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.
#91 Rednose said My point is, putting it politely, that the figures you quoted are an exaggeration, probably gained from the crap warmist blogs you frequent.
No you prat it was figures from the Portugese Grid operator. You link to data from 2009: do you understand why that is not even remotely relevant to the first six months of this year? Hint: today's date ends in 2013
BTW Earlier when I posted the >60% "electricity" you responded with a link to "overall energy". That's why I asked what your point was as you weren't addressing the same metric. .
Sorry. "Luke" @ 24#100.
And "Luke" - you were never a working scientist. A technologist maybe - your craven fawning to power elites is a bit of a give away. When comprehensively pwnd re Christy, Sherwood et al, by BBD, chek et al, you project your own ratfucked rectum, like the mangy mandrill you are. Why is it that so many deniers are "engineers", para-scientific techs (like GSW and Tallbloke), economists and lawyers (other than that these professions constrain enquiry with hierarchy)? Follow the money (and Latham's conga-line of suckholes) and it's all Big Oil (or Coal) cranking the spin. "Luke", Fatso and Cox are all just anxious courtiers to naked emperors.
Bye all. It's been fun.
All
Luke gets into a horrible mess on this thread, so do be sure to read through. In particular, note him getting caught pretending to have read a book he obviously has not read (#30), being outed as a crank peddling conspiracy theories (#17) and claiming -yes another one - to be a working scientist (#65). And much more besides.
Enjoy!
Sorry - how things fly by! That was, of course, the previous thread. Do please go back and review! He really, really doesn't want you to.
;-)
TurboB, Redarse only gets his information from the GWPF.
He's too stupid and incompetent to check it. Plus, finding out he's being lied to by the well-fed Lord Lawson would break his little tory heart.
Luke @ #3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZwuTo7zKM8
Awww. Let's see if Luke can stick the flounce, shall we?
(His current avatar: a screaming babboon. Hmm)
Nah I think I'll reconsider and hang around for a while
Now you'll notice how blowhard BBfuckingD has been dragged around for days - unable to answer anything.
A chronic goal poster shifter. But I guess that's all he's left with.
Be really sure to read his screeching combined with lack of content.
I think i'll stay here for weeks and keep El Gordo company until the end.
Anyway can anybody tell me why the models have been FALSIFIED?
Today on Jo baby - the Consenus Police - especially for the Doltoids - hey is Jo hot or what or is it just me?
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/08/consensus-police-101-tea-room-reasons-…
[Citation needed, you moron]
Have you found a Kellow quote yet, pathetic lying weasel?
It's just you. And every other ten-a -penny moron like you.
#TB1
Because they were the only figures to hand and they made your claims for electrcity production look suspect. Thats why I asked for a link, still not supplied.
So we going to swop information or insults
Looks like Luke's bi-polar just flipped again.
Shrek#6
Seems like they are all going home at Balcombe. Missed your chance there Comrade Shrek.
They needed a firebrand leader from the old school.
"Because they were the only figures to hand from my handlers
Corrected that to what most here, except you, fully understand, weasel-brain.
No, from the Guardian actually.
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, you're lying Redarse. Deniers have a history of it, which makes your unsupported assertions unreliable.
Oh, and the link you will supply better mean what you have asserted, or we're back to square one - i.e. you're a lying, GWPF fed weasel.
Luke, I am so glad you have decided to stay :)
hehehe, BBD is the one in black https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4
Look! A rabbit!
Obviously, we take Cohenite's failure to engage with the facts as an admission its beliefs are indefensible.
...Well, well. From baboon to Christine Keeler, on the flounce. How appropriate for pimping another intellectual prostitute. As Mandy Rice Davies said "well, he would say that wouldn't he".
JeFfErY whined "The ‘greenie communist’ bullshit is conjured up out of thin air – no evidence at all. But its all you sordid lot have left."
This yooie http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzJm-ZosEbo that you conveniently ignored JeFfErY is a clip of the leader of the Australian Greens in March 2012.
Oh...here is one of Bob's protégés....... http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/green-mp-opens-on-marxism/story-e6freu…
It is a global theme JeFfErY, now what do you think the UN is up to ?
I know you want me rhwombat. Don't you?
Stop pashing that rock
Let me guess. Coming to eat all the vast amounts of money somebody as intelligent as you is capable of earning?
"Stop pashing that rock"
ummm....... that is his pet wombat Luke.
No doubt the exhibitionist will change his avatar and we will get to see him romantically involved with a sheep or dog next?
In response to my post:
KarenMackSunspot said:
Curious response, if one is raising the issue in the first place.
I'll give you a clue. BoM does measure precipitation...
This is a fantastic photo of the Arctic guyz, 3 sub's surfaced at the Nth Pole, 1987, lol
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/np_submarines_1987.j…
And before KMS thinks that measuring precipitation is itself the reason why snow depth is not recorded by BoM, I'll note that the reason goes beyond this.
Very good barnturd, you can have a banana.
Looks like SpamKan's goldfish brain has forgotten what information was requested and why. But as it'd be similar to giving a dog a copy of Einstein's Essays in Science to chew on, no loss there.
And now look - a picture of melting ice at the North Pole in Spring '87. Maybe there's a thought about polar amplification coming, but there probably isn't. SpamKan can't think two steps ahead.
shrek, the only request that I made was here http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/08/01/august-2013-open-thread/comm…
and so far...............unanswered
shrek, lol
shrek, this was the original http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/08/01/august-2013-open-thread/comm…
I spelt it out a bit more clearly for fwank here http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/08/01/august-2013-open-thread/comm…
shrek, :)
so Shreckie Boy as you can see barnturd does not know the difference between a statement and a qwestyon,
When I see barnturd waving his puny little arms around I get this vision of him being thalidomide for some reason, lol
Holocene sub centennial evolution of Atlantic water inflow and sea ice distribution in the western Barents Sea
Abstract............
"After 6900 cal yr BP the subpolar Turborotalita quinqueloba becomes the most frequent species, reflecting a stable Atlantic water inflow. Subsurface temperatures reach 6 °C and biomarker content indicates open water with mainly ice-free conditions. During the last 1100 cal yr BP, biomarker abundances and distributions show the re-appearance of low frequency seasonal sea ice and the planktic fauna show a reduced salinity in the subsurface water. No apparent temperature decrease is observed during this interval, but the rapidly fluctuating fauna and biomarker distributions indicate more unstable conditions."
http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/9/4893/2013/cpd-9-4893-2013.html
mayzing :)
BBD must be taking a dump
@czek liar
TurboB, Redarse only gets his information from the GWPF. He’s too stupid and incompetent to check it. Plus, finding out he’s being lied to by the well-fed Lord Lawson would break his little tory heart.
this lie, liar czeck
@czek fuck stupid
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, you’re lying Redarse. Deniers have a history of it, which makes your unsupported assertions unreliable. Oh, and the link you will supply better mean what you have asserted, or we’re back to square one – i.e. you’re a lying, GWPF fed weasel.
czek facking crank & liar, science null
In other words, you don't have a clue.
Quelle surprise.
KaiFreddySockpuppeteer.
You're not fooling anyone except perhaps yourself.
for barnturd
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/08/01/august-2013-open-thread/#com…
The one thing Freddy can't manage is to fool us by creating a sockpuppet that can spell properly.
Just imagine if the pig-ignorant Swiss-German was cunning enough to manage that?
I earlier pointed out that short term tropospheric trends are more or less in line with expectations, it's the longer term trends for which the data isn't good enough to tell.
Some time after that elaboration, Luke said:
Subsequently, me (critiquing Luke's conspiratorially tinged reiterated claims):
(And a bunch of other observations, including the classic denialist conspiratorial ideation.)
Luke's response:
Luke also linked to a site, citing Sherwood and others discussing the hot spot. Sherwood:
My earlier critique also pointed out that tropical tropospheric warming is expected from basic physics and climate science, and is NOT an indicator of anthropogenic warming. I may have missed it, but I don't recall Luke backing off and admitting those points (a) are accurate, and (b) have a significant impact on his "argument".
At Luke's chosen discussion, we find the three cited scientists agreeing that:
Luke, my Mum called. She says to tell you to go back to playing with kids your own age because you don't understand what the adults are talking about.
Well...he is acting an awful lot like BK on that score, and they both suffer from delusions that appear to drive that behaviour. Maybe they could posture emptily together? And if they find something to disagree about that could prove endlessly entertaining for both of them!
BJ & craig: re the Berendaneke-Kai-Freddy-Pseudoscientist sock - are we sure he's not Breivik?
Incidentally, this thread has now beaten February's Brangelina thread and has become the biggest thread on record since the September 2011 Jonas thread.
To put it into perspective, Jo Nova's busiest ever thread is much less than half of this one, which may explain why they've sending some of their fuckwits over here to trawl for new recruits.
I think it is a feature of Dunning-Kruger that information that invalidates the sufferer's imagined expertise becomes invisible.
It doesn't matter how many times you point out to a crank like Luke that the hotspot is not a feature specific to AGW, they never see it, and they keep on with their babbling.
It doesn’t matter how many times you point out to a crank like Luke that the hotspot is not a feature specific to AGW, they never see it, and they keep on with their babbling.
Yes it is; keep babbling thommo.
http://www.webcommentary.com/images/fingerprints.jpg
KarenMackSunspot.
I know the difference between a question and a statement, which is why:
1) I asked you if you know why BoM doesn't report snow depth and instead leaves that to others, and
2) I subsequently stated that you do not have a clue as to the answer to (1).
And speaking of clues, here's another - how long is a piece of string?
No, it's not.
Despite the availability of simple explanations that show why this diagram doesn't imply what you claim it implies, you still get it wrong (as does Jo Nova - and in her case I know she's been pointed to explanations of her error, because I have personally done it and I've witnessed others doing it.)
I can only conclude that you're either not smart enough to understand this fairly basic point of climate science, or you're lying.
Your call.
Oh, you're right Lotho; how could I have been so blind; your words have lifted the scales from my eyes and I can now see the hot spot!
Those poor buggars at IPCC putting up that diagram and being accused of the wrong thing; they were taken out of context.
#50 Bernard J.
You are quite the masochist, lol
KarenMackSunspot.
What's up, is your synapse misfiring because you've been asked to detail your (non-existent) understanding about an issue that you raised in the first place?
Go on, tell us - why doesn't the BoM publish snow depths?
barnturd.........your psychotic adventure started from the statement that I made here http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/08/01/august-2013-open-thread/comm… if you follow the thread from there you will soon see that I NEVER asked YOU a qwestyon.
Do you have a head injury barnturd ??????????
cohenite, a small hint: there is a legend that describes what it shows. Another hint: the graphs are not normalized to equal forcings (i.e., equal forcing of solar radiation, GHGs, volcanoes, aerosols and stratospheric ozone). Last hint: this is what a GCM shows the profile would like like if you'd increase solar radiation with 2%:
http://www.realclimate.org/images/solar_tropical_enhance.gif
And this is for doubling of CO2:
http://www.realclimate.org/images/2xCO2_tropical_enhance.gif
Hmmm...are my eyes deceiving me, or are BOTH giving the SAME tropical tropospheric hotspot?
Straw man. I've never said that you asked me a question.
I am asking you if you know why BoM doesn't record snow depths.
You are obviously having difficulty answering the question
Where, oh where, can I get a military grade irony meter?
Yes, Jo Nova misinterprets it precisely by taking it out of the context that explains it and then making an Epic Misinterpretation, just like you stripped it of context and made the very same error.
I've personally pointed her to the context that refutes the claim more than once, and I've seen others do the same. When I pointed her to the words in the section that included the image that describe how it was generated and what it means, she simply ran away and pretended that those words don't exist - and left the post up on her website that reiterates her error. In your case you have already been pointed to a link that explains it up thread, but based on your extensive record I have no doubts that you'll do much the same.
The hot spot occurs from any source of warming. If you're looking for the "signature" of greenhouse gas forcing, you look for stratospheric cooling. The diagram and explanatory text demonstrate this (with the subtlety that the forcings in the different subdiagrams are not of equal magnitude, which confuses people who can't or prefer not to understand the explanatory text).
That is why it's so telling when someone continues to spout erroneous blather about this after having been pointed at the explanatory text. It suggests they either are incompetent in this area, or aren't interested in conforming their opinions to reality but rather in pretending (or lying) that reality informs their opinions...
Like I said, your call. Are you a liar, or are you incompetent to make basic claims about climate science?
"I am asking you if you know why BoM doesn’t record snow depths. "
I said............no
I didn't say that I wanted to know the answer.
Darn, Marco pre-empted some of my response to cohenite.
Still, it's also worth pointing out that stratospheric cooling is a signature of 'greenhouse' tropospheric warming, and that such is documented - see for example An update of observed stratospheric temperature trends by Randel et al.
Science of Doom has a good overview.
And I am simply pointing out that you raised the issue of BoM not publishing snow depth without understanding why they don't.
barnturd, you stuck your scabby nose into a conversation that I was having with the esteemed el gordo.
If you want to answer a q for me go back to see what I asked and answer that, thankyou.
So, will Cohenite read Marco's lucid explanation and learn what his mistake is?
Or will Cohenite's ideological blinkers prevent him from seeing this explanation, allowing him to carry on with his denial?
You can definitely see Dunning-Kruger in action when Cohenite imagines that his shallow understanding of the "hot spot" trumps the knowledge and intelligence of the properly-qualified experts in the area.
As for the ex-Questacon chldren's show presenter, Joanne Codling, she simply lacks the intellect to understand her mistake.
rhwombat @ 2. Perfectly put. These guys, like other deniers, constantly try and inflate their credentials. That's because the denier ranks are devoid for the most part of statured scientists. Look at Karen's pathetic link yesterday - the first clot to appear was one Kenneth Green, a hack for a right wing think tank in Canada. Now we have Luke claiming to be a scientist. next thing you know, Fatty will claim to be a scientist on the basis of putting up a bird box in is garden and Karen on the basis of reading the Hungry Green Caterpillar. There's no depths to which this sordid bunch of idiots won't stoop to legitimize themselves.
# 58 Lotharsson
yes yes yes we know all that - and it's still not good enough
The stratosphere story doesn't stack up that well either. (go on swing at it)
As for Joanne Codling - you're not "exposing" anything - she has all that on her "about" page http://joannenova.com.au/about/ Cripes why I am defending her? Well it's just you should be on the science or debate not the presenter. I think as given she's a molecular biology graduate trying to pass her off as a TV show flim flam is piss weak really. As I said get over there and try your hand - you'll have your DNA sequenced and sieved and come home minus your balls.
#65 And dear Jeff I am a scientist - and associate with scientists every working day - they argue well actually and don't bung on appeals to authority like here - they also have enough empathy to indulge exploration of other viewpoints and have plenty of time for lay persons - but that's not relevant - the debate is.
It doesn't matter if the IPCC paid for it or Exxon - is it right or wrong is the question.
So which GCMS are you guys running anyway?
Incidentally Cohers - have you seen Philipona's latest (sidebar - Cohers (my little mate actually) dislikes Rolf's empirical anti-denial evidence - so I like to shit him by keeping him updated - Cohers refutes the pyrgeometer from first principles and even refutes my absolute radiometer but I digress)....
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 39, L13806, doi:10.1029/2012GL052087, 2012
Solar and thermal radiation profiles and radiative forcing
measured through the atmosphere by Philipona et al.
mate it's a cracker - a balloon journey with upwards and downwards facing pyranometers and pyrgeometers doing a profile radiation measurement through the atmosphere and getting into a big of water vapour too. You'll fucking love it.
http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/www/IMOP/publications/IOM-109_TECO-2012/S…
"These guys, like other deniers, constantly try and inflate their credentials."
Oh JeFfErY.................who iz ?
Back your bull shit up with proof, not your standard la la land twaddle.
Thanks for that Marco; the old equivalence for 2XCO2 and 2% TSI; ah yes, it's putting on the old slippers and sinking into the old lounge and then stinking up the place with a good old fart.
The RC equivalence between a THS from 2XCO2 and a 2% increase in TSI which is discussed here is quite simply impossible:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/tropical-troposph…
In turn the RC comment is based on the Hansen 1984 paper:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi?id=ha07600n
To say a THS would occur equally in signature from 2XCO2 and a 2% increase in solar forcing is astounding since increases in CO2 have any forcing effect constrained by Beers Law which produces the logarithmic decline so that there are diminishing returns in respect of extra heating for all additional CO2; how can solar forcing be so prescribed?
cont:
cont; perils of the THS!
Well, obviously it can’t and there immediately is a difference in the linearity, or lack thereof, between the 2 major forcing agents recognised by the IPCC.
The jest becomes richer when we look at solar main sequence increases in output; the sun over history increases its average energy output 4% every BILLION years; so what RC is suggesting is that 2XCO2 is equal to 500 million years of solar main sequence evolution!
Look at it this way; 341.5 W/m^2 of incident power from the Sun heats the surface to 287K (384.7 W/m^2 of radiated power) for a net gain of 384.7/341.5 = 1.1, while the IPCC, and by proxy you, claim that 3.7 W/m^2 of incremental forcing from 2XCO2 absorption causes a 3C rise in the surface temperature. If you add 3C to 287 and convert to power, the Earth’s surface emits 401.1 W/m^2, which is an increase of 16.4 W/m^2. This means that the IPCC claim of gain, relative to power from 2XCO2 forcing, is 16.4/3.7 = 4.43, which is about 4x higher than solar forcing.
By this reckoning 2XCO2 = an 8% increase in solar energy. Sorry, that is impossible
What science should we be "debating", Luke?
The science about the "hotspot" that Codling still doesn't understand despite many explanations?
Why would non-experts waste their time "debating" their variously defective understanding of science they don't understand?
That's not what this is about. This is, variously, a fishy barrel or a modern-day freak show.
Spot on VW.
Luke
But I wasn't. You were.
Please substantiate this with relevant quotes.
You have all day. Meetings.
Best make a good job of this though, because if you are exposed as lying *yet again* it's going to be rather difficult to live with.
Got that Kellow quote yet, you old bullshitter, you?
