO2 warming who is totally uninterested in other ideas of mechanisms which could explain warming influences on the air.
The ocean, IIRC :-)
Mind that pig's bladder on a stick! You'll have someone's eye out, waving it about like that. You mark my words.
It's true. Just as it is true that you are a clown.
Not if the oceans heat the troposphere. You is muddled, my genius!
Neither is Teh Stupid.
This coming from the clown who uses "Climate Expert" as a location tag. Seriously, I own bricks with more self-awareness.
BBD, why don't you talk politely about my arguments, but instead behave in such an incivil way. What is wrong with you?If you are unable to talk decently to other humans you might consider to take a timeout in order to calm down a bit. You did not meet one single argument with which I confronted the AGW supporters, instead your words are mostly very offensive and degrading towards individuals you obviously detest.
Stu: "with more self-awareness"
Can you further elaborate what you really mean with this expression? Do you like it when other people talk to *you* in such a way?
'Oh that’s wonderful! Plimer. I am *so* reassured.'
Good, I'm spreading a rumour that when Abbott seizes the Treasury Benches he will sack the Climate Commissioners and replace them with Carter, Plimer et al.
It will be a revolution of ideas and the people will laff like mad.
Boris, people don't talk to me in such a way. If you need to be told why, there really is no point in doing so. Go look up Dunning-Kruger, delusions of grandeur, irony and IT'S ALWAYS PROJECTION. Maybe you'll figure it out from there, but I doubt it.
By the way, you can stick your tone trolling where the sun doesn't shine. You haven't made a single coherent argument yet. Try doing that first before you start whining.
Boris.
Really, you think that clouds are the reason for warming?!
You seem to miss the points of my observations - not only did we have warmer daytime temperatures over July (due to less cloud cover according to you, but that's another story...) but we had warmer night time temperatures, which requires more cloud cover if one is to insist that there is no enhanced 'greenhouse' effect.
This is a miracle! The clouds are nocturnal, hiding during the day and floating around with gay abandon at night. This begs the question - what incredible natural phenomenon is causing a proportionate increase in nocturnal cloud cover that has warmed the planet over the last 100 years? And why does carbon dioxide not in fact act as a 'greenhouse' gas as has been understood by physics for over 150 years?
That blood cascading from your throat... that's a consequence of Ockham's razor, a dangerous implement in the hands of the incompetent.
'Go look up Dunning-Kruger, delusions of grandeur'
Stu pulls out his DK card in an attempt to denigrate, its old hat dickhead.
I'll just leave this here....to ponder.
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/animation-1.gif
Its been the quietest Atlantic hurricane season on record.
Attempt to denigrate? Dude, Boris is such a textbook example I have half a mind to link that "Climate Expert" comment in WikiPedia.
I'll just leave this here... to ponder.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/05/09/favorite-denier-tricks-or-how-to…
In the North Atlantic there does appear to be warming at depth.
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/figure-54.png
I'm glad Bloato isn't even pretending with his 'former Lefty' schtick anymore. A hysterical reactionary through-and-through, just like his heroes.
And, Boris, your self-importance is hilarious. Surprise us all and give us some notion of what, if anything, your sense of entitled grandeur is predicated on.
And this SST anomaly in the Northern Pacific has tongues wagging.
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/extratrop-no-pac.png
The "SST anomaly in the Northern Pacific" may well be interesting, but you appear to be gleaning an interpretation of it from a crank's blog rather than from the actual science:
http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/research/divisions/fe/estuarine/oeip/da-sea-s…
That's all very interesting Craig, but I was referring to the spike at the end of Bob's graph.
Fatso.
I see that you're taking a leaf from Betula's paperbark book and avoiding answering questions.
What are you so afraid of?
You cannot find a quote where I reject this simple fact, because I don't. It's written up in all the climate science books and in the IPCC reports. (You really should try to comprehend what you're attempting to critique. Otherwise you risk looking like a fool.)
Sigh.
Firstly, disregarding any ongoing changes to the climate system, this claim is misleading because it is incomplete. Worse still, this simple fact has already been explained to you by about three different people.
Since you are apparently unable to even read summaries of climate science findings and ongoing research aimed at laypeople, and are apparently only able to think at a "simple thought experiment" level, ponder this simple thought experiment:
Why are cloudy nights following sunlit days over land generally warmer than cloudless nights following equally sunlit days over land?
Bernard J. has already posed an expanded form of that question, but feel free to take my simpler version if you're finding that too difficult to deal with.
#3 BBD
"WUWT has been in the top 5 on wordpress.com lately, and recently often in the top 3. Today, we are number 1 in all the millions of wordpress blogs out there and we are number two for all posts system wide:"
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/07/announcement-wuwt-success-earns-a…
lol
In particular, it's not substantiated at all by 150 years of basic science, nor by direct objective measurements of increased back radiation, nor by measurements of changes in top of atmosphere outgoing radiation, nor by any paleoclimatic data. (Why? Because you say so, that's why!)
I neither "like" nor "dislike" it. You're projecting again. (See the previous quote.)
That's stupid because it's based on your personal ignorance. It's even more stupid because my earlier post already explained why that claim is false, and yet you insist otherwise.
Speaking of rank stupidity, from your response to BBD:
Wait, wait, I thought you knew more about climate science than everyone else here put together? How come you don't know that there is no such thing as scientific proof, only the current best explanation for the current set of evidence?
From an hubristic entrance you've proceeded directly into an ignominious continuation. Better trolls please.
Which Plimer? Wouldn't want Tony's gut feeling to get the wrong one now...
Michael Mann, climate charlatan
http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/05/michael-mann-climate-charlatan/#ixzz2…
Great read :)
If at first you don't succeed :)
http://www.newsdaily.com/article/1fea1443361868919855386f4bb4f492/austr…
shorter, Karen:
WLawyer defends his client Cuccinelli by making claims just about vague enough to not be directly untrue"
Abbott also had a chat with Lord Monckton on his recent trip to the antipodes.
Yep, SpamKan, like anyone's going to read your Prolefeed dreck link. At least we know how you poisoned your mind.
Well, mind-ish.
And yep - Lord Mitty and the Mad Monk; there's a pairing.
At least the Mad Monk knows global warming stopped 17 years ago, which means he's better informed than the Ruddster.
The debates will be interesting.
Ah, Fatso, you're still jamming that old saw against the knots of ignorance.
Now would be a good time to address those long-ignored questions and explain to Betula, Olaus Petri, KarenMackSunspot, Mike@#!&$* why Abbott is displaying his scientific ignorance if he indeed thinks that global warming "stopped 17 years ago".
I would rather discuss real world observations BJ. What is that blip at the end of Bob's graph?
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/extratrop-no-pac.png
It might be an ocean overturning, or perhaps it has something to do with a loopy jet stream. Its regional now, but if it spread across the Pacific which, as you know, has been relatively flat for a couple of decades.
During neutral ENSO years the warm water may gravitate towards the poles. That's pure speculation.
Of course it might be your missing heat, apparently we'll know more by October.
'Abbott is displaying his scientific ignorance if he indeed thinks that global warming “stopped 17 years ago”.
Really?
Would you believe 13 years?
Abbott is a pragmatist, he is already vilified for being a Catlick and doesn't want to appear as a AGW heretic in the run up to the election.
He is disingenuous at best, saying recently that he believed in climate change and wants to put the excess CO2 back into the soil. A ridiculous waste of time and money.
More postcards from the benthos.
Bob Tisdale is a denialist crank, not an oceanographer. It pays to remember this when assessing his what-ifs and maybes.
You are still denying physics. The long-term forced trend can only be positive - increasingly so as the century progresses unless the atmospheric fraction of CO2 and other GHGs can be stabilised.
Whatever the crank physics deniers claim. Why go with the cranks and the clowns when there is real science? A bizarre choice. Perhaps you are insane.
They have finally found a model that works.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v500/n7461/full/nature12374.html
And Gordy, repeating a lie doesn't transmute it into the truth. It just makes you seem dishonest to the point of mental instability.
You *know* that "global warming" hasn't stopped because you have had it pointed out to you many, many times now. You *know* that tropospheric temperature is only a small part of the climate system for the same reason.
Yet you carry on repeating a silly and obvious lie. But then, lying is all the deniers have. There's no scientific argument to back up denialism which is why it *is* denialism, not scepticism.
Yet on you go. On and on and on. Incidentally, I showed you at the end of the previous page that WTFUWT/Monckton lied to you about surface temperature trends. Why haven't you mentioned this? Instead, you repeat the lie.
Are you insane? One has to wonder.
I am referring to this:
Don't you resent it when people lie to you and fool you into believing - and publicly repeating - things that aren't true? Doesn't it make you angry to be turned into a dupe and a laughing-stock?
I'd be furious. So why aren't you?
Abbott is in a rather interesting position because while his base electorate is largely composed of squawkback windbags - such as el Gordo - he also has to appear at least somewhat rational and responsible to grownups in business and foreign elites.
Take comfort, Bloato, that at heart he's one of you, but he's also canny enough to understand that thinking people, some of whom are even conservatives, aren't.
If Tony is true to himself he'll lose the middle class, and if he's true to at least some extent to rationality he'll lose the squawkbackers and Labor turncoats. Thus I suspect Tony's popularity will rival Gillard's within 18 months.
Oh, and you can take further comfort in knowing that ultimately he's beholden to the coal lobby, Rupert Murdoch, and Gina Rinehart - I'll leave you to sort out in which order.
#64
You haven't understood this paper at all. Nobody is arguing that CO2 terminates glacials, only that it acts (along with CH4) as a feedback to weak orbital forcing.
This study supports the existing hypothesis that the larger the NH ice sheets get, the more sensitive they become to changes in insolation (Milankovitch forcing). Hence the ~100ka cycle of deglaciation.
Don't reference paleoclimate studies that you haven't understood. It makes you look stupid.
Because they're pissing in his pocket and telling him it's gold. And he really really wants a pocket full of gold. He wants it so much that he won't check whether it's actually gold or not, because the disappointment would be worse than holding on to a fantasy, even if he strongly suspects it's a fantasy?
Or maybe just insanity. Or a number of other explanations...
Please, take your time, Gordy.
'Your sources are lying to you.'
That's why I'm happy with 13 years... 17 is a stretch. Not that it will make any difference, I'm certain neither leader will be discussing the hiatus.
'Thus I suspect Tony’s popularity will rival Gillard’s within 18 months.'
Not too sure about that, he needs to capture both houses to eliminate that odious tax and the clean energy machine.
Now that Rudd has returned its a whole new ball game and both majors will probably preference the watermelons last.
'...he’s beholden to the coal lobby, Rupert Murdoch, and Gina Rinehart – I’ll leave you to sort out in which order.'
Both sides of politics intend selling coal, this is unavoidable it seems.
Rupert gives the nod to the Monk this time, while in 07 he gave it to Kevette who is looking more like Tin Tin every day.
Gina's great northern scheme (ANDEV) is similar to the Coalition platform and I expect the leaders will discuss this in debate.
'Odious Tax'? 'Clean Energy Machine' ? 'Watermelons'? Alan, is that you out slumming?
'... holding on to a fantasy, even if he strongly suspects it’s a fantasy?'
Funny, that's what I thought of you.
FTFY
Yeah...ANDEV is the Coalition platform.
El Fuckwit skips over the *fact* that his own sources are liars as if it was of no consequence, then continues his politicised, lying, anti-science polemic.
There you have it. Politicised lies are more important to this little monster than the truth.
Reality inversion,
Going to admit that you misrepresented Abe-Ouche et al.?
Or will that too be glossed over like your apologism for climate liars and your incessant recitation of the lies they tell?
BBD: "The long-term forced trend can only be positive"
Wrong, you and nobody else can know this. Your statement has nothing to do with science but with oracles. You should stick to facts and not to dreams and wishes.
Why are all the AGW supporters so agressive, angry, hostile towards climate realists? Is it because they increasingly feel that their case is weak and nature does not behave as they want?
Climatology is not able to measure CO2 sensitivity in nature, cannot show a correlation between CO2 levels and air temperatures 2m above the surface, and fails completely to proof that CO2 leads to rising sea levels.
That's even more foolish than your usual drivel, probably because you're wildly projecting again: I would prefer that my position were wrong, which is the very opposite of clinging to a fantasy.
And with a jingle of bells, Boris is back.
Oh yes we can, Boris! Because we don't deny the laws of physics. And the laws of physics require that increasing GHGs cause energy to accumulate in the climate system warming it up.
Stu responded to your whining and tone-trolling at #35.
Read the words.
Saying it - especially the saying of it by one so demonstrably scientifically ill-equipped- does not make it so.
Tosh!
Climate science isn't able to measure Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity with high accuracy, but that isn't the same as "not able to measure it".
You claim to understand climate science better than the rest of all us put together, but you don't understand this? You apparently don't even understand the nature of scientific measurement - there's always an uncertainty interval involved.
You are clearly self-deluded about your scientific prowess and knowledge. (And this is an dispassionate non-hostile calm observation, no matter what you project on to it.)
Climate clowns Boris. Clowns.
"Watermelons" is US wingnut slang and wingnuts tend to enjoy (on average) a certain detachment from reality. (Which fits in this case.)
Haven't heard it used much in Australia myself, but it wouldn't surprise me if our local wingnuts started using it. Senator Cory Bernardi (amongst others) is doing his best to import Tea Party wingnuttism to Australia, so some of the lingo will probably be adopted too.
# 86 Boris hasn't got a clue. Did you see the hilarious routine about one-sided global clouds upthread (#18 ff)?
Capers and pratfalls!
e.g.:
That's what hallucination means. You talk about something that's not there.
Yep.
And his avoidance of straightforward evidence and fairly simple questions designed to illuminate his proposition. Followed by a switch to a set of unsubstantiated assertions, tone trolling and known-false claims.
Shorter: Troll trolls, with mediocrity.
News at 11.
It does get me wondering though. What kind of environment does one have to "graduate" from to arrive here proclaiming that one knows more about climate science than everyone else put together, only to immediately stumble in an embarrassing heap? One suspects the environment contains a large amount of delusion and inappropriate praise (and I bet most of us can point to a few), or the claims made about ones' own competence weren't even sincere in the first place.
Ooh, I think you'll find Bolt and Jones love talking 'watermelons' already. And the windbaggers have taken the term to their hearts.
Don't get me started on Cory 'Bestiality' Bernardi! If he's truly representative of conservatism here in SA - #1 on the frickin' Senate ticket, fer chrissakes - then I'm Lord Monckton.
(Of course, Nick Minchin was no less crazy, but he was considerably more urbane...)
BBD: "Climate clowns Boris. Clowns"
You intentionally offend persons who don't agree with your faith? Why do you express yourself in such an incivilized manner? Your behavior does not correspond to what is usual among scientists. Real scientists, unlike you, Lotharson, Lionel and other AGW supporters, are open-minded, curious, open to new ideas, always willing to falsify their hypotheses. And you all behave completely contrarian to a real scientist. I think that nobody of you, in contrast to me, works as scientist.
You are projecting, my dear.
I'm open-minded, but not so open I'll believe any old rubbish. Show me the weight of evidence leans away from my beliefs and I'll change them. I'm willing to falsify my hypotheses, but you haven't provided enough evidence yet (come to think of it, you may not have provided ANY) in order to do so (and you are pushing water uphill because there's a LOT of existing evidence lined up against some of the claims you have made). I would love to have AGW falsified because the implications are dire, but despite investigating claim after claim to that effect for the last several years, not one of them has stood up to scrutiny (and most fail immediately with merely cursory scrutiny, like your "maybe clouds done it" claim).
