More thread.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
By popular request. Comments from Brent and folks arguing with him are cluttering up more useful discussions. All comments by Brent and responses to comments by Brent should go in this thread. I can't move comments in MT, so I'll just delete comments that appear in the wrong thread.
By popular request. Comments from El Gordo and folks arguing with him are cluttering up more useful discussions. All comments by El Gordo and responses to comments by El Gordo should go in this thread. I can't move comments in MT, so I'll just delete comments that appear in the wrong thread.
This thread is for people who wish to engage Ray in discussion.
Ray, please do not post comments to any other thread.
Everyone else, please do not respond to Ray in any other thread.
By popular request, here is the Jonas thread. All comments by Jonas and replies to his comments belong in this thread.
gordo twerp:
Well yes, the knowledgeable are very worried about the declining amount of ice at the Arctic where the melt is proceeding ahead of predictions just a decade ago.
Now, aside from the interactive graph pointed out to you by Craig Thomas at #43 above and myself earlier in this thread, here are some graphs which provide a whole lot more context and here are some more which focus on one of the important metrics.
Now, what do you consider is happening up North?
BBD: "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."
You are one of the most malicious characters I have ever met on the Internet. Blaming somebody repeatedly of lies without any proof is a bad deed on its own. Your poor behavior and bad manners speak for itself.
I think that you are just angry that you and your warming colleagues have been debunked here as non-scientists and also non-climatologists. That's what makes you furious and puts you back to the place where you belong to: the fifth row of spectators in the arena of science.
Lionel A: "... the knowledgeable ..."
And you count yourself to the knowledgeables? On which basis? You have admitted that you are no scientist and also no climatologist. Why do you then think that you are knowledgeable (just because of copy paste abilities)??
Freddy
Bollocks. You however are a proven liar.
You are no scientist. We all know that. You scuppered your new persona here the second you tried to create a false legitimacy with which to delegitimise others.
Unlike you, freddy, I've been around the block a few times and I can spot a bluffer instantly. Your antics are as transparent as your topic knowledge is weak.
Have we noticed that after getting mauled in a couple of brief technical exchanges that Freddy/Boris is now only banging on about his fake credentials and how they make him more authoritative than those of us without fake credentials?
Boris/Freddy was repeatedly invited either to critique El Confusedo's "lag" tripe or explicitly endorse it.
Notice that he has done neither.
Boris/Freddy is stuck. Now he has claimed an expert level of topic knowledge, he daren't actually *say* anything. Because when he does, he will get ripped apart by those of us here with decent topic knowledge.
All in all, Freddy/Boris is an object lesson in the inadvisability of lying about credentials you do not have whilst running a sock.
BBD, it doesn't matter. He'll tone troll for a little while longer, maybe starfart, then flounce and claim victory because we're just such meanies.
Predictable, pathetic.
Stu
Speaking of whiners and starfarts, where's Betty these days? I came back from hols and he'd gone. Did he give any notice, or just disappear?
No idea. Maybe an IP check could find him? *snirk*
I'm sorry, Lionel - I mis-spoke above, while still in the naive hope that Freddy would bugger off eventually. He obviously won't until banned, so meanwhile, you are absolutely correct to ask for demonstrations of his climate superpowers.
He should definitely answer your question, which I repost here:
# 96 previous page, Lionel A:
BBD said: "You are no scientist. We all know that. You scuppered your new persona here the second you tried to create a false legitimacy with which to delegitimise others"
BBD Lie 1: "You are no scientist". I am a scientist, but you not.
BBD Lie 2: "We all know that". You don't know.
BBD Lie 3: "You scuppered your new persona here the second you tried to create a false legitimacy with which to delegitimise others". Incredible how shamelessly you accuse somebody without knowling anything. You are an extremely malicious character.
Prove what you maintain or keep your lose mouth closed in shame!
I will not react in the future to further unqualified personal ad hominem attacks from you, regardless of what you say. You have disqualified for further communication with me.
End of discussion with you.
Ah, Boris, *you* made the claim. It's not up to me to substantiate it!
You clown!
I don't give a rat's arse whether you respond to me or not, but the longer you troll here pretending to be an active senior climate research scientist who cannot spot basic errors and will not enter substantive discussion the louder the general laughter and derision will get.
I see straight through your nonsense and you know it.
Now, why not either critique El Confusedo's "lag" rubbish or confirm that you endorse it? His rubbish - nothing to do with me.
Then there is the question you are dodging posted by Lionel A.
Answer that. Nothing to do with me.
Come on, let's see those climate superpowers in action, my genius!
You wish.
Boring Boris:
Who by?
Not by a self promoting twerp who avoids technical discussion, that is you, that is for sire.
Lionel A
Apologies again.
BBD when I said this I was referring to the termination of the LGM and not the YD.
'That is truly fascinating, I was under the impression that the process was slower, but this is dynamic and would have happened relatively quickly.'
So what is the thinking on the dicussion paper by Von Storch et al
http://www.academia.edu/4210419/Can_climate_models_explain_the_recent_s…
Well, I guess the climate denier von Storch's scary science words fit right in in this thread too: ;-)
Fellas, von Storch has some scary words coming your way. It's nothing new for the open minded though: ;-)
"In recent years, the increase in near-surface global annual mean temperatures has emerged asconsiderably smaller than many had expected. We investigate whether this can be explained bycontemporary climate change scenarios. In contrast to earlier analyses for a ten-year period
thatindicated consistency between models and observations at the 5% confidence level, we find thatthe continued warming stagnation over fifteen years, from 1998 -2012, is no longer consistentwith model projections even at the 2% confidence level. Of the possible causes of theinconsistency, the underestimation of internal natural climate variability on decadal time scales isa plausible candidate, but the influence of unaccounted external forcing factors or anoverestimation of the model sensitivity to elevated greenhouse gas concentrations cannot be ruledout. The first cause would have little impact of the expectations of longer term anthropogenicclimate change, but the second and particularly the third would."
http://www.academia.edu/4210419/Can_climate_models_explain_the_recent_s…
According to Storch apparently there is no explanation 4. Its hiding in the deep oceans.
Ah..Rednose beat me to it. :-)
Never mind Olaus. Nice to rattle a few cages.
'Now, why not either critique El Confusedo’s “lag” rubbish or confirm that you endorse it?'
I can fight my own battles.
So our star warmed the earth when it was active last century, but it's now on the blink and the planetary temp is in hiatus. The heat from last century can now be found in the oceans, that is the lag and the heat will stay there until it eventually cools.
What is your opinion of what is happening? Keep it simple, pretend you are a journalist with the UK Mail talking to ordinary folk.
And no. 4 is also model based... ;-)
Little Napoleon, BBD and the rest of the climate scare tent shakers need to correct von Storch. I'm sure the good German professor will change his mind If little Napoleon waives his CV. ;-)
Just like when you switch off the Bunsen burner, the temperature of the water in the beaker continues to rise for a time, while the energy distributes itself evenly, before starting to fall.
Sorry el g, not aimed at me but could not resist.
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 decreasing as it must if an energy transfer from the oceans to the atmosphere was responsible for this "lagged" *atmospheric* 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 explicity 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. Talks utter shite then when confronted with the steaming mess, refuses to acknowledge that the stinking pile is indeed bullshit.
HvS isn’t saying anything new. Mystery forcings of the invisible and unmeasurable variety need to be demonstrated. Supposed model over-sensitivity needs to be considered in terms of decadal variability in the rate of ocean heat uptake and the rate of OHC increase at depth. He is clear about this:
But points two and three have not been demonstrated. Point one is indeed the plausible candidate and it won’t make any difference to the centennial trend, which is what this is really all about.
Another group of trolls manifests simultaneously. It's so odd.
'You proposed an ocean heat storage and delayed return to the atmosphere mechanism for your “lag” silliness.'
The oceans are the great moderators of planetary temperatures and the heat from last century will not escape its watery grave.
This is primarily where you are going wrong with your fear and loathing stories.
Thanks Rednose, its what I imagined happened.
Gordy, you are chuntering instead of answering the questions.
If you think point 1 is the favoured candidate, ie underestimates of natural variability, then IMHO it seems linked to point 3 and overestimates of climate sensitivity.
It also begs the question "How much of the recent warming was due to natural variability?"
Or perhaps its a bit of all 3
3variability and an overestimation of the response to forced variability. .
Crap
ignore last line
'thus explicity contradicting your own mechanism for the “lag”
Its funny, you have interpreted the lag as something terribly dangerous which, because its human induced and beyond Gaia, will one day return to haunt us.
This is pure folly, the oceans naturally absorb heat belatedly and there is no need to be afraid because they will cool soon enough.
Still chuntering. Still no answers to the questions.
I answered your question, our understanding of the lag is different.
Correct me if I'm wrong, a continuing buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere has failed to produce any warming for more than a decade and in desperation you say its now building up in the oceans.
Hmmmm.....
So within five years that heat will burst out onto the world stage and begin killing all life on the planet?
No, your argument for a lag has no physical mechanism and contradicts all observations of TSI, OHC and GAT to date. And I have shown you this. Would you like to see the pretty pictures again?
You then repeat a debunked lie about "no warming". You are tedious, dishonest and miserably wrong.
Wake up.
Oh FFS, Gordy. We've been through this already.
#55 previous page:
But just keep repeating the debunked lies, eh? It does wonders for your credibility.
Indeed they are, and someone's been getting them all a'twitter, all at the same time. I'd be surprised if their pants are still dry, judging by the manner they're tripping over themselves to be first to tell.
However von Storch is right, the modelling does need bringing up to date. Arctic melt in the real world is about 50 years in advance of the ensemble mean, which indicates the model data are incomplete and need revising to adjust their overly conservative simulations.
But then, only dimwit deniers (i.e. the sudden influx of know-nothing messenger boys) seem to think models should be perfect rather than useful.
'Of course much of the stored energy *will* eventually resurface to warm the atmosphere in addition to GHG forcing…'
That's crap.
von Storch is using 1998 as his start date... if that doesn't set the alarm bells ringing...
'models should be perfect'
Yes, there is a great deal of money riding on it, for Australia alone its around $150 billion up to 2050.
#39
Then how does your "lag" mechanism heat the atmosphere?
I'm having trouble believing that you cannot see the contradictions in what you say.
#40
Yes. HvS is gesticulating for attention from the (peanut) gallery again.
'Then how does your “lag” mechanism heat the atmosphere?'
Not from the bottom of the deep oceans.
OHC is increasing at all measured depths. You need a cooling - a *decrease* in OHC - to explain a lagged increase in atmospheric temperature.
Energy isn't created by magic, even in the sea.
Look, this is pointless. Either you can't understand the basics or your refuse to accept the basics.
Your incomprehension and denial makes no difference to the basics. This is something that you are going to have to come to terms with unless you are fairly elderly.
So because of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere the oceans will continue to warm. Is this your argument?
Yes, obviously.
How do you account for the contradictions in what you say?
You've proposed a correlation between the reduced energy received from the Sun, and a current trend in planetary warming.
The Sun was getting fainter
Temperatures rose steeply
The Sun got even fainter
Temperatures have continued to increase
ergo
There is no such correlation
This is the energy received from the fainter Sun during the faint-Sun second-half of the 20th Century?
As you are fond of saying, last Century was warm. The Sun was faint.
ergo
The Sun did not drive last Century's warming
What is it that "eventually cools"? The oceans?
Do you understand that "cooling" describes a process of transfer of heat? Where is the heat being transferred?
SEND IN THE CLOWNS
It's basic physics.
The CO2 causes an imbalance between the energy received from the Sun, and the energy re-radiated to space.
Until that imbalance corrects itself, heat continues to accumulate in the oceans and atmosphere.
If you can bear to tear yourself away from Daily-Mail-informed crank blogs for a moment, you could inform yourself on this issue by reading the following:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_16/
Yeah right, its certainly interesting if not believable and following on from that I found this beautiful quote in NASA News of 2012.
"The fact that we still see a positive imbalance despite the prolonged solar minimum isn't a surprise given what we've learned about the climate system, but it's worth noting because this provides unequivocal evidence that the sun is not the dominant driver of global warming," James Hansen said.
guffaw
Why are you laughing?
Don't you understand the words?
Guffaw? Jesus Christ, moron, how do you cross the street?
Channelling Gordo...
"Well, you see in my opinion there's no "street". It's just an open space over there, somewhere where there are sometimes cars. So you haven't proved anything and global warming stopped 13 years ago."
Hey Bernard J!
Just dropped in and spotted your comment no. 39 (previous page). That's some good stuff, there, BJ!--I mean, like, it's got everything:
-a frantic, crazy-hive-bozo, bad-trip-berzerker intensity of expression of the jeez-BJ-while-your-idiotic-rant-has-a-weirdly-fascinating-quality-to-it-I-admit-at-the-same-time-your-nut-ball-comment-is-such-an-unsettling-and-alarming-creep-out-display-of-concentrated-freak-show-mental-illness-in-the-raw-that-I-actually-find-myself-embarassed-for-you variety.
-a wretched excess of febrile, high-drama, spastic-dork, attention-seeking, meltdown eco-hysterics
-an old-fart, superannuated-snooty-scold, sore-loser, bossy-feckless-nag, pompous-ass self-importance and self-righteousness
-a sicko, control-rods-on-the-"fritz"-runaway-atomic-brain, pathologically-elaborated obsession with a "master-plan", Lysenkoist, greenshirts-heart-gulags, ballot-reform fantasy
-and a Richard-Parncuff-plaigarized, killing-fields, pretext-reverie in which your mind, BJ, comes alive with the delicious, semi-erotic visions of the hive ruthlessly acting as one to snuff-out the evil "deniers" in a "Nuremberg-style", crimes-against-humanity-and-the-biosphere, thrill-kill, blood-lust blow-out.
I dunno, BJ, but I don't think you need to be a conspiracy-theory "ideationist" to savor the true "awesomeness" of your last. Like I said--Good stuff, BJ!
no-one reads your crap, mike
go away
El Gordo needs our help understanding this:
This means, we can measure the amount of radiation arriving on Earth, and we can measure the amount of radiation leaving it.
That measurement shows radiation in exceeds radiation out.
That's an imbalance.
This means that we are currently in a period where the incoming radiation is less than it was previously.
We have less incoming radiation, but it is still more than the outgoing radiation.