;-)
OK, Luke. What's your highest degree? What field was it in? What other degrees do you have? How many peer reviewed papers have you published? What is the one with the highest citation index? Do you know what a citation index is? Are you any more than Spam in drag?
Codling has a BSc in mol biol, and did some undergraduate (ie non-funded, non-self directed) work on dystrophy markers - which is the medical equivalent of stamp collecting. She then became a science journalist (which, in her case was the equivalent of sports journalism for non-jocks - ie eye candy for frustrated nerds) and married an Electrical Engineer with a PhD who sells get rich quick with gold schemes to gullible Libertarian Randroids - which is where she got her politics, schtick and Koch funding. She is a lightweight weather girl, with the intellectual prowess of a propaganda poodle. You are even less worthy of consideration.
No BBD Now you've obviously had a cleansing dump and a nice shower and you're back. - but you were ratfucked my son. You don't get second goes. Stay down or we'll have to sucker punch you again.
# Vince - it's your defective understanding assuming a priori that the defence is correct. The existence of debate between Sherwood, Mears and Christy about the difficulty in finding the sucker. You have not immersed yourself my friend. Ah yes the internet - it's just so subversive. But then again i guess it allows ape arses like BBD to have Walter Mitty moments and think he's actually doing something.
rhwombat - ah yes the good medico avoiding a science discussion and wanting to play buimper cars. I'm a really crap scientist wombsy with a degree in astrology, no papers and really didn't even pass (or maybe not) - but I just happen to be right. If you're so cocksure get your limp dick over to Nova's and do them over. But ya big pussy - you won't - they'll rip your virtual balls off and stick them down your neck. You're all gutless to leave "the island".
And after all wombat - you're the one living in some coal hole. Fuck me. I'm living in Q1 - ask Cohers.
'She then became a science journalist (which, in her case was the equivalent of sports journalism for non-jocks – ie eye candy for frustrated nerds'
Its outside your area of expertise, doc. I was a sports journalist and now I'm a science reporter on the 5th Estate.
And for all we know wombat your wife is probably some hooker, or maybe no wife - maybe transgender or maybe you're into animals - who would know. So leave David alone. Maybe you need some gold tips.
El Gordo I must say it's a pleasure reaming these dishonest rubes with you. Perhaps we should go home and attack each other. You told me they weren't very good and not even funny - pity place was a bit of legend blog back in the day before these vagrants moved in. It's like some driveby shooting druggie den now isn't it. The Mt Druitt of blogdom. The only science of substance has been whipped out by Cohenite and I wouldn't trust him unless you checked his math. You know how he does swifties.
What math?
There's no evidence that you did, and someone as smart as you wouldn't have made the stupidly misleading statements you made on the subject by leaving out crucial information widely known to those with a passing acquaintance with basic meteorology unless they intended to mislead - or have major problems with written English communication. So are you stupid, mendacious, or don't do English very well?
And Cohenite clearly doesn't "know all that" - see above. Perhaps you could inform him of his error instead of patting him on the head? He is parroting almost exactly the same "message" you had - "the tropospheric hotspot is missing" - without any of the nuance that comes with "we know all that".
You seem to vacillate between asserting victory in the face of contrary evidence and retrospectively attempting to cover the butt you left hanging in earlier posts, all the while shilling for traffic at Ms Nova's website and doling out attempted insults that I'm guessing you probably think are amusing.
All of this has my Mum I'm starting to wonder whether you're really Ms Nova in drag, but my money's still on Nova By Proxy Syndrome. (1/2 ;-) )
"I’m a really crap scientist wombsy with a degree in astrology, no papers and really didn’t even pass (or maybe not) – but I just happen to be right"
This guy is such a loon that his posts are getting more and more hilarious. Rhwombat asks all the right questions and we get this shit back. Karen and Fatso and Jonas do it all the time,. Its the "I don't have any formal qualifications in any relevant field but I know I am right" gambit.
Note that not a single one of these clots has been anywhere near a scientific conference, they've never published a single scientific paper in their lives, and yet somehow they delude themselves into believing they are bonafide experts.
No wonder we keep referring to Dunning-Kruger. Its completely appropriate. The deniers read a few blogs -mostly run by non-scientists (e.g. Nova) or a few on the academic fringe - and PRESTO! Instant expertise. Thanks God most scientific professions don't accept post-by-blog qualifications as the real thing. Instead, the kind of stupidity espoused by Luke, Fatty, Cohenite and Karen is largely consigned to the Earth sciences. That's bad enough though. I got my PhD in 1995, have 130 plus peer-reviewed articles and over 3000 citations of my work (population and evolutionary ecology) and yesterday Karen's only riposte to stacks of studies showing biotic responses to recent warming was to say that he/she/it thought these responses were insignificant in terms of scale or in an historical context. No empirical evidence required, merely their opinion as 'authority'. Luke is following in this long tradition on Deltoid. Pretty well every bloody AGW denier who has written in here over the past few years has used the same trick. First, they claim expertise, then when this is exposed as a lie, they switch to the "I don't need formal qualifications because I am correct".
Thank heaven that universities and research labs for the most part steer clear of the army of ignoranti on the internet. My colleagues are largely unaware of the Luke's, Jonas's, El Gordo's and Karen's. When I attend conferences in which the ecological effects of AGW is discussed, Nova, CA, WUWT, Bishop's Hill, Climate Depot etc. are not only ignored, most scientific colleagues I speak to have never even heard of them. A good thing. Still, this lot think they are experts because of the blogs they write into.
'it’s a pleasure reaming these dishonest rubes with you.'
Thanks comrade, the feeling is mutual. Not sure I ever mentioned it before, but I've been a rusted on leftard all my life and on this single issue of climate change I turned my back on the party.
So we have a lot in common.
Fatty opines, "I was a sports journalist and now I’m a science reporter on the 5th Estate"
Clearly untrue. First, Fatty, you need to know some basic scientific facts. You clearly don't. Epic fail.
24 hours later (well, 20, but its enough to establish the point) and Karen shows that not only is she too stupid to answer a simple question, but she is too stupid to phrase the question sensibly and unambiguously.
She got what she requested, yet she still claims no-one has answered her question.
I'll be back tomorrow to see if she has managed to frame the question to get what she claims to want. In the meantime, its transparent that if what she got what she asked for but it wasn't what she wanted, thats because she asked the wrong question.
So once more for Karen:
Keep trying Karen. Use your words...
It doesn’t matter if the IPCC paid for it or Exxon – is it right or wrong is the question.
Crazy logic, Luke. Of course it matters who pays for it. If I am a lawyer, and you pay me a million bucks, I am working for you. It doesn't matter if you are guilty of some heinous crime, I will try to get you off. Science has been bought-and-paid for by vested interests for years now. The energy/fossil fuel funded shills are bastardizing science to bolster a pre-determined worldview. The IPCC is not a for-profit organization set up to assess the empirical evidence for AGW. Comparing it with Exxon-Mobil is about as dishonest as one can get. There is no comparison. Exxon-Mobil sees any measures to deal with climate change as a threat to the way they do business. They don't give a shit whether or not humans are forcing climate; their primary agenda is short-term profit maximization. They think in terms of quarterly profit margins, or perhaps a year or two in advance, but no further than that. So the planet may be going to hell in a hand-basket - that's not their immediate concern, which is investor's returns.
So of course one's political and corporate affiliations affect their scientific views. How you can dismiss this is proof positive that you are living in an intellectual bubble.
I should have 'quoted 'Luke for the first statement in my last post. But most readers here know what I mean.
Thanks for the Philipona effort luke; I've sent it straight to Ferenc and Zac.
'you need to know some basic scientific facts'
The science is not settled on climate change and I'm here to learn. This is a science blog.
Craig Idso gets a guest post at Watts on the MWP, here's his summary.
'In concluding this summary, it is clear that the suite of measurements described in the studies reviewed above continues to indicate that the Arctic – which climate models suggest should be super-sensitive to greenhouse-gas-induced warming – is still not even as warm as it was several centuries ago during portions of the Medieval Warm Period, when there was much less CO2 and methane in the air than there is today, which facts further suggest that the planet’s more modest current warmth need not be the result of historical increases in these two trace greenhouse gases.'
"The science is not settled on climate change"
... and, if the corporate lobby has their way, it never will be. As long as the science is considered to be 'not settled' then nothing will be done about it, and the status quo will be maintained. We'll continue to burn fossil fuels like there is no tomorrow, atmospheric concentrations of this gas will continue to increase, costs will be externalized and profits will continue to soar. This has been the corporate strategy all along. They don't need to win any scientific debates; they know that they never will as the science is not on their side. Their aim has been and always will be to sow doubt. To lobby for lethargy, as FoE put it a few years ago.
To do this, they've funded think tanks, PR firms, bought-and-paid for some scientists, and invested heavily in other forms of PR. To anyone with half and brain this should be patently obvious. To our small band of nincompoops on Deltoid, however, its all about good versus bad science, and the fossil-fuel, transport and automobile lobbies are innocent and independent bystanders in the debate. Forget the fact that (as I have said repeatedly) among the vast majority of qualified scientists in relevant fields there is no controversy at all. To repeat, EVERY major scientific organization in every country on Earth has affirmed the reality and potential seriousness of AGW. This inconvenient little tidbit is left out of the discourse among the deniers here on Deltoid who appear to believe they know more than qualified scientists who have worked in the field for years.
I've asked them before and I will ask them again: where are your peer-reviewed publications? If you know the truth, why are you clowns relegated to right wing blogs to spread your 'wisdom'? Why aren't you writing up your brilliant analyses and submitting them to Nature, Science, PNAS or many other journals where your 'science' can be properly evaluated? I asked Jonas this, and I will now ask the other deniers here. If you are so damned sure that you are correct, let me see the proof in your publications lists.
Therein lies the rub. None of them have ever done a scientific experiment and had it published, at least anywhere of note. Its all science by blog. End of story.
Fatty, if you want to learn more about science, go to a university. At the very least sign up to attend a conference or workshop. You won't learn anything from the clowns you align yourself with on blogs. Methinks in fact that you actually enjoy wallowing in ignorance with your fellow muckers. It gives you the impression that you know more about climate science than you actually do.
Craig Idso...
Please give me a barf bag. Bought and paid for. Just as I said.
Fatso, ever hear of Western Fuels Association? Do you know anything about the Idso's and their association with it?
Probably not. As I would expect.
Please yourself Jeff, but its a damn good read. Anyway, I'm now convinced that the MWP was warmer than the Modern Climate Optimum.
'EVERY major scientific organization in every country on Earth has affirmed the reality and potential seriousness of AGW. '
And it will go down as the biggest scam in modern history.
New Law in North Carolina Bans Latest Scientific Predictions of Sea-Level Rise
http://abcnews.go.com/US/north-carolina-bans-latest-science-rising-sea-…
You seem an earnest chap Jeff.
No it won't because that's purely the perception you've been groomed to accept.
To operate a scam you need idiots who know no better, and that doesn't apply to the thousands of international scientists working on AGW who know - like any rational person - that it would be impossible to fake all the aspects of the science. So you're left with conjuring up a vast conspiracy participated in by governments and universities worldwide. Being an idiot, you likely thinks that's entirely viable, but rational people do not.
What you have instead are crank delusions by know nothings exactly like you who've been fed corporately funded chum nuggets. Your own vanity does the rest.
Whatever you say chek, but back to the science. I am now convinced that the flooding of Australia didn't lower sea levels.
http://www.bom.gov.au/web03/ncc/www/awap/rainfall/totals/36month/colour…
SpamKan @ #97.
You've never heard of the Pi delusion that your fellow cranks tried once before, have you?
You can't legislate the real world away, no matter how many cranks agree that it should be done. It's textbook insanity, which is why you applaud it.
Here's the Anomalies
http://www.bom.gov.au/web03/ncc/www/awap/rainfall/anomaly/36month/colou…
Thus speaks the eco-warrior/loon Comrade Shrek, the might have been armchair hero of Balcombe and similar past battles with the establishment.
Got that Guardian ref yet Redarse?
Thought not.
Rednose back on the previous page you said So we going to swop information or insults Perhaps you should have been more polite as contrary to what you believe the following remark from you was an insult: My point is, putting it politely, that the figures you quoted are an exaggeration, probably gained from the crap warmist blogs you frequent.
As for the link, here it is again: http://www.ren.pt/media/comunicados/detalhe/renewable_energy_sources_ac…
@czek:
#99
chek
August 23, 2013
And it will go down as the biggest scam in modern history.
No it won’t because that’s purely the perception you’ve been groomed to accept.
To operate a scam you need idiots who know no better, and that doesn’t apply to the thousands of international scientists working on AGW who know – like any rational person – that it would be impossible to fake all the aspects of the science. So you’re left with conjuring up a vast conspiracy participated in by governments and universities worldwide. Being an idiot, you likely thinks that’s entirely viable, but rational people do not.
True:
"And it [AGW] will go down as the biggest scam in modern history."
Wrong:
No it won’t because that’s purely the perception you’ve been groomed to accept.
To operate a scam you need idiots who know no better, and that doesn’t apply to the thousands of international scientists working on AGW who know – like any rational person – that it would be impossible to fake all the aspects of the science. So you’re left with conjuring up a vast conspiracy participated in by governments and universities worldwide. Being an idiot, you likely thinks that’s entirely viable, but rational people do not.
What you have instead are crank delusions by know nothings exactly like you who’ve been fed corporately funded chum nuggets. Your own vanity does the rest.
u learn wat tru or wron, stupid czeck
TB
Well thanks for that though the request was 2 pages back.
That gives info for Portugal, which you already posted, but what about the other 49 countries.
Discounting those with a substantial Hydro output, you might find the remainder could double their yearly output with a shipment of hand crank generators and a few batteries.
At least Redarse makes it all-too obvious he's shilling for the fossil fuel lobby.
Comrade Shrek
I posted the Guardian link two pages back.
Here it is again
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jun/19/renewable-energy-c…
Do try to keep up.
TB#5
Ok that was a bit harsh. just trying to enter into the blog spirit.
I admit it. it was the double Tesco points for August that were on offer that clinched it.
#7 I posted that link yesterday. Clearly you missed it the first time.
As for the other 45, there is no link to them all. You have to look up the data for each one individually on the CO2 scorecard site:
The first one is Albania, http://www.co2scorecard.org/countrydata/Index/4323 the last is Zambia.http://www.co2scorecard.org/countrydata/Index/4323 Enjoy! BTW a caveat: the data is mostly from 2008/9 so there may be more by now.
#9 Do try to keep up. That's a bit rich as your Guardian link refers to overall energy whereas I was talking about electricity, so not the same metric. And I posted the link to the Portuguese Grid operator yesterday and you didn't get it.
That's because, unlike Cohenite, Jeff is an educated professional in the sciences.
You still have no idea what the hotspot is, and you are still relying on crank blogs for an interpretation of science you don't understand.
And, as if to underline my point, El Gordo trots out Craig Idso - coincidentally another one who did a degree involving some Geography and tried to puff his CV up with fake references to climate science on the back of it - the same Craig Idso who is paid-for PR merchant whose job it is to assist the fossil fuel industry in its lobbying to stave off any regulation that might de-externalise the cost of emitting CO2 into the atmosphere.
A paid-for political lobbyist, El Gordo, not a scientist, is who you go for for your opinions. That's where you're coming from. Your credibility is nil. Again.
czek, agw is spit, u crank follo
czek, u greenpiss active
Redarse:
Oh the irony. You've been spanked already for trying to pass off figures prepared in 2009 . We can see here that UK renewable generation for example increased from the 3% in 2009 Redarse would have us believe is current to 12%+ in the last quarter of 2012 against a target of 15% by 2020.
# 99 and #2 Your links show most of Australia having between 250mm and 1000mm of precipitation extra: that's from a quarter of a tonne to a tonne per square metre. That's a lot of water.
Comparing it to the oceans: say half the area of Australia had between 250 and 1000mm extra. So 625 mm over about 3.5 million km2. Surface area of oceans is about 350 million km2. That gives the equivalent of about 2mm per year over the 3 year period that you selected. It's probably a lot less due to run off and evaporation, but clearly some effect is possible.
Borked link from #17:
We can see here
Comrade Shrek
Your link does not work, much like your argument.
Rednose: if you're polite to some posters, but rude to others, it makes you appear odd.
TB
Is this your list of over 60%
Albania (100% hydro in 2008).
Angola (96.45% hydro in 2008)
Austria (73.86% renewable in 2009, 12.5% of that non hydro)
Belize (90.91% hydro in 2008) Update: REEGLE says only about 80%.
Bhutan (99.86% hydro in 2008)
Brazil (88.88% renewable with 4.93 non hydro in 2009)
Burundi (100% hydro in 2008)
Cameroon (77.31% hydro in 2008)
Canada (61.95% renewable, with 1.86% non hydro in 2009)
Central African Republic (81.25% renewable in 2008)
Columbia (85.67% hydro in 2008)
Congo (82.22% renewable in 2008)
Costa Rica (93.11% renewable in 2008)
DPR Korea (61.86% hydro in 2008)
DR Congo (99.46% hydro in 2008)
Ecuador (64.12% renewable in 2008, with 2.21% non hydro)
El Salvador (62.24% renewable in 2008, with 26.92 non hydro)
Ethiopia (88.17% renewable in 2008, with 0.27% non hydro)
Fiji (68.04% renewable in 2008)
Georgia (85.52% hydro in 2008)
Ghana (75.03% hydro in 2008)
Guatemala (61.31% renewable, with 17.5 non hydro in 2008)
Iceland (100% renewable, with 26.27% geothermal in 2009).