That's hard to believe, given that you have demonstrated fundamental misconceptions about how science works. (Although the phenomenon of B.Sc. graduates who have fundamental misconceptions is certainly not unknown, but it seems to be less common with science Ph.D.s and even less with working research scientists.)
Feel free to point at your science publication record if you want to convince us that you do in fact work as a (research) scientist. Or are you merely working at a non-research job that requires a B.Sc.?
(And should you get that far: do you understand the fallacy of argument from personal authority? My bet is no.)
And for the regulars, just to reiterate...
...it's always projection.
Boris
I mock you because you pitched up in comments here claiming vastly superior expertise to the rest of us, then proceeded to make a series of silly claims while ignoring correction - see Lotharsson, above. No point in repeating what has already been said with great clarity and concision.
It is very obvious that you do not understand the basics of physical climatology and that you are a posturing blowhard. There is no reason for me to tolerate your nonsense and your self-aggrandisement. None.
And to top it off, you whine and play the victim, which is vile and guarantees an extra-hard kicking.
Now remember my initial advice to you? Take it.
It is almost as if Boris is channeling Monckton, and now playing the victim card. Sad to see a person reduced to such but then it is of their own making.
"... and fails completely to proof that CO2 leads to rising sea levels."
Proof? Proof's for alcoholic beverages and math.
Also: "Real scientists are open-minded, curious, open to new ideas, always willing to falsify their hypotheses"
Open to new ideas, yes, open to the same long-debunked ideas, no. Interestingly, in the first quote (in its complete form), you showed to be close-minded by making absolute claims without even the shimmer of a supporting argumentation.
So, if you indeed work as a scientist, you are not a real one (by your description of what a real scientist is, and your own behaviour that is directly opposite).
English is obviously not this Boris's first language. Scandinavian Troll Collective?
Oh, and there are several contributors to Deltoid that I can think of who are scientists, and a number more who have PhDs in disciplines relevant to climate change. Given this Boris's inability to understand the strength of the consensus position on human-caused global warming, I seriously doubt that he "works as a scientist", unless it's in the latest production by the local amateur theatre company.
Crumbs, there was quite a rapid-fire spate of similar responses to Boris's tone trolling.
Great minds...
;-)
As to the "...always willing to falsify their hypotheses" line, Boris should consider some of the wagers I've put up in willingness to test my own acceptance of the consensus physical paradigm pertaining to human-caused global warming. There's a bit of a spat occurring just now at Brere Eli's burrow on just such a subject, and coincidentally that has been painted with tone trolling as well - these Denialati are nothing if not consistent in their response to scrutiny of their claims.
You do realise, though I guess not, that you and all your unscientific mates are constantly saying stuff that all the rest of us wish dearly was true. I would be delighted, thrilled to bits, if it turned out that the radiative physics of gases was shown to be wrong - so that the greenhouse effect operated in some other way than how we now understand it.
We really, really would like that to be true. So why don't we fall over in our rush to agree with you? Because we're grown ups who've learned that reality is what it is, we can't wish it otherwise. You should learn to do the same.
Speaking of realities. No more arguments about North Pole webcams. #1 has fallen over.
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/northpole/NPEO2013/webcams1and2.html
Who do you guys think is the bestest, real-sciency one of them all? Long-time champion J0nas or plucky "yes, I will have some cheese with my whine" upstart Boris?
Still assuming Boris isn't someone's puppet, of course.
Of course, all of this can be illuminated greatly if Boris answers one simple question.
Boris, what is your educational background?
I've been getting the distinct impression that Boris is of the same school as Jonas when it comes to blog commenting, although not yet as obviously pathological, but that doesn't mean there was any connection. Is Jonas still hammering away on his thread?
Argh! I have one of these wonderful MS keyboards where the characters are wearing off. Those into code cracking will know which keys are most worn.
He is a scientist and what he says goes, don’t you know!
@Lotharsson: he seems whinier than Jonas, and doesn't use as many smileys as the rest of the Scandinavian troll collective. We'll see.
Sheesh. Now I cannot comment over at Thinkprogress. My Facebook account is inaccessible, password not being recognized and no email with a 6 digit reset code ever arrives. I don't have accounts on the others. So as Joe says ' The world moves on'. Too bad!
Dead on the Jonas thread these last few days.
Agreed - despite some tonal similarities, I don't think J0nas = Boris. Stu is right: by and large, J0nas doesn't whine. He also makes an art of saying *nothing* substantive so as to avoid getting ripped apart. Boris has not yet learned how to sneer and posture without risking an actual argument and consequent disembowelment.
Boris "The Climate Expert" on climate scientists and climate science:
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
= = =
* * *
= = =
Yeah, right, Boris.
* * *
And then there's this, which I am going to cut out and keep: previous page #22:
Words fail me.
Oh crap, BBD, I missed that last one. No wonder the other trolls went silent. Now let me go get a towel for my screen while I explain to everyone around me what all the guffawing was about.
"Final true knowledge". Who is betting against me that this clown didn't make it out of high school?
Hey Boris!
adelady's no. 2
I know, Boris, you're trying to have an intelligent discussion with the Deltoids, and all ( a lot harder than you thought it'd be, I imagine). And, I also realize you're a bona fide scientist and a grown man with a healthy sense of reality and everything and so adelady's improbable taunts to the contrary might make you think a corrective reply from yourself is worth your while.
But let me give you fair warning, Boris, you don't want to tangle with adelady--I mean, like, if you make her mad she'll call you a "SEXIST SCHWEINHOONT!"! and everything in front of THE WHOLE WORLD!, even. Bad juju, that, Boris!
And as a further warning, Boris, if you cross swords (figuratively, of course) with adelady, you'll be dealing, not with just one adelady, but with a whole pack-attack of adeladies:
-There's the adelady (not the one who comments here, of course), for example, who employs botany and chemistry in her scientific-to-a-fault efforts to all "grown-up" like deal with the reality "thingie" and all (Google: I'm an Adelady in Melburn Bluelight). I mean, like, potheads in Adelaide--who knew!!
-And then, for example, there's the adelady (not the one who comments here, of course) who is a "moderator", no less, at a quaint, local-yokel blog that goes by the absurdly pretentious moniker, "The Science Forum". And that adelady boldly pursues her adult, iron grasp of reality through a relentless, know-it-all, vapid, tedious, fakin'-it-big-time (hardly the first lefty to pull that trick), lecturing, trite-booger commentary that'll wear you down in a New York minute.
-And, finally, there's the most mysterious of all the adeladies (again, not the one who comments here, of course)--the insufferable, little, chatter-box adelady who stalks the greenshirt, blogospheric landscape firing off bumptious-nag, inane, breezy pontifications at the cyclic rate that, frankly, give the mature, adult-sense-of-reality business a really, really bad name. And most curious about this last adelady is the obsequious, deferential, super nicey-nicey, supportive way in which hive-bozo blog-masters and fellow, hive-retard commenters grovel before her every wound-up platitude. I've attempted to figure that last phenomenon out, Boris, but have yet had no luck.
If you want to try you hand at solving the puzzle, I'll save you some time and trouble--here are the "hypotheses" I've already considered and rejected as utterly impossible explanations of adelady's astonishing female-appeal to otherwise strictly mummy-centric, privileged-whiteboy, creep-out hive-dorks.
-adelady is some sort of super-cool hive-groupie who has somehow managed to acquire mummy's approval
-adelady is the snot-nosed spoiled-brat offspring of some hive-heavy who can make or break the career of eco-hack and enviro-leech wannabees jostling for the tenure-trough, big prize or, alternatively, controls the sluice-gate for the reasearch-grant big-bucks.
-adelady is a rather tiresome, wealthy eccentric who, nevertheless, can be a seedy, down-at-the-heels NGO's best benefactor with a just a little butt-kissing solicitude.
-adelady is a compulsive joiner, and is the token "gurrl" (that's how adelady spells things), on the FOIA-proof roster of innumerable greenwashed-cabals, and adelady's invaluable, team-member presence allows those various, clown-act, hive-hack troupes to answer "NO!" to the research-grant, application question: "Is the team you intend to employ in your boondoggle, CAGW-hustle, make-work, "research" (wink! wink!) proposal a "boys-only treehouse?"
Just thought you'd like to know what you're up against, Boris.
'El Fuckwit skips over the *fact* that his own sources are liars as if it was of no consequence'
Its not that they are liars, they maybe technically correct, but I think the hiatus started around 2000 AD.
Of course you lot are lying when you say there has been no pause .... even Hansen says temps have stalled.
Its of no consequence.
'Why are all the AGW supporters so agressive, angry, hostile towards climate realists?'
If you see it through their eyes it becomes clearer .... its essentially a religion which naturally requires faith.
As the hiatus continues the AGW zealots are in big shit and fight to remain relevant.
'I would prefer that my position were wrong'
That's crap, your whole life is dependent on the world slipping into armageddon, which means you don't have to take your day job too seriously.
And of course your friends and family accept that you are knowledgable on the subject of CC, so you have a lot riding on the imminent destruction of the planet.
You really should get a life.
'We really, really would like that to be true. So why don’t we fall over in our rush to agree with you?'
Its important to differentiate between what CO2 does in a laboratory and in the real world.
Now at this point in time it appears that massive amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere is not having the expected effect on temperatures.
This is good news for the whole world, although obviously not everyone will see this as positive.
'#1 has fallen over.'
Yeah, by polar bears. ;-)
The troposphere ≠ the climate system
"We" aren't lying. We point to OHC. We look at the data rather than deny it. We do not engage in argument by false equivalence, as your lot do:
The troposphere = the climate system
That is a serious misrepresentation. Eg:
You are a demagogue, not a sceptic.
El Loco carries on with reality-inverting projection:
But El Loco has explicitly commited to an act of faith:
#55 page 5
This little monster is a faithful liar.
See "Paleoclimate behaviour".
So what? See above.
Here are the data from 2000.
See what the Cheeky Monckey did?
:-)
'You are a demagogue, not a sceptic.'
Denialati and proud, we believe in global cooling.
mikey, no-one cares what you think. Go plant a tree or something, and spare us all the energy wasted scrolling past your windy missives.
As to Boris could we please get an explanation for the 'works as a scientist' bit - last time I encountered something similar it turned out the guy making the hazy claims was a chem lab-assistant, but I suspect that's going to make him Gavin Schmidt compared to you. Feel free to prove me wrong.
And, where did you get the inspiration for the 'clouds not being regional' bit? That really is very good material - you should develop that one; whereas the tone-trolling and delusions of grandeur have been done-to-death by your side already.
(Oh, and 'rotten ideological ideas' and 'prone to data mixture' also possess a certain charm - certainly keep them in the act!)
Also, I suspect the unorthodox English construction isn't characteristically Scandinavian in your case. Am I right?
Wowser! Bloato, li'l mikey, SpamKan, Mr. The Spider: found you all!
(Yeah, mikey, it really does chafe, doesn't it?)
Windy Missive
'A new paper published in Climate of the Past finds climate models are unable to reproduce the climate change of the past 6,000 years found by temperature proxies.
'According to the authors, "Independently of the choice of the climate model, we observe significant mismatches between modelled and estimated SST [Sea Surface Temperature] amplitudes in the trends for the last 6,000 years," and climate model "SST trends underestimate the [proxy] SST trends by a factor of two to five. For [a different proxy], no significant relationship between model simulations and proxy reconstructions can be detected."
'The paper adds to many other peer-reviewed papers finding climate models are unable to reproduce the known climate of the past, much less the future.'
Hockey Schtick (Post Normal Science)
An act of faith.
Bad faith.
More auto-parody, Bloato? Given the quote BBD just highlighted, I really do wonder if you're not a Poe after all...
'Bad faith.'
I might be wrong, temperatures could remain flat for a couple of decades and sprout again. With the signal once again overwhelming the noise.
Goodness knows who and what the hockeyschtick blogger is misrepresenting now. Do link to the actual paper _not_ the HSchk misrepresentation).
El Loco has faith.
He'll be okay.
Hmmm...so the effects of global warming could be 2 to 5 times more extreme that the effects currently modelled?
That certainly fits with the models' huge underestimation of the rapidity of Arctic ice loss.
Speaking of Arctic Sea Ice, I see the recovery continues apace.
Bloato's right about one thing: 'global cooling' sure requires 'belief'!
It must be time to begin splitting hairs.
'Sea ice volume is an important climate indicator. It depends on both ice thickness and extent and therefore more directly tied to climate forcing than extent alone. '
Polar Ice Center
A genuine idiot, or just plays one on the internet? You decide.
Bill in the bush, do you have anything useful to say?
'Hmmm…so the effects of global warming could be 2 to 5 times more extreme that the effects currently modelled?'
Never know your luck sunshine, but at the moment the model projections are flawed.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/
Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'
Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice.
Their latest modelling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stm
lol
"Using supercomputers to crunch through possible future outcomes has become a standard part of climate science in recent years."
lol
"My claim is that the global climate models underestimate the amount of heat delivered to the sea ice by oceanic advection," Professor Maslowski said.
"The reason is that their low spatial resolution actually limits them from seeing important detailed factors.
"We use a high-resolution regional model for the Arctic Ocean and sea ice forced with realistic atmospheric data. This way, we get much more realistic forcing, from above by the atmosphere and from the bottom by the ocean."
lol
“Artic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000.” Christian Science Monitor, June 8, 1972.
lol
"When Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite weather data fro the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadia Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round.”
lol
Do you?
Here's my useful contribution: you seriously cannot comprehend that volume is indeed the key indicator? Can you understand why there'd be baffled expressions all round if, say, the BoM was to announce 'we had rainfall over a million square kilometres yesterday' as though that was all that needed to be known on the matter?
Volume / thickness / multi-year ice? These are all key components of the discussion. How have you managed to miss them? This is a rhetorical question - we all know the answer already, yourself included.
But, don't be lazy - find us the actual paper, and then perhaps tell us how representative your blogger friend's representation is.
Ah, but you're just a humble 'interpreter of interpretations', right?
“Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide two degrees by 2010.” Associated Press, May 15, 1989.
lol
Or perhaps you're going to just lol around with SpamKan here?
Thickness indeed. This is really your level? If you say so...
Sigh. It's always projection.
Sigh. It's always projection.
Sigh. Boris will be along any second to call you out for claiming things that you cannot know. Right, Boris?
Sigh. It's always projection.
Sigh. [Readers know the drill by now...]
New question mark over global warming: Scientists discover glaciers in Asian mountain range are actually getting BIGGER
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2130184/Forget-global-wa…
lol
Sounds like a wish-fulfilment fantasy statement to me.
So what you're saying is that "it's not relevant" that the planet continues to accumulate heat energy pretty much as predicted by climate science, because surface temperature rises aren't currently as fast as you reckon they should be under climate science, despite climate science pointing out that they're about as fast as predicted when you bother to take into account a few natural factors that are currently working against surface temperatures rises - factors that can't do so indefinitely, and some of them will at some point work to increase surface temperature rises? You're saying it's not relevant, even though that is a simple statement of the dynamic underlying the case for concern about AGW?
And you're saying this despite having it repeatedly pointed out to you?
(Sigh. It's always projection.)
Sigh.
See what Boris said earlier - the effects of AGW are not expected to be uniform across the globe.
And thus a hint: discovering non-uniform effects is expected and does not put a "question mark over global warming".
Furthermore, you've had this pointed out to you numerous times in that past. That makes you stupid, a Dunning-Kruger Effect exemplar, a Poe or just plain dishonest.
Your call...