This is easily deduced, because were the Sun the dominant driver of the current warming, then a reduction in incoming radiation would cause the opposite imbalance to the one we have now: if the Sun were the cause of recent warming, then a reduction in incoming radiation would cause the outgoing radiation to exceed incoming radiation, causing the Earth to cool until the imbalance disappeared.
That is not what is happening - despite the reduction in solar radiation, the Earth still absorbs more radiation than it emits. The cause of this is the additional CO2, CH4, and various CFCs in the atmosphere which are inhibiting the Earth's emission of radiation.
This is very basic physics and simple logic, understandable by students at Primary level.
"Ice in Greenland is melting partly because of heat from the Earth's mantle, according to a team of international researchers.
The group claims that they are the first to find a connection between melting of the Greenland ice sheet and the high heat flow from the Earth’s mantle.
The findings, they suggest, could have implications for future predictions on climate change and the reasons behind ice melt in the region."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2389991/Global-warming-S…
lol
"Ice in Greenland is melting partly because of heat from the Earth's mantle, according to a team of international researchers.
The group claims that they are the first to find a connection between melting of the Greenland ice sheet and the high heat flow from the Earth’s mantle.
The findings, they suggest, could have implications for future predictions on climate change and the reasons behind ice melt in the region."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2389991/Global-warming-S…
lol
#57 Craig Thomas, is that a photo of you?
Heat flux variations beneath central Greenland’s ice due to anomalously thin lithosphere
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1898.html
The same thing is most likely happening in many places on the ocean floor and causing the warming that has recently been noticed at depths only down to 2000 mtrs.
Daily Fail 'sciencey' stuff.
In this case an otherwise fairly reasonable article untroubled by quantification beyond 'partly', and a typical hack sub-Editor's chum headline which spins that to 'much'. And adds 'Global Warming?', of course, knowing what the pack is baying for.
Confident predictions -
For science; not a lot will change.
For muppets; suddenly Greenland will be acknowledged to be melting after all, at least until the 'not a lot' becomes irrefutable knowledge, and then, miraculously, it won't be again.
For blatant morons; well SpamKan will 'lol' about this forever, because think is too hard for her to even attain muppet status.
"At the Earth’s surface, heat fluxes from the interior1 are generally insignificant compared with those from the Sun and atmosphere2, except in areas permanently blanketed by ice. Modelling studies show that geothermal heat flux influences the internal thermal structure of ice sheets and the distribution of basal melt water3, and it should be taken into account in planning deep ice drilling campaigns and climate reconstructions4"
No doubt OHC is also influenced, eh Billie, lol
" Here we use a coupled ice–lithosphere model driven by climate and show that the oldest and thickest part of the Greenland Ice Sheet is strongly influenced by heat flow from the deep Earth. We find that the geothermal heat flux in central Greenland "
lol :) lol
Sheesh. Confused troll doesn't even know the meaning of "debunked".
News at 11.
'This is very basic physics and simple logic, understandable by students at Primary level.'
Yes they have been brainwashed throughly, so it won't be easy debriefing them.
Thanks for promptly bearing out my prediction, SpamKan. The other two will follow in due course.
It's hard to resist the conclusion that el gordo is a couple of sandwiches short of a picnic.
I'm more and more convinced that in his mind invoking "lag" is like invoking a deity as an "explanatory" mechanism. People who do that don't feel any need to provide robust evidence of said deity, and especially feel that they don't have to provide even an unsubstantiated but plausible mechanism by which the alleged deity achieves its immanent effect. Merely claiming there is one is enough to rebuff all criticism that you haven't made your case!
And, Gordon, your daft old crank persona is showing again.
'The same thing is most likely happening in many places on the ocean floor and causing the warming that has recently been noticed at depths only down to 2000 mtrs.'
Karen is on the money with this, it explains a great deal
Do my eyes deceive me? Is Karen touting a paper based on (gasp!) a model? Surely not! Karen knows that all models are only created in order to be used as instruments of deception! She has clearly lost her marbles and any "skeptic" credibility!
lol :-) lol
What a remarkable co-incidence that would be: just when humans pump out masses of CO2, changing the atmospheric concentration of CO2 by +40% and thus causing an energy imbalance between incoming and outgoing radiation, the Earth suddenly decides to heat up and start trying to emit more radiation from a deeper reservoir of energy.
You realise, El Gordo, we've just explained to you why we know this is not the driver of climate change?
If the source of the imbalance was from within the system, then the imbalance would consist of a higher rate of outgoing radiation than incoming, and no change to the equilibrium temperature.
Naturally, this phenomenal coincidence is thus shown to be not occurring.
Once again, we see the difference between people who inform themselves by absorbing the facts, and people (like El Gordo and his drooling-cretin peers from the crank blogs) who choose a bizarre belief and then try to invent facts that fit it.
'choose a bizarre belief and then try to invent facts that fit it.'
Now that is a coincidence, its exactly what I've been thinking of your mob.
Craig, its my melancholy duty to inform you there is no imbalance in the system.... sort out the 'sensitivity' issue first.
What a fool! The imbalance is measurable, but you're denying it.
And even your "lag" baloney requires an imbalance at all times, except at the moment that the forcing crosses the balance point on its way between "warming" and "cooling" or vice versa.
And worse still, the imbalance is not in any way predicated on any "sensitivity" issue or value, so you don't know what you're talking about.
(Karen, does this bother you - the only praise for your comments comes from someone this confused?)
Sensitivity gives us an idea of how much total warming to expect when a system in equilibrium is subject to a new and ongoing change in forcing. (By definition, in equilibrium there is no imbalance, amongst other requirements for equilibrium.)
That new change in forcing determines the amount of the initial imbalance. If the new forcing level is held constant, then as the system proceeds towards the new equilibrium the imbalance will reduce from its initial value towards zero.
Not only is KarenMackSunspot promoting a paper that uses modelling, he and his denialist buddies have completely misunderstood Petrunin et al, and the impact that geothermal heat has on the Greenland ice sheet.
Petrunin et al are not saying that the current melt of the GIS is due to geothermal energy. If they are I would like KarenMackSunspot (or his dog-whistlers) to actually point to the parts of the paper that say so.
And when one thinks about it the idea that geothermal energy is melting the GIS is nonsense. The ice sheet is demonstrably melting from the surface, and the nearby sea ice and the glaciers of the mountains around the world are not in contact with the Greenland lithosphere, and yet they are melting too.
If geothermal energy was responsible for the observed global warming it would be measured, but I know of no data that demonstrates this. To melt ice at the rate that it has melted to date, there would need to be an enormous increase in the geothermal output - where in the world is this occurring?
(Karen, does this bother you – the only praise for your comments comes from someone this intelligent and debonair?)
No :)
Mike.
Thank you for proving my point.
When something cools, something else must warm. It's a simple transfer of energy - maybe conduction, maybe convection, maybe radiation - but a transfer of some kind.
Unless you can tell us of some as yet unknown process by which the ocean could radiate its heat direct to space without any contact or influence on the atmosphere or non-ocean waters or ice somewhere, we must expect to see evidence of that transfer of heat. Maybe that's where the heat to melt Arctic sea ice is coming from. No? So where do you think this energy might go when the oceans start this cooling process you're so keen on.
As for the heat transfer from within and beneath the crust - we know that happens. What none of this tells us is what. has. changed. in this well known phenomenon. If it's always been there, why is it having an increased effect on atmospheric temperatures or on ice sheets or sea ice at precisely the same time as greenhouse concentrations are increasing. What's stopping the greenhouse gases from having any effect at the same time as these possible drivers of temperature or melt are impacting on the surface and the atmosphere?
That's sweet Karen, thanks.
The oceans are vast, the heat energy trapped there must diminish over time, dissipate and cool as our sun remains quiet.
It's like you're singing yourself to sleep, Gordon. You really don't understand basic physics at all, do you?
No wonder the best you can manage in the way of allies is a bonafide imbecile. Sweetie.
Oh, and Bernard's bet. Take it up.
"diminish" and "dissipate" mean there is a heat transfer.
The heat transfer is measured and currently there is an imbalance: more heat is being received than is being radiated.
The heat transfer will only result in a cooler ocean once that imbalance is reversed.
The imbalance will not at this stage reverse: the new equilibrium temperature is higher than it was before the CO2 was increased: about 3 degrees higher for 560ppm CO2, which is called "sensitivity".
Therefore, the oceans will continue to warm until that new equilibrium temperature is reached.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/GlobalMaps/view.php?d1=CERES_NETFLUX_M
Note the word, fundamental. No informed commmentary would claim there is no such thing.
That's funny, a natural imbalance.
'the new equilibrium temperature is higher than it was before the CO2 was increased'
Perhaps its just a coincidence?
The SST surge in the ex-tropical north Pacific is reckoned to be related to AGW, but Bob Tisdale calls it weather.
'It will probably be a year or so before someone publishes a paper about it, but I suspect the sudden upward spike in extratropical North Pacific sea surface temperatures was caused by a shift in wind patterns, related to a change in sea level pressure. In other words, it’s likely weather related.'
Epic Fail.
We have measured corresponding changes in the spectrum of outgoing longwave radiation. The nature of a climate system with a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere means that the planet must warm in order to re-establish radiative equilibrium when more greenhouse gas is added, all other things being equal. The trajectory of that warming process is typically complicated, but it is inexorable if nothing else changes, because an equilibrium state, as I already pointed out, requires radiative balance.
Bob Tisdale gets lots of things wrong and so do you, so forgive me if I don't trust either of you just because you claim something. (And I note that this is just another step in your ongoing Gish Gallop from wrong point to unsubstantiated point to deeply stupid point to wrong point...almost all of them unacknowledged by you.)
You are providing a classic Dunning-Kruger case study - you think everyone else is mistaken, but can't even display a simple understanding of the very basics of the topic.
Actually, El Gordo is providing a comprehensive step-by-step trajectory through all the incomprehension and lies of the denial industry.
I think he has now covered just about everything the denial industry is wrong about bar ocean acidification, but perhaps he thinks his pal Brad Keyes had that one covered off sufficiently already.
'The nature of a climate system with a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere means that the planet must warm in order to re-establish radiative equilibrium when more greenhouse gas is added, all other things being equal.'
I grant you its a very interesting theory.
'Bob Tisdale gets lots of things wrong and so do you, so forgive me if I don’t trust either of you just because you claim something.'
You are missing out on all the fun .... is Bob wrong?
Tell me what you think of that July irregularity?
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/extratrop-no-pac.png
What's funny about a "natural imbalance"? The very existence of life, and of any abiotic dynamic process for that matter, is predicated on the existence of "natural imbalance" at particular scales.
All you're demonstrating is that you don't understand what a "system" is...
El Gordo, the problem is that you are looking at cranks and crank-blogs for your "information".
Why waste your time in that way?
Just concentrate on learning the basics from reputable sites and scientists:
http://www.csiro.au/en/Outcomes/Climate/Understanding.aspx
http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators
Tisdale doesn't like the basics because he understands what they mean, therefore he engages with some minor complexities that he does not understand in order to distract himself from the inconvenient facts.
The imbalance caused by increased CO2 in the atmosphere is perfectly natural.
Perhaps acquainting yourself with a modicum of physics instead of wallowing in crank blogs would see you less amazed at the basic facts all the time?
You haven't answered the question as to why Bob chose a 13-month moving average. Try that first...you might have a small "a-ha" moment.
'Why waste your time in that way?'
Post Normal Science (PNS) has more credibility.
'You haven’t answered the question as to why Bob chose a 13-month moving average.'
Not a clue, is it important in our hair splitting quest?
Craig the CSIRO has become discredited, for obvious reasons.
BoM and the CSIRO need to be split up, it has become a very expensive propaganda machine supported by the state.
More loony tunes from El Confusedo and Teh Karen.
No answers, no understanding of physical climatology, just blathering, clueless denial.
Blablablablablablablablablablablablablabla!
Idiots, the pair of you.
Good morning comrade BB.
I'll drop this here for Craig.
http://www.sciencebits.com/files/articles/CalorimeterFinal.pdf
Welcome to solar max,
http://www.solarham.net/regions/map.htm
I'm no more a commie than you are, you buffoon. It's always politics with demagogues though, isn't it? Me - I argue from the science and from paleoclimate behaviour. You? You can't even understand the most basic energy flows and you don't care because... it's all about (Australian) politics for you.
So you argue against a robust scientific consensus with half-arsed rhetoric and suppose that your opponents must be of the left.
What a tool you are for missing the point so completely you might as well be on a different planet.
That Shaviv paper is complete crap, Gordy, but since you don't even understand the basics, you wouldn't know, would you?
Ah, silly me. You haven't even read it, have you? Of course not.
Parrot squawk.
As for #1, WTF?
Solar data are here. You really are utterly helpless, aren't you?
Politics, politics, politics, and parrot squawks.
Fatuous, waffling ignoramus. This kind of IPA-style lunacy will likely end up costing the country more than it can afford to pay.
That's just about the point, isn't it?
The deep irony about the bleating about "comrades" and cries of "socialism" is that big business and rich people want to socialise the costs (and privatise the profits)...
So tell us, people; which is more likely - that the CSIRO is a 'propaganda machine', or that Gordon is a brain-dead, purblind idiot?
Answers please on a postcard to 'PM Tony Abbott, soon to be in The Lodge, Canberra 2600'
Go help us.
Hmm 'God', of course, but it's sort of got it...
I liked "fatuous, waffling ignoramus" bill.
And this deserves repeating because it is true:
Since our Gordy likes the traditional language of political knock-about, perhaps he should be called what he is: a capitalist lackey!
:-)
hehehe........Not long ago the world descended into a Little Ice Age that had an average temperature drop of 2-3 deg C.
Did you get that?
An average temperature drop of 2-3 deg C.
This cold wiped out food crops and shortened the growing seasons, killed humans and wildlife alike,
33% of the population of Europe was wiped out from disease, which was approximately 25 million people.
The world is now 0.79 C. warmer than 1881-1890
0.79 C. warmer !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We still have roughly 1.5 C to go before we get back to average temperatures by the looks of it, lol
The temperature of a cyclical real fair dinkum Ice Age is an average drop of about 7-10 C, brrrrrrrr
As a side note, we are overdue for the next cold spell.
:)
gordolocks at p11 #79
Oh FFS! Did you not understand the importance of adelady's discourse on transfer of heat? What a dolt you are.