Kenya (62.59% renewable, with 21.06% non hydro in 2008)
Kyrgyzstan (90.85% hydro in 2008)
Lao PDR (92.46% hydro in 2008)
Latvia (62.23% renewable with 1.96% non hydro in 2008)
Lesotho (100% hydro in 2008)
Madagascar (66.67% hydro in 2008)
Malawi (86.31% hydro in 2008)
Mozambique (99.87% hydro in 2008)
Myanmar (62.05% hydro in 2008)
Namibia (70.91% hydro in 2008)
Nepal (99.67% hydro in 2008)
New Zealand (72.52% renewable, including 15.42% non hydro in 2009)
Norway (97.11% renewable, including 0.93% non hydro in 2009)
Paraguay (100.00% hydro in 2008), exporting 90% of generated electricity (54.91 TWh in 2008)
Peru (60.53% renewable, including 1.47% non hydro in 2008)
Sweden (60.42% renewable, including 10.58% non hydro in 2009)
Tajikistan (98.25% hydro in 2008)
Tanzania (61.45% hydro in 2008)
Uganda (74.77% hydro in 2008)
Uruguay (61.98% renewable, with 9.33 non hydro in 2008)
Venezuela (69.57% hydro in 2008)
Zambia (99.69% hydro in 2008)
They all have a large hydroelectric capacity, which is an established technology requiring a favourable geography.
What happens when the geography is unfavourable?
TB#21
I never claimed otherwise.
Jeff - I didn't claim nor unclaim any expertise. And gee mate if that's your quals get off the this climate blog - unless you have 50 good papers in GRL and J Clim I don't want to know about your rat dirt. And you have the temerity to bring up Dunning-Kruger. The DK effect applies to you my friend. If the climate models are wrong all your "imputed" effects are simply horseshit.
Jeff it's the same old same old tiresome appeal to authority. So Jeff your logic is we simply be subservient to the authority. If so stop blogging - why argue? What is there to talk about.
And don't worry who funded what - is it wrong is the question? Do you think the establishment funding is totally virtuous with a choir of angels singing.
Jeff I have given you good number of issues in peer reviewed publications - so Dr Genius answer the fucking questions. You can't.
Stop obfuscating and help me out. This tiresome appeal to authority is piss weak and a cop out.
It seems the Doltoids answer to all questions is simply to scream "crank". Unimpressive and means no real knowledge at all. I have to smile that the rebuttals offered are material that has been panned by some serious sceptic shelling. Shredded.
Listen to chek shit on "thousands of international scientists working on AGW who know" what bullshit - the ones in any serious knowledge domain in WG1 are a handful. Thousands is simply fucking bullshit.
"The IPCC is not a for-profit organization" - this is hilarious. Mate do you know what horse-trading and bullshit goes on in Kyoto negotiation sessions. This is how Howard came up with the cop-out Australia clause. Who pays the not-for-profit bills?
Jeff - get off the blog - you're not qualified on climate.
Which says more about you than it does the MWP, given that you've been presented with evidence several times and have chosen to ignore it.
But we all knew that already, right?
Redarse, the link at #19 does work, and shows your game up very clearly.
Yup, that's what cranks do.
Convince themselves, despite the evidence.
Perhaps we can try to see if the guys can apply themselves to a local problem - mechanisms behind the Millennium droughts in the MDB andd SEQ. What are the factors at play - i.e. ENSO, STRi, and SAM? All or some or neither? If AGW - how? Why the difference in opinion. Why do the droughts persist. After 2011 has this changed?
Let's see how the boys go on a practical issue.
Er, no. You don't even understand that much. It's an appeal to the strong consensus of the qualified experts, which in turn is based on the evidence. When there's a strong consensus, that's the smart money bet to make if your personal skills are insufficient to publish a peer reviewed paper in the field bucking the consensus.
(BTW, Karen tried for an appeal to authority a couple of pages back, but you didn't complain about that one. Curious...)
Say Luke, who as far as we can see is not qualified on climate either, but unlike Jeff is bucking the consensus of the actually qualified experts, and in at least some aspects of that act he is demonstrably mistaken.
Well, given that you're exhibiting classic crank behavioural traits (including serially pretending that substantive responses pointing out serious issues with your claims weren't made, and serially asserting against clear evidence that your argument was superior) , and since you're spouting classic crank memes, then it's not surprising that you think that.
Because if you look, sound and act like a crank, you probably are one - and if not (a) it's understandable that people might think you are, and (b) you might want to consider changing so that you don't look/sound/act that way.
My prediction: you will continue to prefer whining about what other people think of you to changing how you present to the world.
Lotharsson so you still can't answer my questions. DUck, weave dodge.
Your strong consensus of qualified experts is a handful.
Why be here. WE BELIEVE IN THE CONSENSUS - it''s holy writ. Unplug brain.
And now crank memes are peer reviewed papers. So Loathsome - how long have you been making up complete lies
Logic Fail.
You've been called out a number of times for inappropriate binary thinking ("wrong or right", "falsified or not") with respect to models, yet you persist. You need to fix that first. Then you need to show that a valid analysis of the scope and level of usefulness of the models flows through to your conclusion.
Based on your past inability to even acknowledge errors, I'm betting you'll do none of this.
Tirbolook:
Comparing it to the oceans: say half the area of Australia had between 250 and 1000mm extra. So 625 mm over about 3.5 million km2. Surface area of oceans is about 350 million km2. That gives the equivalent of about 2mm per year over the 3 year period that you selected. It’s probably a lot less due to run off and evaporation, but clearly some effect is possible.
u pour shite nonsens, block
@Loathsome: wrong claim
It’s an appeal to the strong consensus of the qualified experts, which in turn is based on the evidence. When there’s a strong consensus, that’s the smart money bet to make if your personal skills are insufficient to publish a peer reviewed paper in the field bucking the consensus.
nobody xplain u consensus = science shite
Or, as in South Australia, you have no water anyway .... You go for other technologies. In 15 years we've managed to install 25+% wind power. And pretty soon, we'll be at over 30% from wind. http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/7/11/renewable-energy/…
adlady troll, what happenz with your green shite "power" when no wind and no sun???
adlady troll
wirite answer: then no green shite power = blackout
adlady troll
u not understand: no wind, no sun, no renewabl, no green shite power
hahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahaha
huhuhuhuhuhuhuhuhuhuhuhuh
Sigh. It's always projection.
You have failed to modify any of your claims that were shown to be anywhere from unsubstantiated to pure horseshit. "DUck, weave dodge" indeed.
And you continue to pretend that answers I have provided don't exist. Duck, weave dodge.
And you continue to engage in childish taunting attempts. Duck, weave dodge.
I choose how much time to invest in dealing with people who are acting like cranks (including ducking, weaving and dodging). Your inference that no answer to a specific taunt is inability to answer is fallacious, and suggests that you either aren't very good at this "logic" thing, or are arguing in bad faith.
Your call on that point...
Another false crank meme, which (worse still) misses the key point: that the qualified expert consensus was rooted in the evidence.
Epic Fail.
No, we believe in the parts where the consensus is strong because (a) the consensus of qualified experts is strong, and most of us don't have the skills to enter that debate on equal terms, yourself apparently included, and (b) we've had people coming here (and throughout the media and blogosphere) for quite a few years claiming the consensus is bullshit and Epic Failing.
And it's not like we want them to fail! We absofuckinglutely want them to be right that there's no AGW problem to worry about and we can all go about business as usual! And if they are we will be first in line to nominate them for a couple of Nobel Prizes and a bunch of state honours!
But they're not right.
Almost invariably when their case is examined (by applying the very brains that you allege are "unplugged") it falls apart in ways that one doesn't even need to be a competent scientist to see. They're almost always not even close to being right.
They primarily rely on several favourite kinds of fallacies, some of which you appear to be relying upon yourself. One of them involves imputing false import with respect to the strong consensus to some area that is either outside of the scope of the strong consensus entirely or that doesn't have the import that they claim it does (see: "MODELS ARE FALSIFIED!1!!!11!".) And they often make claims in conspiratorial terms such as the ones you used earlier (which helps insulate them from the possibility of falsification when they are presented with refuting evidence), or they simply ignore the implications of the evidence - as you appear to be doing on some points. You can see a number of examples on this thread - examples that you have conspicuously declined to critique.
If the consensus was mistaken in some fundamental or basic fashion, you'd expect one attempt to be able to successfully substantiate that point, and then to be widely disseminated to all sorts of forums where climate science is of interest. All it takes is one critique of import that stands up to scrutiny. Heck, I'd expect even someone as poor at stringing together a coherent case in English as you to be able to do a reasonable job at relating it somewhere like this (once the critique has been formulated), but you haven't. You seem to be relying the false import fallacy, although you do throw in a dash of Underpants Gnome Logic for good measure.
But since they've all failed - but more importantly since it has withstood attack by determined people far cleverer and more informed than you, we operate on the basis that it's the best understanding we have until and unless shown otherwise, and therefore that the fairly dire implications of that understanding are crucial.
Your self-important fluffing around on this thread doesn't go close to impacting that.
@loathsome:
Sigh. It’s always projection.
You have failed to modify any of your claims that were shown to be anywhere from unsubstantiated to pure horseshit. “DUck, weave dodge” indeed.
And you continue to pretend that answers I have provided don’t exist. Duck, weave dodge.
And you continue to engage in childish taunting attempts. Duck, weave dodge.
I choose how much time to invest in dealing with people who are acting like cranks (including ducking, weaving and dodging). Your inference that no answer to a specific taunt is inability to answer is fallacious, and suggests that you either aren’t very good at this “logic” thing, or are arguing in bad faith.
loathsome u manage to tell all wrong, try also more to improv
Your call on that point…
#36
This seems to come at a price
http://www.energymatters.com.au/index.php?main_page=news_article&articl…
@loathsome: u areagai wron
Your strong consensus of qualified experts is a handful. Another false crank meme, which (worse still) misses the key point: that the qualified expert consensus was rooted in the evidence. WE BELIEVE IN THE CONSENSUS – it”s holy writ. Unplug brain. Epic Fail. No, we believe in the parts where the consensus is strong because (a) the consensus of qualified experts is strong, and most of us don’t have the skills to enter that debate on equal terms, yourself apparently included, and (b) we’ve had people coming here (and throughout the media and blogosphere) for quite a few years claiming the consensus is bullshit and Epic Failing. And it’s not like we want them to fail! We absofuckinglutely want them to be right that there’s no AGW problem to worry about and we can all go about business as usual! And if they are we will be first in line to nominate them for a couple of Nobel Prizes and a bunch of state honours! But they’re not right. Almost invariably when their case is examined (by applying the very brains that you allege are “unplugged”) it falls apart in ways that one doesn’t even need to be a competent scientist to see. They’re almost always not even close to being right.They primarily rely on several favourite kinds of fallacies, some of which you appear to be relying upon yourself. One of them involves imputing false import with respect to the strong consensus to some area that is either outside of the scope of the strong consensus entirely or that doesn’t have the import that they claim it does (see: “MODELS ARE FALSIFIED!1!!!11!”.) And they often make claims in conspiratorial terms such as the ones you used earlier (which helps insulate them from the possibility of falsification when they are presented with refuting evidence), or they simply ignore the implications of the evidence – as you appear to be doing on some points. You can see a number of examples on this thread – examples that you have conspicuously declined to critique. If the consensus was mistaken in some fundamental or basic fashion, you’d expect one attempt to be able to successfully substantiate that point, and then to be widely disseminated to all sorts of forums where climate science is of interest. All it takes is one critique of import that stands up to scrutiny. Heck, I’d expect even someone as poor at stringing together a coherent case in English as you to be able to do a reasonable job at relating it somewhere like this (once the critique has been formulated), but you haven’t. You seem to be relying the false import fallacy, although you do throw in a dash of Underpants Gnome Logic for good measure. But since they’ve all failed – but more importantly since it has withstood attack by determined people far cleverer and more informed than you, we operate on the basis that it’s the best understanding we have until and unless shown otherwise, and therefore that the fairly dire implications of that understanding are crucial. Your self-important fluffing around on this thread doesn’t go close to impacting that.
try agai and stic to truth, loathsome, dont lie, loathsome liar
my inuit brother said: very cold now in greenland, no ice melting
in greenland no agw, hahaha
good brother, inuit brother, likes when greenland green again
#43
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/power-prices-to-be-h…
Already on a par with Germany and just below Denmark, both leading the way regarding wind power we are told.
Right Luke-the-crank, back to your lies.
Your assertion was that because the tropospheric hot spot was *missing* there was a serious problem with "the science".
My question to you - which you never answered was:
Your "response" was to link to the Mears, Christy and Sherwood discussion. This demonstrates that there are no atmospheric scientists in good standing claiming that the hot spot is missing. None.
So no, I wasn't "ratfucked" at all. You were.
You were wrong in your initial assertion and I was correct: it is a denier meme only found on crank blogs.
It follows inexorably that you are a crank.
You are also a liar.
Re "The Hot spot"
Po-chedley and Fu 2012
Santer et al 2012
And
McKitrick, McIntyre et al 2010
Sorry to intervene. Please carry on.
Rednoise
You are not competent to discuss this topic.
Before beginning, you need to read the original link.
See eg Mears:
Denialist claims that the hotspot is *missing* and that this *proves* AGW is wrong or some such yarbles are rubbish.
As always, denialist claims are based on misunderstandings or deliberate misrepresentations.
And Rednoise, no more truncated quotes. You are being dishonest, as ususal:
Po-Chedley & Fu (2012):
Consider in the light of Mears' statement above.
Rednoise also misrepresented Santer et al. (2012) by selective quotation. The "problems with forcings" were not, as he implies, over-estimation of GHG forcings:
Shills are incapable of being honest. In their view, that's for mugs.
True BBD. In my ignorance and with only my Cook type wiz through of the Abstracts it appeared the models are overestimating the troposphere warming. The McKitrick et al quote was particularly of interest.
Would this be the same models which also seem to be overestimating the surface temperature warming in their present hiatus?
So come on admit it. They haven't got a bloody clue.
Gordy captures the irredeemable hopelessness of deniers perfectly with this:
[Page 26 #95:]
He's convinced by a bullshit blog post by a proven, documented energy-industry shill writing on a denier blog. Even though the proven shill bit has been demonstrated for him (although he has consistently refused to acknowledge this).
Never mind the fact that the proven shill is contradicted by a mass of real science demonstrating the opposite of the shill's claim.
And you people claim you aren't effectively shills yourselves...
Well Gordy is. And this proves it.
Thanks Gordy.
Just when the denier ranks could not get any worse, Berendaneke shows up. This person is either an illiterate fool or a psychopath or both.
Yessirreee, Berendaneke is a shining example of why anyone with an ounce of brain dismisses the vast majority of AGW deniers and others in the broad anti-environmental lobby. A bunch of lunatics.
FreddyKaiSockPuppeteer.
You're so full of the stylistic* tells that distingish you that you're fooling no-one.
And not even someone with English as a second language would spell words incorrectly when they're already spelled on the page in front of them - not unless they had a severe brain injury. Also, Scandinavians don't speak like American natives in a B grade Hollywood western, especially when typing.
You really are a sick little person.
[*I use that term advisedly - 'style' is oxymoronic in the context of your usage of language.]
Rednoise
You do not understand any of this. The ozone and aerosol forcings may be under-estimated and the rate of ocean heat uptake over the last decade wouldn't be "predicted" by the models since it appears to be natural, decadal variability. The models aren't intended to provide a decade-by-decade prediction of the ups and downs. They are designed to help understand what will happen by the end of the century under various different CO2 forcing scenarios.
Try to understand.
It's depressingly easy for an ignorant denier to caper around in the legitimate scientific uncertainty claiming that "the science is broken" but is just isn't.
Jeff
Reasonably sure that this goon is FreddyBorisKai etc. Tread as psychotic scum.
Then this shining nugget from another recent scientifically illiterate arrival: "Jeff – get off the blog – you’re not qualified on climate".
AND YOU ARE? You think you are but rhwombat asked you what your qualifications are and we are greeted with a resounding silence. Which means you have no qualifications in climate science. Or indeed in any scientific field. At least you haven't published anything. True?
Fool.
I am a qualified scientist in my field of research (population ecology) and I am wise and experienced enough to defer to the views of the vast majority of experts in the field of climate science who agree that GW IS REAL AND HUMANS ARE THE PRIMARY CULPRIT.
I have met enough climate scientists at other universities and at conferences to see that the vast majority agree with the above statement. And the very fact that every major scientific body on the planet recognizes AGW makes your claims all the more absurd. It becomes even more embarrassing when you keep referring to Nova's crappy web site as if that is some kind of authoritative source.
"A more balanced analysis shows that it is difficult to prove or disprove the presence of the tropospheric hotspot given the current state of the data."
"A more balanced analysis shows that it is difficult to prove or disprove the presence of Santa Claus given the current state of the data."
YOU FUCKING GREAT IDIOT ! ARE YOU MENTAL.
How much data do they want.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
Now answer the other questions given you've failed your arse off here.
Remember only a few hours ago you denied there is a debate and now you're shooting your foot off.
Jeff having a bazziillion papers and degrees is convinced by this sort of science. Good grief.
Still a moron today, I see, Luke. Sleep didn't help.
No. That is a misrepresentation. Try reading the words:
*You* asserted that the THS was *missing*.
I asked you this question, which you still have not answered:
Your "response" was to link to the Mears, Christy and Sherwood discussion. This demonstrates that there are no atmospheric scientists in good standing claiming that the hot spot is missing. None.
You were wrong in your initial assertion and I was correct: it is a denier meme only found on crank blogs.
It follows inexorably that you are a crank.
You are also a liar.
So no, I wasn't "ratfucked" at all. You were.
Since you are demonstrably both a liar and a fuckwit, I will repeat a bit of that yet again:
Your “response” was to link to the Mears, Christy and Sherwood discussion. This demonstrates that there are no atmospheric scientists in good standing claiming that the hot spot is missing. None.
But *you* did make that claim.
Jeff - sorry you're not qualified by your own admission. You've disqualified yourself - get off the blog.
GW might be real - did I say it wasn't - but maybe that's all we know. The rest will be C grade LOSU in the parlance
If you knew anything - Nova also recognises AGW.
And wow you've met with scientists have you? What's that like Jeff - like are they cool? Do they talk to you do they? They might say "Hey Jeff how's it hanging and are you still hanging around that loser site?"
Pathetic myopic comments Jeff - now off you go as you're not an expert. Or remain and be a hypocrite.