Of course, what the researcher also said failed to register with Karen, who doesn't understand (or doesn't want to comprehend) distributions of outcomes in projections:
Karen just treats the extreme end of a distribution as the entire prediction (when it suits her), ignore the inconvenient rest of the distribution.
She also doesn't seem to understand that his projections are much closer to what has been observed than most of the others in existence when that article was written, so unwittingly she has made a fool of herself by trying to ridicule one of the better historical projections...
...and none of that does anything to mitigate the problem indicated by the rapid heat accumulation that is melting the ice and causing even more planetary warming via positive feedback, a problem many of her fellow travellers tend to deny is even occurring.
But then Karen doesn't seem to understand anything she cuts and pastes...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wM_C_-2MGWU
lol
and then
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZvQUJljo7M
hehe
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2H-C2SmIe4
lol
http://images.theage.com.au/2012/02/17/3051909/1802jh_729_spooner-420x0…
lol
'...a few natural factors that are currently working against surface temperatures rises – factors that can’t do so indefinitely, and some of them will at some point work to increase surface temperature rises?'
This is debatable.
'And thus a hint: discovering non-uniform effects is expected and does not put a “question mark over global warming”.
Or global cooling.
'Volume / thickness / multi-year ice? These are all key components of the discussion.'
I agree and that's why I said its time to split hairs.
Not if you care much about evidence. For example, very few people deny that ENSO has a phase that drives warmer temperatures. Are you one of them?
That's correct. Global cooling is ruled out on other grounds.
No.
Was that a trick question?
R.I.P. Tim Curtin
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=2326
Science advances.
Wetter north only temporary: Flannery
June 14, 2007 - 7:34PM
Australia should forget about moving people and agriculture to the country's north because the increased rainfall there won't last, scientist Tim Flannery says.
The Australian of the Year says people instead should learn to live in a permanently drier climate.
"Computer models indicate that the increased rainfall is most likely caused by the Asian haze, which has pushed the monsoon south," Professor Flannery wrote in the latest issue of New Scientist magazine.
"This means that as Asia cleans up its air, Australia is likely to lose its northern rainfall.
"Australians need to leave behind their dreams of opening a new frontier and focus on making the best of the water remaining to them where they live today."
The federal government's $10 billion national water plan includes
http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Wetter-north-only-temporary-Flanner…
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/giss_conus_1999-vs-2011.png
No. You should ponder why not.
You won't, if the past is any guide...
'Split hairs' isn't sneering contempt, eh? Sure it ain't.
Keep your statements vague enough so that you can claim you meant the opposite later if you get called on it. Quite the strategy.
Did someone mention Arctic sea ice volume?
I rather like this graphic showing September ice volumes for each year since 1979 (with each decade shown in a different colour for emphasis).
http://iwantsomeproof.com/extimg/siv_september_average_polar_graph.png
I'd like to thank Karen and Anthony Watts for pointing out that science advances.
#66 adelady
If you looked at the data directly from Piomas you see that Arctic ice volume has increased.
It is now greater than 2012, 2011 and is close to equal with 2010
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ic…
A recovery! A recovery I tell you! The Ice Age is nigh!
Ever heard of 'regression to the mean', SpamKan? Of course you haven't. But the mean in this instance is trending steeply....down! Down down. Like those nice Coles ads you like to sing along to on the telly...
It is right there on the chart Bill, the Arctic has gained ice volume :)
The death spiral charts are misleading for flaccid old fools/cultists
'Science advances.'
Scumbag!
‘Split hairs’ isn’t sneering contempt, eh? Sure it ain’t.'
Thickness and extent are both important, along with the currents, hurricanes and ocean temperatures.
We are discussing positive and negative feedbacks.
Odd. I'm sure Boris will be along any second now to castigate el gordo for his aggressive, angry and hostile interaction, right after he finishes castigating him for using TLT to represent surface temperatures.
Right, Boris? Right?
We know. We already knew that. None of this indicates that the strong downward trend has changed in any way.
El gordo will be along any second to castigate your faith-based position.
Right, el gordo? Right?
So, back when you were working for Murdoch in a paid capacity, Gordy, it was routine to refer to paying attention to the key elements of a scientific question as 'splitting hairs'? Sounds about right...
So you're thinking or hoping or wishing, maybe even predicting, that September this year will finish up above 4, even 5, thousand cubic kms? No need to put a number on it. The September average figure will be published in only a few weeks
time. So we'll just check back with you when it's confirmed.
Here it is again, just for fun.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/arctic.sea.ice.interactive.html
Adelady #75 - Spamkan thinks 2 data points make a trend. Why would we expect any better from someone who has proven their innumeracy repeatedly?
Other Karen lowlights just on this page:"
Arctic summers ice-free ‘by 2013" - Bad reporting, that's all. Maslowski's paper projected 2016 +/- 3 years. Karen gets to LOL in 2019, and not before. Why do deniers always bitch about uncertainty when they are completely unable to incorporate it into their own thinking?
"Scientists discover glaciers in Asian mountain range are actually getting BIGGER" - from that reputable scientific source the Daily Fail. But even they couldn't hide the global decline: "The researchers are unsure why the region bucks the global trend".
Just because Karen doesn't read her own links, doesnt mean others don't. The fact is that Karen's LOL's are directed solely at her own gullibility and foolishness. If there was any art to her burblings, I would be faintly reminded of Zeuxis, who was so taken with his painting of an old hag as Aphrodite that he burst a blood vessel LOLíng at it.
Low solar activity is the most likely reason Arctic sea ice extent is growing.
AGW theory postulates that we can expect the greatest warming in the polar regions, I see no real evidence of this.
So its reasonable to suggest that we should see the recovery of sea ice in the Arctic over the coming decade.
Let the thickening begin.
'the key elements of a scientific question as ‘splitting hairs’?'
Its what we do here because of our interest in the subject, a bunch of larrikins out for a biff.
My particular interest is to simplify the argument so that the masses can be efficiently debriefed. Deltoid makes an ideal sounding board.
'castigate el gordo for his aggressive, angry and hostile interaction'
Its customary not to speak ill of the dead until a suitable time has elapsed. Unless its witty, which it wasn't.
Craig is a dickwit.
"In the midst of July, Brazil gets snow and temperatures below zero Centigrade. The unusual cold has already killed three people. A cold front from Antarctica also affected Uruguay, Chile, Argentina and Paraguay."
Gwowbull worming no doubt :)
"Craig is a dickwit."
I'll second that
El Loco
You don't even understand the basics so this is just self-aggrandising twaddle. Everything you say here gets shredded, so the second sentence is also self-aggrandising twaddle.
You have previously demonstrated that you do not understand the difference between the two. Just a random example of your self-aggrandising twaddle.
A ridiculous little monster as well as a faithful liar.
#81
Regional weather, you silly clown. Sorted out the difference between the GIS and the Eemian yet, cretin?
That's because your head is up your arse.
Look at the data instead of lying on the internet.
Your dishonesty is sickening.
Since you are flat-out wrong about polar amplification, this is arrant bollocks.
What a world-class tool you are.
You are insane.
Hey, SpamKan anything interesting happen in, say, Austria or Italy recently?
So take Bernard's bet.
(He won't. They never do.)
'So take Bernard’s bet.'
What's he betting on?
----------------------------
Big rains coming to Oz... negative IOD and neutral ENSO.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/ahead/rain_ahead.shtml
Hey, SpamKan, this is just weather, right?
Strewth, good thing the Antarctic Sea Ice directly offsets all this!
And good to see you relying on Pravda, Comrade. Did you bother to read the article? Of course you didn't -
Wow! Since 2000! That's, like, only 137 years less than 150!
And -
Many, eh? Sounds impressive!
Could you be more stupid? I'm sure we'll find out...
Oh stop posing, Gordy. You've proved yourself a know-nothing denier here. Nobody takes your spamming seriously and nobody believes you have the first idea what you are spamming about.
Now - what about your lies about polar amplification? Are you going to do the usual and refuse to admit your massive error and consequent implosion of your "argument"?
Oh, JFGI, Bloato! Loth was trying to get you to take it up only a couple of weeks ago. But seems you just can't take information in where it doesn't suit you... Where have I heard that before?
So; Paging Bernard!
We need you for the 'Yeah, I know just exactly what's going to happen at the Pole, cooling all the way, don't you worry about that... ah, a bet you say, yeah, bring it on! I'm 1000% sure of my shit. Real money, you say? Golly, well, I'd love to take you on, but it turns out I forgot to feed the cat... must be going...' ritual.
Bwaawk bwaawk bwaawk!
Its your faith in positive feedback that I dispute.
'Arctic amplification in models (and most likely in nature too) is a robust result of forced climate change, provided the forcing is sufficiently large to overcome internal climate variability.
'Antarctic amplification only occurs if a model is run long enough so ocean heat uptake in the Southern Ocean does not damp the positive feedbacks and if trends in stratospheric ozone do not cause compensatory cooling.'
RealClimate
'bet that in the next few years there will be a new arctic sea ice minimum'
I bet he is wrong, with low solar activity the most likely cause of regrowth.
From the Weather Historian Wunderground:
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/weatherhistorian/comment.html?entrynum…
Oh FFS Gordy, you haven't got a clue. The data I showed you demonstrate NH polar amplification. The RC quote illustrates that models match observations.
Both underline that your original statement is utterly wrong:
So admit your error and accept that your "conclusion" is obviously also *wrong*:
What the fuck is the matter with your brain?
It's not faith, you muppet. It's science. See "paleoclimate behaviour; glacial terminations".
This is faith:
You are projecting like a poisoned dog. As ever.
So there is a hiatus in warming is there, so why do we have all these 16 Of Your Favorite Things That Climate Change Is Totally Screwing Up?
As for arctic sea ice recovery - you must be joking given the data that WE ALREADY have! Put some money on that bet el gordo-ignoraniti.
I seem to recall Bernard J offering quite good terms for a bet on Arctic ice in the past, quite good for denialists that is, such that any "economically rational actor" who actually was convicted of what el gordo claims to be convicted of would take those terms.
The strongest current hypothesis is that for (almost?) all of them, their "convictions"...
...aren't.
Climate change is not catastrophic well actually it could be as contributor and blogger Sou establishes with a post which further undermines the credibility of WUWT , if that latter is still possible.
Note that notrickzone, hockeyschtick, nova, bishop shill are on par with WUWT. As for climate despot well that is run by another blowhard like Limbaugh and his ilk on Faux News .
I have a vague recollection that one of our troupe of befuddled contrarians pushing a recent mathturbation paper. Was it by Akasofu of the infamous curve fitting paper or someone else?
Either way, it seems like publishing shit has consequences. And also tends to generate published responses...which should prove entertaining.
(And they reckon peer review is dead! Pshaw! ;-) )
That it does. As Australian contrarian M.A. Asten discovered when he got a crap paper rejected by Climate of the Past - the kicking he got in Discussion was a delight to behold. Some serious names in there, too.
Needless to WTFUWT was trumpeting this tripe, along with Motl, IIRC - before it got rejected.
But amazingly, nobody mentioned the fact that the paper got shitcanned rejected in an update to their blog chum. Such are the climate liars.
It's a pity that credulous dupes like Karen and Gordy et al. don't realise that they are being taken for a ride by liars.
"Needless to say WTFUWT was trumpeting this tripe..."
Yep...makes sense.
'a superposed multi-decadal oscillation of a 0.2 °C amplitude and a 50~60 year period, which reached its positive peak in about the year 2000—a halting similar to those that occurred around 1880 and 1940.'
Akasofu et al
Oh for crying out loud, you utter moron.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/lessons-from-past-climate-predictions-a…
Who?
Me? Or Max Planck?
Curtin was a fuckwit and a bully with a ridiculous over-confidence in his meagre understanding. Max Planck's idea applies to Curtin in spades.
BBD the beauty of Deltoid at the moment is the balanced mix of contrarians and warmists, each side committed to their particular viewpoint and unlikely to change.
The fact that global warming stopped over a decade ago doesn't invalidate AGW theory completely, but if another decade passes without any warming (failing to find the missing heat) then you may need to consider your future.
If the hiatus stays in place for another decade then I will accept the Sceptics viewpoint, that this pause is a natural 60 year oscillation which dominates our climate system. Its commonplace throughout paleo history.
'Considering that Akasofu's paper almost entirely neglects physics and fails to address the causes of the observed warming trends, one might expect very little accuracy in his predictions of future temperature changes.'
From the SS gospel.
As I said, if temperatures remain flat we'll have to consider our future.
Gordo, Akasofu's paper is a goddamned joke. It proposes no mechanism, it proposes a cycle on the basis of two iterations (that vary in length and intensity), barely has predictive value and where it does has been proven WRONG already. Gordo, it's WRONG. You quoted something that has been proven WRONG. You're pathetic.
I have faith in the 60 year cycle, its apparent in paleo history and is still with us today.
AGW is a fraud.
Gordy
It's not a "gospel". It's physics.
These oscillations cannot drive centennial trends. They are internal variability not a forcing. Internal variability cancels out over time.
Akasofu screws up by introducing a non-physical claim of "recovery" from the LIA to "explain" the C20th trend. Recovery forced by what? Where does the energy come from? Climate isn't a bouncing ball. It needs too be pushed because this is all about energy, which any fule kno doesn't just come and go as if by magic.
'Faith'is what we're talking here.
Anybody seen Bernard J about? I'd hate to miss the opportunity to watch Captain Blowhard wilt in the face of having to back-up his own BS claims.
And SpamKan not around to tell us it was quite cold in Oslo last Wednesday?
Quite the peer. You're really not much smarter, Gordy.
But incessant, repetitive argument from false equivalence scuppers you completely. Logical fallacy = no argument.
You aren't saying anything.
Remember, logical fallacy = no argument.
The beauty of Deltoid at the moment is that contrarians are revealed as demagogues trumpeting faith-based rejection of physics.
Every time you refuse to admit that you made a very stupid mistake, you bring clarity to the debate.
Polar amplification.
a balanced mix of creationists and evolutionists / fascists and humanists / moon-landing conspiracists and NASA technicians / anti-vaxxers and biomedical researchers / 911 truthers and construction engineers / Obamacare 'death-panel' hysterics and people who can read / GBNT carbon tax hysterics and people who can count, each side committed to their viewpoint and unlikely to change
Golly, there's '2 sides' to each argument; where could the truth possibly lie?
Yep, Gordy, it all 'balances' out.
Bill, you didn't mention UFO sightings.
Harmless. I should have added Homeopaths.
Seriously?
Thank you for admitting it is not based in fact.
It is not, idiot. It doesn't even work before fricking 1880. It fits two cycles, badly. That 60 year "cycle" is the result of a clown playing with Excel too much. Evidence and reality do not support it. At all. That paper you like so much is (again, you dimwit) WRONG, no matter how much faith you have in it.
Of course it is. Keep the faith, sweetheart.
I'm a big fan of Scafetta.
http://blogs-images.forbes.com/larrybell/files/2012/01/fig3.jpg
'Harmless.'
Hmmmm
Yes, the last refuge of the clown. When one pet theory is refuted for being the absolute garbage it is, trot out another one.
Gordo. You are pathetic, and you're not fooling anyone. would you care to address the refutation of your previous champion Akasufo rather than trotting out something which I am sure is equally inane?
Oh wait, it took me a minute. Scafetta? Seriously, f*cking Scafetta?
This Scafetta?
"Scafetta was a speaker at the Heartland Institute's Sixth International Conference on Climate Change."
"When the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency called for alternative views on climate change, three skeptics presented: Richard Lindzen, Jean Lind and Nicola Scafetta."