Try some basic level books to set you right about how things work:
Oceanography (ISE): An Invitation to Marine Science by Tom Garrison
Earth's Climate: Past and Future by William F. Ruddiman
and for help with Younger Dryas and similar events I suggest
The Long Thaw: How Humans Are Changing the Next 100,000 Years of Earth's Climate by David Archer who has also put on-line this excellent series of lectures . Try learning before spouting more crap
Anybody who persists in pushing the memes that you do after being well appraised of sources which will debunk those memes deserves all the ridicule they receive.
You are a real spurt Lionel, lol
Ah! Yes. Like the Australian Pension fund and other such like that have a stake in some of 'our' water companies over here in the UK. Letting the infrastructure break down causing homes to be flooded out whilst shareholders and pension funds gorge themselves on the 'profit' from increased charges.
But then all those reliant on the flow from one of the biggest water systems in the US will ere long have more to worry about.
Why is this happening gordolocks & co.?
Krakentop:
As a side note, we are overdue for the next cold spell.
Won't argue with that but please explain why this is so. Hint Ruddiman is your friend.
Liar.
Idiot. (See the red curve on the graph linked above.)
Ignoramus. The next one ain't happening due to anthropogenic forcings, and IIRC the one after that isn't all that likely either.
It's amazing how much wrongness you pack into one post though. Do you have to work hard at it? Or just cut and paste from carefully selected sources? Do you do it deliberately to get attention, to try to mislead the gullible for whatever purpose, or are you merely sincerely wrong time after time?
Karen, I don't think you understand the Greenland Ice melt paper. For starters they're talking a bout a process that has been going on for over 3 million years.
Heat rises from the Earth's core to the surface of all the Earth. However in most places it is trivial compared to that received from the Sun. Greenland has whopping great thick sheets of ice on it that stops the sun's heat penetrating to the surface below, coupled with an exceptionally thin lithosphere in some places. This means that at the surface the heat rising from the earth's core is more relatively important. That's all. Nothing to do with AGW.
I see Karen conflates local and global issues again (hint: only in some regions there may have been a 2 degree-3 degree lower temperature during the LIA, but definitely not global). Also, the supposed "33% of Europeans wiped out by disease" was due to the plague, which peaked in 1350, well before any major temperature decline in Europe.
What Marco said. N Europe winters may have been 1.5 - 2C colder IIRC, not the globe. Karen Greenland-is-the-Eemian is at it again.
Why not just check the dreck karen? Or is being sceptical a bit too much like actual thinking for comfort?
'You haven’t even read it, have you?'
Its a bit technical so I jumped to the conclusion, which is readily understandable.
No, that's wrong too. "Overdue" is a misrepresentation. Due in a few millennia" would be arguable, but only without anthropogenic forcing (see Lotharsson # 16) which means at least one and probably more glacial cycles will be skipped. Finally, the 400ka eccentricity minimum now happening may well yield an unusually long interglacial as per MIS11.
Lots more in Archer & Ganopolski (2005) A movable trigger: fossil fuel and the onset of the next glaciation.
Why not try reading some actual science, karen? Or is that a bit too much like hard work for a lazy spammer like you?
Gordy
And wrong.
'only in some regions there may have been a 2 degree-3 degree lower temperature during the LIA, but definitely not global.'
That was definitely the situation in Europe and I think it can be argued the LIA was a worldwide phenomenon.
'which means at least one and probably more glacial cycles will be skipped.'
unfknbelievable
#23
No, wrong as usual.
See PAGES-2K
You deniers have never managed to get millennial climate straight, mainly because it doesn't suit the denialist narrative.
Paleoclimate never does.
Sorry about the borked html.
Keywords as ever here are
global and synchronous.
Please try to understand what these words mean before responding. Or better still, leave it alone.
SS and RC is crap, give me something I can believe in.
Anyway a quick google suggests temperatures may have fallen 0.7C worldwide.
Fuck your denialism.
RealClimate didn't write the fucking paper, you dismal prat.
Here's the original:
Agreed. People who try to make other people responsible for their own stupidity shit me. Gordon, you are a waste of space
First, there were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age.
Global and synchronous. Try to understand what the words mean.
Second, the global *average* temperature in the LIA did *not* fall "2 -3C". Karen was wrong but you are now coming into agreement with reality. Well done!
Still no thoughts on why Tisdale picked a 13 year moving average, Gordo? Hint: it's the same reason the "hiatus" is exactly 17 years.
So, Krakentop, where are average temperatures headed?
Here is a very big clue .
Now to rectify a htm screw up above
Won’t argue with that but please explain why this is so. Hint Ruddiman is your friend.
Now, and BTW, your frequent use of 'lol' makes you look like a vacuous drab. Which is what you are of course.
I've posted this before and some of you will have seen it anyway, but it bears repeating. There's a very interesting graph comparing the PAGES 2k results and the Mannean Hockey Stick (MBH99).
PAGES 2k validates the Hockey Stick to an extent that even surprised me.
Graph caption:
Source.
Here's a figure from the original study showing the same thing but with more millennial reconstructions plus forcing estimates for the last millennium.
Looks like fifteen years of lying, bullshitting and character assassination by the fake sceptics adds up to exactly nothing. Doubtless no apology to Mann will ever be forthcoming from the chief rabble-rousers. But Mann was right all along.
The last thing your crank disinformation people want is for you to be reading any actual science by active scientists referencing real science.
Ever wonder why that is Gordon? You probably don't, just as with those strange, unrounded interval choices Stu asked you about earlier.
That Thinkprogress graph is bizarre and you wonder why I have no faith in the established science community.
*sigh* of course, it's the graph, not you. Has to be it.
No mystery about that.
You're a crank-lovin' crackerjack who thinks politics trumps reality.
Why?
You need to explain your rejection of the graph with some technical detail.
I thought you might try the "Thinkprogress graph* diversion so I then linked to what is essentially the same graph but from the PAGES 2k study itself.
Look and learn.
And we are supposed to call them sceptics not deniers.
You show me your graph and I'll show you mine.
There appears to be a cooling trend.
http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Global-Temp-and-NOAA…
Oh ffs Gordon, don't you know why 1998 is the cranks favourite start year?
Are you really that dumb?
No, that's a cherry-pick hot start year applied to an obsolete data set.
Same again with HadCRUT4.
But remember, the troposphere isn't the climate system!
Some perspective. Satellite and surface measurement of global average temperature 1979 - present compared.
Why 1979? Because that's when the satellite record begins. No tricks zone here.
I'll keep that in mind.
Fatso, do you not realize that the web site you visited does not live up to its name? It calls itself "Notricks", however nothing could be further from the truth. The data points are correct but the trend line does not correspond to the actual data. Some lying denier just drew in a line to show a drop in temperature but it does not correspond to the data points. Here are the actual data and trend line:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/plot/hadcrut3vgl…
So these dishonest deniers, whoever they are, used two "notricks" to confuse stupid people like you. They used the well known trick of cherry picking start date and they also used a more dishonest trick of just drawing in a fictitious trend line which does not represent the data at all.
Why are you being so dishonest and trying to pass of your links as honest and truthful? All you are doing is showing how dishonest and stupid you are.
Good going Ian and BBD.
Usually I don't consider crank links worth pursuing, but good on you both for taking the time.
OK I'm prepared to accept Ian's graph as legitimate.
Why not mine? Same data set accessed through the same data viewing tool.
Please confirm that you accept this.
Why not mine? Same data set accessed through the same data viewing tool.
Why not mine? Current data set accessed through the same data viewing tool.
It's slow and there will be wobbles. But the decadal average speaks for itself.
It says: where is the energy coming from?!
Taken in by 'No Tricks Zone'! Christ, you must be a gift to used-car salesmen...
And yet the CSIRO and the BoM generate 'propaganda', and SkS* and the bonafide scientists at RealClimate can't be 'believed' in.
You do realize you've made it 100% clear that your beliefs are unfalsifiable?
I.e. your attitudes are a matter of faith, not evidence. Like every good fundamentalist, you're smugly, appallingly convinced that evidence contrary to your 'Word of God' is the work of devils!
You utter, utter prat.
It is, indeed all projection.
*Godwinned, clown-style, as 'SS' - now there's a f*in' adult for you.
Please confirm that you accept this or explain why you don't.
Sherlock, your problem is that your mind can only retain one thing at a time and you keep filling it with a random hackneyed and debunked factoid from the Denialati's Bumper Handbook of Whacko Pesuedoscientific Dross.
I'm the heretic and you are the fundamentalist, bill.
----------
BBD its absurd, Ian gets it right.
Assertion not explanation. I asked for explanation. You aren't saying anything.
pommy wanker
Spawn of criminals!
Do try to be serious, Gordy.
Gordon is a hysteric who doesn't know (or want to know) why he does what he does or thinks what he thinks.
You're mistaking him for a rational man able to explain himself and his decisions BBD, when it's been all-too-obvious for always that he isn't. The crassness of his stupidity should make that very clear.
chek
Nah.I know he's an irredeemable fuckwit. But games!
Thanks, El Gordo, I see you are as usual ignoring the basics which you could potentially understand, in favour of concentrating on complex minutiae that you have no hope of understanding.
The paper you mention attempts to propose a cosmic ray hypothesis as the forcing for current global warming.
Unfortunately, as it turns out, cosmic rays correlate neither with cloud cover, nor with the observed warming.
So much for that hypothesis: you should be more sceptical of what you read on crank blogs.
Is it safe to comment yet Gordy? Have I gone to bed yet?
'concentrating on complex minutiae'
Splitting hairs is fun.
'cosmic rays correlate neither with cloud cover, nor with the observed warming.'
You may be wrong on that score, I remember reading something on the CERN (sic) experiments.
'Early results seem to indicate that cosmic rays do cause a change. The high-energy protons seemed to enhance the production of nanometre-sized particles from the gaseous atmosphere by more than a factor of ten. But, Kirkby adds, those particles are far too small to serve as seeds for clouds. “At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it’s a very important first step,” he says.
Kirkby / Nature 2011
Then square the GCR/cloud hypothesis with the Laschamp excursion.
Ouch! That's ... Moncktonesque, or even Mörneresque, or outright Tricksy...
And yet el gordo shows no sign of re-evaluating his self-assessed competence to assess claims about climate science. What a gift to used car salesmen (and anyone who wants to sell him on a policy) is he!
And speaking of not yet re-evaluating one's own competence:
Hmmm, if I were a betting person...
I'm struggling to recall a time when you got hold of an actual hair. Most of the time you're holding two fingers together with nothing in between, but apparently damn proud of your efforts.
~40ka and the Earth's magnetic field collapses to ~10% of it's normal strength. There's a huge increase in GCR flux to the lower atmosphere and nothing happened. The Dansgaard-Oeschger cold event happening then didn't get any colder. Nothing happened.
Paleoclimate behaviour kills the GCR stuff stone dead, Gordy.
I
If fundamentalism = believing the CSIRO knows what it's talking about, while SpamBlogs, Bolt + Gordy are fatuous blowhards - damn right I'm a fundamentalist!
I repeat, your beliefs are unfalsifiable. You, and your fellow-travellers, are a Medieval anachronism in the modern world.
AGW is also unfalsifiable.
--------------
Apparently there was a 'pronounced and prolonged rise in the atmosphere’s radiocarbon excess' from 44,000 years BP which peaked 40,000 years ago.
What do you make of that?
You are not only a used-car dealer's dream, you are an agnotologist's.
Projection don't make it so, Gordon. Science vs. squawkback radio nutters and overweening fabulists. Golly; who will win?
In reality, there's not much doubt, is there?
Unfortunately, in the political world, now known as the Domain of the Stupid, unpleasant truths may be avoided until they simply no longer can be, and by then, Sunshine, we are fucked.
And all thanks to you, and your ilk.
It's true, Gordy. You aren't bringing clarity to the table and this is a serious problem.
God known what you were like at work.
God knows and on present form you must have been a liability.
Not in Murdochland. People like Gordon are rewarded by Prince Rupert.
Bollocks! You're applying the Fallacy Of Argument From Lack Of Personal Imagination (and the related one from lack of personal Competence - but we can all take that as read for practically every comment from you).
It's simple to falsify: demonstrate that a non-AGW explanation for all of the observations provides a better explanation than AGW. The fact that this hasn't been done, despite very powerful financial motivations to do so for certain corporate actors, suggests that it probably can't be done...
Earth's Climatic History: The Last 10,000 Years
"Near the beginning of the current interglacial, global temperatures rose considerably about 10,000 years ago to usher in a period of time referred to as the Holocene. On the basis of temperature reconstructions derived from studies of latitudinal displacements of terrestrial vegetation (Bernabo and Webb, 1977; Wijmstra, 1978; Davis et al., 1980; Ritchie et al., 1983; Overpeck, 1985) and vertical displacements of alpine plants (Kearney and Luckman, 1983) and mountain glaciers (Hope et al., 1976; Porter and Orombelli, 1985), it has been concluded (Webb et al., 1987; COHMAP, 1988) that mean annual temperatures in the Midwestern United States were about 2 °C warmer than those of the past few decades (Bartlein et al., 1984; Webb, 1985), that summer temperatures in Europe were 2 °C warmer (Huntley and Prentice, 1988), as they also were in New Guinea (Hope et al., 1976), and that temperatures in the Alps were as much as 4 °C warmer (Porter and Orombelli, 1985; Huntley and Prentice, 1988). In the Russian Far East, temperatures are also reported to have been from 2 °C (Velitchko and Klimanov, 1990) to as much as 4-6 °C (Korotky et al., 1988) higher than they are today; while the mean annual temperature of the Kuroshio Current between 22 and 35 °N was 6 °C warmer (Taira, 1975), and the southern boundary of the Pacific boreal region was positioned 700 to 800 km north of its present location (Lutaenko, 1993).
A graphical representation of the mean global air temperature that results from the amalgamation of these several records, as prepared by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Houghton et al., 1990) and presented in the accompanying figure, http://www.co2science.org/subject/other/figures/temp10000.jpg indicates that temperatures during the Holocene maximum were warmer than those of the past few decades for a period of time on the order of several thousand years."
References can be found at the bottom of the page here http://www.co2science.org/subject/other/clim_hist_tenthousand.php
You guyz are NUT'S if you think you can fool people with your stupid cherry picked graphs, that are put together by shonky alarmist websites with shonky adjusted data that only goes back to WHERE THE TEMPERATURE FELL TOO after thousands of years being much higher than now.