One last point, Luke-dupe: you are a textbook example of D-K. It posits that people overestimate their knowledge in fields in which they are not trained. I do not over-estimate my knowledge of climate science - instead I defer to the expertise of esteemed researchers like Ben Santer, Michael Mann, James Hansen, Kevin Trenberth and the vast majority of elading researchers who broadly agree that humans are forcing climate. Just as I would them to defer to my expertise in plant-insect ecology and population ecology. When one has real qualifications in a scientific field, they know when to accept the prevailing wisdom in other fields. I would never claim to know more about climate science than those with the real expertise. Similarly, I've faced off against deniers on this web site who somehow think that they can take me on when debating the biological and ecological effects of AGW. Again none of them have any training in ecology or environmental science, but they think that blogs are enough - a formal education years of research and publications etc. are not a pre-requisite for knowledge.
You clearly lack any kind of relevant expertise in any relevant field and thus greatly overestimate what you do know. That's hardly surprising, since the ranks of AGW deniers are filled with unqualified schmucks like you who think that by having a basic undergraduate education (or even not), reading a book or two and spending unhealthy hours in contrarian blogs enables them somehow pick up knowledge and wisdom that has miraculously escaped experts who have worked in the field for years and who have the papers and pedigree to be classed as authorities.
So sorry pal, you, like Cohenite, Karen, et al. are classic example of D-K. Fatso too. What you all share is a common trait: bloated over-estimation of your knowledge of climate science. You huff and puff on blogs but in the real world - where it matters - you are invisible. If you had any guts you'd write up your allegedly brilliant knowledge and try and get it into a peer-reviewed journal. But we know what would happen if you tried. Your heroine Nova knows it too. Your paper would be bounced in a nanosecond. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Blog science does not make the grade.
Santa Claus isn't missing - he's just not proved.
The PINNACLE OF DOLTOID FUCKWITTERY.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
And Luke, only fuckwit deniers keep on making this braying sound. If I were you, I'd drop it from my style sheet.
So go ahead Luke, tell us all what your scientific qualifications are. I wanna know. You can remain anonymous. How many papers have you published in the peer-reviewed literature. How many times has your work been cited in the Web of Science. How many conferences have you spoken at, how many keynote or plenary lectures. In other words, what exactly is your formal expertise.
Until you respond, my guess is zilch, zilch, zilch, zilch, and zilch.
Luke
Stop trying to wriggle out of this. You outed yourself as a crank by claiming that the THS was missing.
Lying, blustering and trying to rush past the fact won't work.
Your are a crank, Luke.
End of.
Jeff - you're not qualified. FUCK OFF.
Just fuck off - go on - you are simply not qualified.
Instead of that interminable boring rant you could have tried to answer my numerous questions which leave the models FALSIFIED> You can't. - Write some more shitty ecologists' rhetoric.
Plant insect ecology - gee that's useful. Off you go unqualified Jeff.
Come on Luke. No more bluster now. Just an answer:
And where's that Kellow quote, you bluffing, posturing, dishonest crank?
Where's your reference demonstrating that the models are "falsified" Luke?
Blustering assertions by blog cranks count for exactly fuck-all.
You need to back this up. And you can't - except by appealing to crank denialist blogs!
Oh dear! You are in a bit of a bind, crank.
BBD - it's not missing like Santa Claus - it's just a bit hard to ..... SEE ..... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Look if you get down on your hands and knees with a torch you can almost see it - no it's gone again. A mate saw it when he was on the piss.
Now cunt answer the the scientific papers that prove the models FALSIFIED.
You can't - or write me a Jeff whiney bitch excuse list.
BBD - you got the list - scroll up cunt,.
Ah, "cunt" now, is it?
You haven't answered the question, crank. Here it is again for you:
Bit of a glitch in your brain there, crank!
I asked *you* to provide *me* with a reference demonstrating that the models were FALSIFIED (woo!). I asked *you* for this because as far as I am aware, none exists.
How can I *answer* a reference that you *didn't provide*?
Hmm?
Crank?
Where's that Kellow quote, you bluffing liar?
"Implied evidence of Santa Claus from tortured sounder and radiosonde data: (a) sleigh mechanics " (2013) By BBD and Jeff (but I should say I'm not qualified).
"Implied evidence of Santa Claus from inverted and blended sounder, pigs trotters and radiosonde data: (b) 7 dwarf principal components " (2013) By BBD and Jeff
Sorry, you bluffing, mendacious conspiracy theorist crank?
(Emphasis added).
Apart from the remarkable number of lies packed into that paragraph, there is a very serious problem with this. Your central claim (bold) is a conspiracy theory. Only denialist cranks peddle the lie that scientists are deliberatly colluding to present a fake picture of AGW to the world, so you must be a crank.
The mask has slipped even further. And we see a nutter grimacing and gurning at us.
And calling people c**ts!
Not crank blogs - scientific papers.
They blog tolls for thee boys !
But where are those *references* backing up your incessant claim that the models are FALSIFIED (!!) Luke?
Where are they?
Have they got lost along with my Kellow quote?
Oh noes!
#81
Where are these "scientific papers", Luke?
Where oh where can they be?
And why oh why don't you just link to them?
Hmm?
Crank?
"conspiracy theory" don't verbal me cunt. I didn't say that. Don't peddle me your central theory. Answer my list of papers instead ...
But you *did* say it Luke. That is a direct quotation.
What are you talking about Luke?! You have not provided a single paper supporting your crank claim that the models are FALSIFIED (ooh!) let alone a list.
You appear to be completely insane, Luke!
BTW is that actually you in the picture now, Luke? I could believe in that one.
BBD scroll up. I'm not your librarian.
While you're doing that given nobody wanted to have a go at the MDB and SEQ drought sequences causes - funny thought old Prof Jeff would have given he's an expert but oh well - let's try another discussion starter
Let's discuss skill testing of seasonal forecasts. Surely a prime AGW adaptation mechanism? What's your skill assessment and favourite statistical discrimination methods and why do you think they're the best?
And given old Jeff loves to hook bogus GCM (maybe even RCM) output to his shitty poikilotherm models perhaps he can impress us with a discussion on downscaling techniques. Surely a useful thing to do if you're a rusted on believer?
Scroll up to *what* Luke? There's no list of published work demonstrating that the models are FALSIFIED (oh no missus!) on this thread. Or anywhere else I know of.
But you have made this claim over and over again here. Now I want to you substantiate it with references. If you cannot do that - and all that remains are crank blogs - then you are a wee bit fucked.
You will have to withdraw your crank claim and admit that yes, you are a crank!
Oh noes again!
PS - Where's my Kellow quote, Luke?
Now watch this lying bastard wriggle some more...
Oh, this is wonderful! Instead of providing the extremely necessary reference he desperately needs *right now*, Luke has just... changed his pretty picture - again.
This boy is barking mad.
Well, like any good scientist, enough data of sufficient quality to answer the question either way with a reasonable level of confidence. When scientists don't have that, they generally say that the question isn't answered either way.
You, on the other hand, conspicuously claim that the question is answered in the negative with what you implied was high confidence, a claim that as far as I can see is not supported by the data, and that you have not substantiated, and that was disclaimed by your own link addressing the question. That would strongly suggest that you are not a scientist at all - or that if you are, you abrogate your scientific skills when posting here, or that you are losing touch with reality and need professional help.
Very Karen-like. She's also a past master at posting links that refute her own claims. You should ponder whether "Karen-like" is the impression you want to give.
I bet you won't, seeing you're far enough gone to be denying that you said things despite your own words being quoted verbatim.
Well in the course of the afternoon (UK time) Luke de Kook, the visiting" scientist" has lost it and adopted the tactics of a cornered rabid dog.
He was always going to do that.
Heh - Eli reports Nova over at WattTheFuck posting on The Murry Salby Affair, and trying to drum up passing trade for her own swamp too, no doubt.
What is it with these two-bit grifters that they can't get an honest job? And when they can - like Salby - they're too negligent to do it
luke @#70
Vitally important field of research as we continue to fragment natural habitats and drive species to extinction by a hundred and one activities(Tony Juniper is your friend - see up thread). But what would an ignoramus like you know about that? Zilch you braying ned who can only persist in wittering on about models despite\having the information thrust at you.
And WRT to that latter point, way back at about page 15 I asked you which models were deficient and in what ways. Despite acres of ill mannered sewage quality rhetoric you have failed to answer, all these pages later.
You come across as a deeply unpleasant person who has behavioural and social issues. Like freddy before you, you need to seek corrective help.
This is possibly a bit unflattering, but Luke brings back an image from my childhood.
It was London Zoo and in the monkey house there was one excited little fellow who was picking up faeces and throwing it at the plate glass window that separated us from them. He seemed quite annoyed when people did not react to him.
It seems to me that that is what Luke has been trying to emulate: throwing out his irrelevant challenges and getting more and more irate that we're not impressed. At least we're spared seeing him i> excited.
Well TB, given denialism and its proponents are now more threadbare than a baboon's butt, the comparison isn't too far off.
#46 according to your link, A Department for Manufacturing, Innovation, Trade, Resources and Energy spokesman said ageing infrastructure and high demand during heatwaves were key factors causing the state's higher prices.
And in Germany renewables only account for 28% of price increase over the last few years has been due to increased FF prices Since 2000, consumer electricity prices have increased by almost 12 ct/kWh. While the costs of the EEG are indeed a contributing factor, they only account for about 3.39 ct/kWh (4.03 ct/kWh including VAT) or 28 percent (34 percent including VAT) of that increase. Price increases primarily reflect rising fuel costs for conventional power. The costs of electricity generation, transport, and distribution have risen by 5.43 ct/kWh (6.46 ct/kWh including VAT) over the same period, accounting for more than 45 percent (about 54 percent including VAT) of the entire price increase.
RN #46 Denmark decided to become self sufficient in energy about 40 years ago so introduced high energy taxes to cut down consumption and improve efficiency. Look it up on CO2 scorecard to see how well they've done.
Hi guys!
Hey rhwombat--you doofus, loutish, oafish, repellent, can't-make-it-in-private-practice, quack-bloodsucker, Lysenkoist-little-shit, wombat-humping lefty-puke!
@The whole of your commentary on this blog, but especially comments no. 2 and 74 on page 26
As we all knew, rhwombat, sooner or later the fateful day would arrive and today's the day!--the spirochetes have, at last, breached the last of your defenses and now infect each and every one of the mutant boogers in your eco-flunky, hive-bozo brain!
Jeez...what a mess you've made of things, big time, rhwombat! I mean, like, I can only imagine the panic-attack, freak-out scene that's gonna erupt in the wombat "community" when the "partner notifications" really get
rollin'! I mean, like, you're a walkin'-talkin' , level-4 bio-hazard, guy!
P. S. Hey chek! Everything I said about rhwombat goes double for you, asshole! (except you hump bandicoots!)--you little-runt, insufferable-prick hive-weasel!
You really need to investigate which phrases need hyphenated and which don't, li'll mike.
Still, who am I to interrupt yet another of your sad little pointless interludes. Deniers need all the help they can get keepin' those dead old peckers up.
#46 more on the Aussie electricity prices; Typically, an average Australian household electricity bill in 2012-13 consists of:
5
• Network charges - the largest cost component, accounting for about 51 per cent of
the bill, this represents the cost of building and maintaining electricity networks, i.e.
the poles and wires that deliver electricity to your home or business.
• Wholesale costs - the costs associated with generating electricity and trading it in a
wholesale market - around 20 per cent of the total bill.
• Carbon price - cost passed on by fossil-fuel generators for their carbon emissions -
around 9 per cent of the household bill.
• Retail and energy scheme costs - the 'shop front' for a consumer's electricity supply
and costs from schemes for energy efficiency and renewables - together about 20 per
cent of the bill.
So once again renewables are only a small proportion of the bill.
http://www.ret.gov.au/Department/Documents/clean-energy-future/ELECTRIC…
Mike fits into my zoo scenario too. I imagine him as the projectile.
Mike
Out of curiosity, do you read my comments? Especially the evidence-based discussions of climate sensitivity estimates derived from paleoclimate behaviour and the back-and-forth with commenters unable to understand physical climatology?
If you don't, well fine, nothing further to say. If you do, what specifics do you object to? What about the basics makes you think that AGW isn't real?
'It’s probably a lot less due to run off and evaporation, but clearly some effect is possible.'
That's what I initially thought and I mentioned to Craig that the idea was plausible. If we had a maths expert on hand we might get to the truth.
For some reason BBD, you seem to think li'll mike's putting on a front, but his past history as yet another ooh-rah merkin muhrine fantasist suggests otherwise.
Li'll mike (there was another 'Mike' - big 'M' when he first showed up) is just another ersatz libertard who classes public infrastructure/health/education as commie excrescences that offend his backward, backwood sensibilities.
Funnily if predictably enough, the fascist, top-down hierarchy of the corporate world that spawned his received ideas doesn't phase him one bit.
Leaning on Wiki the planet's ocean area is 361 km2 and if you multiply that by 7mm you get 2,527km3 of water.
Australia’s land area is 7.7 million km2 so over the 2010-11
Oz would have had to receive 3.28m of additional rainfall to ‘suck up’ that 2,527 cubic kilometres of water to drop sea level by 7mm.
Its a big call.
TB#99
Except they are not independent as they have to export excess wind (energy) to norway for pump storage to stabilise their grid and import when the wind dont blow.
TB#98
And where are the new grid connections and switching necessary for those new windfarms factored into your costings?
You've deliberately chosen not to believe the people most likely to answer that question, so you've condemned yourself to your crank world forever.
Where are the destructive effects of off-loading CO2 from fossil fuels into the atmosphere factored into your "costings", Redarse?
Lionel - there has been no information provided by any of you to my questions. Except abuse, appeals to authority, attempts to deflect by saying sceptics are cranks, crooks, misguided (and well some may be), questions about qualifications, diversions to other topics - really this is appalling.
Like Jo Nova I never said that AGW is not real.
Unlike Jo Nova (El Gordo, Karen and Cohenite) I do think AGW (and IMPORTANTLY current climate variability) represents a significant risk to our society, economy, and ecosystems.
That's risk. Risk is not immediate hazard. It's not done and dusted. Much is unknown and I find the current case inadequate. My masters who will vote "nyet" to any form of mitigation find the case inadequate. Other big risks are all forms of environmental pollution, world population, AIDS, malaria, TB, poverty, food security, terrorism and militarism. And in the west lifestyle. AGW in a new era of restrained budgets need to be framed in proportion. Make the arguments of be voted down and out. You have not made the arguments here.
Jeff''s insect ecology is a very interesting field and I'm glad he's had a wonderful career - but frankly in this complex field it adds very little to say his judgement is any better - the fact he raised shows his insecurity about being able to answer meaningfully and therefore a need to attempt intimidation. I don't need to know about his degrees - I need to know about the trop hotspot.
The trop hotspot is now a classic object lesson in the mentality of Doltoids. Firstly there was no debate said BBD. Then he was dacked as I presented a debate with major players in July. Then he clips a piece that sums it up. The data doesn't support the hypothesis. Then from that does a flip with inverse pike to INSIST that the theory is right. This is a disgrace. And you wonder why Nova is all over you on this. Not one of you could frame any personal comments on the science - all you could do is clip, divert, appeal to authority - tediously quote the lack lustre rebuttals on SkepticalScience and RC. And the net result is that the data don't support the hypothesis. Yes I know it should be there for all forms of warming - Tim Lambert has also been over it too. Yes we all know that - do you think we've come down in the last shower.
Nova has missile lock on you guys here. You'd be well placed to doing some homework.
Von Storch -(who has serious credentials) and I presented his paper and Lucia's independent analysis - I could have also put up Roy Spencers but you'd have a fit. They show the models falling outside the confidence bands. Surely not surprising if we discussing a pause. It was not expected. You can attempt to explain it away but it was not expected. What else is not expected. What else have we got wrong on major points.
You have no explanation for massively expanding Antarctic sea ice. And then you tried to deflect on "Accelerating" glaciers for which there are now many papers suggesting the rates are most variable. You then pathetically in that context tried to bluff with trends over just a few years, typically without error bars. GRACE satellites plus or minus a bazzilion gigatons.
You have no explanation for the inverse trend that has now been found globally on pan evaporation. It's trending down. Brought to you by ANU, School of Botany who really look at met data. Every talk I go to on AGW tells me how evaporation is increasing.
You blustered on tropical cyclones and hurricanes knowing the decadal variation and knowing that the WMO have called the state of science inconclusive. You tried to bluster with damage and Sandy when Sandy was not exceptional and the damage estimate trends are conflated with increased infrastructure being built in harms way.
You are unaware of the centennial natural internal variability in recent GCM studies. Ref provided.
You are unaware of the problems in GCMs in mathematical precision and machine architecture giving massive differences in outputs. Ref provided.
You seem happy to average multi-model means that contain rainfall estimates from plus 20% to minus 20% - good lord ! See some Australian projections as a case study.
Hadn't even got into representation of multi-decadal variability in GCMs. Field day awaits.
On a practical test to see if you had any thought on the massive Millennium MDB and SEQ droughts - that have been so controversial nothing. Your probably don't even know about SEACI.
On another practical test about skill testing on seasonal forecasts - zip - and I know why - it's off your hymn chart trendline. But that technology is major adaptation route.
Downscaling as a practical way of using GCM output - clueless.
I have cut a massive swathe through you lot here. You could have engaged intelligently. You could engaged in discussion. However straightb in border protection mode. Either through religious blindness, lack of ability, lack of any real research - all you can do is bluster, divert and abuse.
You guys are flakes. And nasty little shits who have been camped out here in isolation here for too long.
'You’ve deliberately chosen not to believe the people most likely to answer that question'
Thats not true, I'm looking at both sides of the argument.
Let's correct your little reality defying Gish-gallop shall we Mr. "Scientist"?
"all I can do is bluster, divert and abuse. I am a flake. And a nasty little shit who has been camped out over there at Codlings in isolation for too long".
Projection, meet Dr. Luke de Kook. As experienced at Deltoid August 2013.
'What else is not expected. What else have we got wrong on major points.'
Since the great climate shift of 1976 nobody has given a second thought to the possibility of global cooling, because the 'precautionary principle' was all one way traffic.
No you do not, you senile fuckwit!