"Scafetta suggests that "a significant portion of climate change is natural and linked to changes of solar activity."and also discusses "the possibility of an imminent global cooling."
Anyway, let's just PRETEND for a moment that Scafetta is not a fully bougt-and-paid-for Heartland/Scaife/etc stooge. Let's just look at those pretty graphs he makes.
Just have a little look-see at the first graph here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=1293
This is Scafetta. He's another goddamned joke, Gordo.
'This Scafetta?'
Yep.
“Scafetta suggests that “a significant portion of climate change is natural and linked to changes of solar activity.”and also discusses “the possibility of an imminent global cooling.”
Yes. And he is WRONG. Ten seconds perusing that link I posted should tell you that, Gordo. Why do you keep quoting people who are objectively, provably WRONG?
You are entitled to your opinion
Variability over decades ....
http://depts.washington.edu/amath/research/articles/Tung/journals/Tung_…
Michael Mann sees 70 year cycles.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs003820000075
#7 Vince Whirlwind
"Curtin was a fuckwit and a bully with a ridiculous over-confidence in his meagre understanding. Max Planck’s idea applies to Curtin in spades."
A picture of Vince.....
No doubt your religion is the true religion Vince, and your football team is also the most talented and has the nicest jumpers, undeniably your political party is also the ultimate choice at the polls and of coarse all of your neighbors are all stupid, their house's are painted the wrong colours, they have dumb cars and the wrong plants in their gardens, and their kids are ugly !
You Vince, in your own mind are the perfect human specimen, yes you Vince, you are the god of beauty, knowledge and know how !
WAKE UP VINCE>>>>>>>>>> YOU ARE A FUCKING MORON AND A PIECE OF SHIT
That one feeble old man took you SLIMY MONGRELS on, and from my perspective he SMASHED your ego's and exposed your cultist psychopathy for what it is, BULLSHIT !
You all demonstrated what a bunch of know all know nothing BULLYING LYING CRETIN'S you all can be, supported in numbers like a pack of rabid dog's.
You people reek with the smell of fear of being wrong !!!
R.I.P Tim
Hi Karen
...and Stu, way back in 1995 Mann wrote a paper in Nature where he said...
'THE recognition of natural modes of climate variability is essential for a better understanding of the factors that govern climate change. Recent models suggest that interdecadal (roughly 15-35-year period) and century-scale (roughly 50-150-year period) climate variability may be intrinsic to the natural climate system.'
Hi El :)
Paper finds lifetime of CO2 in atmosphere is only 5.4 years
A paper presented at the SEVENTEENTH SYMPOSIUM ON THERMOPHYSICAL PROPERTIES finds that the lifetime and residence time of man-made CO2 in the atmosphere are only about 5.4 years, far less than assumed by the IPCC. The paper corroborates prior work by Salby, Humlum et al, Frölicher et al, Cho et al, Calder et al, Francey etl, Ahlbeck, Pettersson, Segalstad, and others which has demonstrated that man-made CO2 is not the primary driver of atmospheric CO2.
Fossil Fuel Emissions and Fossil CO2 in the Atmosphere
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2013/08/paper-finds-lifetime-of-co…
And this for the numpties that can't follow links http://thermosymposium.nist.gov/archive/symp17/pdf/Abstract_289.pdf
You've got that right - but for two entirely different reasons.
Your "side" simply ignores the weight of evidence, so they are unlikely to change. See, for example:
...which is a lie, given that you have been corrected on this point any number of times by being pointed at evidence of large ongoing heat energy accumulation in the "globe" to which the "global" in "global warming" refers.
And given a great deal of historical evidence, it is difficult to believe that your "side" is going to stop lying any time soon.
Our "side" generally follows the evidence, and given how heavily the weight of evidence has built up for the core findings of climate science, more evidence is unlikely to change where the weight of evidence lies on those core issues.
On less core issues the weight of evidence isn't so clear, and if you look back over history you'll see that when the weight of evidence shifts, the weight of consensus follows (not always immediately and not uniformly, but it follows in the end).
As I was sayin' , they have discovered cycles going back 10,000 years.
http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~stocker/papers/stocker92cc.pdf
So el gordo skips from Akasofu - which el gordo is unable to defend, except through blustering unsubstantiated assertion - to Scafetta - which el gordo is likewise unable to defend - to Tung and Zhou 2013 - which I doubt he will be able to defend either.
It's a veritable Gish Gallop, which is usually a hint that the speaker doesn't know what they're talking about...
...and speaking of el gordo not knowing what he's talking about,
it broke another irony meter when he touted a paper that removes some of the effects of known sources of internal variability a la Foster and Rahmstorf 2011!
I've pointed him to Foster & Rahmstorf several times now because it clearly shows that the anthropogenic forcing is still forcing the surface temperatures (i.e. ignoring ocean heat content) without any evidence of a slowdown in the resultant warming rate. He has completely ignored this inconvenient analysis and has not changed his position that "global warming has stalled" which doesn't yet "invalidate AGW theory completely" but will (in his mind) if it continues. That position is untenable in the face of Foster & Rahmstorf's analysis.
Now he cites a paper that allegedly does the same kind of analysis as Foster and Rahmstorf, and also finds that anthropogenic surface warming continues unabated, which refutes his claim that "AGW theory" might be "invalidated" after a few more years of surface temperature records. It's really not a good look to post a link to a paper that rebuts your own argument.
(And icing on the cake is that Tung and Zhou made a fundamental error (see link above) in their analysis - and make assumptions which are not supported by evidence - which invalidates most of their conclusions. And I'm not even going to go in to their inappropriate use of the CET to address questions about global warming. It's not a good look to cite a broken paper when others have already pointed out it's broken.)
This Epic Multiple Fail is yet another illustration that he is trying to fit the evidence to his views and not the other way around.
Your comprehension is suspect. No-one is disputing the existence of certain pseudo-cyclic phenomena.
We - and the evidence - are disputing claims that:
a) The known cycles explain all or even a significant part of the warming trend over the last few decades.
b) That AGW theory will be invalidated if the surface fails to warm as much as el gordo thinks AGW theory predicts over the next few years by pretending AGW theory's treatment of "intrinsic modes of natural variability" doesn't exist.
c) That non-trivial surface cooling is to be expected based on current climate science understanding over the next few years or decades
If you can't even understand these distinctions, then you are in over your head.
Yes, it's a well known finding that the expected residency time of any given CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is only a few years. It's been known for many years. You and your inept sources really should try to keep up!
It's also well-known that this conclusion does not follow, and it has been well-known for many years. Heck, one can demonstrate this in terms even your simplistic brain can understand. Humans emit a certain quantity of CO2 from fossil fuel sources every year. We've got a pretty decent handle on how much. The atmosphere gains a certain quantity of extra CO2 every year which we can measure pretty well.
When we add up how much fossil fuel CO2 we put into the atmosphere, we find that it is more than the extra CO2 we find in the atmosphere.
It takes really deep stupidity to argue that (a) the CO2 we put there actually didn't go there, but (b) something else coincidentally put a whole bunch of CO2 there at the very moment that our CO2 was magically diverted to places unknown. It would be as if I had a 2 litre bottle that suffers from a slow leak containing 500mL of water. I then poured 1000mL of water into it and observed that it contained 1400mL of water. So I conclude "The extra 900mL isn't due to me pouring 1000mL of water into it, it came from somewhere else".
Your sources are lying to you, or they are incapable of primary school level logic. And available evidence indicates that you like it that way. This behaviour over an extended period looks pathological. My advice is to seek professional help.
You, of course, will reject this entire comment - although I hope I am proven wrong on that.
'It’s a veritable Gish Gallop'
That's how I work best. If you ever get the urge to say a few chosen words at Trash I would greatly appreciate it. At the moment the blogmasta has me in the back room talking to myself.
Robust abuse is tolerated.
http://thedailytrash.wordpress.com/co2-and-you-ii/
Incorrect.
As I explained above I want to be wrong about the seriousness of anthropogenically driven climate change. Show me I'm wrong and I'll not only publicly applaud you but nominate you for at least one Nobel Prize.
So are you projecting, or simply rationalising a rejection of inconvenient data?
Apart from the observation that your scientific competence verges on the negative which renders your judgement on scientific discussion worthless, my ego's done just fine despite past interactions with TC. For it to have been "SMASHED", "SMASHED, I TELL YOU" it would had to have been invested in a particular understanding, but it's not.
If Curtin had been able to demonstrate that the weight of evidence favoured his claims over any others, I would have changed my position in response. (I suspect that will be very difficult for you to imagine because you don't seem to operate that way.) Instead, his claims varied from the merely dodgy to the deeply ludicrous, which whilst amusing from time to time was also very sad.
Deltoid CO2 addicts (BBD, Lotharson, Bill, Lionell A, etc.)!
Look at the phrasing in Wikipedia about Climate Sensitivity:
quote
Consensus estimates[edit source | editbeta]
A committee on anthropogenic global warming convened in 1979 by the National Academy of Sciences and chaired by Jule Charney[9] estimated climate sensitivity to be 3 °C, plus or minus 1.5 °C. Only two sets of models were available; one, due to Syukuro Manabe, exhibited a climate sensitivity of 2 °C, the other, due to James E. Hansen, exhibited a climate sensitivity of 4 °C. "According to Manabe, Charney chose 0.5 °C as a not-unreasonable margin of error, subtracted it from Manabe’s number, and added it to Hansen’s. Thus was born the 1.5 °C-to-4.5 °C range of likely climate sensitivity that has appeared in every greenhouse assessment since..."[13]
end quote
Questions to the Dumbtoids:
A:
Are you able to understand how ridiculous such a definition of climate sensitivity is?
B:
Can you describe on your own (please without copy paste this time, in own non-offensive words), why such a process has nothing to do with science.
The best answer which comes close to truth qualifies for a premium of 100 $, which I will pay the winner.
Now try your best, Dumbtoids!
PS: only Dumbtods addicted to CO2 global warming can qualify for the premium
I see Boris the fake expert, after having been shown not to be a real scientist by his own definition, now goes around cherry picking a quote from, ultimately, Richard Kerr.
A *real* scientist (let's call him Marco) would have noted the paragraph right below:
!In 2008 climatologist Stefan Rahmstorf wrote, regarding the Charney report's original range of uncertainty: "At that time, this range was on very shaky ground. Since then, many vastly improved models have been developed by a number of climate research centers around the world. Current state-of-the-art climate models span a range of 2.6–4.1 °C, most clustering around 3 °C."[8]"
Or the whole section right below that:
"The 1990 IPCC First Assessment Report estimated that equilibrium climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling lay between 1.5 and 4.5 °C, with a "best guess in the light of current knowledge" of 2.5 °C.[14] This used models with strongly simplified representations of the ocean dynamics. The IPCC supplementary report, 1992 which used full ocean GCMs nonetheless saw "no compelling reason to warrant changing" from this estimate [15] and the IPCC Second Assessment Report found that "No strong reasons have emerged to change" these estimates,[16] with much of the uncertainty attributed to cloud processes. As noted above, the IPCC TAR retained the likely range 1.5 to 4.5 °C.[3]
Authors of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (Meehl et al., 2007)[17] stated that confidence in estimates of equilibrium climate sensitivity had increased substantially since the TAR. AR4's assessment was based on a combination of several independent lines of evidence, including observed climate change and the strength of known "feedbacks" simulated in general circulation models.[18] IPCC authors concluded that the global mean equilibrium warming for doubling CO2 (a concentration of approximately 540 parts-per-million (ppm)), or equilibrium climate sensitivity, very likely is greater than 2.7 °F (1.5 °C) and likely to lie in the range 4 to 8.1 °F (2 to 4.5 °C), with a most likely value of about 5 °F (3 °C). For fundamental physical reasons, as well as data limitations, the IPCC states a climate sensitivity higher than 8.1 °F (4.5 °C) cannot be ruled out, but that agreement for these values with observations and "proxy" climate data is generally worse compared to values in the 4 to 8.1 °F (2 to 4.5 °C) range.[18]
The TAR uses the word "likely" in a qualitative sense to describe the likelihood of the 1.5 to 4.5 °C range being correct.[17] AR4, however, quantifies the probable range of climate sensitivity estimates:[19]
2-4.5 °C is "likely", = greater than 66% chance of being correct
less than 1.5 °C is "very unlikely" = less than 10% " " "
These are Bayesian probabilities, which are based on an expert assessment of the available evidence.[19]"
Marco, first you must qualify to be considered a "real scientist". BTW, Stefan Rahmstorf is more a political propagandist as eco-fundamentalist than a true scientist.
Your answers regarding the premium questions fall short. I give you another chance: try again.
Boris, having ignored all the problems pointed out with his earlier claims, is now shown to be ignoring current science in favour of attempts to ridicule climate sensitivity estimates by lying about the evidence they are based upon.
You know, just like a REAL "climate expert" would, right?
And in response Boris plays dumb and simply pretends not to have been caught out - and not to have been acting just like a climate ignoramus - just like all the other times. Boris is a mendacious charlatan, and a boring one at that.
Better trolls please.
Oh Mighty One, why so shy; please, enlighten we the unworthy - what are your qualifications?
If you do work at a tertiary, public or private institution I'm guessing 'janitor'.
Otherwise, just plain Walter Mitty.
Feel free to prove me wrong.
Here's a concept, Boris: many many subsequent studies have been made by various groups into sensitivity.
Do you suppose that,
a/ All the world's scientists have ignored all the research conducted since the early studies you've familiarised yourself with?
b/ Do you suppose all the world's scientists have adjusted their understanding of sensitivity based on all the subsequent studies with which you have apparently not yet familiarised yourself?
And here's an additional question just for you, Boris:
c/ Do you really think you are smart enough to understand radiative physics better than all the world's scientists understand it? I mean, really?
'Do you suppose all the world’s scientists have adjusted their understanding of sensitivity ....'
Yes, in light of the fact that there's a pause.
Boris, I am quite certain that in terms of what people generally consider to be a real scientist, I qualify more than you do. I'm not so much a fan of comparing the size of manhoods, but I doubt you work as a tenured staff member (which I do). If you do, I can only pity your students.
Good grief! You really aren't cut out for this, are you?
See the paper that you cited above that does a Foster and Rahmstorf style analysis - the surface warming trend in response to continues pretty much unchanged once you account for certain sources of natural variability, hence there is no justification for revising the implied sensitivity estimates on that basis. That analysis was mistaken, but they mistakenly got the same relevant result as Foster and Rahmstorf - no change to the trend once those factors were accounted for. (I'm pretty sure if you were smart enough to do the analysis on the observed temperatures, uncorrected for those other influences, you'd find no statistically significant change in the trend yet either.)
And see the sensitivity implications of paleoclimate data which are not predicated on either "pauses" or "lack of pauses" because they are taken over long enough time periods for this kind of short term variation to be ignored.
...or your own argument that the "pause" is due to natural cycles, which by definition don't affect the calculation of climate sensitivity - unless you can quantify the forcing they provide, which I'm confident you won't be able to do since you tend to favour people who find "cycles" using mathematics without identifying any kind of physical mechanism behind them.
It's almost as if you're not here for the hunting...
He's not here for the hunting.
Anyone planning on regurgitating Mörner's latest might want to look here first.
So, who still wants to be muppet?