Get real nuffies.
My post at #12 stands undefeated guyz, lol
Seriously KarenMackSunspot?! You have to resort to a graph that doesn't include the last 10o0 years of warming, and that doesn't even have the values of the y axis increments indicated?
Are you that stupid?
Don't answer - it's a rhetorical question.
...last 100 years...
Distorted data? Feds close 600 weather stations amid criticism they're situated to report warming
"Data from hundreds of weather stations located around the U.S. appear to show the planet is getting warmer, but some critics say it's the government's books that are getting cooked -- thanks to temperature readings from sweltering parking lots, airports and other locations that distort the true state of the climate.
Indeed, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has closed some 600 out of nearly 9,000 weather stations over the past two years that it has deemed problematic,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,"
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/08/13/weather-station-closures-flaw…
...and the answer is 'yes' anyway.
See, Gordy, this is what you are now. Someone like SpamKan.
Says Karen (apparently without any intended irony) whilst posting material from shonky website "co2science.org" including a "graphical representation" that doesn't have a marked scale (and IIRC was a sketch based on very sparse data, not a reconstruction). And it's a representation that the shonky website would prefer that you focus on instead of subsequent and far more rigorous work because the website really wants to fool you. They hope you avoid seeing the global picture (blue curve and onwards) and focus instead on the northern part of the planet and various regional reports because the global picture won't fool you.
So, all together now: "it's always projection".
In particular, like this:
Karen claims this in the face of clear evidence to the contrary, accessible to anyone with a web browser and more than half a brain. The same applies to the vast majority of your comments, el gordo.
Lotharsson, BBD, bill, Lionel A, chek and other warmist Deltoids:
the kind of argumentation you carry is purely partisan political (eco fundamentalism of Greenpeace extremists and the like) and has nothing to do with true scientific debate. No wonder since nobody of you is a scientist and has no clue what science really is.
Lotharsson: falsification of a scientific hypothesis (AGW) is never done by finding a "better explanation", as you said, but by real data. You again have shown that you don't have any knowledge of how science works. Your idea of it is profoundly wrong, but your mouth full of false arguments is always wide open like the one of BBD, who most of time shouts complete nonsense.
And just like Karen makes clearly false claims, Boris piles on with his own set. Are you watching this, el gordo?
You're gibbering your script Boris.
You're out of synch and uncomprehending of the content in the thread.
You're a senior active moron, Boris.
Lotharsson: your trial to behave as if you would dispose of superior knowledge and intelligence always fails ridiculously. You are a fifth row spectator outside the real scientific arena and don't belong to the scientifc community. I don't "pile on" with my "own set", but try to make clear how ridiculous it is when laymen like you behave as scientific authorities. You are not allowed to succeed with this unethical behavior.
I'm afraid you're the one whose picture of science is over-simplified, Boris, and I reckon you've misinterpreted me with regard to data. Data (a.k.a. "observations" or "evidence") is a necessary part of my description of how to falsify AGW, and "more data" can definitely change the picture.
Yes, there are situations where one can more or less test a hypothesis in isolation because it's reasonable to assume that no other factors are affecting your experiment (although there are cases where assumptions thought to be reasonable turned out to be incorrect).
But in much of science you don't have that luxury. (We don't have a control Earth, for one thing.) In those cases science advances by producing better and better explanations for the current set of observations, where by definition "the current set" includes any newly obtained observations. Or as you put it, change may come about "by real data". But change may ALSO come about by the production of a better explanation without any new data.
chek, you again show impressively how idiotic and irrelevant your argument is, as always. You have nothing to do with science, you are just a green political propagandist with a hostile and angry mindset.
You most certainly did "pile on with your own set", which - predictably - you deny doing. You claim that people pointing out scientific evidence that undermines various claims are engaged in partisan political debate without anything to do with science. The embedded contradiction is obvious to most people.
And yes, it would be ridiculous if I were trying to claim to be a scientific authority. (Almost as ridiculous as you are when you try it, despite all indications to the contrary, and a complete lack of scientific evidence in your own argumentation!)
But I'm not claiming to be a scientific authority. I'm pointing to the authority of scientific evidence. Your failure to understand the difference is yet another indication that you are not the scientist you claim to be.
Lotharsson:
"But in much of science you don’t have that luxury. (We don’t have a control Earth, for one thing.) In those cases science advances by producing better and better explanations for the current set of observations, where by definition “the current set” includes any newly obtained observations. Or as you put it, change may come about “by real data”. But change may ALSO come about by the production of a better explanation without any new data"
This is profoundly wrong. It is repeated over and over again, but it is wrong. The correct conclusion would be that a hypothesis is *not* falsifable. A better explanation is *no* proof that a hypothesis is "true". That's not science, but a simple redefinition of science theory by warmist climatologists with the aim to help their political purposes.
Karen cut'n'pastes:
That graph doesn't even show "the past few decades".
What this shows, Karen, is that you get your information from crank sites that are lying to you, AND, you are too gullible and unsceptical to spot the lies you are being fed by these cranks.
Nice work, Karen - that's just one more nail in the coffin of global-warming denial: you have no relevant facts and so must resort to fabrications.
Boris
Proof? True?
This sounds like some weird conflation of maths and religion. When have you ever seen a conclusion in a scientific paper claiming that they've arrived at the "truth"? Let alone a researcher claiming that their work is "proof" of anything.
What, may I ask, is the purpose of error bars or standard deviations in scientific papers? Most people haven't seen such things in areas other than science. And I'm perplexed and befuddled trying to reconcile probabilities reported by scientists with them also claiming or conveying "truth" or "proof".
Only 'scientist'? Sorry to hear about the demotion, Boris.
These are your peers, Gordon. This is what you are.
According to Popper
“The criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.”
and a theory is only scientific if ...
“the theory is incompatible with certain possible results of observation.”
Introduction
"Although the climate of the Holocene (11,500 cal yr B.P. to the present) has sustained the growth and development of modern society, there is surprisingly little systematic knowledge about climate variability during this period. Many paleoclimate studies over the last decade have highlighted the extreme climate fluctuations of the last glacial interval. If we are to understand the background of natural variability underlying anthropogenic climate change, however, it is important to concentrate on climate of the more recent past. To seek a more comprehensive view of natural climate variability during the present Holocene interglacial. We present in this paper a selection of globally distributed high-resolution climate proxy records. Examination of these records demonstrates that, although generally weaker in amplitude than the dramatic shifts of the last glacial cycle, Holocene climate variations have been larger and more frequent than is commonly recognized. Comparison of paleoclimate records with climate forcing time series suggests that changes in insolation related both to Earth's orbital variations and to solar variability played a central role in the global scale changes in climate of the last 11,500 cal yr.
The timing of Holocene climate change events at intervals of approximately 2800–2000 and 1500 yr is well established in the literature............."
"Results
Major periods of Holocene rapid climate change (RCC)..................."
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0033589404000870
co2.........ha
The fact that Antarctica refuses to warm indicates that the name of this era will be called the CO2LYOCENE, :)
Yep...just another cycle of the usual Holocene rapid climate change (RCC)
Boris.
You claim to be an active climate researcher. If you are, you should be able to write a referenced abstract that summarises the physics and climatology that underpins climate change, and describes why the consensus about global warming is wrong.
It's not a difficult task. Pretend that you're preparing a review for Nature Climate Change, and write that killer abstract using your profound scientific understanding. Not the whole paper - just the summary, with references, that distils the essential points that make your case.
I know that you will not, because you cannot.
Is borisfreddykaitroll still pretending to be a scientist? Sad. His doctor must be happy that the drugs he prescribed seemed to have taken some of the edge off (for now), but not that a third personality has now shown up.
barnturd, you are trying to give someone homework again, do your own homework nuffie!
Boris is too busy doing actual science!
barnturd has been in here a bit lately ?
he/she/it must have crawled out of he/she/it's burrow and trekked through the snow to find a pooter somewhere ?
At this point in time global cooling is the null hypothesis.
Climate Scientist Dr. Judith Curry:
‘Attention in the public debate seems to be moving away from the 15-17 year ‘pause’ to the cooling since 2002’
Russia’s Pulkovo Observatory:
‘We could be in for a cooling period that lasts 200-250 years’
Danish Solar Scientist Svensmark declares ‘global warming has stopped and a cooling is beginning…enjoy global warming while it lasts’
Prominent geologist Dr. Don Easterbrook:
Warns ‘global cooling is almost a slam dunk’ for up to 30 years or more
Australian Astronomical Society:
Warns of global cooling as Sun’s activity ‘significantly diminishes’
I notice some details provided about the graphs in the 2004 paper linked by Karen.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0033589404000870
Which means that, regardless of the proxies or other data sources, any temperature variation showing up in the last few decades of last century are swamped by smoothing into the previous 15+ decades. These people aren't even interested in a hockey stick graph type use of their data. They are deliberately excluding any possibility of picking up any such signal because they're more concerned to ensure comparability over the whole of the long period under examination.
Cooling this century due to solar variation? Even Henrik Svensmark is unimpressed. "I can imagine that it will become 0.2°C colder. I would be surprised if it became 1–2°C"
For the benefit of readers http://www.skepticalscience.com/grand-solar-minimum-barely-dent-AGW.html . I realise Karen and others here will keep their keyboards and eyeballs free of any data possibly contaminating the purity of their science free lives, but others are probably interested.
For the benefit of readers,
"Skeptical Science is a climate alarmist website created by a self-employed cartoonist, John Cook. It is moderated by zealots who ruthlessly censor any and all form of dissent from their alarmist position. This way they can pretend to win arguments, when in reality they have all been refuted. The abuse and censorship does not pertain to simply any dissenting commentator there but to highly credentialed and respected climate scientists as well; Dr. Pielke Sr. has unsuccessfully attempted to engage in discussions there only to be childishly taunted and censored while Dr. Michaels has been dishonestly quoted and smeared. The irony of the site's oxymoronic name "Skeptical Science" is that the site is not skeptical of even the most extreme alarmist positions."
http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science…
:)
Marco, you disqualify yourself with your unsubstantiated ad hominem remarks and you appear to be unable to understand my criticism of the unacceptable redefinition of science therory by warmist climatologists.
Your brain appears appears to work on the basis of speculations which you sell as your truths. This is a profoundly unscientific behavior, however very typical of climatology laymen who believe in the AGW hypothesis.
The null hypothesis is that Gordo has no idea what a null hypothesis is.
And, little Boris - re-promoted already! Hoorah! By the King of All the Pumpkin People, no doubt.
I repeat, Gordon; these are your peers.
Karen, did you read what you posted?
"Comparison of paleoclimate records with climate forcing time series suggests that changes in insolation related both to Earth’s orbital variations and to solar variability played a central role in the global scale changes in climate of the last 11,500 cal yr."
Geddit? An 8% increase to insolation caused temperature increases in various places at various times due to the well-known Milankovich cycles.
No such increase in insolation is occurring right now. Temerpature increases today are caused by the imbalance in radiation received from the Sun, and radiation emitted back to space.
That imbalance is caused by the well-known greenhouse gas effect.
adelady
The Svensmark quote is dodgy and I notice the Guardian has picked up the story.
bill, deducing from the junk you always write I am pretty sure that *you* are the one who does not know what a null hypothesis really is. As you are no scientist you almost certainly are completely unfamiliar with the concepts of science theory and how one sets up a scientific investigation and subsequent publication. Therefore you better stay silent about science.
@Craig Thomas: "No such increase in insolation is occurring right now. Temerpature increases today are caused by the imbalance in radiation received from the Sun, and radiation emitted back to space.
That imbalance is caused by the well-known greenhouse gas effect"
Pure speculation! You should learn to distinguish between speculation and established scientific knowledge as emerged from the reproducibility of scientific observations. An assertion is not *true* just because you like it or consider it probable.
Abstract
Observations of atmospheric temperature made on the Antarctic Plateau with thermistors housed in naturally (wind) ventilated radiation shields are shown to be significantly warm biased by solar radiation. High incoming solar flux and high surface albedo result in radiation biases in Gill (multiplate)-styled shields that can occasionally exceed 10°C in summer in cases with low wind speed. Although stronger and more frequent when incoming solar radiation is high, biases exceeding 8°C are found even when solar radiation is less than 200 W m−2. Compared with sonic thermometers, which are not affected by radiation but are too complex to be routinely used for mean temperature monitoring, commercially available aspirated shields are shown to efficiently protect thermistor measurements from solar radiation biases. Most of the available in situ reports of atmospheric temperature on the Antarctic Plateau are from automatic weather stations that use passive shields and are thus likely warm biased in the summer. In spite of low power consumption, deploying aspirated shields at remote locations in such a difficult environment may be a challenge. Bias correction formulas are not easily derived and are obviously shield dependent. On the other hand, because of a strong dependence of bias to wind speed, filtering out temperature reports for wind speed less than a given threshold (about 4–6 m s−1 for the shields tested here) may be an efficient way to quality control the data, albeit at the cost of significant data loss and records that are biased toward high wind speed cases.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JTECH-D-11-00095.1?journalC…;
But, Prince Boris, right back at ya: you are no scientist you almost certainly are completely unfamiliar with the concepts of science theory and how one sets up a scientific investigation and subsequent publication. Therefore you better stay silent about science.
But, by all means, prove me wrong: take up Bernard's challenge - publish.
Bill, when you have nothing to say except incivil nasty phrases you better stay silent. I cannot take serious anybody who is only nasty and ill-mannered. And *you* are certainly also totally unfamiliar with science theory.
Demoted again, Boris?
Tell you what, how about you stop making preposterous, grandiose claims, and I'll stop mocking you.
Found the original for Gordy's latest chum nugget.
Marc Morano. Now, there's a used-car dealer, if ever there was one...
Here is a bit more of the translated article and the Svensmark quote.
'Henrik Svensmark points to the fact that the temperature on earth have not increased in 10-15 years, even if the amount of CO2 have gone sharply up.
The development fits nicely with the sun's falling activity that has a cooling effect. This may imply that the temperature will not rise for the next 30 years, or even start to fall, Henrik Svensmark predicts.
"During the mini ice age for until 150 years ago it was 1-2°C colder than today. I do not believe we will see a fall of 1-2°C, but we cannot know. I can imagine that it will become 0.2°C colder. I would be surprised if it became 1-2°C," Henrik Svensmark says.