One 'side' (according to you) is corrupt conspiring against poor l'll you, and that happens to be the scientists dealing with your 'question'..
And again, you lie.
No. I said this:
And like it or not, Luke, it is the truth.
Nobody serious argued that this undermined the standard position on AGW. And your link proved me correct. Instead, we get Christy, Spencer, Singer, Douglass, Klotzbach, McIntyre, McKitrick et al. - all authors of multiply-debunked studies, all contrarian and fringe.
chek we are discussing the drop in sea level because the big Oz rains sucked it up. Its an interesting theory.
#8 Leaning on Wiki the planet’s ocean area is 361 km2 and if you multiply that by 7mm you get 2,527km3 of water.
Australia’s land area is 7.7 million km2 so over the 2010-11
Oz would have had to receive 3.28m of additional rainfall to ‘suck up’ that 2,527 cubic kilometres of water to drop sea level by 7mm.
WTF? World ocean area is about 350 million km2
Surface area of Australia is about 7.7 million km2 so about 1/50. So 50 mm landing on Oz equals 1mm drop in sea level rise. An average of 350mm all over Oz would equate to 7mm over the oceans. You've slipped a decimal somewhere. Best to apply scepticism to your own reasoning too.
#6 If we had a maths expert on hand we might get to the truth.
Well EG stepped up to the plate in #8 to prove that he's not the one that you want.
#9 so you're trying to emulate Luke are you? What is the point of your question about Denmark? It has nothing to do with the tax on energy which is responsible for most of Denmark's high energy prices.
The Germans are upgrading their grid. It's impossible to separate the changes required for renewables from the changes required anyway.
Good news is that they will save money by doing all this.
The GBG specializes in internalizing external costs, which Altmaier does not account for in his trillion-euro estimate. The authors point out that the Leitstudie itself estimates that the avoided cost of environmental impacts up to 2040 will amount to 239 billion euros, which is already more than the additional cost of 203 billion above. This alone produces a positive outcome for investments in the energy transition up to 2040.
Then there is the merit order effect, which Altmaier does not take into account. The cumulative merit order effect comes in at more than 20 billion euros from 2006-2011, equivalent to more than three billion euros per year.
Yet, the merit order effect does not go far enough because new power plants would also need to be built over the next few decades if less solar, wind, and biomass goes up. In other words, Minister Altmaier acts as though no new power plants would need to be built at all for decades if we simply didn't invest in renewables.
The study does not attempt to estimate the cost of grid upgrades because it is unclear what will actually be needed, and some of grid upgrades will be necessary in any case.
http://www.renewablesinternational.net/criticism-of-altmaiers-trillion-…
chek #7
It's not that I think it's a front, it's that I think mike isn't stupid and does play games. So I want to play a game with him. It's called "fuck the greenies, what about physics!"
#18 More than an interesting theory... there's evidence too.
http://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/news/10090/global-sea-level-rise-dampene…
BBD @ #22 Well, good luck and the best of British, but I don't believe li'll mike's paygrade can cope with what you're asking of him.
#12 Sorry Luke but you're just repeating your flinging. How about taking a deep breath and thinking before you post the point that you want to make? But if it's just "the models are wrong" I wouldn't bother. We know that they're "wrong" but they are also useful.
But as you keep ignoring the HvS 1998 cherry pick and you keep banging on about the trop hot spot as if it is significant, I fear that your point will not be worth the wait.
I've asked you before Luke and In will ask again: when are you gonna publish your remarkable findings on tropical hotspots in a major peer-reviewed journal? Or are you all bluff, bluster and no substance?
Gordy
Standard pretty picture of SL change.
One has to wonder where the water went. Did it just dematerialise for a couple of years and then re-emerge into this universe, tanned and smiling?
Where did it go? Please provide a physical mechanism for the dip/resumption in SLR centred on 2011 that includes a non-oceanic reservoir for the "missing water".
#12 Luke You say Not one of you could frame any personal comments on the science – all you could do is clip, divert,...
That's what you're doing: where are your personal comments and insights... all you've is post some links and say "Squirrel, explain that."
BBD have some GRACE with your pretty picture... http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2013-255
#15 Since the great climate shift of 1976 nobody has given a second thought to the possibility of global cooling, because the ‘precautionary principle’ was all one way traffic.
That's because we're too short sighted to plan for something which won't occur for a few thousand years and we've got pressing issues with AGW.
Remember, when pushed hard to provide something substantive, we did get this:
Instead of a reference to the scientific papers that prove :-) the models FALSIFIED (OMG!)™.
Prove! This from a "working scientist"...
He is going to enjoy his time here.
#29 don't bother me with your fake sketches. I know the real science.
;-)
Joint position of major National Academies on Climate Change:
http://www.science.org.au/policy/climatechange-g8+5.pdf
It is Luke, the arrogant idiot, who is out to sea. I've also repeatedly asked him for his qualifications in climate science and the response has been a big, fat ZERO. No qualifications, no publications, just more bullshit. And more on top of that.
Then he belittles my research - a rather stupid thing to do, given that without insects humans wouldn't last more than a decade or two. Pollination services provided by insects alone largely sustain civilization - and that is ignoring a wealth of other vital ecosystem services to which they contribute like pest control and nutrient cycling. Its too bad dolts like Luke who probably can't tell a field cricket from an elephant are forced to parade their ignorance when cornered.
Its actually amusing watching the deniers here squirm when inconvenient questions are asked - such as about their qualifications, publications, etc. as well as when confronted with the reality of the opinions of the vast majority of experts. All that is left for them is to lash out with the usual smears, combined with feeble attempts to rehabilitate their own standing. Luke, like Karen and El Gordo, has none, except in his own mind, where he is something of a legend.
As I said, science is done in universities and in research institutes, and published in rigid journals, not on blogs. Luke has just replaced Jonas as our new self-professed expert. BBD has demolished his arguments time and again, yet the clot keeps coming back for more, whilst claiming to exert intellectual authority in a field in which he has no formal qualifications in. If he did, we'd sure know about it by now. Oh yeah.
The deniers are great at inflating the qualifications of people who have little or no pedigree in the field. Heck, several of these people are trying to elevate their own standing on Deltoid, then getting all uppity when asked what their educational background are. Essentially, those supporting the broad consensus are expected to swallow the lies and obfuscations of the deniers. They forever tell us that they are experts and that is supposed to be the end of the story.
It isn't.
Australia: These interior basins are key to the fact that the continent's runoff ratio is just 6% in the climatological mean (as compared to 30%-40% for other continents).
http://www.skepticalscience.com/fasullo-2013-sea-level-variability-leve…
Turboblocke
Yr no. 4
I see, Turboblocke, you're mighty proud of that little monkey-throwing-shit-in-the-zoo metaphor of yours, aren't you, ol' buddy. And if I were your mummy, Turboblocke, I'd probably even pat you on your little beaming, cocksure, spoiled-brat, cutie-pie, attention-seeking head and call you "Mummy's little clever snookums!"
But I'm not your mummy, Turboblocke! And so I won't spare your little sweetums feeliings. And so for your little copy-cat, laugh-at-your-own-jokes information, guy, that monkey-throwing-shit knee-slapper of yours is a standard-issue, painfully trite bit of hackneyed, hive agit-prop and that "zinger"-booger gets rolled out on this blog, by eco-creeps, like you, Turboblocke, on a regular basis.
In other words, Turboblocke, your precious little story of your childhood experience at a London zoo may "cut it" with an overly-protective, smothering hive-mom who just can't get enough of her little Turboblocke-pet, but it doesn't pass the smell test with anyone else--you little, phony-baloney plagiarist!
You know, Turboblocke, you're not the first little zit-afflicted, under-supervised, mummy-addicted, snot-nosed eco-loser that's shown up here! You're just one of the dumb-shit, clueless worst. And if I burst your little bubble--tough shit!
BBD,
Yr. no. 5
I kinda thought we went over this before, BBD. I don't read anyone's comments on this blog to the extent they involve, in the least bit, boring, science-geek technical stuff and all. I only read comments for the quality of their snark and for their lefty, propaganda, hive-agenda content.
I mean, like, BBD, the science of "Climate Science" is beyond my ability to personally judge in terms of its scientific merit. Rather my judgement of the CAGW hustle derives from the following observations:
-The CAGW hustle has attracted the hive's whole grab-bag of make-a-greenwashed-buck opportunists; youth-master chaperones with their brainwashed-ditzy-obnoxious- "Young Pioneer" kid-contingents in tow (see Turboblocke); and the usual bit-part grifters of the brave-new-gulag eugenicist, flatulent vegan, professional-parasite, social-reject, thrill-cull sociopath, NGO-hot-babe-working-girl, and sell-out trough-sucker persuasion that always put in an appearance when the hive rolls out one of its cons.
-The hive's solutions for "solving" the "global warming problem", as usual, involves ripping-off me and other "little guys" like me while forever-expanding the quality and capacity of the hive's troughs and quality and quantity of the hive's carbon-piggie swill-rations allotted to the greenshirt, lumpen-hacks doing the hive's flim-flam scut-work. I mean like, you can't even get the the hive's most wound-up, chicken-little worry-warts to even video conference their party-time, blow-out eco-confabs, no matter how much you explain to the little, hypocrite phonies that video-conferencing eco-fabs would save tons and tons carbon "pollution"
-Finally, I note, in my crude, primitive, wary-peon way, that the most prominent of my betters, urging a reduced-carbon, Agenda-21 compliant, rabbit-hutch-hell life-style on me are all serial philanderers, big-time, with ol' demon-carbon as they spew CO2 "pollution" copiously from their private-airplanes; rambling, beach-front, batchelor-pad mansions; bullet-proof limousine convoys; and in the course of their bunga-bunga, jet-set life styles.
And after I've taken all the above in, BBD, I ask myself: Are those who are seemingly most convinced of the carbon peril and most anxious to slip their grubby little mitts into my taxpayer pocket providing LEADERSHIP?!!--LEADERSHIP FROM THE FRONT AND BY PERSONAL EXAMPLE?!! Are they PRACTICING WHAT THEY PREACH?!!!
And, then, BBD, after I observe my eco-betters, lecturers, exhorters, false-flaggers, bait-and-switchers, factoid-floggers, hired-gun scientists, and general purpose bullshitters and creep-outs, in on the deal, like Tuboblocke and rhwombat, I conclude that they do not provide LEADERSHIP!!--LEADERSHIP FROM THE FRONT AND BY PERSONAL EXAMPLE!!!. They do not PRACTICE WHAT THEY PREACH!!!
And so I do what the savvy hoi-polloi have done for generations to protect themselves from powerful money-grubbers and their smarty-pants enablers--that is, I note a discrepancy between the words and deeds of those making me a pitch and then I call it a SCAM!!!!!!
Works for me. And, yes, BBD, I know you're going to say that even if Al Gore gave up all his high-carbon ways it would not matter in the larger scheme of things. That may be true in terms of simple carbon-reduction, but not in terms of inspiring others to sacrifice for the common good. Indeed, unless the BRICS all de-carbonize it hardly matters what Great Britain and Australia do on the carbon-reduction front. Except the advocates of carbon-reduction in these countries insist that British and Aussie carbon-reduction efforts "set the example" for other nations. "Set the example"--catch that, BBD? Hey!, BBD, it works intra-nationally just like it works internationally.
Wake me up for the hive's next soft-soap sales-pitch when my betters are all in a personal, Agenda-21-to-the-max mode themselves. Then I'll be glad to emulate my trend-setter betters.
I'll take that as a "no" then, mike. Depending on your age, you may or may not meet Mr Physics. If you do, say hi from me.
BTW, I'd be the first to agree that policy is a mess and science-based arguments are not carrying the day.
So we will probably get to meet Mr Physics in the end.
that monkey-throwing-shit knee-slapper of yours is a standard-issue, painfully trite bit of hackneyed, hive agit-prop
Really? Link please... I won't hold my breath.
But I see I misjudged you... you're not just the projectile... you're the excited too.
And "hive agit-prop"? Bless that's a cute one. I got all nostalgic for the Berlin Wall when I read that.
BBD,
Yr. no. 36
Just out of curiosity, BBD, can you really personally and authoritatively vouch for every "jot and title" of the physics of Climate Science--the whole interplay of physical processes involved in the planet's climate system?
If so, my kudos, BBD--though I'll have to take your word for it--because you're not going to be able to prove it by me.
On the other hand, BBD, if a retired business-man, like you, in his latter forties, with just an amateur interest in the subject can so readily master all of the "science" of Climate Science--then what the heck are we doing propping up, at my taxpayer expense, a whole trough-seeking horde of public-tit-sucking, full-time, academic parasites pursuing the subject when we have you, BBD? I mean, like, one guy who knows-it-all is all we need, right?
And, oh by the way, BBD, I just bumped into Mr. Physics (small world!). He says Turboblocke is a brain-damaged, retarded-retard cretin who eats his boogers and, oh by the way, he also thinks Gaia sucks! I mean, like, I really get the impression Mr. Physics and Gaia don't get along even a little bit. But he didn't volunteer to say why and so I didn't think it my place to ask him why.
Well, there you have it BBD.
An allegedly bona-fide, early 21st. century moron who doesn't understand the concept of 'industrial scale'.
Or likely anything else beyond the dimensions of his parent's basement.
Chek- "camped out over there at Codlings in isolation for too long" OR NOT ! Mate I've been booted and banned. Thanks heavens for VPNS
Jeff - belittling the role of insects and your research - stop verballing me Jeff - your entomological expertise is irrelevant. In this field you're just a dumb fuck who hasn't kept up. I'd probably support your research domain in another discussion. Stop projecting and get on topic.
You fuckers can't string a rebuttal together. You're a bunch of flakes.
We now own all your bases. They belong to us.
Jeff - I've given you a truck load of your beloved peer reviewed top flight references - step up or get off the fucking blog !
Turboblocke - umm how are the models useful?
But your references are missing!
On noes!
In ways beyond your meagre comprehension, Dr. Kook.
BBD - listen cunt - you have references above - get to work. Oh but I forgot you're a fuckwit. Sorry.
Nice rant luke; I like it when you get sincere.
BBD; can I call you BB; I was going to call you 12-gauge on account you're obviously a big-shot but I thought you might think I was being disrespectful.
So, BB, we've moved to the THS and you've listed the usual cranks:
"Christy, Spencer, Singer, Douglass, Klotzbach, McIntyre, McKitrick et al. – all authors of multiply-debunked studies, all contrarian and fringe."
What about Fu and Thorne; definitely mainstream. Let's talk about Thorne. In email 1939 Peter Thorne, a prominent AGW scientist says:
Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others.
Despite Thorne's reservations the IPCC published a major diagram, Figure 9.1, in its 2007 AR4 report purporting to show a THS caused by greenhouse gases. As is plainly visible the pattern of a THS from greenhouse gases is very different from Tropical heating caused by other factors.
Thorne has contributed to two other major studies on the THS done after AR4. In the first study in 2008 Thorne et al concluded that the model predictions and observations about a THS were in good agreement and that pre 1979 radiosonde temperature data, which is from weather balloons, had been responsible for any disagreement.
In his second 2011 study Thorne et al concluded that the observations since 1979 disagreed with the model predictions but when the observations from the radiosondes from 1958 were added the models and observations were in reasonable agreement.
Everyone is allowed to change their mind I guess but what is it that makes your mind so certain? What have you got big guy, toss it at us like the boss gorilla does at the zoo. Fling it BB!
Mike
No. As a retired businessman in his late forties who has taken an interest in this, all I can say is that my opinion counts as nothing compared to expert knowledge.
This holds true for particle physics, dentistry, colorectal surgery, origami, managing a commercial kitchen and horse-training. And lots of other things too.
I also treat my accountant and solicitor (lawyer) with equal respect.
Prince Charming
You don't. You are lying still. There are no references on this thread that substantiate the claim that the models are OMG!!
You continue to yap! Yap! Yap!
Grrrrrr!
Which reminds me. Where's that Kellow quote?
Come to that, you never did tell me where the >5m MSL highstand during the Eemian came from.
Are you in the Gordy camp? Does water just vanish and then re-appear later when the Fairy Queen waves her pink and sparkly wand?
?
@ no. 38
Hey, Turboblocke! Didn't your mummy ever tell you not to ask a question unless you already know the answer?
"Links please" you ask. Well, Turboblocke, I can't give you "links" 'cuz I'm an ol' dog and I don't know how to do those link-thingies. But, I'll do next best and provide you some references you can google yourself.
Deltoid Posts:
"Ooh, I'm in a Webcomic", dtd 13 March 2010, Comment 11 (pg 1)
"Open Thread 33", dtd 24 Sept, 2009, Comment 46 (page 1)
"February 2013 Open Thread", Comments no. 12 and 14 (pg 3).
"Monckton and the APS", dtd 25 July 2008, Comments no. 2 ( pg 1) This last comment does not explicitly attach a simian character to its "poo-flinging" language--but is a recognizable variant on the "shit-flinging-monkey" theme.
The above will get you started, Turboblocke. And just so you know that the hive takes monkey stool-tossing seriously a couple of articles for your delectation:
"Researches Find Poop-Throwing by Chimps Is a Sign of Intelligence", dtd 30 Nov 2011
"A Second Use for Monkey Poop", dtd 9 July 2028
You know, Turboblocke, you have a typical, stuffed-greenshirt, arrogant, here-to-straighten-out-the-rabble, pompous-ass, puffed-up self-regard that is so delicious to puncture. And I know you're in pure agony, now that I called your bluff and provided you the relevant references, above. And, in that regard, I think it best for me not to kick you while you're down, but, rather, just sit back and enjoy the spectacle of your further efforts to wriggle out of that little plagiarism-gotcha bind, I've put you in.