'The rate of global mean warming has been lower over the past decade than previously. It has been argued1, 2, 3, 4, 5 that this observation might require a downwards revision of estimates of equilibrium climate sensitivity, that is, the long-term (equilibrium) temperature response to a doubling of…'
Otto et al
Here's the SS gospel to save you the trouble.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity.htm
Lotharsson, especially you! I do really not understand why you so desperately try to elicit the impression as if you would be a climate expert. From all what I have read from you (also from previous threads at deltoid) that you are not at all a scientist, but rather an economist or something similar strange and distant to natural sciences and climatology in specific. You should not open your mouth so wide with a natural sciences basis so shallow of copy paste. Maybe you succeed for once to abstain from your most low-intellect expression: "it's projection".
You were not able to answer my questions on CO2 sensitivity. But I give also you a second chance. Try it again and do better.
Boris, especially you! I do really not understand why you so desperately try to elicit the impression as if you would be a climate expert. From all what I have read from you that you are not at all a scientist, but rather an assistant dental hygienist or something similar strange and distant to natural sciences and climatology in specific.
You are mistaken on a number of grounds:
I am not a climate expert.
Nor do I claim to be.
I am not a climate scientist, nor even a professional scientist.
Nor do I claim to be.
I have in fact pointed out at Deltoid several times that I am none of those things. If it makes you happy I'll do so again.
And since I don't claim to be any of those things, and in fact periodically point out that I'm not, I'm not trying to give the impression that I am.
And since I'm not trying to give the impression that I am, I'm not desperate to do so.
It's impressive that you can pack so much wrongness into one sentence. (Never mind that it smacks of rampant projection. And calling projection "a low intellect expression" doesn't make it irrelevant, nor does it suppress my intellect or elevate yours.)
El Gordo believes there's been a pause in the laws of Physics.
Good-oh.
Good, so how about you help Boris out be quantifying the amount of adjustment that has occurred in the last 15 years?
I am curious who Boris thinks he is fooling with his "I am so a climate expert!" schtick (especially coupled with his egregious misunderstandings of basic climate science, horrendous gaps in his basic knowledge and a complete unwillingness to point us to his climate science publication record). One has to be either deeply mistaken about the world or think you are addressing complete chumps to think that will work.
Since Boris has helpfully pointed out the previously known fact that I am not a climate scientist, and yet I can near-instantly see through most of his claims because they fail basic tests of evidence and logic, one might be tempted to think that would make him twig that the game is up, but no.
It's pretty sad when a contrarian's argument can't even rise to the level of the Fallacy of Argument From Personal Authority, instead scraping the barrel with the Fallacy of Argument Because I Said So (and the Fallacy of You Did Not Just Refute My Argument With Evidence Because I Ignored It So It Doesn't Count).
'...quantifying the amount of adjustment that has occurred in the last 15 years?'
'All the models and evidence confirm a minimum warming close to 2°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2'
SS HQ
El gordo curiously omits a relevant part of the quote and conveniently forgets the link. Don't take my word for it, check it out for yourself. Perhaps "splitting hairs" means omitting parts of a quote that you don't like?
15 years ago the most likely range for equilibrium climate sensitivity was considered 2 - 4.5 C with a most likely value of 3 C, and values as low as 1.5 C and as high as 6 C or more could not be ruled out. So this quote is entirely consistent with that.
What has changed in that timeframe (IIRC) is that 1.5C is looking considerably less likely, and there's some evidence that the tail on the high end may not be as extended as previous evidence suggested - but from what I recall even that is a matter of some debate. But I don't recall any of those changes being traceable to any "pause".
Loth I assumed you knew about the old values, we are talking about the new values for a doubling of CO2.
'But I don’t recall any of those changes being traceable to any “pause”.
The Pause according to Henrik Svensmark.
'Since the 1940s and up to 10 years ago we have had the highest solar activity in 1000 years. The last time we had solar activity that high was when we had the Medieval Warm Period from year 1000 to around 1300.
'Historically there has been a close connection between solar activity and temperature for the last 1000 years. Therefore the sun’s activity will also have influence the coming many years.
'The unusual thing right now is that sun’s activity is decreasing while there’s a great increase in atmospheric CO2. For that reason the question is how much the earth will cool in a time of decreasing solar activity.
'The development is beautifully consistent with a cooling effect of the solar activity in the same period. This could mean that the temperature will not rise for the next 30 years or maybe begin to decrease.'
Boris #38
Fatuous.
You know exactly nothing about the topic or you wouldn't come up with a wiki link and such a stupid set of questions. It's just trolling and idiot-level trolling at that.
Rohling et al. (2013). Educate yourself.
Hansen & Sato (2012). Educate yourself further.
Hansen et al. (2013). Keep working on it.
Now piss off.
Unless I've missed something they haven't changed, except at the extremes of the distribution.
El gordo, speaking of Svensmark, known mechanisms by which the sun affects climate are already accounted for in "AGW theory". That analysis you refuse to take into account removes most of the effect of solar irradiance from the surface temperature record, as just one example, and that STILL doesn't explain the warming trend. (It makes the warming trend stronger and hence in need of a more powerful forcing to explain it, since the sun has been waning a little...)
Svensmark has been entirely unable to substantiate his wilder solar theories in the scientific literature, the wilder ones generally being of the form "the sun did most of it, and CO2 did very little of it" - especially since (as previously pointed out several times) solar influences and temperature have moved in distinctly different directions over the last few decades. If Svensmark were right that the sun's influence is much stronger than (say) that of CO2, then it becomes very difficult to explain this divergence. (Note that as far as I can see this analysis applies to his galactic cosmic ray hypothesis, which further suffers from having no decent evidence in support of any substantial effect.)
More on GCR influences here.
The hypothesis does not fit observations (no trend in GCR is a particularly telling data point, when the warming trend is obvious).
El lying shitbag.
What "new values"? You mean low-ball estimates by Otto et al. based on - and extremely sensitive to - guesswork about aerosol negative forcing not to mention decadal variability in ocean heat uptake and vertical mixing. If you had a clue, you'd know that so-called observationally-derived estimates of TCR and ECS are speculative and arguably uninformative.
But of course you know absolutely fuck-all about sensitivity and are once again just posturing. So you can piss off too. We've all had enough of your ignorance, dishonesty and demagoguery, your Gish gallops, your constant refusal to admit colossal, argument-destroying errors and your blind faith.
Lotharsson
I've had enough of el lying shitbag. I showed him *repeatedly* that modern warming cannot be attributable to the sun, and here he is again, repeating debunked rubbish.
In five minutes he'll be banging on about global warming having stopped and how this means estimates of S have to be revised down to just above zero etc etc.
These fucking clowns don't deserve the time they consume.
And non of these fucking clowns knows that the Laschamp excursion drives a very, very large stake through the "Svensmark hypothesis". Paleoclimate behaviour is inimical to fake sceptics.
Lotharsson, you behave as you would be an climate expert, but you are none (your own testimony). Your testimony about your incompetence regarding science in general and your special incompetence in climatology honours you. I would like to see similar testimonies also from BBD, Lionell, chek that these individual are no scientists.
Marco and Bernard appear to be scientists but not in the field of climatology. I think both are active in biological fields given their laymen copy paste statements in climatological matters.
And none of you Dumbtoids was able to answer my two questions.
Most of the warmist Dumbtoids are neither scientists, neither climatologists, but rather eco fundamentalists (maybe Greenpeace activists, WWF agents, or similar partisan CO2 fanatics without the ability of objective thinking).
Balls!
Go to # 60 and RTFR. You are just another posturing clown.
You didn't understand the key point Lotharsson made. He - like myself - doesn't claim to be a climate scientist. We are not liars and fantasists, after all.
But we can see through your effortlessly. That's how crap you are.
Publication links Boris, right now.
Right now. This minute.
I think you are a fucking liar and I am calling you on it.
Publications - NOW.
Nope. That's entirely your projection.
Some failures of evidence and logic do not require one to be a climate expert to detect. And the detection and pointing out of those errors is not invalidated by the fact that this is done by a non-expert, as any expert in objective thinking must agree.
Others such failures require expertise that I do not have, and that kind of error will likely slip past me. That's why I defer to the strong consensus of those so qualified on what stands up to scrutiny - because I know my skills in this area are insufficient to weed out the subtle problems.
Now, how about you point to your own publication record in climate science, since you've testified that you are a climate scientist?
(My bet is you cannot afford to do so, because your imagined credibility rests on your unsupported claim to authority.)
Publications - NOW Boris.
I know you are there. I am calling you a fucking liar, Boris.
We are going to put a stop to this nonsense, one way or another.
Gack, blockquote fail. Try again:
Oh, dear. Projecting much, especially on the “without objective thinking ability” part that you display so strongly here?
And paranoid much?
Marco eloquently pointed out that they were predicated on lies, which is a complete answer. You are apparently not even sufficiently competent to recognise an answer. Sad.
I’m still curious who you think you are fooling. Maybe the other kids in your high school class? And you give a very strong impression of being the kind of liar BBD is calling you out as…is that intentional?
Take your time, Boris.
Why are Bill, Lionel and chek so silent and and did not join so far the other warmist Dumtoids to testify that they are neither scientists nor, more specific, climatologists? What's the problem with you, Bill, Lionel and Chek, to be honest about your non-climatological background?
You are a fucking liar boris.
So:
Why are Bill, Lionel and chek so silent and and did not join so far the other warmist Dumtoids to testify that they are neither scientists nor, more specific, climatologists? What’s the problem with you, Bill, Lionel and Chek, to be honest about your non-climatological background?
While we wait, here's some *science* from Hansen & Sato (2012) (links #60):
(Emphasis added).
Fucking liar.
Ah, Boris. You are just making yourself look even less of an authority (and probably in ways you don't even ken).
Please point to your research publication record. Peer-reviewed journals only, please.
I cannot believe that Boris had the sheer brass-necked gall to post anything at all further here except his publication record.
Pathological dishonesty. Real mental illness. I am being serious.
I just realized Boris sounds remarkably familiar. Does freddy (previously kai) have another nick?
...and waiting with bated breath for Boris' credentials.
"Boris" was lying about his credentials ;-) As I know you know perfectly well, but "Boris" has fucked himself here forever now.
Anything else he says = strikeout because he has made an utterly dishonest claim (that he's an active research climate scientist) the basis for his challenge to the competence of all commenters here. Argument from a lie.
"Boris" is toast.
Let's not ever forget this, should "Boris" re-appear, even in a change of socks.
By the way, Gordo, do you simply not know what a Gish Gallop is or do you genuinely feel it's a valid method of debate?
Gish gallop - see El Fuckwit's #36:
It's just hopeless with these morons, isn't it?
@BBD: yeah, that's why I asked.
By the way, just in case "Boris" returns... buddy, you do realize that Good Will Hunting is fiction, right?
I've never seen it, Stu, so not sure what the question implies...
Or was that aimed at "Boris"?
Yes it was, BBD.
*spoiler alert*
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119217/plotsummary
# 82 Marco
Now that I do find plausible. This has several commonalities with "Freddy". In fact all that's missing is spittle, fucks and caps...
Sorry Stu. It's hanging around with all these pig-ignorant and very stupid deniers. It suppresses the higher brain functions.
But... but the Will Hunting character was actually a genius...
;-)
But Boris is a genius too. I'm sure of it, he said so.
Our star doesn't cause global warming according to the SS Manual.
*yawn* So it's safe to assume you don't know what a Gish Gallop is then, you brainless cretin?
Yeah 'Gish Gallop' is named after Gish.
"How should ocean water under 700 meters be warmed up without a warming in the upper part? … In the period 1990-2000 you could see a rise in the ocean temperatures, which fit with the greenhouse effect. But it hasn’t been seen for the last 10 years. Temperatures don’t rise without the heat content in the sea increasing. Several thousand buoys put into the sea to measure temperature haven’t registered any rise in sea temperatures.”
Svensmark
‘We now have the lowest solar activity in 100 years,’ David Hathaway from American space research institute NASA newly concluded in connection to the release of new figures for the sun’s activity. He said the activity for the ongoing cycle is half of the previous cycle, and he predicted an even lower activity for the next cycle, which will hit us in few years.”
David Hathaway
"It indicates that we may be on the path to a new little ice age. It seems likely we are on the path to a period with very low solar activity, which could mean that we may have some very cold winters.”
Ian Elliott
Warmist Dumbtoids, believe it or not: I am really an active climate research scientist with peer-reviewed publications, but I will not disclose here my name and research institute, in order to prevent damage to my career for being honest and strictly scientific, i.e. unconditionally objective.
I believe you, Boris. Victory will soon be ours, apparently climate change is ruled by the sun.
Bravo! Clowns!
Encore!
The Fat One keeps on contradicting himself.
Fatso, please explain how the global temperature for the past 15 years is the highest it has been for the last 800 or so years. You can't have it both ways, If the sun is at its lowest activity in 100 years how come the temperatures are so high? Only idiot AGW deniers would be so stupid to make comments like that. Maybe "climate expert" Boris will enlighten us.
The sun was over active last century, but this century its been in a slump.
There is a lag.... let the cooling begin.
http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=453
Friends of Science?
Not really. You should research your sources.
Such blind faith. It will lead you into a pit.
So where exactly in the climate system was the energy stored?
"Senior active Climate Research Scientist self-kicking, clog-dancing clownshoe.
There, fixed that for you 'Boris'. It accords much better with the rational perception of most here now.
Best wishes - chek
(not a climate scientist), more a layman caller outer of lying, fuckwitted, politically motivated bullshitters. Like all rote-learned, meme-spouting deniers such as you are. Especially those claiming ludicrously false credentials. Should you prove to have more than a Good Luck! diploma for successfully completing primary school (seventh grade), I shall drink a pint of Curtin's Potable Sea Water™.
However, it's late, I just got home, and I'll deal with SpamKan's hagiography of that fuckwitted, dead old insane coot later.
No, no you're not. First of all, you've demonstrated no knowledge, have used nothing but denialist terms, tropes and falsified arguments, and would have a wonderful career shilling for Heartland if you had any credentials whatsoever.
You're a liar and a moron.
And a genius!
Take your time Gordy. But it's late here and I am genuinely curious. Where was the energy stored?
C'mon Gordon - you put it out there. Explain this mechanism of the global solar-thermal flywheel to us.
Every lurker can see you're full of it, bucko, and by that I mean to the brim!
And, sure you are, Boris. I'm Gavin Schmidt, come to think of it.
PS I'm not Gavin Schmidt.
So all this energy. Where was it?
If you think about his "lag", I think the pertinent question is, "Where is the energy going?"
According to El Gordo, climate change is driven by the Sun, and when the sun is hot, the earth is cold, then when the sun fades, the earth gets hot, and we call that a "lag".
I understand this because I am an active rocket surgeon with 400 sheets of peer-reviewed papers rolled up around a hollow cardboard cylinder.
Me too! I showed all 36 rolls I bought yesterday to a friend and he totally approves. Never buy Ultra-Strong, septic systems don't like it.
Don't confuse the clowns. It's not fair!
They're only clowns.
Mind you, I'd still like to know where the energy was stored. To, you know, create a lag. Which requires storage and delayed release. These tedious old physical mechanism requirements will haunt us to our dying days.
So, where was the energy stored?
'So where exactly in the climate system was the energy stored?'
The oceans.
'climate change is driven by the Sun'
tru dat
Come on, clown - the lurkers are waiting. Two words won't cut it - but it's all you've got. I'll sum up for you, shall I?
'No clue'.
The mechanism, and its correlation with observed temperature changes in the oceans and ENSO cycles, please!
Since you apparently believe - and this is consistent with your general attachment to convenient fantasy, no matter how patently absurd - that 'Boris' is a 'Climate Scientist', perhaps you could 'phone a "friend"' and get him to explain for you?