Do you find, El Gordo, that the theory of greenhouse gases is incompatible with the possibility that the observations are the results of underground leprechauns with blowtorches heating up the planet?
More thoughtlessness from El Gordo:
OK, so we've got "Sun's falling activity". But we have temperatures that have nevertheless increased.
What does this tell you about the major, operative mechanism that is in play here? Variability in sun output, or something else.
Do try to think....
Pure denial, Boris, pure denial.
The imbalance is measured:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/GlobalMaps/view.php?d1=CERES_NETFLUX_M
And the greenhouse effect is a clearly established bit of science that only a complete crank would deny.
I am impressed that Boris, the senior? practicising?? research??? climate???? scientist????? has engaged in a bit of prevarication on the definition of falsifiability, but saw fit to let el gordo's claim that AGW was unfalsifiable go straight through to the keeper.
Why, it's almost like Boris hasn't the faintest inkling of the basis for "AGW theory", and therefore can't list a single one of the ways in which it could be falsified (even under his and el gordo's) restricted concept of "falsifiable".
In fact, it's almost like Boris is simply lying - to himself, if not to us.
Where can I get against him? "Slam dunk" indicates a very high level of certainty, so he should be happy offering me 100:1 odds, right?
Has everyone but Karen noticed that Karen, even more than el gordo, will Gish Gallop on to her next claim after the previous one has been dispatched?
And that Boris (much like Jonas IIRC) can't even seem to make a scientific claim - he merely vaguely claims that everyone else is wrong (frequently employing the Fallacy of Argument From Your Lack Of Authority), but can't ever seem to point out how or back his claims up with decent data or a decent paper.
Adelady, given that Boris is still rabbiting on about proof and truth, I don't think he's seen such things either ;-)
Oh dear.
Soon as I go to bed the cretins come out and honk and drone.
What a dismal spectacle this thread has been. Boris the Fake, El Confusedo and SpamKan. You deserve each other.
'But we have temperatures that have nevertheless increased.'
Bullshit, they are flat, but nothing I say will convince you.
'As Lindzen said many years ago: “the consensus was reached before the research had even begun.” Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists.
'This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.
'Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change.
'Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.'
Tim Ball
Even if you cherrypick the surface temperatures - instead of the change in total heat content which is what a radiative balance leads to via basic physics - they aren't flat over the period of low solar activity.
Hence your "unspecified lag mechanism having something to do with the oceans but without any impact on the rate of ocean heating or cooling" as an incantation to allow you to pretend to yourself that your explanation hasn't been falsified by observations.
You're in flat-out denial. As has been pointed out ad nauseum.
Tim Ball?
Oh FFS Gordy. You really do know nothing at all.
Listen Gordy.
You are wrong.
You have been show why in detail and at length. You have refused to understand the explanation and simply dug in. This is denial. It is a form of mental illness.
Your commentary here is worthless. You say nothing and you understand nothing.
Complete tosh. (But Lindzen is known for actively misleading his audience when he thinks they are sufficiently gullible. And there are a whole bunch of people who want to be misled.)
Utter bollocks!
The word (didn't you used to write for some rag? Aren't you supposed to know how the English language works?) doesn't have holocaust connotations. It is applied to any number of subjects - vaccine denier, AIDS denier, Holocaust denier, moon landing denier and anthropogenic climate change denier. The connotations are specified by the subject to which the word "denier" is applied, whether implicit or explicit. If English worked the way Ball implies it does, then "male athlete" would have the connotation of "female", because "athlete" is used in the term "female athlete".
You should know better on this one, even if you are clueless about science. It's quite revealing that you either think people will fall for this or are desperate enough to try it on - and that instead of arguing the science all you can come up with is fallacious complaints about tone.
IIRC Ball can come up with no actual evidence that this is the case. Unless, of course, you think that him saying it is evidence enough. (Heck, that kind of thing works for Karen as long as someone says what she wants to hear, so maybe you do think that.)
Tim Ball.
What do you expect from this liar? He lied about his qualifications too by the way Gordy. Just like that prat Boris The Freddy.
What clowns they all are. And yet you embrace their lies and stupidity as if it were holy writ. It doesn't reflect well on you.
Logic Fail.
Rejecting a hypothesis in favour of a hypothesis with superior explanatory power is a form of falsification - unless you're limited to a form of binary thinking, true or false, in or out, yes or no, in which case you're not doing science.
Logic AND Comprehension Fail.
No-one said it was. There's no proof of truth in science. The entire enterprise is operationally defined, and you can't get absolute truth from that. But you can get "usefulness" from it, and you can rank explanations according to how well they operate.
"True" gets used in informal conversation because adding the appropriate qualifiers specifying uncertainty intervals and confidence levels in normal conversation gets unwieldy and tends to confuse laypeople. If it were spelt out explicitly, the informal "true" might mean something like "it's the best explanation we have, despite getting quite a lot of data and trying hard to find a still better one, and it has proven to be quite useful." Under this kind of definition, all "true" hypotheses are provisional until a better explanation comes about - either by developing a new explanation, or by adding more data to the pile that results in a change of assessment as to which explanation is now the "best".
'fraid that's not true just because you'd like it to be. It's the way many scientific fields operate.
Hijacking the language and whining is all this lot have got. And deep down, they know it.
#24
Yes. Boris The Freddy is very "school of" Jonarse.
Both are tedious fuckwits.
#22
I have several times asked Boris The Freddy And Genius to critique Gordy's rubbish.
Crickets.
Boris is a rather obvious fraud.
Tim Ball?! And Don Easterbrook?!
It was all so much easier working for the Murdochracy, wasn't it, when reality was whatever the boss wanted it to be, and authorities were whoever he pointed out? Old habits die hard...
And you had some sort of presumed legitimacy in many people's eyes due to your privileged access to a megaphone, or at least the frackin' Hoi Polloi were kept at a distance where their rebuttals could be safely ignored because of their lack of the aforementioned privileged access...
IIRC Gordy said he was a sports writer once. Hence the profound and detailed grasp of physical climatology.
So you still believe human induced global warming is here to stay?
Believe? More like accept. Given that we know that CO2 concentrations are likely to stay elevated for centuries unless we come up with a reliable method for extracting it from the air, there really isn't much option but to accept.
As for higher temperatures, have a look at these 2 graphs. These refer only to the atmosphere, not the ocean. One by the decade, the other by the year/ENSO status.
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/this-is-what-global-warming-looks-li…
The weight of evidence strongly says so. "Disbelief" is a very poor bet at this point.
More radiative energy is coming in than is going out. Simple planetary physics says this will drive temperatures up - unevenly in time and space, and with the heat energy distribution between ocean surface, ocean depths, land surface, surface ice, different levels of the atmosphere and so on also varying over time - until a rough equilibrium is reached.
In the meantime we keep pumping still more CO2 into the atmosphere, thus increasing the radiative imbalance thus pushing equilibrium still further away.
It would take an astonishingly large decline in solar output to counteract this drive towards a new equilibrium over (say) the rest of the century - and barring some equally astonishing new solar findings, solar scientists would all be saying they would expect the decline to reverse eventually, so even that wouldn't stave off "here to stay".
Similarly, the chances of a hitherto unknown climate influencing mechanism averting "here to stay" seem to be exceedingly slim, given the mass of evidence that has accumulated which make it unlikely that a sufficiently powerful mechanism remains to be discovered.
#40
What adelady and Lotharsson said. The evidence speaks for itself. The options are acceptance or *denial*. Acceptance is rational.
Have you noticed, Gordy, that all the people you hang around with are insane and/or frauds? Ball, Watts, Monckton, Morano, Singer, the whole wretched crew - all nuts and/or fakes. Why doesn't this unsettle you? Why don't you distance yourself from these people and their delusions and lies? And aren't you embarrassed by the likes of Karen and Boris The Freddy And Genius? Don't they make you uncomfortable? If not, why not?
What does all this suggest about the *validity* of "contrarianism"? Hm?
What?
BBD, practically everything what you say is ad hominem verbal injuries. I do not react to such incivilities.
You are no scientist and no climatologist. You are dependent on your beliefs and convictions which are not based on knowledge but on the ideological prejudices of eco fundamentalists. This makes it easy to discard everything you say as you are not objective, but a political propagandist.
You are a transparent fraud, Boris-The-Freddy-And-Genius!
Oh, and you whine, which is irritating. Piss off.
See the problem Gordy? BTFAG is clearly a nutter. Would you sit next to this guy on the bus? No.
Notice that BTFAG never actually *says* anything, preferring instead to assert his own authority based on fake credentials. School-of-Jonarse.
Now, go back as far as you like and look at my comments. You will see lots of references, often with relevant quotation. Material is linked. Arguments are consistent, coherent and supported by reference. Compare and contrast with this nutter BTFAG.
Why do you cast your lot with fraudulent nutters? Can't you find a way of squaring your political position with science that doesn't involve sitting next to the loon on the bus?
Fraudulent lunatic.
Tedious Booris:
'You are no scientist and no climatologist. You are dependent on your beliefs and convictions which are not based on knowledge but on the ideological prejudices of eco fundamentalists. This makes it easy to discard everything you say as you are not objective, but a political propagandist.
which describes you Boris to a T. As others have said 'it is always projection'.
Now if you were a real climate scientist we would have had an answer from you in response to
a question asked here,
and repeated here.
We have yet to see any substantive statement from you WRT any aspect of climate science, a science which has so many fields of enquiry measuring and assessing the signals that are emerging and any understanding that is gained from so doing.
Why is this? Is it because your self proclaimed status is bogus and that you are thus a serial liar?
BBD, what makes you so nervous and aggressive? The fact that I am a senior scientist?
Still waiting, Boris.
How about you give el gordo just one way to falsify the current understanding of anthropogenic climate change? This only takes high school level knowledge and logic, so a Senior Scientist should have no problem.
Unless, of course, you aren't a scientist at all...
I'm not nervous of you Boris. That's contempt.
I don't like liars and you are clearly a liar. I suspect I've forgotten more paleoclimate and physical climatology than you actually know. I suspect this based on the sorry shite you posted here a while back and your absolute refusal to answer any substantive questions (Lionel #49) or critique El Confusedo's rubbish about "lags".
I'm calling your bluff with every comment and you keep coming back for another punch on the nose, confirming that you are indeed a nutter.
So, biff!
Again.
borisfreddykaitroll is lying again. Pointing out a fact is not an ad hominem. Seriously, who do you think you are fooling? Yourself?
Boris I'd be extremely nervous if you were a senior anything above class lunch box monitor in a primary school.
If I had Climate Superpowers like Boris The Genius, I'd deploy them. I would crush my enemies!
:-)
Thank goodness for that. Sane people!
BBD, your testimony: "That’s contempt."
Do you think this makes you an attractive person with whom one likes to talk? You must observe a minimum of civility to be regarded as a serious climatology layman.
Marco, whatever you say: it is junk
Boris you are a fucking liar who misrepresented your credentials.
Please don't presume to lecture me on the rules of civilised discourse.
Note that the liar hasn't answered any of the substantive questions yet.
gordolocks @ #27 cites Tim Ball.
This Tim Ball, who also happened to inflate his credentials, not as much as the deluded Booris though who I described as a serial liar. Sorry wrong title for I should have typed 'cereal liar' who clearly gets his qualifications out of a breakfast food packet.
Back to Tim Ball, here is a fresh link to Tim Lambert's challenge.
Has Ball sued Tim Lambert yet or just bounced away?
Calling on Tim Ball gordolocks you must be kidding us, no?
Lionel - good find on the TB sue me Deltoid post ;-)
Too many doctors of pseudoscience in the denialist "community" and essentially no actual climate scientists at all.
I solemnly swear that I am a senior scientist and I want to be punished if I lied on this.
BBD, you must provide evidence why you call me a liar.
Where is your evidence?
Oh fuck off Boris. Your stupidity is matched only by your dishonesty. Let me illustrate for you:
I'm the King of Old Siam.
Really!
Honestly!
I swear it's true! Cross my heart and hope to die!.
Just. Fuck. Off.
Notice that they liar simply will not answer any substantive questions.
Instead, we get more lies about his non-existent credentials.
Even at Deltoid, there should be some sort of policy about sock-puppetry and extreme dishonesty. Yea, verily, even here.
Are you serious, you bloody clown?
- You refuse to provide your relevant publication record when challenged
- You refuse to engage in substantive debate on specific points here when challenged
- What you did post initially was utter shite
You are a fucking liar, Boris. And misrepresenting your credentials is an absolute fatal error. There's no coming back from that here. That's why I and others treat you with absolute contempt. It is the only possible response to your behaviour.
bill @ #17
Marc Morano. Now, there’s a used-car dealer, if ever there was one…
Which would make gordolocks a 'used used-car salesman'. Now, yes, there are indeed different connotations in that description but can gordolocks work them out.
Here you are Booris, a little 'Siamese' for you to practice:
and repeat quickly.
Here is another for you Booris:
What is wrong with this statement,
"suppository of all wisdom"?
And, for an extra point, who made that mistake?
The clincher every time one of you simpletons shows up attempting to argue from "authority" is that every single time you dickswabs have absolutely *nothing whatsoever* to say about the egregious shite excreted by your fellow travelling denier friends. Your inability to recognise links to referenced science - let alone argue them - also nails you as a moron aspiring to idiot wannabee.
So true. That's why I kept on asking Boris The Mendacious to deal with El Confusedo's nonsense. Nobody with a background in Earth System Science would let something as stupidly wrong as that go by uncorrected. But nothing. Not a single word.
The man's a fraud and a liar.
Ahh. That's better.
Now show some respect or I will dematerialise your favourite biscuits and whisky supplies.
One of the many pleasures of being here is the rich vocabulary. I had forgotten what a splendidly contemptuous word "simpleton" is. I had never encountered either "clownshoe" or "douchecanoe" and I can only dare to speculate what the latter means.
Nor do I know what a "starfart" is, but the image of a frenzied leap and abrupt, stellate explosion of methane and gore is hard to shake.
Krakentop
Ah! Yes. Straight from PopTech's (aka poptart) playbook which isn't science, neither are 'nigguraths' and 'worldclimatereport' for Michaels has been obfuscating for years and years and years.
More of same if you persist with your puerile nonsense you 'lead swinger'.
There's only one person as fucking nuts as Boris, Fatso or Spots and they NEVER appear.