From the IPCC AR4:
"Nevertheless, models still show significant errors. Although these are generally greater at smaller scales, important large-scale problems also remain. For example, deficiencies remain in the simulation of tropical precipitation, the El Niño- Southern Oscillation and the Madden-Julian Oscillation (an observed variation in tropical winds and rainfall with a time scale of 30 to 90 days). The ultimate source of most such errors is that many important small-scale processes cannot be represented explicitly in models, and so must be included in approximate form as they interact with larger-scale features. This is partly due to limitations in computing power, but also results from limitations in scientific understanding or in the availability of detailed observations of some physical processes. Significant uncertainties, in particular, are associated with the representation of clouds, and in the resulting cloud responses to climate change. Consequently, models continue to display a substantial range of global temperature change in response to specified greenhouse gas forcing (see Chapter 10). Despite such uncertainties, however, models are unanimous in their prediction of substantial climate warming under greenhouse gas increases, and this warming is of a magnitude consistent with independent estimates derived from other sources, such as from observed climate changes and past climate reconstructions".
However, despite the limitations outlined, temperatures were still tracking model data closely.
Did you have a point Cox?
So now the squat to piss BBD is saying he doesn't like the references. He's like some other ones. Poor diddums.
What Kellow quote?
And you never did acknowledge the recent work that shows the Eemian is not a useful analogy to the current period. Who cares.
"However, despite the limitations outlined, temperatures were still tracking model data closely." OR NOT - Von Storch
cohenite
How old was that email? Perhaps the retraction of Christy & Spencer's borked UAH TLT reconstruction in 2005 came later?
After that mess was cleared up, things changed.
The one everybody reading this thread knows you could not provide because you had not read the reference you linked.
That Kellow quote.
You are scum, Luke.
'Does water just vanish and then re-appear later when the Fairy Queen waves her pink and sparkly wand?'
It may have become temporarily locked up in ice, that is usually how sea level is organised.
Oh I see - you have picked a page out of the book as a test. Good move. But you first - what's the point of the book cover. The paper cover.
Y'see BBD, li'll mike understands all too well that your words are merely blandishments to reduce the double digit paypacket in his lard-arsed back pocket on behalf of the UN Agenda 21 playboys whose sole ambition is to live it up on his dollars.Hence his fighting back, keyboard finger warrior style (of course), against the 'hive-mind'
The fact that he spouts the same old dreary, heard-it-all-before same old drivel as every other "independently minded" loon on the internet is entirely lost on him.
Sure. Summer TSI was higher in the NH than during the Holocene. Yet the West Antarctic Ice Sheet collapsed. It's a warm water thing.
These days a global forcing is being applied to the global ocean. It is warming up. So why will the WAIS ignore the warming subsurface waters this time around?
Different kind of ice?
" It is warming up" OR NOT! hahahahahaha
von Storch will have to make a far better case than his current one that can be destroyed by humble climate blog readers, let alone his peers. Which of course is why he blogged it rather than submitting it for publication.
Inside the mind of Prince Charming:
Oh fuckitty fuckitty fuck!
What to do?
I know! I'll pretend that I've only just noticed what BBD has been laughing about for the last five pages of comments.
That'll stop the pain.
* * *
[Meanwhile, in reality:]
You lied. You posted a link to a reference that you haven't read. The pseudo-point Kellow was making with his choice of cover art is rather moot given the collapse of Arctic sea ice extent during 2007, the year of publication, and since.
In fact, the cover is an embarrassment that I suspect even Kellow feels these days.
Oh Luke, you pathetic douche. Did it really take you a day and a half to look up the book on Amazon? And you only now found out page 146 is not in the preview?
I THOUGHT YOU READ IT?
Come now Stu, nobody ever thought for a moment that he'd read it.
Prince Charming
One last thing.
I'm going to stop commenting now.
I've not gone for a dump or a shower. Nor do I "never sleep". But it is dark on this side of the planet and sunny where you are. Can you get this basic bit of geophysics past your comprehensional filter?
Have a lovely day!
:-)
Ha ha!
Silly deltoids!
Luke of the changing avatars has been trying to help you. You are all so deeply entrenched in this place that you can't see it.
It has been enlightening to watch you all miss his cryptic clues. I am tempted to feel sorry for you as he has indeed blown you apart for not accepting his help.
And of course the moderators are still being spiteful and cowardly.
I must have poked an open wound all those months ago?
Hang on a minute BB; date for the Thorne email?
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=1939.txt&search=tropical+troposphere
I gave you the time-line for the rest of Thorne's conclusions. What else do you want me to do, present Thorne in person.
The definitive analysis of the THS is by Fu:
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~qfu/Publications/grl.fu.2011.pdf
But first can any one tell us what causes the THS? Or alternatively what the THS is? Let's get our facts right first boys before any more mud is flung around.
Interesting how Luke gets so guttural after trying so desperately to seem reasonable in #12. It's almost as if he knows why he can no longer post on Codling's dung heap, so he come over here to kick sand and Curry favour. It's unlikely to work - Australia's answer to Sarah Palin (or, as Charlie Pierce calls her "Princess Dumbass of the North Woods") has to keep grifting the gold-bugs and Birchers, cause they pay her bills, unlike pathetic & smitten wannabes like Luke.
Like lil' mike , Fatso & Redarse, Luke is a lost and lonely loser, so desperate to be noticed that he would rather indulge in pseudonymous provocation and toddler tantrums than engage with the civil commentariat. Cox is another kettle of mendacious muck entirely - he's so irrevocably tied to Climate Skepticism as a meme that his name evokes laughter in all that hear it. To complete Luke's fellow travellers, we have the Faecal Freddy (enough said - please), and Spam, whom my 14 year old daughter considers to puerile to be true, and suggests that "she" is a pathetic old creep.
Using the word "cunt" says more about Luke than he would like.
Bugger. ...too puerile to be true.
That's terrific wombat, so you really are a warmista cadre fighting the good fight. I'll see you at the barricades.
The climate change models “have crucial flaws that make them close to useless as tools for policy analysis … [these] analyses of climate policy create a perception of knowledge and precision, but that perception is illusory and misleading.”
Robert S Pindyck (physicist, engineer and professor of economics and finance at MIT)
rh... :)
lol......hiding behind a little girl wombat fucker :)
We are here merely to entertain you wombat old fruit.
Do you take private patients?
In agreement with rh tho.................
When attempting to insult BBD the preferred technique is to refer to his renowned and habitual masturbatory practice's,
eg.
He is.... a shank shaker, perpetual puller, a hand cranker, a jerking jester ect....
If you really want to use the "SEE" word, Luke, why not try to categorize the type of "SEE", such as BBD you vaginal pustule, or BBD shut your labia lip's or BBD you are busted like a hymen :)
rh...tell your little girl, not so much of the OLD thank you. :)
So we'll add risk management to the list of things where you over-estimate your own competence.
Hint: "much is unknown" does not support the case for inaction.
Yes. First you claimed - in definitive terms - that it was "missing". You did not claim "the data doesn't support or refute it", but "it's missing".
Then you claimed that there CAN BE no peer reviewed paper demonstrating this "fact" using classic conspiratorial ideation.
Then you denied using conspiratorial ideation, when everyone can see your words which plainly demonstrate that you did.
Then you attempted to substantiate your "missing" claim with a link to a discussion amongst scientists where they refute your claim. Unlike you, and unlike any competent scientist, they don't conflate "the data don't clearly support it" with "the data clearly refutes it".
And you claim Nova has a better understanding of the hotspot than people here do, when she outright claims that it is missing (using the same egregious misinterpretation that cohenite used), an error that you failed to spot or correct or factor into your claims about his or her competency - and an error that echoes your own assertion that it is definitively missing.
Then you roll out this gem as a criticism:
Well, doh! Given that I haven't demonstrated my ability to do quality climate science by publishing a peer reviewed paper in the field, my personal comments are worthless unless they are consistent with the weight of evidence, and that is best judged by those who are demonstrably competent. And you haven't demonstrated that ability either, hence the short shrift given to your personal contrarian opinions.
So far you're little better than el gordo at this basic "logic and evidence" stuff. You are either confused about how science works or haven't been taking care to express it in English very well (but my money's on the former, given your call for "personal comments"). You engage in binary thinking for issues where it is inappropriate because the right measure is "how confident", not "true" or "false". And you haven't owned up to your clear errors.
And in response to all of this you conclude that Deltoids have a problem, and throw in an insult about their intellectual capacity.
(All together now: it's always projection.)
Perhaps if Luke explains how this is wrong, cohenite will listen this time around?
Or maybe he's just not smart enough to understand his basic error, despite having a couple of explanations handed to him on a plate up thread?
The MSM reads the 5th Estate and puts it under the AAP umbrella.
http://www.news.com.au/travel/australia/australia-sucks-up-oceans-water…
"As is plainly visible the pattern of a THS from greenhouse gases is very different from Tropical heating caused by other factors."
Well I am interested in that; but I didn't say the THS = 2% ^ TSI did I?
Anyway good of you to step up to the mark Lottho; and also credit for having no false modesty; if you can't beat your own drum who else is going to do it?
Now, will you be good enough to define the THS?
You'll have to translate that out of lawyer weasel speak into English, I'm afraid. I suspect you're trying to wriggle out of the unqualified statement you made in reference to the diagram you previously posted and misinterpreted, a misinterpretation that you never corrected, by pointing out that you didn't constrain your statement.
Does that gambit work in the legal world?
Loth:
Legal Ethics = staying bought, so of course Cox thinks he's both ethical and "working".
Loth:re#81:
http://www.independentaustralia.net/2013/politics/the-parliament-of-aus…
!
“The scientists are getting very concerned privately – they are conservative in public and have yet to write it up – that blocking processes are sticking in the system. The jet stream is behaving very strangely.
"One very senior atmospheric scientist said to me recently off the record that we are liable to wake up one day and find ourselves on the latitude – which we are in the UK – of Montreal. It’s a liveable place, but not like London. They have underground tunnels because of their winters. The Gulf Stream is having a few wobbles, too, and the theory there is the melting in Greenland and the Arctic is creating a lot of cold, fresh water, which is a possible source for loss of power in the conductor, so it moves less warm water up from the Caribbean.”
Jeremy Grantham / the Guardian
Check out this example of externalised costs left behind by industry:
http://www.weather.com/news/louisiana-sinkhole-collapses-20130822
(The video is really very good).
cohenite, still haven't noticed that both an increase in TSI and an increase in GHGs produces a tropospherical hotspot?
Oh, and regarding that 2% TSI vs 2*CO2, see for a recent paper:
http://depts.washington.edu/amath/research/articles/Tung/journals/Cai_a…
You'd expect someone who is so critical to have read up on at least the most basic of literature. Oh wait, I forgot, you know it to be wrong, because it has to be wrong, because ABC. I actually briefly mistook you for someone who actually behaves like a true skeptic.
That's a good paper Marco; I don't see how it helps your cause though; C&T explain that both 2XCO2 and 2%TSI have similar processes, particularly in the Tropics to Pole energy gradient but completely different temperature responses. Both will decrease the lapse rate in the Tropics which is why a THS would be caused but solar will do it more.
Thanks for playing though; that's why I'm here; and the insults which have now become moribund; insults about lawyers, really? Pathetic.
Its kinda' funny watching Luke's posts get more and more shrill... crazy.... outlandish. The guy is seriously losing it.
And he still hasn't told us what brilliant, esteemed qualifications he possesses in any scientific field. Oh, of course, unless one considers blogging into Nova's asylum for years as some kind of information to add to his resume.
I notice that he briefly alluded to the effects of warming on biodiversity a a few days ago, of course in an attempt to downplay it. I am certainly willing to counter the nonsense in that post in due course. AGW represents a profoundly serious threat to biodiversity, especially when combined with a suite of other human-mediated stresses. The empirical literature is replete with studies showing negative effects on many ecophysiological processes. Its too bad that Lukie probably doesn't read any of it and that which he does read is over his head.
Fucking crap Jeff - how the mother-fucka does biodiversity survive mega-droughts and floods. For fucks sake. What fucks up your biodiversity is the perfect storm or cats, toads and too intense fires. And spreading acacia type trees. Or woodland thickening across our savannas. And what the fuck are you doing about mammal extinctions on our north that's on your watch. Stop bedwetting
Negative effects on ecophysiological processes - what crap. Put crap GCM input plus or minus a fuck-tillion into bullshit semi-empircal growth model and derive more bullshit. Poikilotherms needs a bit more temperature anyway.
Golly I just had a horrid thought - maybe I'm talking to sepo yanks and Poms - faarrk. Or even worse New Zealanders. or the fucking pits - Victorians. Gawd !
Jeff I won't be telling you about my quals coz they're a bit embarrassing. You know - arts grad - just got through. You know how it is.
Now Karen - I'm sorry I said cunt. But BBD is a bit of a shit cunt. But the cunt is living in a different time zone - what poor taste in itself - maybe he needs some translation - maybe he doesn't speak strine. And that doctor from some NSW coal hole if definitely a hard cunt. Just listen to the tone of the smarmy bastard. Don't you just want to clock him. Certainly Mike does. This educational video will explain it for them. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMvtzpigvo4
Lotharsson #77 - well mate it's missing, not there, no observable in the obs. It is not fucking there is it? So a shitload of theory is wrong and yes we all know about warming from any source should produce it - but how the fuck does that help if TSI is flat.
As for the weight of evidence. Well let;s not worry about that or we'd still be treating ulcers as a stress ailment. Answer my questions pls.(Dr smarmy north shore ponce Dickhead will be along to correct me about Helicobacter pylori soon - shouldn't have used a medical example)
How odd.
In what strange inversion of reality does a post pointing out my lack of qualifications and skills to buck the scientific consensus consist of "beating my own drum"?
Or is that the best distraction you can muster from your own unqualified drum beating?
Or were you simply referring to something else in your head, but simply incapable of sharing the reference with the rest of us?
So what you're saying is that a tropical tropospheric hotspot can be generated by at least two different causes, one of which is not anthropogenic...
...hence the absence of clear evidence of such a hotspot in the data does not in an of itself imply "AGW is wrong" or more precisely "recent warming isn't anthropogenic", but rather strongly suggests that the data isn't good enough to answer the question.
Perhaps you would be kind enough to inform Luke. He has pooh-poohed this more than once on this thread already - and skirted it again in his recent comment. See here where he again conflates absence of sufficient quality evidence with confident evidence of absence:
That says it all.
Better trolls, please.
Hmmm - as I suspected, still nothing of any substance being posted here by those who deny AGW and CC. Just the usual repetitive mendacity, idiocy or (being generous) over-credulity.
Really, I'm beginning to think your hearts just aren't in it. Surely after 30 or 40 years, your team could do better than "it isn't warming", "ok, if it is warming, its not CO2", "ok, if it is CO2, then we're going to be better off", "ok, if we aren't going to be better off, then its too late to do anything about it".
Sorry, that last one is the expected response once the impacts of AGW and CC are undeniable even by the clinically insane - got a bit ahead of myself there with regards to your good selves.
Still, not long to go before you'll be trotting that one out. Knowing human nature, however, I'm sure you'll all be adamantly insisting at that stage that you were always supportive of the scientific consensus and never were deniers, oh no...
Wankers.
You get the trolls you deserve lotho.
"So what you’re saying is that a tropical tropospheric hotspot can be generated by at least two different causes, one of which is not anthropogenic…
…hence the absence of clear evidence of such a hotspot in the data does not in an of itself imply “AGW is wrong” or more precisely “recent warming isn’t anthropogenic”, but rather strongly suggests that the data isn’t good enough to answer the question."
Key word 'can'; and I didn't say any of this but I was referring to Cai and Tung's paper which they concede is speculative, leaves out several crucial factors and is only modelling.
Let's be plain; AGW depends on a THS; it's not there because AGW is wrong and there hasn't been a 2% increase in TSI.
Anyway Marco's paper was a bright spot; it made the visit to smarm hell worth-while.
You can have them luke; they are the biggest pack of wankers this side of a fashion parade; useless too I suspect.
'Scientists are struggling to explain why global warming seems to have slowed down in the last decade in a leaked draft of the UN's next big report on climate change.
'The intergovernmental study claims scientists are 95 per cent sure that humans are to blame for climate change, but presently they have not come up with a unified reason for why global surface temperatures have not risen as predicted in the past 15 years.
'According to the unpublished draft document, scientists believe volcanic ash, less heat from the sun and more heat being absorbed by oceans could explain the mystery.'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2398753/Why-HAS-global-w…
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
"Sorry, that last one is the expected response once the impacts of AGW and CC are undeniable even by the clinically insane" probably explains the pause !? Better bedwetters pls.
That's a particularly stupid claim, but also not far off your average.
Er, no. That's plainly misrepresentation which I can only assume is deliberate, given the discussion up thread. You are now joining Luke in conflating absence of solid evidence with solid evidence of absence.
This is almost as sad as the Hockey Stick Tragics(tm) who think if they can demonstrate a flaw in MBH99 that the whole AGW conclusion will come crashing down in a heap because they imagine that's the only evidence underpinning the conclusion. Or the Models Are Falsified Tragics(tm) who do the same thing with climate models. (Hmmm, bit of a pattern developing here...)
Cohenite, care to point out where I insulted lawyers? Gee, looks like I didn't. And your misinterpretation of the paper is unsurprising, too.
Lots of philosophical twaddle Lotharsson - no information content,.
Argument by assertion remains unconvincing.
"You are now joining Luke in conflating absence of solid evidence with solid evidence of absence." same applies to Santa Claus. Dream on.
Luke.
Sorry to tell you, but you don't have a clue.
The different anthropogenic impacts on the biosphere are not mutually exclusive, and they will all affect ecosystem structure and function long into the future. Human-caused climate change itself will have a profound effect on biodiversity regardless of its interactions with other impacts, and the signature will be visible for millions of years into the future, to any intelligent species that might be present to see.
And for your information Karen's a bloke, who has used a number of other identities including 'Sunspot' and 'Mack'.
A chick with a dick - cool.
Climate variability already affected ecosystem structure and function. Pity the temperature has flatlined eh?
Without economic prosperity there will be no preservation of natural systems.
"And for your information Karen’s a bloke"
It evens up BJ because the rest of you aren't.
In fact with the current state of the models any adaptive action is 50:50 the wrong way. Which model should we pick BTW - surely you're not going to recommend a multi-model mean?
'Human-caused climate change itself will have a profound effect on biodiversity regardless of its interactions with other impacts, and the signature will be visible for millions of years into the future, to any intelligent species that might be present to see.'