Boris @ #1 and el gordo @ #2
OK, now I get it - you're actually expressing Poe's Law by taking absurd, easily over-turned positions to secretly undermine the lunatic anti-realists contesting the scientific consensus on AGW and Climate Change.
Thanks - nice job. Sorry for giving the game away!
Gordo, did you not JUST quote Svensmark whining about 0-700m ocean temperatures not going up? But now the heat is stored there?
Could you go at least one day without directly contradicting yourself, cupcake? We know Karen can't, but I still have hopes for you.
Try harder!
A warm sun heats the planet and when the sun cools the lag is found in the oceans, which is perfectly understandable.
Gaia works in mysterious ways, but let me assure any quiet lurkers here that the heat they have found in the ocean deep will not be coming back to bite us.... its miniscule.
Anyway, the heat is being taken out of the political debate.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/europe-pulls-the-pl…
Specific heat isn't a concept you've heard of then, Gordon.
Although now of course you'll have to pretend you have.
By Benny 'GWPF sport science clown' Peiser?
Ya think?
You probably really do.
'Specific heat' is a new one on me, could you provide a link?
Benny is cool.
Sure. Right after you admit you haven't the faintest clue about the mindless shit you spout here.
Channelling Wattsy ... its only weather.
* Coldest summer on record at the North Pole
* Highest August Arctic ice extent since 2006
* Record high August Antarctic ice extent
* No major hurricane strikes for eight years
* Slowest tornado season on record
*No global warming for 17 years
*Second slowest fire season on record
*Four of the five snowiest northern hemisphere winters have occurred since 2008
Post Normal Science (PNS)
You're waffling, Bloato.
Regurgitating a few squishy nuggets won't save you. Please explain your - currently literally magical - mechanism.
Perhaps then we could then contrast charts of the fluctuations in the sun's output against OHC over the last few decades.
I don't use the term lightly - look back and check if you like - but you really are striking me as a dishonest fellow, unlike many of your peers here, who are simply too stupid to be any better.
Mechanism ....
'But most (more than 90%) of the energy imbalance goes into the ocean, and several analyses have now shown this. But even there, how much warms the upper layers of the ocean, as opposed to how much penetrates deeper into the ocean where it may not have much immediate influence, is a key issue.'
Kevin Trenberth
No no no. Pathetic hand-waving won't do. Your mechanism for your 'lag', please.
Mechanism.....
"Significantly more research into the potential role of solar variability is warranted, involving new assessments of potential transmission mechanisms to induce climate change and potential enhancement of natural feedbacks that may amplify the relatively weak forcing related to fluctuations in solar output.
"We only hope that more scientists will take note and examine the intriguing relations between our nearest star and our planet's temperature."
Mayewski et al. (2004)
Jesus fucking Christ you're a moron, Gordo. They're all bullshit, but let me pick just one.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/hurricane-sandy-strikes-east-coast-gall…
Either you've been dropped on the head a lot, inducing major amnesia, or you really, really hope to find people that are even dumber than you. Don't you realize how badly you are embarrassing yourself? How stupid and pathetic you look?
FIFY.
The game remains a possibility ;-) There are very few people whose self-image is so far removed from reality - but they do exist.
'No major hurricane strikes for eight years', apart from Sandy.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-bJhUmJyxrQs/ULy7NL1QbAI/AAAAAAAACQw/RlSJLqrsz…
'The game remains a possibility. ;-) There are very few people whose self-image is so far removed from reality – but they do exist.'
Parody :-)
So you're saying that feedbacks are stronger than previously thought, especially feedbacks associated with solar fluctuations? (So climate sensitivity is perhaps even higher than previously thought?)
And since we've been in a period of low "solar activity" for a few decades now, and your lag mechanism is "heat goes into the oceans", we'd be seeing at least a slowdown in the rate of ocean heat accumulation during the last few decades, if not an outright drop in ocean heat content, right? Please point out when you think heat accumulation slowed or reversed on this graph due to low solar activity.
Got any other caveats you want to get in before someone else does?
No, that's fine, but I'll draw your attention again to NH snow extent ... we have a trend.
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_seasonal.php?ui_set=nhland&u…
Does it trouble you, Gordon, to be condemned to run (downhill) with the morons for the rest of your life?
That's not what you said, you pathetic lying sack of crap.
Anyway... you did know this, right?
There were 19 named storms in 2012 (1981-2010 average: 12.1), there were 10 hurricanes (1981-2010 average: 6.4), and there were 2 major hurricanes (1981-2010 average: 2.7).
So the only thing you COULD legitimately say about 2012 is that it fell one major storm short from setting records in every single category.
Let me guess, you read this bullshit on a denier blog somewhere and are STILL too stupid to go look it up for yourself? Because unless we come up with a magical new definition of "major" hurricane (which to the entire world means Cat 3+), you lied when you said there were none for 8 years, and you lied there were none for 8 years except Sandy.
And that's just 2012, moron. You have no shame, do you?
Doop-dee-doop, I have a minute or two more to kill. Let me just continue to use these highly secret sources called WikiPedia and Google.
2011? 4 major hurricanes (Atlantic only).
2010? 5 major hurricanes (Atlantic only)
2009? 2 major hurricanes (Atlantic only)
2008? 2 major hurricanes (Atlantic only)
Oh, and fair warning: if you are going to say those don't count because they didn't "strike", consider yourself pre-emptively slapped by ever metereologist who ever lived.
Also, you would be wrong. Again. Please. You're so sad. Please at least Google the next thing you say first.
Gordo, what do climate scientists predict about precipitation while global warming is going on?
Go on sweetheart, go look it up. We'll wait.
What significance do you attach to this, and how does this compare with climate scientists view of it?
And what does it say about your previous claims that you're Gish Galloping onwards, onwards, onwards...?
@Lotharsson: how much do you want to bet he's just going to pretend none of this ever happened?
I'd join you in that bet if we can find someone unconnected to el gordo to take the other side...
'what do climate scientists predict about precipitation while global warming is going on?'
Obviously it will be wetter and in cold times its as dry as a bone.
So no comment on lying your ass off about hurricanes, cupcake?
That's funny Loth..
I admitted Sandy was big and there was a high tide.... still the trend is flat overall.
OK, let's ignore the bizarre idea that the oceans might not be thermally linked to the atmosphere and ask ourselves, how does you "lag" manifest itself? In cooling oceans, perhaps?
Seeing as the Sun is now cooler and your ocean-storage is no longer receiving as much energy, they must be cooling, right?
Did gordo just post a link to the *winter* snow cover again?
Why yes, he did.
How 'bout this, then:
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_anom.php?ui_set=0&ui_region=…
Hmmmm....that one is down
Not surprising, considering e.g. the spring snow cover
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_seasonal.php?ui_set=nhland&u…
which has gone done much more than winter cover has gone up. Now, it happens that spring cover is much more important for albedo...but I don't think gordo will ever understand that.
In the meantime, liar Boris continues lying. And I'll point out that freddykaitroll also claimed to be a "climate scientist" with a "research group" and all that.
'Seeing as the Sun is now cooler and your ocean-storage is no longer receiving as much energy, they must be cooling, right?'
In a roundabout way that is correct, the oceans are the great moderators of the system.
Looking at that increase in heat below 2000 meters, its probably a natural occurrence.
This one shows in more detail the ups and downs, which I'll take a closer look up.
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_seasonal.php?ui_set=namgnld&…
Admit you lied or shut the fuck up, you pathetic little weasel.
What are you on Stu? I wouldn't mind a bit.
Admit you lied about hurricanes. It's not a matter of opinion, douchecanoe. You lied. It's right there in black and white. Admit it and apologize.
Boris....Johnson? Whereas el gordo & Karen McSpotty haven't got beyond the look-at-me-I-did-a-poo-on-the-carpet stage of child development.
Stu I don't know enough to lie, being only humans we all have occasional lapses of judgement.
Importantly the trend is flat.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-bJhUmJyxrQs/ULy7NL1QbAI/AAAAAAAACQw/RlSJLqrsz…
a) Who calculated that trend and how?
b) It's not even flat. Duh.
If it wasn't for Sandy it would be dead flat.
So...your understanding of weather and climate is governed by an alternative reality where inconvenient facts are ignored?
Not so fast, a moderately large hurricane is only weather. Try and keep your eye on the general trend.
Nothing unusual happening?
I think we've established that Boris is Freddy when the medications are working.
Global warming is fascinating when you take out the CO2.
'Recent scientific evidence shows that major and widespread climate changes have occurred with startling speed. For example, roughly half the north Atlantic warming since the last ice age was achieved in only a decade, and it was accompanied by significant climatic changes across most of the globe. Similar events, including local warmings as large as 16°C, occurred repeatedly during the slide into and climb out of the last ice age….'
Richard B Alley
I do not think that means what you pretend to think it means.
Reread. Key phrase 'startling speed'. Then consider the wisdom of poking angry beasts with sharp sticks.
Apart from the fact that it's not flat, it's a piss-poor method of evaluating global changes in major storms. (A cynic might note that that doesn't invalidate it for the use to which Pielke wants to put it.)
It uses "days between landfalls", which is a bad way to measure whether there are more or less occurring and can have counter-intuitive results, and it measures them only for the US, which is a long way from global.
Afraid not.
If the legend and data are to be believed, then if it wasn't for Sandy the counter on the most recent data point in that graph would be even higher as of Dec 2012, which would increase the slope of the trend line a little. (I did say it was a potentially counter-intuitive way to measure whether major storm frequency is changing...)
The irony being that denial is the reaction of those clearly most alarmed....
Gordy
The oceans, eh?
So if the energy is stored in the ocean and then leaves it to provided the lagged warming of the atmosphere, the ocean must cool down - right?
OHC must fall - right?
But OHC at all measured depths is increasing. So either energy is being created in the oceans by magic or your mechanism is bollocks and you are clueless.
Please explain!
Gordy #65
Recovery at the end of the Younger Dryas was probably driven by the resumption of the AMOC and equator - > poleward ocean heat transport. The AMOC is thought to have been interrupted by abrupt drainage of glacial Lake Agassiz. All this is explicitly deglacial-phase climate behaviour and irrelevant to modern, GHG-forced warming.
.
Please stop using paleoclimate as a sandbox for your denial. You have no idea what you are talking about and you come across as a dishonest poseur when you do this.
OHC 0 - 700m and 0 - 2000m
:-)
While we're waiting for Bloato to attempt yet another wholly unconvincing weaseling-out; speaking of being, um, credible, or otherwise, did we see this?
Hadn't heard him speak before; I suspect Readfearn wasn't born in Blacktown. ;-)
Now there is a surprise.
Now tell us what type of heat you think thermometers record.
Oh! And Benny is a mendacious or ignorant prat and his piece in the Australian typifies (I cannot read it all because it is behand a stupid paywall and I ain't about to give Murdoch more monies) the lies and onfiscation that comes from that organ and its grinder. Idelogues all.
And no I am not a working climate scientist having retired. However I have been involved in occupations where ability in mathematics and phsyics, with qualifiactions to prove, were a requisit. I was once offered a post as a scientific officer with the UK Met' Office but chose another path that offered at the same time. I still consult my now well dog eared 1980s edition of 'Atmosphere, Weather and Climate' by Roger G. Barry and Richard J Chorley as well as many other texts on climate science and oceanography.
This lurker doesn't see the point of an el gordo. He hasn't let any fact influence his weak grasp of climate science for at least the past four years. I dimly recall this same tired old wankery where he went along with a piece of dreck from serial idiot, American Thinker, and got his asre handed to him by one of the posters here on Deltoid.
What a freakin' waste of a life. Incompetant, terminally dickheaded, transparently evasive, dishonest, and perhaps most cringeworthy of all ... allied with deadshits like Boris and Karen.
Embarassing really but I guess when you hang around Nova and Marohasy's blogs like some stale fart in a bottle you probably never had have much capacity for self-examination anyway, let alone critical thought.
El gordo and Anthony Watts: two pathological liars.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1996/trend
Now we have testimonies from the Deltoid warmists:
- Lotharsson
- BBD
- Stu
- Lionel A
- Bill
- Vince Wirlwind
- Chek
that they are neither scientists at all, nor climatologists in specific, but partisan laymen with a firm eco fundamentalist commitment, most probably as Greenpeace (or of a similar movement) activists. Therefore the mentioned individuals are totally incompetent in climate research matters, as they do not the understand the fundamental processes of weather phenomena. Furthermore they pick out from their primary sources of information (SPM, SkepticalScience, WUWT, etc.) what fits their ideology of exaggerated warming fears due to little CO2.
Where's *your* bona-fides?
I state that you have none. You are a fucking liar.
So:
Active Senior Climate Research Scientist
August 11, 2013
Now we have testimonies from the Deltoid warmists:
- Lotharsson
- BBD
- Stu
- Lionel A
- Bill
- Vince Wirlwind
- Chek
that they are neither scientists at all, nor climatologists in specific, but partisan laymen with a firm eco fundamentalist commitment, most probably as Greenpeace (or of a similar movement) activists. Therefore the mentioned individuals are totally incompetent in climate research matters, as they do not the understand the fundamental processes of weather phenomena. Furthermore they pick out from their primary sources of information (SPM, SkepticalScience, WUWT, etc.) what fits their ideology of exaggerated warming fears due to little CO2.
You also know nothing about physical climatology.
Several commenters here, including myself, have demonstrated this.
I repeat, you are a fantasist, a poseur and a serial liar.
I notice our resident fucking liar has promoted himself in fantasy-land:
What a load of bollocks!
ROFL! Liar, liar, pants on fire!
I've said nothing of the sort, and neither have most of the people who have responded to you on this point. (Never mind that you are clearly lying about your own research status.) You are projecting again, and it says more about you than it does about those who have kindly responded to you.
Epic Fail!
1) You presume facts not in evidence.
2) Even if the presumed facts were true, your conclusion does not follow from those "facts". This is a classic Ad Hominem Fallacy.
But do keep posting. I'm more than half way to completing my Boris's Fallacy Bingo card!
Yup, Boris is freddykaitroll. Same argumentation. Maybe we should ask Tim to check the IP number to make 100% sure.
Why does the supposedly knowledgeable "Boris" not criticise El Gordo's clownish "lag" claims?
If he does not immediately do so, are we to understand that he endorses them?
If I were "Boris" I would be swift to clarify my position.
Tut tut. Sock puppetry gets moderation on this blog. Remember "Brad" and "Chameleon"?
I noticed that freddy had gone when I got back from holiday. Was it banned?
Sock puppetry to get around a ban is the Final Crime, is it not?
Lotharsson, why would you be ashamed to admit to be a Greenpeace activist? Would being a Greenpeace activist be a shame, according to you?
BTW, there are many Greenpeace and WWF activists working in the IPCC process. They do not consider being Greenpeace members a shame.
I admit that I am no Greenpeace activists, nor am I a member of a left or eco political party. I am a scientist and not partisan, unlike you warmist Deltoids who behave so badly and incivil.
You are a liar, a fantasist and a poseur.
Publication record. Now.
You are also a sock puppeting troll previously infesting this blog as "freddy".
I think you might also have been "phinniethewoo", elsewhere.
ROFL! I never said that either! I merely pointed out that you presumed an explanation that was entirely unsupported by evidence, and then asserted it to be factual.
That, and this response of yours, demonstrates that your self-touted objectivity is a false image.
Oh, dear. Lying about what other people said - and about easily verifiable facts - is bad behaviour and most uncivil. You should take the log out of your own eye.
Now, what about #82?
Please clarify your position. Do you endorse El Gordo's claims or do you reject them?