Tim Lambert.
Seriously, this fuckwit puts up a place where frigging maniacs like Boris, Tubso, Lobotomy and Joan get to post any old shite they like and waste EVERYONE ELSE'S time dealing with this shit because if you don't fight it, then their insanity will spread like the fungal infection it is.
But Tim's not wasting his time. He's wasting YOURS.
Nice fucking maniac, isn't he?
I know that this has been your view ever since I pitched up here, and I understand what you are saying.
There is an alternative position, which is simply that this is a place where (at least for now) bare-knuckle is allowed. TL may think that letting the blood flow so that people can watch in appalled fascination from the sidelines is a net benefit to the "climate debate".
I think you should come back btw. I enjoyed your commentary.
One further thing. I cannot hold TL responsible for wasting my time. Coming here is my decision, after all.
#27: the earliest reference to Lindzen's claim that I could find seems to be here http://www.john-daly.com/guests/tim-ball.htm which apparently was published in 2002. Clearly Lindzen was making his claim before the evidence was in.
Turbo @ #77
As the Rabett remarked many years ago If Richard Lindzen shows up at your door, slam it.
Oh, I don't know. I might have him in for a coffee and a clarification of his views on paleoclimate behaviour.
BBD and other warmist laymen: nobody of you is familiar with science, as you are no scientists. Therefore all your statements about AGW are just copy paste or pure dirt.
BBD, whether you write here or not is totally irrelevant, as all your "contributions" show only a layman's wrong view about scientific matters. Copy paste is no qualification for nothing.
You are just boring because you have nothing to say on your own and repeat over and over again the slogans of your idols. No silent reader here will be impressed by the dirt you throw around, on the contrary readers will detest your behavior and ill-mannered mindset.
Lindzen and Pielke's delaying schtick plays well with the industry.
I'd suggest that the ante needs upping to include not only directors and company management, but also their shareholders, with a five year liability lag sustaining responsibility after changes of stock ownership.
The owners, not the office boys are the key to change there.
Oh, fuck off Boris with your self-appointed knob-diddling tone- trolling lies. Fucking ditzy arrogant idiot daring to suggest what Deltoid readers may want or don't want.
I'd suggest they don't want you here, so why not consider throwing yourself off a cliff and cleansing the gene pool to the best of your ability.
'Fucking ditzy arrogant idiot daring to suggest what Deltoid readers may want or don’t want.'
Boris is good value and should not be wantonly abused just because he's not a fundamentalist.
Timmy is unemployed and needs to keep this blog robust for his own survival. Its not cheap living in Randwick.
Here's something from Wattsy.
'West Antarctica began emerging from the last ice age about 22,000 years ago – well before other regions of Antarctica and the rest of the world, according to a team of scientists who analyzed a two-mile-long ice core, one of the deepest ever drilled in Antarctica.
'Scientists say that changes in the amount of solar energy triggered the warming of West Antarctica and the subsequent release of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the Southern Ocean amplified the effect and resulted in warming on a global scale, eventually ending the ice age.
'Results of the study were published this week in the journal Nature. The authors are all members of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet Divide project, which was funded by the National Science Foundation.'
@ no. 75
wow!--where yah been keepin' yourself, guy?--I mean, like, I still treasure all those past, eco-drudge, braindead-dork, strictly party-line, Dolt-toid, quantity-not-quality, condition-reflex, pre-bot technology, hive-hack tirades of yours! So it's good to have you back in fine fettle with that last, demented, festering-anger, brooding-psycho, about-to-explode, scab-picking, crazy-talk rant of yours, ol' buddy! (hmm...might be a good idea if Tim sought a restraining order, I'm thinking).
So, wow, it seems like you're goin' through a little bit of a "bad patch" in the existential, life-crisis, disillusioned-parasite, weltanschauung-meltdown department, there. Can I help?
"Fungal infection"--pure projection, you know, wow. Yes, wow, there is, indeed, "fungus among us"--but it's all you, wow, ol' sport.
Ok Gordo, in your own words, what do you think that means?
Meds, mike. Take them.
nobody reads your crap, mike - go away
And don't you just love people who think they're the very acme of cunning because they've discovered they can lie to people on the internet?
Alternative theory re Tim: he has become emotionally exhausted - burned out if you will - by the debate, the blog, the trolls, the Murdochracy, The Stupid, the false-balance, the rudeness... you name it, and can now barely bring himself to look in at this place.
I've been an active campaigner since the 80's, and I've had several periods of just having to back off and concentrate on the more pleasant aspects of life for a couple of years. Beating your head against The System at the top and The Stupid at the bottom really is exhausting - and almost totally thankless - work.
'... what do you think that means?'
They say the solar influence was the catalyst and I assume CO2 was liberated from the warming oceans.
There will be debate about this particular core being out of step with other Antarctic cores, which suggest the emergence from the LGM was universal.
In my mind, without googling, West Antarctic ocean warming may have been assisted by undersea volcanic activity at the time.
Amen, Bill.
Plus we (humanity) have never had to deal with a zombie plague, virtual or otherwise, before. That really is exhausting.
I'm going to take this as humorous in intent.
Yup, standard position these days.
Point was?
Get away with your cynicism. We are all God's children and everything is sweetness and light.
'Point was?'
I'm in general agreement with the authors.
So you accept that CO2 is an efficacious GHG and that it was a necessary component of the process of deglaciation.
Good!
Have you noticed, Gordy, that all the people you hang around with are insane and/or frauds? What does all this suggest about the *validity* of “contrarianism”?
Boris The Freddy And Genius (BTFAG) is clearly a nutter. Would you sit next to this guy on the bus? No.
Notice that BTFAG never actually *says* anything, preferring instead to assert his own authority based on fake credentials.
Now, go back as far as you like and look at my comments. You will see lots of references, often with relevant quotation. Material is linked. Arguments are consistent, coherent and supported by reference. Compare and contrast with this nutter BTFAG.
Why do you cast your lot with fraudulent nutters? Can’t you find a way of squaring your political position with science that doesn’t involve sitting next to the loon on the bus?
This is a serious question.
'So you accept that CO2 is an efficacious GHG and that it was a necessary component of the process of deglaciation.'
Liberating all that CO2 from the warming oceans turned the planet green again, quite naturally. It was not a CO2 enforced warming.
You aren't stupid and you aren't insane so why keep this up?
Of course the GHG feedback was a necessary component to deglaciation. Without it, you wouldn't get a deglaciation.
That page thing again.
Have you noticed, Gordy, that all the people you hang around with are insane and/or frauds? What does all this suggest about the *validity* of “contrarianism”?
Boris The Freddy And Genius (BTFAG) is clearly a nutter. Would you sit next to this guy on the bus? No.
Notice that BTFAG never actually *says* anything, preferring instead to assert his own authority based on fake credentials.
Now, go back as far as you like and look at my comments. You will see lots of references, often with relevant quotation. Material is linked. Arguments are consistent, coherent and supported by reference. Compare and contrast with this nutter BTFAG.
Why do you cast your lot with fraudulent nutters? Can’t you find a way of squaring your political position with science that doesn’t involve sitting next to the loon on the bus?
This is a serious question.
This one is not acting in good faith.
We could test that.
Gordy, do you think that Boris's claim that he is a senior active research climate scientist is plausible?
You were a journalist. You've made these calls throughout your career.
Do you believe this guy?
Boris.
I see that you are avoiding my trivial (for a real scientist) challenge that you write an abstract for us that summarises the physics and climatology that underpins climate change, and describes why the consensus about global warming is wrong.
You see, I don't believe that you are a scientist at all. I don't believe that you, as an allegedly "active climate researcher", can state your case against the consensus of the scientific discipline in which you claim to work. Your persistent avoidance to do so confirms this, just as your Denialati buddies are consistently never able to come up with the goods to support their anti-science nonsense. Don't "swear" that you are a "senior scientist" - just show us your senior scientific abilities.
I don't believe that you are a scientist because you have no understanding of scientific process. Working scientists wouldn't talk about "science theory" in the way that you did, because it's the issue that you claim to be discussing is not about "theory", but about process. Also, the way that science operates requires that hypotheses are falsifiable, and Lotharsson's description is entirely consistent with this. Your incoherent ramble presents nothing that challenges Lotharsson's correct understanding.
Further, if you really were an "active senior scientist" you would know that climatologists do not work to promote their "political purposes", they work to elucidate as well as they can the physical mechanisms of the planet's climate. If there was a conspiracy amongst "warmist climatologists with the aim to help their political purposes", this would be easily demonstrable in the output of their work, and in the funding and publication processes, and you have provided no defensible evidence that there is any difference or other irregularity in mainstream climatological science compared with any other discipline.
Your full of shit, and you're fooling no-one except perhaps your denialist buddies who would dearly love to believe that you are kosher. If they're so ignorant that they buy your crap then that's only a reflection of their stupidity, and if they know that you're blowing it from your arse but won't admit it, well, that simply reflects the moral depauperacy of the denialist stance.
I struggle to comprehend the intellectual/moral corruption that has to exist in order for people such as you to lie the way that you do and believe that it is acceptable to do so. If there's any justice in the world your lot will be the first against the wall when people are held to account for the deliberately and consciously manufactured delay in mitigating the harm that humans are wringing on the planet that is our only home in the universe.
BBD directly above.
Snap!
We must have typed the same idea at the same time.
'Boris’s claim that he is a senior active research climate scientist is plausible?'
Its not that important on the blogosphere, always retain a sceptical bent. If we could sit down and have a quiet chat on climate change, without rancour or political bias, we'll know soon enough whether Boris is a real climate scientist.
On the CO2 amplification discussed earlier, I'm prepared to move closer to the Sceptic position and say it may cause some warming. The 'sensitivity' issue has yet to be resolved.
Thank you, oh Munificent One, for condescending to share with we the Unworthy your mealy-mouthed pap.
Of course, it's a winning strategy when you're working for guess-who...
'Of course, it’s a winning strategy when you’re working for guess-who…'
;-)
bill you might like to read this and write a critique... apologies for the link to a contrarian blog.
http://www.thegwpf.org/study-modern-climate-alarms-resemble-pre-modern-…
That's better. (Yep, it's always projection.)
Gack, unfinished edit:
Boris => Boris is.
And while we're at it, you => he and your => his.
...and then again I might not on both counts.
Yep, the NASA, NiWA, the Met Office, the BoM and the CSIRO - and all the world's Academies of Science - are Medieval holdouts, while Lords Mitty and Lawson, Joe Bast and James Delingpole, Marc Morano and Tim Ball, Willard Anthony Watts and The Sticky Bishop, are Paladins of the Enlightenment all.
If you'll credit that you're lost to rationality already. You might even believe the Novas aren't crazy.
"New paper finds a significant increase of solar radiation received at Earth's surface 1993-2003
A paper published today in Atmospheric Research examines solar radiation received at the Earth's surface at a mountaintop station in Poland from 1964-2003, and finds a significant increase over the period 1993-2003 in comparison to 1964-1992. The paper adds to many other peer-reviewed publications finding "global brightening" of solar radiation received at the Earth's surface in the latter 20th century, which has had 26 times more climate forcing effect than CO2 over a comparable time period. "
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2013/08/new-paper-finds-significan…
the paper........
An analysis of the extinction of direct solar radiation on Mt. Kasprowy Wierch, Poland
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169809513002184
Borisfreddykaitroll, I know you are freddykaitroll because you use the exact same style of argumentation. Give up the charade, you are not fooling anyone here.
Karen, do you have a subscription so you can see the full text of this?
As far as I can see from the abstract, this paper is about detecting changes in atmospheric blocking of solar radiation - otherwise known as pollution creating dirty skies.
Funnily enough, with a decrease in smoke and particulates obscuring the atmosphere, more radiation made it to the surface. Or is there something within the body of the paper that tells us something else?
"Funnily enough, with a decrease in smoke and particulates obscuring the atmosphere, more radiation made it to the surface."
Yes, less pollution = more warming by looks of it.
"The smallest atmospheric turbidity was found in arctic air masses (T L2 =2.07), whereas the greatest turbidity was characteristic of tropical air masses (T L2 =2.69). "
They first discovered the 'brightening' in Israel during one of their wars with neighbours and in the US on 9/11.
If the world starts to cool naturally they may have to ground all planes to save the planet.... just sayin'
Strangely enough soot is also supposedly adding to the sea ice death spiral.
"They first discovered the ‘brightening’ in Israel during one of their wars with neighbours and in the US on 9/11."
Translation:
They first discovered the ‘brightening’ in Israel during one of their cowardly attacks against defensless neighbours and in the US on 9/11."
The physics of soot adding to the melting rate is so basic and obvious even you can miss it, SpamKan. 'Supposedly' is just muppet talk.
Get some ice cubes, take them out in the sun, divide them into 2 sets, and sprinkle a little charcoal dust / black soot over one of them. What happens?
Golly, this might be why black cars get hotter in summer and all! See, now you're learning things.
“The smallest atmospheric turbidity was found in arctic air masses"
hence............
"Strangely enough soot is also supposedly adding to the sea ice death spiral."
sheeeez...........dick brain
'during one of their cowardly attacks against defensless neighbours'
It was a land grab from the start and continues to this day, noticed a new settlement is beginning.
Khazar mongrels!
So, several decades after it was originally observed KarenMackSunspot manages to cotton on to global dimming, and promptly conflates airborne particulate pollution with black carbon, which have very different effects.
Oh, and he seems to miss the fact that aerosol pollution masks global warming so that the more that pollution is reduced, the more the planet will warm. Yes, that's right you numpty, global warming has more in store than it's currently showing.
You only open your mouth to change feet.
Somewhat surprisingly I am forced to concede that I agree with Fatso on one thing at least.
I offer no contradiction on that point.
...which doesn't say anything about whether those levels have changed over any particular time period. Also:
I seem to recall measurements of changing ice albedo, traced back to increased soot deposits on ice. If this is correct, this is different from soot in the air (which is what turbidity of air masses refers to).
Seconded.
'global warming has more in store than it’s currently showing.'
Yeah, the brightening looks like a double edged sword. Popper would be amused.
barnturd, obviously you are suffering with menorrhagia, lol
Thirded.
"Not a single person showed up at the Georgetown waterfront Tuesday for a climate change agenda event put on by Organizing for Action, the shadowy nonprofit advocacy group born out of President Obama’s 2012 campaign, the NRCC wrote in its blog.