Unfounded model twaddle.
'Without economic prosperity there will be no preservation of natural systems.'
True, the best way to save the planet from humanity is to grow a greater middle class.
'And for your information Karen’s a bloke'
That's reassuring.
Warm winters extend life.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-23/undertakers-blame-mild-winter-for…
This UK winter is bound to be atrocious, just sayin'
Unfortunately that is incorrect. But you need to think about the nature of the evidence required to prove or disprove the claims made about Santa Claus in order to figure this out, and then ponder the zillions of relevant data points we have, where the weight of the evidence lies, and the confidence level this implies.
I do not believe you will. You don't show signs of a robust ability to weigh the evidence and to use confidence levels in your thinking, preferring in many cases to make it black or white. Speaking of which:
No. We have masses of non-model evidence that outcomes of business per usual might turn out to be severe - really massively severe - and to give strong indications of several of the ways in which it is likely to be problematic. That evidence gives enough information, despite the information not being perfect, to give a far better than 50:50 chance of getting adaptive actions right. (It also indicates that mitigation is mandatory in any reasonable risk management strategy, but you deny that too.)
There are certain metrics where the models give very little information, so in those areas "50:50" is probably about right. But the blanket claim about "any adaptive action" is just wrong.
It's very hard to believe you are a competent scientist. You are very careless when drawing conclusions.
It's not either/or - in two different ways.
1. Mitigating anthropogenic climate change isn't going to eliminate "economic prosperity".
2. Without preservation of most of today's natural systems, there will not be anywhere near as much of humanity, and there won't be economic prosperity.
Kill off the bees, for example, and humanity at this population level is fucked. A handful of years of widespread crop failures in a row due to weather moving outside of the previously understood climatic envelope - or pests profiting far more strongly from changing conditions than we can compensate for - would also have a very severe impact. And there are many other aspect in which humanity absolutely relies on the functioning of natural systems.
To frame it as either/or is exceedingly foolish.
Luke:
Well I have not seen an adequate answer from you WRT my question WRT your assessments of models, other than hand waving dismissal of same.
If you have and I have missed it then that is probably because of the trouble I have you 'emptying your chamber pot' of filth into this street which I step around without another glance.
Now a Gish Gallop of questions and the raising of other matters is your hallmark so stop blaming others for 'diversions to other topics' and as for 'appeals to authority', accusing any around here of that is hypocritical in the extreme given you referencing Jo Codling (a small fish in a very different pond to climate scientists), she has a missile trained on us indeed – sure to be a dud, Storch (it seems you missed my rebuttal of your citation to him. Storch may have 'credentials' but then so does Lindzen and Spencer, it is just that they are now miss-using these to baffle gab lay audiences – it seems to have worked on you.
To assume that because I have not answered any of your, ahem, questions, and thus am ignorant about that particular aspect is a nonsense. You have little idea of my wide reading across many relevant fields, hence by comment about Jeff's work, many of those commenting here are aware of my wide reading but then you have dropped in here like an exploding grenade and expect everybody to Kowtow to your assumptions from YOUR authorities.
The problem is, if we ignored all projecting GCM models and tropospheric hot spot we will still know that warming is happening because of the melting cryosphere (yes Arctic ice, Greenland, mountain glaciers, and Antarctica are all losing mass year on year no matter how you wish to waffle this away), migration of and loss of species, rising sea levels including oceanic expansion. We know also why this is happening and that is because we have opened the fawcett of extra CO2, built up over many millions of years through conversion of hydrocarbon energy using sunlight into structure which become buried and compressed, and released a large proportion of the CO2 thus stored in a couple of hundred years. This ignoring the about eleven thousand years of increased CO2 input to the system by the rise of agriculture and forest clearance before the industrial revolution kicked off. Now I can back these statements up.
To assume I have no explanation for any of your 'questions' is an error of judgement. Another reason for my slower rate of posting of late is that I am dealing with some life threatening situations and don't have as much time as I would like to put a brake on your Gish Galloping. But of copurse that is the strength of the Gish Gallop, you can throw out wild accusations in such vague terms that it takes many times more effort to reply ADEQUATLY than to Gallop in the first place.
As for the tropospheric hot spot, I came across another blogger, who reminded me a bit of you Eric Raymond
where I found this apposite reply from Juan Schwartz :
I recommend the CSIRO link as you seem to not like the 'roach frightening spotlight of SkS. When assessing a source of information it is a good idea of considering intended readership before condemning. But IMHO SkS does things well by providing different levels of explanation and more importantly back up links to sources. You seem shy of citing specific sources yourself resorting to little more than handwaving and bragging. As for Real Climate, well of course you don't like that but then it is another 'roach frightening spotlight but this time from real accredited climate scientists with a good track record STILL. Note the Ben Santer reference at the foot of the CSIRO page above. You may recall how Santer spiked Pat Michaels a couple of years back.
You wrote:
Well at least that is something but how does that square with a von Storch quote I cited up-thread?
Besides, you may like to consider what happens to variability in a system when the system is perturbed by a new input? This book gets to the nub of this in an early chapter, 'Climate Change: A Multidisciplinary Approach' by William James Burroughs. This book also provides some insight into why Svensmark fails to satisfy.
You also wrote:
To be sure much is still unknown, that is the nature of science. However enough is known to see the true picture emerging and which palaeoclimatology warned of. So this increase in extreme weather events are not an immediate hazard? What planet are you on? And yes to co-opt an expression that you used 'it does seem that you have just fallen out of your tree'.
Burroughs uses a very apt descriptor in the title of his book 'Multidisciplinary Approach' and you would do well to consider that at length. Indeed I had intended to quote sections from William Ruddiman but this post has become rather lengthy as it is.
Now you made one very telling admission in that post:
So, you have masters. Do tell.
Sadly, nature takes no notice of politico's or commercial giants voting 'nyet'
'widespread crop failures in a row due to weather moving outside of the previously understood climatic envelope'
Its happened over time due to natural variability and millions died, but these days its unlikely to happen with warmer or cooler climates because we are better organised.
Except when war steps in and dislocations cause large pockets of deprivations.
Aha! So you have managed to avoid noticing what is going on many countries around the Mediterranean.
And yes, my knowledge in history informs that past colonialism has been a factor and population demographics are another but there is more to it than that now.
As I said up thread, how well organised will we be with flooded ports and airports for example?
That is a dubious conclusion.
The rate of climate variability we see now is very fast for an ecosystem. That alone makes the claim dubious.
But in addition, we might be better organised but we're also vastly closer to the capacity of the system than we were back then, and we've significantly degraded the system since then as well.
You are not comparing apples and oranges.
BTW, if you look at some of the strategic thinking that certain powerful militaries, governments and their agencies have engaged in, they cite climate change (and related food and water supply issues) as a key risk factor likely to spark increased levels of conflict.
Once food supply becomes a problem in once place they see a risk of conflict spreading, which may cause additional "large pockets of deprivations". Double whammy :-(
Lotharsson makes the vital point @ 19. Natural ecosystems are under a myriad of anthropogenic stresses. Climate change threatens to be the final nail in the coffin for many of those being pushed already towards critical tipping points or thresholds. Beyond these thresholds key functions break down and the system collapses. Humans are pushing many systems towards the precipice. The evidence for this is large and growing.
El Gordo appears to think that humans are exempt from the laws of nature. No surprise there - its a common traits amongst the denialati. arm winters may help humans in the short term but they are certainly not a good thing for species adapted to cooler climates. Species have evolved within well defined thermal windows and temperatures falling above or below these windows increase the amount of metabolic expenditure invested to cope with these changes. Species living inn higher latitudes are there because they have evolved under relatively stable long term ambient conditions. And as I have said, warmth is not necessarily a pre-requsite for large scale adaptive radiation. We know that the planet has evolved its highest genetic and species richness under relatively moderate temperatures. Stability is therefore very important.
Moreover, warm winters allow insect pests to survive much farther north than they normally do. The diamondback moth is one of the world's most serious pests in cabbage and mustard crops. It is native to Africa and the Mediterranean but overwinters now in much of western Europe including southern Britain as a result of recent warming. Therefore populations to build up much earlier in the season - here, in Holland, we used to only see it in late summer when it spread north from southern Europe with the prevailing winds in summer, but now it is abundant from June onwards. The economic costs of controlling it are growing as a result. Indeed, winter is a major biological control agent in its own right. There are many similar examples in Europe and the United states, Expect fire ants to survive further and further to the north as well as other agricultural pests including the cabbage and soybean loopers. Until recently, they could only survive as far north as Tennessee.
Ultimately, the thrust of my argument is that human survival critically depends on the resilience of natural systems to withstand the human assault. El Gordo, like other deniers, places far too much reliance on technology as a means of forever outrunning the damage we are doing across the biosphere. But our technology cannot replicate many key critical ecosystem services and if natural systems begin to break down systemically, then we are up shit creek without a paddle.
EG #75 said The climate change models “have crucial flaws that make them close to useless as tools for policy analysis … [these] analyses of climate policy create a perception of knowledge and precision, but that perception is illusory and misleading.”
Robert S Pindyck (physicist, engineer and professor of economics and finance at MIT)
Pindyck actually said: A plethora of integrated assessment models (IAMs) have been constructed and used to estimate the social cost of carbon (SCC) and evaluate alternative abatement policies. These models have crucial flaws that make them close to useless as tools for policy analysis...
Now I assume you were spoon fed your quote from elsewhere, so how do you feel about them misleading you?
Mike the monkey quotes: well I'm mortified... I thought that I was being original, but I suppose that with a few hundred kids per day for years seeing the same spectacle it's not surprising that such behaviour is recognised and occasionally commented upon.
@Harvey
Lotharsson makes the vital point @ 19. Natural ecosystems are under a myriad of anthropogenic stresses.
coment: 1: idiocy, Losthsome no biologist = incompetent, 2: alarmistic cowardish antropogenic projection without scientific evidence, idiotism from harvey and other greenpiss socialist activists who betray the world with junk ideology
Climate change threatens to be the final nail in the coffin for many of those being pushed already towards critical tipping points or thresholds. Beyond these thresholds key functions break down and the system collapses. Humans are pushing many systems towards the precipice. The evidence for this is large and growing.
Coment: unsayable shit from eco terrorists and communists. piss off harvey with your propaganda of unethical dirt
El Gordo appears to think that humans are exempt from the laws of nature. No surprise there – its a common traits amongst the denialati. Warm winters may help humans in the short term but they are certainly not a good thing for species adapted to cooler climates. Species have evolved within well defined thermal windows and temperatures falling above or below these windows increase the amount of metabolic expenditure invested to cope with these changes. Species living in higher latitudes are there because they have evolved under relatively stable long term ambient conditions. And as I have said, warmth is not necessarily a pre-requsite for large scale adaptive radiation. We know that the planet has evolved its highest genetic and species richness under relatively moderate temperatures. Stability is therefore very important.
Coment: every single word of bullhit harvey is nasty dirt full of greenpiss propaganda, no relation to science, just ideology crap of an ugly and misantrop socialist
Moreover, warm winters allow insect pests to survive much farther north than they normally do. The diamondback moth is one of the world’s most serious pests in cabbage and mustard crops. It is native to Africa and the Mediterranean but overwinters now in much of western Europe including southern Britain as a result of recent warming. Therefore populations to build up much earlier in the season – here, in Holland, we used to only see it in late summer when it spread north from southern Europe with the prevailing winds in summer, but now it is abundant from June onwards. The economic costs of controlling it are growing as a result. Indeed, winter is a major biological control agent in its own right. There are many similar examples in Europe and the United states, Expect fire ants to survive further and further to the north as well as other agricultural pests including the cabbage and soybean loopers. Until recently, they could only survive as far north as Tennessee.
Coment: harvey does not understand nature, he is silly and stupid and idiotic at the same time, steels money from society for his crap mental deviations
Ultimately, the thrust of my argument is that human survival critically depends on the resilience of natural systems to withstand the human assault. El Gordo, like other deniers, places far too much reliance on technology as a means of forever outrunning the damage we are doing across the biosphere. But our technology cannot replicate many key critical ecosystem services and if natural systems begin to break down systemically, then we are up shit creek without a paddle.
coment: human survival depends on the power of life, not on you, you tiny idiot blown up with farts and shit. piss off and do something decent instead of excreting your dirty greenpiss junk.
Reams and reams of philosophy and no answers. Plenty of bedwetting .... just reams of post modernistic drivel about species might do this or that. And only loaded with catastrophists view and not opportunists view.
After all sustainability is only really the period between glaciations.
In Australia we have massive interannual and interdecadal variability - and you think some smaller underlying trend is an issue. pffft - how about tacking some REAL biodiversity issues which you don't give a shit about and in the here and now
Maybe be might be hit by an earth killer asteroid too.
.or perhaps mankind will be visited by a plague of nihilistic idiocy, eh Luke? Oh wait...
Ah yes Luke, Australia. What a small world you inhabit.
BTW Checked this out yet, from the CSIRO linked above:
?
BTW2 It looks like it is time for you to clean your bed kit, then lash up and stow and prepare to swab the decks to rid them of all the filth that you have spread around.
turboblocke is not intelligent
BBD is not intelligent
Lathasdon is not intelligent
czek is not intelligent
Harvey is not intelligent
Liinnell is not intelligent
All AGW greenpissers are cowards, liars, unethical crap
No, you are still lying Luke. The data aren't good enough for definitive statements. When you go beyond the data and make a definitive statement - which you then use as "proof" (oh dear) that there is a major flaw in AGW, you have moved from scientific objectivity to partisan misrepresentation.
You are no more a working scientist than I am the King of Old Siam. You are a liar.
You are also a bluffer who waves around references you have not read.
You misrepresent other sources in ways that convince me that you haven't read them either, only the clap-trap touted on denier blogs by shills and cranks.
In the last few days you have been comprehensively, well, ratfucked on this blog. You are exposed as nothing more than a bullying thug, a poser, a liar and a dupe of the shills.
Nice work!
Oh do fuck off Freddy the Boris. You are a cretinous bore, not to mention clinically insane.
Enough already.
And I am so sick of this endless blather about the models, the models, the models.
Only deniers with poor topic knowledge do this.
Here, once again, is well-known model sceptic James Hansen explaining the facts:
I know this drives a truck through a favourite denialist meme, but that's life. Suck it up!
Paleoclimate behaviour doesn't yield robust estimates of S_ff /2xCO2 much below 2C and the most likely value is closer to ~3C. All the denialists have got is fake controversy as a diversionary tactic. From where I'm standing, this is so abundantly obvious as not to need saying, but those caught inside the delusional bubble of denial have no notion of what they are really up against. And the chum-ladlers who feed them keep it that way. The people who pay the bills *want* it that way. It suits their ends.
BBD well you're not keeping up cunt..
Hansen - what a fucking laugh as the models have been now falsified. Oh where oh where has that hotspot gone? Maybe it's on holiday.
Why don't models work anymore.
Why is there a pause even though there is no pause - it's just a bit flatish ... hahahahaha
and and BBD the alarmist cunt is now at 25 metres sea level - well suck my consensus - dat's a bit bigger than the IPCC (bow down) consensus of experts. Well really only a couple in each domain but let's not be picky.
Anyway I still don't understand your Kellow question - what are you meaning.
And you're not even an Aussie - so get off our blog - another illegal immigrant.
" When you go beyond the data and make a definitive statement" what a fabricating little turd our BBD is.
" When you go beyond the data and make a definitive statement"
" When you go beyond the data and make a definitive statement"
Lionel A - oh well we could just ecologically spread that to the whole southern hemisphere
You have gone beyond the data and made a definitive statement regarding the THS and the claim that the models are "falsified".
You, not I am a "fabricating little turd". How stupid are you, actually?
Still pretending that you didn't get shown up as a posturing liar waving at a book he's never even read? You are pathetic, Luke. Like a little child caught stealing!
Page 25 #23
BBD response page 25 #30 and following:
Never did get the rest of that quote, although I must have asked for it dozens of times.
:-)
Just for the interested reader who might have missed this demonstration of Luke's bluffing and mendacity and his desperate attempts to avoid exposure, here are a few follow-on comments of mine, all from the same page:
#34
Kellow quote please Luke. We are waiting.
#37
We can all imagine Luke desperately emailing his crank chums asking someone to help out with the Kellow quote…
:-)
Time’s up, Luke old chap!
Caught you bluffing again, you little lying fucker!
#42
Has someone got back to you with that Kellow quote yet, bluffer?
;-)
I told you I could see right through your posturing days ago. You should have listened. Now look at you.
#49
Makes you wonder just which of Lukes “references” he actually has read, doesn’t it?
:-)
* * *
Etc, etc, etc.
But Luke *never* responded or even acknowledged any of this. You had to be there, really, but it was hilarious!
The bluffer unmasked!
Yes but you haven't responded to my questions so why should I respond to yours?
BTW, did I ever tell you about the time the lying little fuck pretended he was a "working scientist"?
I will, children, I will.
;-)
Another whopping great LIE from Luke!
I have responded at length and in detail to you. How can you be so blatantly dishonest?!
But *you*, Luke, you make a habit of not responding to anything I ask you which is... problematic for you!
Just... look up, Luke!
But there have been many refusals by you to answer my very pertinent questions. Many. I used to maintain - and post - a list, but it got too long.
Responded pffft - had a big diversionary wank your mean. You have made no relevant responses at all. Now why are you so interested in Kellow?
My God. You are actually going to try and brazen this out!
Unbelievable.
Read #37. Click the links. It's really very obvious.
More interesting would be why you refused to respond to me at the time!
We both know why, don't we Luke?
:-)
The fact is, Luke, you have been stripped naked on this blog. You have been revealed for the liar, bluffer, ignoramus and denialist bully-boy that you are. Your dog-logic and misrepresentations have all been dealt with at length by several commenters, not just me.
It's over, Luke. It's done. You are a laughing-stock now. Everybody knows. Everybody sees.
Even you.
Dunno - would it have anything to do with Ben and Jerry's ice cream?
So BBD - you are worst lying fucking cunt I have ever come across.
A fucking pig ignornat loon.