And once again, "Boris" just disappears.
Insane, fraudulent, multi-sock troll.
Ban please.
What a stupid rant your #76 was Boris.
What a dolt you are Boris, we most certainly do not use WUWT as primary material source. You are crazy to think we do. As SPM, WTF is that, Statistical Parametric Mapping, Special Piping Materials?
What about my declaration did you not understand? Most of it by the look of this latest diretribe from you where you proceed to kick out at the typical ideologues bogey men:
So you aren't a partisan layman who gets his information from krank-science, pseudo science blogs and the likes of Faux News. Sorry but the evidence you inadvertently present suggests that you are such and furthermore presenting symtoms of mental imbalance and need to seek professional help ASAP.
You an 'Active Senior Climate Research Scientist', I don't think so from the rapid promotion to 'Senior' and then 'Active Senior'.
OK so what is lapse rate, what forms does it take and what is the importance of WRT global warming?
So, if it didn't happen in the US it didn't happen eh! Even Rush Limbaugh or the O'Reilly-Hannity tag team could manage better than that. Well maybe? Beck of course would fail.
He might mean AR4 Summary for Policy Makers SPM - which I rarely ever reference - usually using WG1 itself.
It's all crap, as you say. Not worth further bother except repeat requests to Tim to block Freddy/Boris for using a sock and being a PITA and a liar.
I love this made-up "days between US landfall stat".
Because if you actually, you know, look at the number of hurricanes, the trend isn't flat at all.
Which I told Gordo. He ignores it and keeps on lying, of course. Pathetic little sleaze.
Rubbish Boris, I already told yuou I am a fully qualified and practising rocket surgeon, with many, many papers.
I'm not going to tell you my real name because you fools don't do science, you persecute individuals.
Hah! Vince, you piker. I am a fully qualified Jesus. My dad created everything and you are all lying.
(Is this how it works? I'm sorry, I'm new to this)
'Not worth further bother except repeat requests to Tim to block Freddy/Boris...'
big baby
'I do not think that means what you pretend to think it means.'
I don't know of any physical mechanism which could have produced half the Holocene warming in a decade.... CO2 and methane were low.
There you go. That's all you need to know. Gordo does not care about the facts. Gordo thinks a Gish gallop is justified. Gordo thinks obvious liars should be tolerated (gee, I wonder why). Gordo thinks tone trolling is more important than fact. Gordo is a liar, a bore, a pathetic weevil and should no longer be allowed to derail the discussion.
No, I am not advocating banning. I'm advocating moderation on his comments. Binning any repeat of an "argument" that was JUST debunked (sheesh, look at the past few pages would cut down on the noise nicely.
If not, the "open" thread will be as dead as the Jonas thread soon.
Okay, at this point there's only 3 possibilities.
1. You are this stupid. HAI, GORDO HANDLERS, PLEASE UP THORAZINE KTHXBAI.
2. You are doing this for streed cred. Gordo, give it up. You suck at this. You're THAT GUY.
3. You're being paid to do this. HI, GORDO HANDLERS. YOUR BOY SUCKS.
@Vince Whirwind said: "I’m not going to tell you my real name because you fools don’t do science, you persecute individuals"
That's exactly what you and your climatology layman do with your climate realism enemies.
As I was sayin' ... a negative feedback pulled us out of full glaciation within a decade.
'If you put feedback into a computer model, you can prove anything.'
John Brignell, Number Watch
@Boris, "Active Senior Climate Research Scientist"
You're pathetic. You're lying. Eveybody knows this. Go away.
@Gordo: "a negative feedback pulled us out of full glaciation within a decade"
When? And do tell, what was the human population at the time?
"El Gordo is the dumbest person in the world"
- Someone who says things I like
I suspect 'Boris' will be Head of Department shortly.
Here's a movie they made about you, Boris.
And, Bloato, you are an utter sleaze. You lose the internets.
'When? And do tell, what was the human population at the time?'
Around 15,000 years BP and homo sapiens survived on this big island, but I can't give you a precise number.
No, read the words:
Gordy #65
Recovery at the end of the Younger Dryas was probably driven by the resumption of the AMOC and equator – > poleward ocean heat transport. The AMOC is thought to have been interrupted by abrupt drainage of glacial Lake Agassiz. All this is explicitly deglacial-phase climate behaviour and irrelevant to modern, GHG-forced warming.
Please stop using paleoclimate as a sandbox for your denial. You have no idea what you are talking about and you come across as a dishonest poseur when you do this.
And as usual, you confuse negative and positive feedbacks.
It was the *cessation* of a negative feedback to orbital forcing that caused abrupt warming at the end of the YD.
Come on Boris.
Do you endorse El Gordo's loopy ideas about a lagged warming from solar forcing in the early C20th or not?
Please state your position in your next comment.
El Gordy
I'm still waiting...
The oceans, eh?
So if the energy is stored in the ocean and then leaves it to provided the lagged warming of the atmosphere, the ocean must cool down – right?
OHC must fall – right?
But OHC at all measured depths is increasing. So either energy is being created in the oceans by magic or your mechanism is bollocks and you are clueless.
Please explain!
Second request in a row...
Ahh... BBD the Younger Dryas came later and was a natural rebound from cooling after an intergalactic bombardment.
The end of the LGM is an entirely different matter.
Actually it wasn't intergalactic, it was a local piece of rock.
Increased OHC at depth is a complete mystery to me, what do you think is happening?
You haven't read Alley, only quote-mined. We both know this.
So what about the leetle OHC problem?
If the energy is stored in the ocean and then leaves it to drive the lagged warming of the atmosphere, the ocean must cool down – right?
OHC must fall – right?
But OHC at all measured depths is increasing. So either energy is being created in the oceans by magic or your mechanism is nonsense.
Please explain!
Third request in a row…
Look at the data!
Yeah I've seen it, what do you suggest is happening?
A "natural rebound"? Climate isn't a bouncing ball. It needs to be pushed.
* * *
Even if the bolide hypothesis for the YD is correct, it simply demonstrates that the climate system is sensitive to radiative perturbation.
The end of the last glacial is further evidence that the climate system is sensitive to radiative perturbation.
It's *not* an entirely different matter.
El Gordy
You are arguing for a lag. I am demonstrating the flaws in your argument.
You cannot defend your argument by asking me questions.
You can defend your argument by defining a plausible physical mechanism that would support it.
If you cannot do this, you have lost the argument.
Let's remind ourselves of the question:
If the energy is stored in the ocean and then leaves it to drive the lagged warming of the atmosphere, the ocean must cool down – right?
OHC must fall – right?
But OHC at all measured depths is increasing. So either energy is being created in the oceans by magic or your mechanism is nonsense.
Please explain!
Umpteenth request in a row…
Maybe I'm wrong; perhaps he simply doesn't understand the question?
Gordon, are you, in fact, as dumb as a bag of SpamKans?
Think about it, El Gordo - "it's the Sun", as you are fond of saying.
So, the Sun is responsible for the vast majority of the energy in our system. The oceans are heating. That heat must be coming from the Sun.
It's only complicated if you are tying yourself in knots trying to deny reality.
Off to bed now. Please try to get El G to explain his lag thing.
He needs to lay this to rest.
'Please explain!'
How the heat got into the oceans is of no consequence and I have no faith in the idea that it might emerge one day to bite us on the bum.
Magdalena A. Balmaseda1,*,
Kevin E. Trenberth2,
Erland Källén1
"Sensitivity experiments illustrate that surface wind variability is largely responsible for the changing ocean heat vertical distribution."
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50382/full
Hmmm....... mother earth's way of putting a blanket on in preparation for the future cooling? :)
Tiz the sun stooopid :)
Arctic Nooze - The Klimatariat is in strife.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/icecover/icecover_current.png
You are now officially to stupid to live.
*toO. Sigh.
OMFG ROFLMAO! This is unintentional comedy gold!
BBD, I reckon el gordo thinks "lag" is a magic word. All you have to do is incant it and you then pronounce that your "lack of a mechanism problem" is solved.
Or maybe he's a bit more sophisticated than that - perhaps he's saying there's ALSO a multi-decadal lag getting the solar energy INTO the oceans in the first place (via a mechanism of "no consequence", and where the energy hangs out for a few decades is also of "no consequence"), so we're gonna see ocean cooling...any day now...
any day...
any day...
any day for sure...
any day...
any day...
any day, just have faith...
any day...
You might have attempted to explain why you draw that conclusion from that graph, but perhaps even your poor cognition was aware that doing so would draw forth gales of sad laughter because you are relying on false presumptions and fallacy.
Especially since they have been explained to you before.
Stu's 3 options from the last page are looking to be inescapable.
Be aware people, those OHC cartoons that BBD keeps waving about (terrifying the climatologically challenged dumtiods) are an extreme misrepresentation of ocean warming.
Magdalena, Trenberth, Balmaseda & Källén said:
"while heating continues during the recent upper-ocean-warming hiatus,"
Does that signify that the heat is rising from below the 2000 mtr?
How much has the ocean actually warmed????
I'll let Willis explain the problem for you all........
"Here’s the problem I have with this graph. It claims that we know the temperature of the top two kilometres (1.2 miles) of the ocean in 1955-60 with an error of plus or minus one and a half hundredths of a degree C …
It also claims that we currently know the temperature of the top 2 kilometers of the global ocean, which is some 673,423,330,000,000,000 tonnes (673 quadrillion tonnes) of water, with an error of plus or minus two thousandths of a degree C …
I’m sorry, but I’m not buying that. I don’t know how they are calculating their error bars, but that is just not possible. Ask any industrial process engineer. If you want to measure something as small as an Olympic-size swimming pool full of water to the nearest two thousandths of a degree C, you need a fistful of thermometers, one or two would be wildly inadequate for the job. And the top two kilometres of the global ocean is unimaginably huge, with as much volume as 260,700,000,000,000 Olympic-size swimming pools …
So I don’t know where they got their error numbers … but I’m going on record to say that they have greatly underestimated the errors in their calculations."
Here is the lovely Jo on the subject........
"The oceans as measured by ARGO are warming, but that warming is not only far less than the models predicted, it is far less even than the instrument error."
The background of a crucial point http://joannenova.com.au/2013/05/ocean-temperatures-is-that-warming-sta…
The OHC alarmism is very dumbtoid :) http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/ocean/global-ocean-temperature-70…
hehehe..........I just happened across a portrait of BBD & Billie bercko http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/7/10/137…
lol
Yep, that's them alright.
What caused the jump in July?
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/figure-2.png
Hockey season, lol
Oh, what a shocker... more Nova spam from Karen.
Gordo, before you gallop on, you little lying sack of shit... what do YOU think caused the jump in July?
Also, why do you think Tisdale chose a 13 month moving average? Why not 12, or 14, or 18, or 24? Why 13?
hehehe.........that Stu is funny boy, lol
He reminds me of a yapping little doggy :)
"I’m sorry, but I’m not buying that. I don’t know how they are calculating their error bars, but that is just not possible"
Arguments from personal incredulity and self-admitted ignorance. I have a hint for Willis (I have no illusions Karen will understand): when I measure a temperature using 1000 thermometers, with each thermometer having a confidence interval of 1 degrees, the temperature I measure has a confidence interval that is enormously smaller than 1 degree.
Some pseudoskeptics like to refer to the significance particle physics use (at least 5-sigma). Guess how they get there. That's right, doing a lot of measurements, each with an individual confidence interval that is muuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuch larger than if you combine them all.
I recently had an exchange with Kevin McKinney on Tamino's, where I reiterated my commitment to democracy. It's this fundamental belief in the rights of the future and the rights of the biosphere to have a voice today that drives me - it all about the overarching benefit to the most.
Yet when I read the constant ignorant screed from Fatso, KarenMackSunspot, FreddyKaiBoris Coprolalia Mike and the rest, I realise that our implementation of democracy is broken. The biggest problem with decision-making in our country is that we keep electing unsuitable decision-makers, and we keep doing that partly because we allow ignorant people to vote.
We need licenses to drive cars in this country, and to fish, and to be married, and to use guns, and to own dogs. We need to demonstrate basic levels of competency when applying for a job, and when applying for a bank loan. And yet any idiot citizen over 18 who registers to do so is permitted to vote, even if they do not understand science, and/or economics, and or geopolitics, an/or any other of a whole range of issues that have profound bearing on the future of our nation and of the planet. Australian politics is replete with examples where this ignorance was used, in conjunction with the Pavlovian twiddling of the self-interested ideologies of the afflicted ignorants, to bring about decisions that were recognised a priori as being obviously and seriously bad. and proven in hindsight to be so
I've been wondering what the outcome might be if we had a form of democracy where candidates for office had to weight before an election how much of their garnered vote is apportioned to each of the various specific policy stances they announced, and where voters had to complete a test to weight their capacity to vote with competence on these same policy issues. After voting the weightings would be determined to give an overall outcome.
So, for example, if Tony Abbott decided that 50% of his vote was going to be apportioned to his climate change policy, and the Abbott voters had on average a competency that meant that their votes were worth only half a vote per person, Abbott's raw vote would decrease by 25%. A similar approach could be used for all of his other policy platforms. This would give the voice of rationality in the community a much stronger place in decision making, and as a spin off it would have Antony Green bursting with unbridled joy at every election.
Sadly, in the real world half of the population is of below average intelligence, and close to proportion that believe in sky fairies and in grand scientific conspiracies/incompetencies, so reason only gets the occasional nod, and even less so when fundamentalist megalomaniacs will "do anything" to get into power. All I can do is to hope that I can make a positive difference to the best of my ability, and to apologise to the future for the social ignorance and self-indulgence of my contemporaries that have meant that a better outcome could not be achieved.
Perhaps in the future there will be the Nuremberg equivalent for crimes against humanity and against the biosphere. If so I hope that the principles of due diligence and responsibility are kept front and centre, and that some people at least are held to account for their unconscionable influences in the economic and political manipulations of the governance systems of the world.
The voice of rationality is hard to define without bias.
Brainwashing the masses with a bogus theory is a crime against humanity. Through the schools and the media the propaganda has been relentless.
I'll be happy with a public humiliation of Warmista cadres.
"...mother earth’s way of putting a blanket on in
preparation for the future cooling?"
I've been following these arguments by the denial crowd for a long while now and I have to say that this comment from "Karen" is the stupidest thing I've heard said about the climate.
The standard of trolling has fallen alarmingly.
Now you're contradicting yourself: you say the Sun put the energy in the oceans, and now despite a weaker Sun, we are experiencing warming because of a "lag" in the energy contained in the oceans now affecting the rest our environment.
This is why various people have been pressing you to elucidate your proposed mechanism for this "lag":
- where did the energy come from?
- where has it been?
- where is it going?
- where is any of this measured?
- what evidence backs up your belief?
So far, your answers (although highly evasive) seem to indicate:
- the Sun
- the oceans
- the atmosphere
- no idea
- none that you know of
So, as suspected all along, you have a belief in a mechanism which you cannot explain and for which there is no evidence.
Kind of like the god-botherers who flock to Lourdes.
Now, you are not dealing here with the kind of drooling halfwits who infest the other blogs you frequent - here your complete absence of intellectual rigour can only be interpreted as either incurable ignorance or compulsive dishonesty.
In conclusion, el Gordo either *is* an idiot, or he wants us to believe he is an idiot.
As previously stated by various people, el Gordo is thus demonstrated to be a massive, and complete, waste of space.
His twitterings should receive the same treatment as Trudeau meted out to Dan Quayle's in the early '80s.
More waste of space.