The event page for the “Climate Change Day of Action Rally” disappeared after rainy weather appeared to drive away whatever people planned to attend. The embarrassing showing follows the news that only one volunteer stayed for an OFA Obamacare event in Centreville, Va., last week to work the phones:"
http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-for-america-global-warming-rally-…
Enthusiasm appears to be waning alongside the temperature gauge.
That's right, SpamKan, just like one snowfall disproves AGW.
Oi vey, you need to read wider than just Loonweb-
And, yep, OFA is so frickin' shadowy it's endorsed by the First Lady.
Muppets all 'round.
"Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers,"
“The Cooling World”: From Newsweek, April 28, 1975. 1975 Newsweek Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted by permission.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/apr/02/20060402-112828-5298r/
hehe...........syence...lol
Gordy
We are testing for evidence of good faith. You evaded the question, which is not a good start. Let's try again.
Do you believe Boris's claim that he is a senior active research climate scientist?
Yes or no.
Good faith, remember? Let's have a straight answer.
Global dimming is not news, Karen. Why not inform yourself?
The reference paper is Wild (2009) Global dimming and brightening: a review.
It doesn't mean "AGW is wrong". That's just another stupid denier lie. Read Wild - not some mendacious misrepresenter like the Hockey Schtick liar - and get the facts straight.
"It doesn’t mean “AGW is wrong”. That’s just another stupid denier lie"
psycho, I made no claims, one way or the other, lol
You are always making denialist claims. Now I realise you are a coward as well as a liar and a fool.
"Alternative theory re Tim: he has become emotionally exhausted – burned out if you will – by the debate, the blog, the trolls,"
HOW? HE'S DONE NOTHING!
If he's tired because they've worn him out in the dim and distant past he did at least occasionally visit and actually do something, then WHY THE FUCK KEEP THE BLOG OPEN?
"WHY THE FUCK KEEP THE BLOG OPEN?"
He now has doubts about the co2 hypothesis.
'Good faith, remember? Let’s have a straight answer.'
I haven't a clue about Boris.
#43
Not good enough. You demonstrate bad faith. Shame. I wondered if there might have been the potential for a serious conversation about squaring your politics with the science without having to sit next to the loony on the bus. But no. You *choose* to sit with the loony on the bus.
#41 Wow
Perhaps it's an experiment, as I suggested. A bare-knuckle arena in the climate wars.
"A bare-knuckle arena in the climate wars."
Say's the punch drunk masturbator, lol
I do think it would be smart for Tim to appoint a moderator or two. At the very least those who violate their commenting conditions could lose their privileges entirely.
Bernard, you believe this
"harm that humans are wringing on the planet that is our only home in the universe"
really?
Incredible. You must be benighted since only irrational eco activists far away from any scientific thinking and rationality can believe such idiocy.
It is appalling how far from normal thinking and feeling the warmist Deltoids are away.
PS: your last text about me is of utter hatred and malignancy. You should be ashamed of your poor education and evil character. Tolerance and decency as well as ethical and respectful behavior appear to be foreign words for AGW believers. Your impression on the public is certainly very negative.
'But no. You *choose* to sit with the loony on the bus.'
Ahh... I'm sitting on my own and don't know if Boris is a real climate scientist. As I said, it doesn't matter to me what that fella up the back of the bus does for a living.
Now for something completely different.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9KwK0izt5c#at=221
'At the very least those who violate their commenting conditions could lose their privileges entirely.'
Unnecessary abuse metered out to harmless commenters by cyber bullies.
BBD can fuck off for a start.
Mediocre troll trolls with mediocrity.
News at 11.
"I do think it would be smart for Tim to appoint a moderator"
I vote for Boris, :)
BBD is not violating any conditions I am aware of. But you are, IIRC so it's you who would be fucking off for a start.
Gordy is upset because his bad faith is showing.
There's a funny whining noise in here. Gets louder near #48.
Booris you are like the subject of this article. I have never seen such a sustained spewing of idiotic projection as you have exhibited here. But then I never followed 'the kai' although did notice occasional posting which got moderated out at IIRC DesmogBlog.
Every post you make confirms how bereft of honest scientific and sensitive thought you are. This is not an ad hominem BTW (you need to check up on the true meaning of that term) simply a statement of fact based upon your continued sub-intelligent trolling.
You are a disgrace to humanity never mind science, that latter if your claims are true - highly unlikely given the nature of your brand of vitriol.
It is you Booris that is giving offence not those who challenge your claims with pointed questions such as this, which is brought to you for about the sixth time on this thread.
There are a number of substantive questions that Boris refuses to address.
Boris knows what will happen if he actually *says* anything, so he is trapped in his lie. Gagged with his own mendacity. It's quite funny in a way, because it is obvious that Boris is too stupid to have worked out that this is the inevitable consequence of lying about his credentials.
Poor Boris. Soon he will have to change his socks again.
Boris, no, you're not.
I do think appointing a moderator would be entirely appropriate. Just think: mike's out or just get's disemvoweled, SpamKan's gone, no Freddy need trouble us, and Gordon can be confined to his own thread to witter away at leisure.
Tell you what, SpamKan, while you're still here, I'll bet you $100, sum to go to charity of winner's choice, that Tim does 'now ha[ve] doubts about the co2 hypothesis'.
Deal?
Or are you always just a pusillanimous little shit?
Um, 'does not'.
Wow always has been one sick fucking asshole.
"that Tim does ‘now ha[ve] doubts about the co2 hypothesis’."
lol
hehe...........you guyz are panicking because you all deep down are slowly losing the faith, lol
Why O' why dust thou models fail O' climate lord?
And O' climate lord, why O' why dust Don Easterbrook's projections match the temperature so well?
whah whah whaaaaah, amen O' climate lord
:)
#60 inaman............you would know, lol
Why indeed? Perhaps because you have terribly low standards for "matches well"?
Or is it just that you're an inveterate liar, or merely deeply out of touch with reality?
(All together now: it's always projection.)
Easterbrook?
FFS.
Karen, you are pitiful. All you desperate, lying, not-sceptics-at-all are. It's the people in denial who are the most afraid. That's what denial is. A coping mechanism.
I've noticed that the "it's cooling" meme - once the province of true and obvious nutters - has moved toward the mainstream of the denier discourse.
Clearly, they are all slowly losing their grip (always tenuous) on reality.
I miss Tim Lambert's very incisive postings on various matters, but one of the nice things about having the trolls captured on these open threads it that it keeps them preoccupied and less able to pollute other blogs. And it's a wonderful showcase of how they persist month after month in pulling the same ridiculous denialist levers without ever getting the science correct...
It's like a horrible warning beacon, repeating endlessly, 100 comments at a time. People come and stare, aghast, then flee, retching, into the dark.
Wait, what?
A STATION, SINGULAR?
Pathetic. Just pathetic.
Reminds me of all those people who refuse to leave a particular poker machine. I've been playing here for hours, it's got to pay off soon.
BBD, you are liar. You lie that CO2 provides harm to the world. You are an unethical individual who wants to impose green dictatorship, all based an zero evidence that CO warms the world.
Don't lie, you unethical person full of hatred towards mankind and nature.
The first one to be banned should be you, troll
adelady: "And it’s a wonderful showcase of how they persist month after month in pulling the same ridiculous denialist levers without ever getting the science correct…
Reminds me of all those people who refuse to leave a particular poker machine. I’ve been playing here for hours, it’s got to pay off soon."
Perfect self-description, adelady troll. Congratulations. I did not think you were so unintelligent as chek, BBD or Marco.
Stu, one station, pathetic? Are you accountable of what you said. Real data, pathetic? You are a liar.
Look guys, it's simple with climate: sun heats, clouds cool. That's it for you. You need not more to understand, as you all are terrible lay people without scientific knowledge. It's a pity with you spectators who want to be important but are all zeros.
Booris repeats his inane arguing from stupidity with more unadulterated projection and once again ignores a question for the seventh time. I have even bothered to give him a hint. Why the evasion?
Booris, you are as much a Senior Scientist as Mickey is a duck. At least a duck quacks and sounds like a duck, you however come over as a scientific wannabe, or pretender. Better go ask your minder for some help, no.
Now are there signs that gordolocks is getting irked as indicated by the intemperate language at #50.
Oh good. "Boris" is in full "I know you are, but what am I" troll mode now. You're a sad little man, Boris.
Oh, and you really want to lay off phrases like "You are an unethical individual who wants to impose green dictatorship", "Boris". It makes it even more obvious that A) you're no more a scientist than my dog and B) that this is 100% political for you. Kind of reminds me of someone, "Boris".
Also, "Boris", if it needs to be explained to you why drawing global conclusions from solar radiation at A SINGLE LOCATION is spectacularly moronic and unscientific, I doubt you're even a janitor at a scientific institution or finished elementary school.
Bernard, Tim is offended by you, because all you warmist deltoids are just nasty characters, full of hatred, no knowledge, no climatological background.
You troll should be banned.
*guffaw*
"Renowned scientist", indeed. What an absolute fucking moron.
Lionel, you are a liar.
Stu troll, you always lie, you are a chronic liar.
It's not radiation budget, liar Stu. You don't understand this.
FreddykaiBoris writes:
Teh Stupid, again, from a sock-puppeting nutter who lied about his non-existent credentials and will not engage substantively - who is, in fact, a particularly pernicious troll.
Clouds don't have any effect on the "radiation budget"?
What are you arguing here, "Boris"? Please be clear, like a scientist. Define your terms and set out your hypothesis.
I cannot wait.
Wonderboy Booris produces this evidence for a lack of understanding about elements of climate, and weather for that matter,
So, how come that at the surface on cloudy nights we can experience higher temperatures than when the sky is clear?
Here is a book, an earlier edition of which I have had for some thirty years now and still consult from time to time, which could enlighten you, 'Atmosphere, Weather and Climate' by Roger G. Barry and Richard J Chorley which will help you.
You are renowned by the way, not for being a scientist but for being 'A Great Pretender'.
Lionel isn't a liar, you fucking troll. Now answer his question.
Boris, by your logic, Mars should be warmer than Venus. Have you shared this pearl of wisdom with other "renowned scientists" yet? I'm sure they're dying to hear from you.
IT'S ALWAYS PROJECTION.
IT'S ALWAYS PROJECTION.
IT'S ALWAYS PROJECTION.
IT'S ALWAYS PROJECTION.
By the way, "Boris", your English is deteriorating rapidly. Is the spittle on your screen making it hard to check your spelling, or are you posting drunk again?
BBD is no scientist and has never published a peer-reviewed scientific article. However he constantly lies about CO2 and climate. He hangs around the Internet day and night, because he is unemployed and does not know what to do with his time.
The Freddy is coming back, people! Down visors!
I've retired, you fuckwit. I told you this weeks ago when you were Freddy and lying about being a millionaire. You are barking mad, you know. Really far gone.
BBD, liar!
Come on Freddy. Don't just stand their foaming. Get on with it.
Clouds don’t have any effect on the “radiation budget”?
What are you arguing here, “Boris”? Please be clear, like a scientist. Define your terms and set out your hypothesis.
I cannot wait.
BBD liar, you admitted you were unemployed and fired by your boss due to insubordination. That's the truth about you, liar. Be honest, liar.
#89
Oh come on fred-fred. You can do better than that. You gave the world this, after all:
I had high hopes at the time, but perhaps you peaked there.
What? I think you've got me muddled up with another commenter. I ran my own business for twenty years. I was the fucking boss.
Neither have you, clown. Do you sincerely think ANYONE believes you are a scientist? I mean, you can look at yourself in the mirror and say "people believe me when I say I am a scientist"?
But you can start now, "Boris"! You can write a paper on how Mars is much warmer than Venus! Hop to it!
Whoops! Sorry. It just slipped out.
Come on Freddy. Don’t just stand their foaming. Get on with it.
Clouds don’t have any effect on the “radiation budget”?
What are you arguing here, “Boris”? Please be clear, like a scientist. Define your terms and set out your hypothesis.
I cannot wait.
I will mail you $100 of my own money, today, if you can provide a cite for this.
BBD, you lied again, you are not retired, but fired by your boss, as you liar admitted earlier. Be honest, liar.
Mind you, I probably should have sacked myself for insubordination on several occasions.
Stu, I don't take your money, as you are a working poor hanging around the internet.
Nope. You is wrong, old chap. Now, what you need to do instead of repeating lies is go and find the relevant quote.
Simply lying about me without any substantiating evidence is a bit pointless.
Oh, and please explain your remarks about clouds, the sun, radiation budgets etc. I've been waiting for something substantive out of you for what seems like weeks.
Nope. You is wrong, old chap. Now, what you need to do instead of repeating lies is go and find the relevant quote.
Simply lying about me without any substantiating evidence is a bit pointless.
Oh, and please explain your remarks about clouds, the sun, radiation budgets etc. I’ve been waiting for something substantive out of you for what seems like weeks.
BBD, why do you lie now that your boss has fired you? Explain!
Booris @ #48
Are you, Boris, accusing US of being unethical?
Before you answer that you may like to reflect on the tale of Justin Lancaster v Fred Singer which is a window in to where language can get you into trouble. I provided a link to a part of this story up thread, hint Richard Lindzen and Rabett Run.
Doing this you may actually learn a bit more about climate change and how the narrative has become distorted by the organs at which, it is clear, you feed information or more correctly noise.
BBD, why do you lie now that your boss has fired you? Explain!
Produce the quote or stop lying Freddy.
BBD, there is enough evidence that you are a liar. You always lie when you open your mouth. This your character, liar. Maybe your parents have educated you to lie.
And please explain your remarks about clouds, the sun, radiation budgets etc. I’ve been waiting for something substantive out of you for what seems like weeks.
You are going to run a mile, aren't you, my little fraud?
Do you seriously think you can fuck with me you idiot? I've been lied to by the best over the years and I can usually tell when it is happening. It is a useful skill.
Where's the quote freddy? Where is it?
Where is it?
Where is it?
Where is it?
Come on, freddy. Once again, you are asserting things then refusing to back up your assertions when challenged. This will be because you are a lying sack of shit and a nutter, of course, but I still want that quote. I want it now, freddy. Right now.
BBD, you lied again. Provide evidence.
Where is the quote, freddy? You need to substantiate all this.
Where is it, freddy?
Where is it, freddy?
Where is it, freddy?
Where is it, freddy?
Where is it, freddy?
Come on, freddy.
So "Boris", you admit you're lying about BBD. You admit that you have no idea how climate works. You admit you are not a scientist. You admit you are a sockpuppet. You admit you are dumb as a sack of hammers. You admit you're too fucking stupid to even troll properly.
What is it like to wake up and realize you are you, "Boris"?
I see borisfreddykaitroll is slowly regressing into his former psychopathic rage. Having been exposed as a liar, he cannot but call the other a liar to try and steer the discussion away from his lies.
No, freddy - YOU made a false claim about me. YOU provide the evidence.
Are you so fucking moronic you don't understand the logic here?
Quote, freddy. Now.
Marco - yes freddy's coming back. It's fascinating to watch, if unpleasant. There's much drollery about people not taking their meds, but in this case I think we actually see this happening.
BBD, and don't forget: I am scientist and you a nobody. Therefore you owe me due respect, layman. And don't always lie that you not have been fired by your boss, liar.
"Boris": the assumption is that you are lying about being a scientist. It is supported by every single moronic thing you've said on this thread. Until you prove otherwise, that subject is now closed.
You are also lying about BBD. If not, you could simply provide a link as evidence. You don't, because you can't. That subject is now closed.
Let's get back to your genius. Have you written that paper yet that proves Mars is hotter than Venus?
Trying to bring a little sanity, albeit with ugly connotations, in here, a new post The inevitability of sea level rise has just appeared at Real Climate and The Conversation.
There is little doubt that future generations, that could include you Booris as you are probably younger than some of us, are going to be in deep doo doo. Your toilet ain't going to flush too well when sea level has risen.
New Yorkers and others in the US NE coast learned something about this as well as many across the world when torrential rains caused flooding.
At the moment I am working with my peers on a paoer for publication in the no. 1 journal in my field, you ill-mannered laymen.
BBD liar, I know why, where and when you have been fired by your boss. Liar!
“Boris”: the assumption is that you are lying about being a scientist. It is supported by every single moronic thing you’ve said on this thread. Until you prove otherwise, that subject is now closed.
You are also lying about BBD. If not, you could simply provide a link as evidence. You don’t, because you can’t. That subject is now closed.
Let’s get back to your genius. Have you written that paper yet that proves Mars is hotter than Venus?
Stu, you don't close subjects in my presence, as I am superior to you layman in scientific hierarchy, it's up to me to close subjects. Quod licet iovi, non licet bovi!
BBD, are you going to present testimony how often you have been fired because of poor performance in your life?
Lotharsson, your speculation about science theory is wrong. No wonder, as you are no scientist.
I dunno, at the moment it looks like you're wasting valuable research time flinging poop all over this thread.
But maybe it's your coffee break or something, O Oz, the Great and Powerful?
I love how on the one hand "Boris" already styled himself specifically as a climate scientist but now all of a sudden muddles it up with "the no. 1 journal in my field".
"Boris", you're a climate scientist, right? (Riiiight?) So "your field" is climate science, right? (Riiiiight?) Would it be too much of a giveaway to share with us, oh great one, what you consider to be the #1 climate science journal?
So SeniorBoris' boss fired him, eh?
Puiblicly and humiliatingly too, taking the need to introduce and then project the subject into account.
It can't have been for being rational or consistent or publishing too many twin-ply science papers, surely?
FrankD, you are right, coffee break or other nature of breaks.
You sure take a lot of breaks, bro'. Watch out, your boss might fire you...
Quote, you stupid shit.
Quote.
Where's the quote where, according to you, I stated that I was fired for insubordination (from a subordinate position I didn't have in fantasy-land where you reside)?
The quote Boris. We can't go any further without the quote, Boris/Freddy/Nutcase.
We need that quote. Here, now, on screen in a comment we can all see.
Quote, you maniac. Quote.
You aren't a god and we are not cattle. You, however, are clearly insane.
I'm with BBD, Dr Boris - as a Distinguished Published Senior Climate Research Scientist (I do hope I got your Very Important Title correct), you are naturally all about the evidence. So you just need to show BBD where he said that and we can move on to talking about your upcoming paper, which will no doubt rock.
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."- Christopher Hitchens.
FrankD, I am the boss, nobody can fire me.
Stu, that'd be Climate Science Journal, the No.1 journal for climate scientists. Collect the first 180 issues and build the beautiful 1/12 scale FREE MODEL CLIMATE SCIENTIST using only a screwdriver (supplied).
The journal allows you to build up and create a collection that over time supplies you with all the parts to build a stunning collection of climate science.
Why not also check out the optional handsome hand-tooled leather-effect binders to keep your valuable journals in? Or our pine-effect storage shelf unit that will add that touch of class to any living room, study or kitchen.
Stealing from my bio again, fred-fred? Bit obvious.
No, they brought me up to respect the truth. What an unhinged thing to say.
Is it just me, or are we all getting a little tired of FreddyKaiBorisTroll?
Does anyone know how to contact TL?
“What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.”- Christopher Hitchens.
Stu - something from Beall's list, surely?
BBD, I am disappointed about how stubbornly you lie about the well known fact, since you admitted it yourself, that your boss has fired you due to insubordination and bad behavior.
BBD, I know the E-mail address of Tim. Do you want me to forward a message to him that you whish to be banned?
Answer, layman, but dont lie again!
One of the open question which has never been thorougly inestigated in climatology is, how surface temperatures would be if we had more shadow from trees.
But I made no such admission. You are lying.
Quote, Freddy, quote.
I'm having a hard time believing my eyes here.
Does someone know how to contact TL?
FrankD, you cannot state that you are the boss without lying, but I can say that I am the boss without lying.
FrankD, you cannot state that you are the boss without lying, but I can say that I am the boss without lying.
Bored with Freddy.
I made no such admission. You are lying.
Quote, Freddy, quote.
The only thing you should be doing now is posting that quote.
BBD: "I’m having a hard time believing my eyes here. Does someone know how to contact TL?"
BBD, I know the E-mail address of Tim. Do you want me to forward a message to him that you whish to be banned?
Answer, layman, but dont lie again!
How do you know TL's email address, Boris? Have you been hacking his blog?
BBD, crossing out text is childish. You demonstrate that you are no mature adult but a climate warmist who was fired due to insubordination by his boss. Should I inform Tim?
Freddy, I made no such admission. You are lying.
Quote, Freddy, quote.
The only thing you should be doing now is posting that quote.
Did you hack this blog, Freddy?
Where's my quote, Freddy?
Where is my quote, Freddy? And did you hack this blog Freddy? How else could you have TL's contact details?
Unless you are lying, of course. Are you lying, Freddy?
Quote, Freddy.
Or did you get an email from TL when you were Freddy fucks & caps telling you to wind your neck in? Or even a ban, which you are now circumventing by the most obvious sock puppet I think I've ever seen?
Is that how you got a contact for TL?
Now, where is my quote, freddy? Where is it?
BBD troll, I have not hacked his blog, but I know his E-mail address from elsewhere and do not disclose my sources to you Deltoids. Should I inform him about your problems?
Liar.
Again.
Quote, Freddy, quote.
The only thing you should be doing now is posting that quote.
Then do please tell us more about your... ideas about physical climatology. That is what we are waiting for, and we have waited long enough.
Just get the little matter of that quote sorted out and we can proceed.
Fred-fred, I would be delighted if you emailed TL drawing his attention to this thread.
Please do so at once.
dot dot do
dash dash dash
dot dot dot
or (for the very old i.e. probably dead)
dash dot dash dot
dash dash dot dash
dash dot dot
Let us not descend to the level of the imbecilic Boris.
I couldn't. I'm not insane.
-... --- .-. . -.. / .-- .. - .... / ..-. .-. . -.. -.. -.--
I have a lot of respect for Tim as he carries a very decent, honorable life as computer programming expert and teacher for his university students. I would not say that he is a scientist, but an formidable expert in Java and C programming.
I have no indication whatsoever whether he is similarly insane with a CO2 warming obsession like all Dumbtoid warming idiots.
BTW he has a very nice family whose members do not look at all mentally deranged like the BBDs, Stus, bills, cheks etc.
I could very well imagine that he does not like you, as he is a true and sincere professional, completely unlike BBD who was fired by his boss due to insubordinstion and bad behavior.
BBD, I will tell you the quote (although you know it perfectly, you hypocrite) *after* you confirm that you *had* been fired by your boss due to insubordination and bad behavior.
For one point, students must identify the originator of the following quote. For the maximum two points, students should fill in the missing word:
Our research group is currently active on the development of a computer model which compares surface temperature dependencies on global albedo changes due to changes in cloud cover and global tree shadow changes.
TL's skills extend further than that. Who was it who spotted the fatal flaw in McIntyre & McKittrick (2004)?
TL is a bomb disposal expert.
Bit like clouds, really. Two sides. Canopy lowers albedo and increases surface warming. Lots of evidence that boreal forest growth toward the end of the last deglacial acted as a positive feedback increasing regional warming in the high NH.
Your thoughts ?
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-hans-von-storch-on-…
Full paper http://www.academia.edu/4210419/Can_climate_models_explain_the_recent_s…
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2013/von-storch-et-al-stagation-in-warm…
Turboblocke got it right a few days ago here.
Choosing 1998 as his start year is very naughty of vS.
Almost like he's doing a Curry.
G'day comrade Luke.... welcome.
But hardly a Bob Carter swiftie trend analysis - and confirmed independently by Lucia. I think we don't know. Which ever way you cut it.
Very soon none of the ensemble instantiations will model the observed behaviour.
So what do you have - low climate sensitivity; aerosols; deep ocean heat (?!); hitherto unknown internal climate variability
What you have, "comrade" Luke, is commonly called 'playing to the peanut gallery'. Or, in the vernacular 'fucking with statistical significance' for the rubes who don't know any better.
The troposphere ≠ the climate system.
Climate basics #1.
So... OHC. Can't be bothered to link or go over the basics yet again.
But it's interesting that you've shown your preference for crank sites so soon. That saves a lot of time and effort. Thanks.
Luke
Just think of it like this.
(WRT the pretty picture your provide, I'd have gone for a Motörhead T. One from the early years with the original snaggletooth). That's a great image to work with.
Heh - good one BBD.
They really haven't a clue what they're fucking with.
Wait, "Boris", I'm still confused. Is it the spittle or are you drunk again?
Judging from your deterioration, I vote drunk.
Wait, BBD, let me practice.
"But there's this measuring station in Poland that measures solar radiation and someone wrote a paper about it that I think says that warming is caused by the sun and what do you mean, lag and also sun is warm, clouds is cold, Mars is warmer than Venus".
Whatcha think.
There is confusion about the basics.
Also, what is it with denialists and being unaware of people being able to *shudder* SCROLL UP TO VERIFY WHAT WAS SAID?
That's what I think.
:-)
Galileo was very strong on the basics. That's why his telescope design worked so well. Others aren't, which is why we need to make space for physical comedy, aka clowning.
Well what a bunch of smug creeps - so much for any ability to discuss. The desperate deep heat with massive error bars. Try harder. Much harder. The missing heat - fucking dream on.
"They really haven’t a clue what they’re fucking with." Do tell. So we're fucking with the BIG BOYS now are we?
You guys are Nova anti-universe - go full circle in extremism and you end up at the same place of turds.
We'll just add that to putrid practice of multi-model averaging - plus or minus 20% rainfall for Australia seems OK doesn't it?
Evap going up but it's going down.
Tropospheric hotspot missing in action.
Abbott about to transfer Aussie climate science into the stone age and all you lot are doing are having a circle jerk.
Stu, I need to thank you for your kind offer of $100 of your own money to fund the desperate quest for The Missing Quote. Should have said this much earlier. This project needs funding! Please help. It could change everything.
#71 BBD, I dont believe the OHC data or these alarmist charts you keep trying to scare the co2 nuffies with.
The sea surface temp hiatus is a problem for you, heat rises and this clearly is not happening,
BBd, provide accurate temperature charts, for say 500 mtr intervals, from the sea floor to the sea surface for each major ocean, and ummm......for the last 2000 yrs should do.
OMG OHC!!!
Look! It's increasing doctor! What the hell can it be?
Luke
The troposphere ≠ the climate system.
Which is why the denial machine is turning its attention to OHC and plankton like karen are burbling away as per above.
SpamKan and Luke can't argue with the data, they don't have any fossil fuel think-tank support for it just yet. But they try their best (which is of course far from adequate).
"SpamKan and Luke can’t argue with the data,"
The data is sparse and unreliable.
“SpamKan and Luke can’t argue with the data,”
Where is the quality temperature data for the ocean ?
In Levitus et al. (2012).
“SpamKan and Luke can’t argue with the data,”
http://australianclimatemadness.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/cmip5-73-mo…
Haven't you been paying any attention for at least the past three months that you've been spamming your denier crap here, SpamKan?
Time for you to read the threads and follow those links. And then admit you've got the big fat nothing you've always had.
And the answer is ... fucking crank blog.
Of course, what else would SpamKan ever have.
Karen, what you are doing is pointless. Your opinion doesn't overturn the decades of work by life-long professional oceanographers. Insinuating that these cantankerous and independent scientists are conspiring with other fields of geoscience to distort public policy is paranoid foolishness.
They are all trying to prove each other wrong. That's what scientists do. That's why when they agree about something we can take them seriously.
Well what a bunch of non comments - El Gordo why do you bother with these kids. They're clueless mate. Listen to the smug back slapping and inability to advance and argument. Death by quips. Refer to deniers. Appeal to authority - all the usual shit from people who don't know.
The problem is dough boys is that the CMIP5 models are FALSIFIED !
Show me the historical temp charts for the ocean BBd, I am not interested in the recent boogyman OHC.
Odd how SpamKan's now so rattled the trademark 'lol' is missing from the last few posts.
Guess there's not quite so much to laugh about now.
You are projecting.
Hi, and welcome Luke :)
My mother told me not to throw stones at retard's,
lol, thats probably why I do it here.
The data is there, SpamKan, although what you denier fuckwits choose to 'believe' from any one moment to the next is a lottery nobody sane would bet on.
BBD, Chek ?????
What ?? No links to SkEpTiCal SuCk HoLeS ?
Sea surface temperatures from 1880.
More data to deny.
#98 BBD
Not good enough
Karen, wake up. You are some buffoon on the internet. You quote other buffoons on the internet. This is not the road to truth.