From what I can see, at this moment in time we have the 4th-lowest ice cover in recorded history. It is far easier to read from this presentation of the data:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/
God only knows what the drooling-idiot-crank-blogs are reading into this - some kind of "recovery", no doubt.
The Danes have a more easily-read version of their graph here:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/icecover/icecover_current_new.png
According to them, this year is the 5th-lowest ice cover in recorded history.
Clearly an ice age is looming.
#39
Wooohooo........hahahehe.....that mental breakdown was an admission of defeat barnturd, lol
The victor writes the history barnturd..... :)
Someone give the boy a hanky
You may call it the 5th lowest in recorded history, but it looks average to me.
What does that gray area MEAN ?
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/icecover/icecover_current_new.png
'Now, you are not dealing here with the kind of drooling halfwits who infest the other blogs you frequent – here your complete absence of intellectual rigour can only be interpreted as either incurable ignorance or compulsive dishonesty.'
Great quote, I'll pass it on to my mates at Trash.
More admission of idiocy on your part.
"Average" is shown on the graph:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/
There hasn't been anything like "average" ice cover for two decades.
What a waste of space you are, El Gordo: incapable of analysis and apparently incurably ignorant.
Hey, Bernard, while you're here; Bloato wants to take up your bet.
And, Bloato, yes, I've officially designated you as Dumb as a Kan of Spammers.
Mouthbreather. Arrogant, ignorant, pointless, blowhard, know-nothing windbag onanist.
Spammy is indeed your peer, as in what you're both doing in the genetic pool. Swimming with pondlife really is the best you can do. Get used to it.
Deep down you know that all the smart money says you're wrong about the single-most -important-thing-to-get-right in the history of our civilization. One day all you arrogant, noisy tosspots are going to be so unpopular you're going to make Julia Gillard look like Nelson Mandela.
You're the authoritarians - how shall we punish you then?
#41 Gaz
That was Gaia speak sweety :)
I picked up the greeny lingo over at DotEarth :)
'Deep down you know that all the smart money says you’re wrong about the single-most -important-thing-to-get-right in the history of our civilization.'
Global cooling is predicted to begin in a couple of years and thankfully there is nothing I can do about it.
PUS - Pure, Unadulterated Stupid.
And when it doesn't happen, pet, as it won't, what do we get to do with you all?
So El Gordy can't defend his ludicrous "lag" nonsense at all.
Shocked, I tell you. Shocked.
Gordy, you are a sick joke.
And you *still* don't understand the difference between positive and negative feedbacks. And based on your form here, I suspect you never will.
Why doesn't the derisive laughter bother you? What is wrong with your mind?
This is yet another stupid misrepresentation. There's no need for the energy to be released for the rate of atmospheric warming to increase sharply. All that has to happen is for the rate of ocean heat uptake to fall slightly.
Of course much of the stored energy *will* eventually resurface to warm the atmosphere in addition to GHG forcing...
Interestingly, El Gordy has no confidence in exactly the mechanism he argues produced the "lag" he was wittering about earlier but cannot explain in detail when challenged.
What a pig's breakfast this man's mind is.
It was the sun, you cretin.
;-)
This is too funny for words.
Time for a Gish Gallop...
CO2 doesn't hang around in the atmosphere for more than 5.4 years and certainly not the 30 something the IPCC claims.
http://thermosymposium.nist.gov/archive/symp17/pdf/Abstract_289.pdf
Wrong, waste of f'ing time, and you don't even know what a Gish Gallop is.
Since there are clearly others following this "conversation", a brief update on real science.
Paleoclimate first.
The last glacial was terminated by an increase in summer insolation at high NH latitude. This was brought about by a combination of cyclic wobbles in the Earth's spin, spin angle relative to the sun, and the circularity of the Earth's orbit (technically "precession, obliquity and eccentricity"). These can be lumped together as "orbital dynamics" or orbital forcing aka "Milankovitch forcing".
The process of deglaciation was interrupted by an abrupt cooling to near-glacial conditions which came to an equally abrupt end. This cooling event is known as the Younger Dryas. It appears to have resulted from changes in ocean circulation in the N. Atlantic caused by huge pulses of meltwater to the Arctic ocean as vast glacial lakes drained.
* * *
Oceans and climate system.
The upper oceans are heated instantaneously by visible radiation, aka sunlight. They cool by radiating in the infra-red from the skin surface layer. This cooling represents an energy transfer from ocean to atmosphere and warms the atmosphere, which in turn radiates to space.
The rate of ocean cooling is *slowed* by a warmer atmosphere. Since the rate of solar warming is roughly constant, inhibiting the rate of ocean cooling causes energy to accumulate in the ocean - ocean heat content increases. This is how increased GHG forcing causes energy to accumulate in the oceans, as has been observed and measured by scientists and denied by deniers.
Its a derogatory term.
No, Gordy. Time to admit that you are stupid liar with absolutely no idea what you are bullshitting on about.
Time to admit that your claims about a "lag" are just guff, and that you are so confused that you argue *against* the very mechanisms required for your guff hypothesis to work in the first place.
This is the very definition of idiotic drivel and swivel-eyed confusion.
Some good stuff there BBD.
I'm missing your admission that the "lag" drivel was drivel and that you were utterly wrong about the YD.
nsolation-driven 100,000-year glacial cycles and hysteresis of ice-sheet volume
"The growth and reduction of Northern Hemisphere ice sheets over the past million years is dominated by an approximately 100,000-year periodicity and a sawtooth pattern1, 2 (gradual growth and fast termination). Milankovitch theory proposes that summer insolation at high northern latitudes drives the glacial cycles3, and statistical tests have demonstrated that the glacial cycles are indeed linked to eccentricity, obliquity and precession cycles4, 5. Yet insolation alone cannot explain the strong 100,000-year cycle, suggesting that internal climatic feedbacks may also be at work4, 5, 6, 7. Earlier conceptual models, for example, showed that glacial terminations are associated with the build-up of Northern Hemisphere ‘excess ice’5, 8, 9, 10, but the physical mechanisms underpinning the 100,000-year cycle remain unclear. Here we show, using comprehensive climate and ice-sheet models, that insolation and internal feedbacks between the climate, the ice sheets and the lithosphere–asthenosphere system explain the 100,000-year periodicity. The responses of equilibrium states of ice sheets to summer insolation show hysteresis11, 12, 13, with the shape and position of the hysteresis loop playing a key part in determining the periodicities of glacial cycles. The hysteresis loop of the North American ice sheet is such that after inception of the ice sheet, its mass balance remains mostly positive through several precession cycles, whose amplitudes decrease towards an eccentricity minimum. The larger the ice sheet grows and extends towards lower latitudes, the smaller is the insolation required to make the mass balance negative. Therefore, once a large ice sheet is established, a moderate increase in insolation is sufficient to trigger a negative mass balance, leading to an almost complete retreat of the ice sheet within several thousand years. This fast retreat is governed mainly by rapid ablation due to the lowered surface elevation resulting from delayed isostatic rebound14, 15, 16, which is the lithosphere–asthenosphere response.
Carbon dioxide is involved, but is not determinative, in the evolution of the 100,000-year glacial cycles."
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v500/n7461/full/nature12374.html
el gordo, that abstract (which is from 2009, in case you were duped by all those websites claiming it is "new research") is a good example of chemical engineers *thinking* they've discovered something new, but in reality (mostly, but not quite) discovered that which is known for a long time already: the residence (or turnover) time is about 5 years. What they *thought* they were contradicting was the adjustment time. Fail!
IF.....and I mean a big IF, the co2 hypothesis is correct, it most likely wont stop Santa's back yard from growing :)
#64
Stupid SpamKan hasn't read the thread and repeats stuff we've long since dealt with. Stuff she evidently does not understand at all.
See Page 6 #70 in response to that other fuckwit El Gordy:
It's not a hypothesis, fuckwit.
And so it goes on. Capers and pratfalls.
tiz a hypothesis, wanker
No it isn't cretin! You don't know the difference between hypothesis and theory, and your comprehension of the distinction isn't going to be improved by your denialism.
What about your pratfall at #64?
How does it feel to be terminally stupid, ill-informed and so incompetent that you cannot even troll comments here efficiently?
Does it hurt?
It hasn't warmed for 17 years TOSSER
'It's a derogatory term'
The bone-headed commitment to ignorance in the age of Google is astonishing.
Lord Mitty is a master of the Gish Gallop; you are just some inane old clown who's hopelessly out of his depth, but, thanks to the miracle of Dunning-Kruger, you will never have to experience the full horror of realizing just how far.
'...you were utterly wrong about the YD.'
Its still hotly debated, but my feeling is that a asteroid may have broken up and showered the Middle East, North Atlantic and North America, shutting down the conveyor belt with fresh water flushing.
'The last glacial was terminated by an increase in summer insolation at high NH latitude. This was brought about by a combination of cyclic wobbles in the Earth’s spin, spin angle relative to the sun...'
That is truly fascinating, I was under the impression that the process was slower, but this is dynamic and would have happened relatively quickly.
But you won't put money on it.
I seem to recall hearing predictions of cooling from you and others over the last several years, and similar predictions being made by other cranks for years before that. (Hi Mr. McLean!)
BTW, how'd those earlier predictions work out?
Shamefully, a day late and a dollar short. Even Karen beat you to that one, and she routinely chimes in with a clueless cut and paste anywhere from several days to several weeks after the meme echoes around the denialosphere.
Did you know that most/all of the greenies that have swallowed the co2 hypothesis also believe this.........
"In the modern Metaphysical community, there are many who believe that, not only is the Earth conscious, but is right now making a very deliberate change that we are all involved in creating. It is theorized that since 1987 and the Harmonic Convergence, the Earth has been slowly raising its vibration from a 3rd dimensional reality to the 5th. Some people believe that this culmination will take place at the end of the Mayan Calendar in 2012, and others believe we are already living in 5th dimensional energy right now.
Assuming this is true, is it possible that what we have come to know as "Global Warming" is simply a bi-product of this whole process? The very definition of temperature is the measurement of the speed of vibration of the air molecules. If the Earth is truly raising the speed of its vibration as a whole, it would simply follow that the temperature would increase along with it. Along that same line of thinking, maybe the recent string of Earthquakes is also a part of this transformation. After all, a literal change in the vibration of the planet would most certainly affect the tectonic plates."
fat Al and barnturd are into that theory also :)
He still thinks he's being funny, while at the same time revealing that he is a complete retard.
CO2 has hung around the Earth's atmosphere for over 4.5 billion years
Wottafuckwit El Gordo is.
'... how’d those earlier predictions work out?'
Still coming, just like yours. We should have a clearer picture when the hiatus comes to an end.
Good grief. Immensely gullible, Karen is. That explains a lot of what she posts though...
Huh? "Mine" are pretty much on target, if you look at the full climate system rather than cherry-pick surface temperatures. And even that cherry-pick isn't too bad.
The earlier predictions of surface cooling have fared far worse to date. You can even find posts where people show them on graphs compared to subsequent observations...
Here is part of the conclusion from Archer et al. which tells a completely different story. Who to believe?
'Nowhere in these model results or in the published literature is there any reason to conclude that the effects of CO2 release will be substantially confined to just a few centuries.
'In contrast, generally accepted modern understanding of the global carbon cycle indicates that climate effects of CO2 releases to the atmosphere will persist for tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of years into the future.'
'The earlier predictions of surface cooling have fared far worse to date.'
Yeah, your lot had a good run late last century, so I'm prepared to wait a couple of years to see the tipping point.
The evidence for the bolid hypothesis is very weak. Not that I'm going to debate the cause(s) of the YD with a know-nothing like you. What would be the point? You have no idea what you are talking about.
For example:
No, the YD was abrupt in inception and termination. Not the overall process of deglaciation, which took at least 8ka if not longer. Read the words.
Now, when are you going to admit to the depths of your stupidity and confusion?
You proposed an ocean heat storage and delayed return to the atmosphere mechanism for your "lag" silliness. Then you failed to explain why OHC at all measured depths is INCREASING instead of FALLING as it must if an energy transfer from the oceans to the atmosphere was responsible for this "lagged" warming.
Then, to top it all off, you assert:
- How the heat got into the oceans is of no consequence when by your own argument (and, miraculously, in actual fact) the oceans are heated by solar radiation
- that energy currently accumulating in the ocean won't ever come back to "bite us in the bum" - thus explicitly contradicting your own mechanism for the "lag"
This is beyond the usual range of stupid and confused. So when are you going to put your hands up and admit that you are blethering nonsense?
Come on. Same problem, yet again. You spurt utter shite then when confronted with the steaming mess, you refuse to acknowledge that the stinking pile is indeed bullshit.
It's astonishingly blatant intellectual dishonesty that would shame a child.
"bolide"
You might find this assessment of the potential causes of the YD interesting.
I particularly call your attention to this:
You should consider this carefully. You should read the Carlson review.
It's not a completely different story. It's two elements of the very same one.
As explained to Karen a day or two before you regurgitated this meme, the average lifetime of an individual CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is quite short, due to large bi-directional fluxes between the atmosphere and other carbon repositories. However the change in atmospheric CO2 concentration due to adding extra CO2 to the atmosphere persists for much much longer.
This has been well known for a long time, and has been explained over and over again in any number of basic tutorials on climate science...you should probably try and understand the basics before commenting on it.
And like BBD I'm still waiting for you to explain the "lag" thing. You know, where a more active sun causes the oceans to warm and later release the heat, which implies that under current less active solar conditions the ocean should be cooling...but it's not.
Lotharsson - I've a feeling it was you who pointed El Confusedo at Pinter et al. - ? Anyway, let's point him again.
Pinter et al. (2011) The Younger Dryas impact hypothesis: a requiem:
Karen #31.
A few pages back, Karen got this number wrong by five orders of magnitude. Now she's back quoting Wondering Willis, who also gets it wrong. WW is closer that Karen (not hard), but still wildly out.
It takes grade four maths skills (calculator optional) to estimate the real figure. Karen's inability to recognise where Wondering Willis is wildly wrong suggests she lacks even that minimal level of skill. Of course it is so much easier to just vomit out the latest undigested ramblings of idiots that to be actually sceptical.
Dumbest troll on the thread. But with a chance to redeem herself - Question for Karen: Whats the real number? Got grade four maths skills?
I didn't realise the cretinous Karen was still banging that bin and still dodging your question FrankD.
Isn't it funny how hard it is to get a straight answer out of these people? Just look at the struggle I'm having with the El Gordy thing above.
What must it feel like to be absolutely marinated in lies and BS?
BBD, you as non-scientist and climatology layman:
I am interested to hear from you in your *own" words (not copy paste this time please) how would try to describe the difference between a scientific hypothesis and a scientific theory.
It's always interesting for us scientists to hear how laymen think what science is and how science works.
No more from proven liars here.
BBD, you as non-scientist and climatology layman:
I am interested to hear from you in your *own” words (not copy paste this time please) how would try to describe the difference between a scientific hypothesis and a scientific theory.
It’s always interesting for us scientists to hear how laymen think what science is and how science works.
Lying fantasist.
BBD remarked:
to which, it would seem, gordo offered this:
But why, oh slippery one, why is it a derogatory term, IOW what are its origins?
Now self promoted 'Senior Scientist' Boris as you declare yourself well qualified, please answer my question re lapse rate here.
Don't encourage freddy the sock-puppeteering troll Lionel.
BBD
I am just trying to find out how deep a hole he will dig.
Lionel, he lied about his credentials then tried to delegitimise other commenters here on the basis of that false representation.
He's already at the bottom of the lithosphere.
And he did this using a sock. I assume when our host notices this, he will be banned.