Get off the blog cunt - you've just been played like a rube and ratfucked ! eat a dick cunt ! You preposterous pretentious fraud.
Come in spinner.
HEY EVERYONE BBD JUST GOT RATFUCKED !!!!!!
don't even bother responding - I'm off to take a dump
Poor Luke. So fucked!
Remember page 25 Luke? Remember this?
#34
Kellow quote please Luke. We are waiting.
#37
We can all imagine Luke desperately emailing his crank chums asking someone to help out with the Kellow quote…
:-)
Time’s up, Luke old chap!
Caught you bluffing again, you little lying fucker!
#42
Has someone got back to you with that Kellow quote yet, bluffer?
;-)
I told you I could see right through your posturing days ago. You should have listened. Now look at you.
#49
Makes you wonder just which of Lukes “references” he actually has read, doesn’t it?
:-)
Ah, the collegiate tone of the "working scientist". Unmistakable whenever heard.
:-) :-) :-)
Does anyone detect a hint of projection here?
:-)
You had the subtle clue back on my cover question and you kept coming.
SUCKED IN CUNT !
I'm on leave - book was on my shelf at home in Perth and I've just got back.
BBD YOU HAVE FUCKED RIGHT UP THE ARSE AND YOU ARE NEVER EVER GOING TO LIVE THIS DOWN !!
BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT ..... splutter gag
Fuckedy fuckedy fuck .... shit I got owned. Pooned like a newb.
Listen cunt we do climate for a living you don't. You're a moron. You are a disgrace to the warmist cause. A little dweeb who cam't debate - is pissing in his pants about getting further ratfucked at Nova's. Don't go over they'll pull your panties off.
Are you a paid shill? Gosh, how exciting!
Too late on the quote, Luke. Damage done. Bluff exposed. Lies exposed. Tough. For a moron etc I'm doing rather well here actually!
;-)
Your #49 is, if anything, a new low BTW.
I'm just going to repeat what I have always said:
You are a liar, Luke.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
How's it feel to be totally and utterly owned - you fraudulent bully. You've been pissed on from a great height old son.
Hoisted on your own petard. Done like a dinner.
BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT ...................
The fake controversy about that image is well-enough known for a professional denier like yourself to be aware of it. A picture of the book on the internet is all you needed for your "clue". You really are a child, Luke.
Translated: "Amazon package finally arrived. Thank fuck for that!"
You can smell the desperation from the other side of the planet.
:-)
PS - I know that book is expensive. Consider it the penalty you pay for lying.
Still, come on, get your brand new copy out of the brown carton, crack it open at p.90 and complete the quote:
"We" (note: not "I"). Does Luke push a broom around for some blog grifter fake like Codling?
Hey I'm just fucking with ya. I don't care actually - wish you guys were more interesting though - could talk plant-insect coevolution with Jeff if he wasn't such a cock-head - Anyways might cancel that dynamic downscaling project on Monday though. Even if the RCM resolution is 10km and microscale physics is simulated. What's the point if the models are shit.
Anyway life's too short - here's my latest video - seriously it's my fav - it's me to a T - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGcEmFSRcQ0
Luke, I warned you about braying like this. It makes you sound like a cretin. Seriously. With all the other problems you have, I would tighten up the style if I were you.
No you weren't. You were lying again.
Just like you did here:
Page 25 #65:
Either that, or you are a paid shill. Out of curiosity, which is it?
Liar, or shill?
And where's my Kellow quote?
Your latest video???
You really are a fantasist, aren't you Luke?
Who do you want to be today? (Snorf!)
That ever-changing picture of yours suddenly makes sense. It's actually what's going on in your somewhat disordered mind.
"socially constructed" hahahahahahahaha
socially constructed, politics gets STRAIGHT FUCKED
or would it be something about "upstream"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
You should have seen the book cover bait - I can't believe you kept coming.
Yea mate Amazon are good getting it Oz in that time and on a weekend - HAHAHAHAHAHA - NOT ! Actually back in the day I paid a shitload for the book too - was well over $!00 from memory. Even blog debated Aynsley on it.
Thanks for the reminder BBD.
Indeed, the deniers, liars, shills and grifters all spout the same long discredited half-baked memes, long after they've been long discredited.
My latest gravatar is Excalibur - only use that for the big victories.
As for being a shill - I guess anyone could be a shill if they're paid for services. Like you being a part time hooker.
Nah I'm just a bad cunt. Bad attitude and sick of all blogs. It's just war. Might go and attack Cohenite now. He's a lot better than you guys to debate - at least he's up with it.
Now tell me you must admit - you haven't had that good a run for your money for a while have you. You've sort of enjoyed it. I've livened the place up. You're a bit shitty but it will pass and you'll have fond memories. And your debating skills will be improved. Goes for all of you.
Try not be shit cunts eh?
Luke's symptoms of breakdown are occurring ever closer together today.
You did not complete the quote, Luke.
Please complete the quote!
:-)
"POLITICS GETS BUILT INTO SCIENCE" (you cunt- hahahhaahahahaha)
Oh my sides.
Thank you Luke!
Sorry about the bucks that cost you, but there you go. When you (attempt) to play hardball, it can hurt!
;-)
Well actually to tell you the truth I didn't personally pay for it. WA Inc did. But it was my cost code. That was when Anysley was on the outer too.
Now, let's return to a previous lie you told:
Page 25 #65:
Tell me, Luke, is it the norm amongst your colleagues to assert without evidence, refuse to provide references and use the term "proof" incorrectly?
And "cunt"? Is that standard terminology in your field?
;-)
HEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHE
shit I'm still laughing. Got the giggles.
Listen cunt - you've had your go now fuck off.
I don't understand this. That was back in the '80s wasn't it? But S and PP was published in 2007. Can you explain further?
#73
But I haven't finished with you yet, Luke.
Translation:
"Found a second-hand copy online. Phew! Would've hated to fork out the full whack for that! But I'll be a lot more careful what I say to that cunt BBD in future. The fucker's sharp."
Now BBD - you're gonna be all sore - and you'll be trawling back through my every words looking for something. BUTBUTBUTBUT Well you know that makes me feel important. So you have a good time doing that but we all know that you fucked up big time. That you squat to piss and are afraid of J Nova, who incidentally lives over the way.
Gravatar is dead. Lights out.
WA Inc is code for guvmint you fuck head.
#65
Yes. And I am helping him ever-onwards.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WA_Inc
I don't speaka the lingo. So try and be clear in your blether, eh?
But jeez I'm in that picture. Fancy that
And I am the King of Old Siam!
You just progress, no, you lurch from one absurdity to the next. It is mesmerising.
Tell me about your latest video!!
Who are you now, Luke?
:-)
[I do hope the rest of you are enjoying this, btw!]
Luke
NO, you are the one so hoist, hoist by your ranting filthy language and refusal to respond sensibly to questions that you were asked BEFORE you kicked off accusing others of similar evasion.
Besides the best answer to a Gish Gallop such as yours is to ignore it, usually, but that recent one I could not ignore.
It is you 'DONE LIKE A DINNER', a rotting kipper at a guess judging by the trail of stink you have left through this thread.
You are showing signs of becoming unhinged and being the one who cannot cope with the reality which smacks against your belief system.
So, you are on leave. Not in the military I would think. At a guess playing security bobby for some industrial or mining complex and its owners. I can see why you are so mixed up now about climate change, your day job depends on your perceived ideology.
So, you are one of these 'climate change inactivists', like Dominic Lawson who writes crap in the Independent, the Dominic Lawson who is pally with that clown Peiser of the GWPF and married to the sister of that other clown Monckton.
David JC MacKay used the term 'climate change inactivists' in his book 'Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air' when introducing a Lawson obfuscatory (and that is being kind).
This is Lawson, as quoted by MacKay:
and here is MacKay's riposte:
Seeing as you are on leave I have a list of other books which you should consult and educate yourself with....
I'll bet you will keep digging though, I'll bet you are good at trenches.
Yes, it's fascinating watching Luke nail his feet to the floor then throw himself down a hole, when nobody asked him to. He just ... does it.
Oh Luke, you petulant little child.
Dude, you pretty much implied that climate change impacting eco systems will not be a problem because of opportunistic evolution. You're dumber than a bag of rocks.
To wit:
http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/data/collection/crop-climate
Oh wait. We'll all eat acacia trees instead, right?
Trees and tomatoes, our new, CO2 enhanced diet.
Grass varieties are so passé.
Lionel A - like who gives a fuck about your generalist coffee table book shit. I gave you hard core refs - don't give me your hand waving rat dirt.
"So, you are on leave. Not in the military I would think. At a guess playing security bobby for some industrial or mining complex and its owners." Listen cunt - stop verballing me. Maybe you're employed by the Green Death - who would know. You're talking to establishment science gone feral and that is irrelevant. This is a rat nest of wanker fuckheads that needs a ream out.
Well BBD won't be getting a ream out as he's very sore after being ratfucked.
Stu - just generalist shite. Report back when you've actually run some FACE experiments.
Chek and of course you would realise that we're already eating CO2 turboed tomatoes from glasshouses - no pesticide either. But I supplement that with a monthly teaspoon of DDT as a tonic. Keeps your pecker rock hard.
Unlike you bedwetting limp dicks.
Gordon, what was the reason for importing the lamentable Luke as your "expert" witness? His trousers?
Luke
At page 29 #62 you said this:
Please, link to that blog debate with Kellow. I am interested to see what you both had to say.
Given how far removed from reality you are Luke, you probably do actually think they're a staple food.
Lionel A - you didn't get a Gish Gallop - you think it's a Gish coz you're a stupid dick not used to hard core science. All serious issues and if you seriously looked you'd conclude there is an awful lot of wheels falling off the story. Unless you believe in Jacks Beanstalk.
Address the issue I raised or admit you are a moron, Luke. For a practicing scientist, it should be easy.
Here, I'll even pose it more plainly, since you do make sea cucumbers look smart.
From the data I posted, it is obvious we will be unable to feed even the current world population in 40, let alone 70 years from now. Let alone the world population then. Why do you think this is not a big deal?
Luke? Would you mind posting the link to that blog debate (presumably back in 2007?) that you had with Kellow?
Thanks.
By the way, when I think "practicing hardcore scientist", I think puerile jackwagon who cannot go two sentences without saying "cunt", "coz", "dick" and "Jacks Beanstalk". I mean, who could doubt Luke's credentials? He's been nothing but adult, putting forth cogent arguments, and truthful throughout.
[snirk]
If I were a Greenpeace shill, I'd hire a homeless person to post like you Luke. You're making all our points about denialists for us.
I think that over the last few days it's become obvious who the trolls are. Why not stop feeding them?
#97 Stu
No, no. It was a different kind of ice during the Eemian. And water can just appear and disappear at will. Like fairies and ghosts. Luke did not criticise El Gordo's claims, so must, presumably, endorse them. These are great scientific leaps forward!
Turboblocke
Because I enjoy fucking with their tiny little minds too much.
Stu - I've just descended into vaudeville given your disingenuous rudeness.
Let's summarise shall we:
Models outside the confidence limits.
Trop hottie missing
Antarctic sea ice expanding
Pan evap trending down
LAck of trends in extreme events
Significant centennial variability shown in GCMs
Multi-model mean problem
Mathematical precision in HPC architecture
Supplementary question to see if fuckheads are practitioners of blowhards
Downscaling techniques
Skill testing seasonal forecasts
Explanations for MDB and SEQ muti-year droughts
Nothing but yap yap yap.
Therefore integrating under the curve - you're fuckheads.
You will of course be providing references for all your debunked memes, won't you Luke?
Chek, of course he will...
...his own opinions and some posts from Nova'a blog. That's his reference base. As one example of one of Luke's egregiously wrong memes, expanding central Antarctic ice is meaningless. The continent is bitterly cold; if precipitation increases it will fall as snow. But increased ice as a result in no way indicates that it isn't warming. The continent is so cold that it would have to warm up many many degrees before inland melt occurs.
But Lukey is such a clown that even this basic logic appears to escape him. This is what happens when one is ensconced in contrarian blogs. Its his world. No wonder he's so deluded.
Luke
Sorry to have to repeat myself, but you oblige me.
At page 29 #62 you said this:
Please, link to that blog debate with Kellow. I am interested to see what you both had to say.
Berendaneke is so completely bonkers that he makes even Luke look good. Note how the deniers here close ranks and even appear to defend the complete loonies like Berendaneke... who, as we know, is Freddy's latest sock.
Annoying little schmuck, though.
Luke is totally accurate in everything he said, my only criticism is that he should use dot points to help the masses see the light of day. It would make a good 30 minute doco.
* Models outside the confidence limits.
* Trop hottie missing
* Antarctic sea ice expanding
* Pan evap trending down
* Lack of trends in extreme events
* Significant centennial variability shown in GCMs
* Multi-model mean problem
* Mathematical precision in HPC architecture
Supplementary question to see if fuckheads are practitioners of blowhards
* Downscaling techniques
* Skill testing seasonal forecasts
* Explanations for MDB and SEQ muti-year droughts
While we wait for you to link something that you should be falling over yourself to slap on the page, a brief run-through your Gish:
- Models outside the confidence limits.
False assertion.
- Trop hottie missing
False assertion.
- Antarctic sea ice expanding
Not evidence that "AGW is wrong". There's a *senisble* discussion at Stoat, with references.
- Pan evap trending down
Dunno. Anyone else?
- LAck of trends in extreme events
Are you sure about this?
- Significant centennial variability shown in GCMs
So what? See "paleoclimate behaviour" and Hansen and everyone else, including eg. Sherwood at your link; previous pages.
- Multi-model mean problem
Problem? Says who, and in which journal was the study published? Sounds like another false assertion. Again, see "paleoclimate behaviour".
- Mathematical precision in HPC architecture
A non-issue. Already referenced for you, many days ago, but once again, Stoat. Read the comments. You are always urging people to get stuck in elsewhere. Have a go over there. I would like to watch.
Gordy
Any thoughts on this?
Gordy captures the irredeemable hopelessness of deniers perfectly with this:
[Page 26 #95:]
He's convinced by a bullshit blog post by a proven, documented energy-industry shill writing on a denier blog. Even though the proven shill bit has been demonstrated for him (although he has consistently refused to acknowledge this).
Never mind the fact that the proven shill is contradicted by a mass of real science demonstrating the opposite of the shill's claim.
And you people claim you are't effectively shills yourselves...
Well Gordy is. And this proves it.
Thanks Gordy.
Links for the interested reader to review:
http://www.desmogblog.com/craig-idso
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Center_for_the_Study_of_Carbon_Dio…
Dear Gordy
May I once again draw your attention to this:
PAGES 2k Consortium (2013) Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia
'As I said up thread, how well organised will we be with flooded ports and airports for example?'
It won't happen over night, it won't be like the mass migration period.
If the UK winters continue on the cold side the wealthier residents will spend those few months in a warmer clime. Pity the poor buggers.
The Irish are coming to Australia in large numbers for work and I've put up a couple of young families until they found digs of their own. They are not escaping from the weather, instead they are looking for a better life.
As global cooling sets in over the coming decade I expect the migratory pace to increase, bringing out the older members of the family so that they can extend their lives on a big sandy island in the southern ocean.
'He’s convinced by a bullshit blog post by a proven...'
Idso was quoting reputable scientists.
EG
You seem to have skipped a couple of comments. Or perhaps three. Is your browser working properly?
Can you see #7 #8 and #9?
#11 Just out of curiosity, did he reference PAGES 2k?
BB I have no time for your ramblings, I'm having a serious discussion with my colleague Loth on mass migration.
-----------
'The rate of climate variability we see now is very fast for an ecosystem. That alone makes the claim dubious.
'But in addition, we might be better organised but we’re also vastly closer to the capacity of the system than we were back then, and we’ve significantly degraded the system since then as well.
'You are not comparing apples and oranges.'
Whether its warming or cooling its unlikely to step outside a couple of degrees either way, which is entirely manageable.
Food security is the other potential problem, but with China entering into mono culture in Australia and Africa I expect another LIA won't have a detrimental effect on humanity.
Efficient transport of food via the free enterprise system should see most would be migrants stay home after a crop failure.
Gordy
They are not ramblings. A very serious point is at issue here.
You are rebroadcasting deliberately misleading information injected into the internet by paid shills for the energy industry.
This has been unequivocally and repeatedly demonstrated above. But you continue.
This makes you a tool of the shills. There is no alternative explanation.
Please explain why you are doing this.
This statement is from the comments section of a New York Times article by the University of Rochester's Professor of Physics & Astronomy, Adam Frank:
"The push by religious institutions to have creationism and intelligent design taught alongside evolution in schools as legitimate competing theories, as well as the suppression of data linking man-made atmospheric discharges to climate change by industry are designed to preserve the status quo. Science, as a catalyst of change, has always upended institutions as it ushers in new ideas. We are on the verge of discoveries that may forever change the way we look at the universe and our place in it. It's clear that those with a vested interest in the institutions of today fear what this means for their futures. Science can make oil and bishops largely irrelevant rather quickly if left unchecked. You bet they're scared."
Rather neatly sums up one of the major factors informing "reality denial" that is so evident in many of the comments above - fear.
A word of advice to those who are so afraid of the impacts of AGW and CC that they continue to deny the whole box and dice - either grow some (with apologies to adelady and any other female readers) and join in fronting up to our responsibilities to take action in managing this crisis - or get out of the way.
All of Luke's points are valid. His list offers a good skeleton to hang a doco on, all we need then is an interview with Salby and Carter.
---------------------
'The rate of climate variability we see now is very fast for an ecosystem. That alone makes the claim dubious.'
I doubt that, creatures on this planet have survived glacial conditions and are not going extinct because of a little warming or cooling.
Adapt or Perish .... Climate Change is Natural.
Intelligent design has nought to do with god bothering and everything to do with alien life.
- Pan evap trending down.
Dunno. Anyone else?.
There are a couple of things in the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_evaporation"<wiki ref
But as for "trending" ? (how much, where and over what period?) Luke de Kook would have to substantiate that assertion along with the rest of his Gish-gallop.
To correct the borked link at #19
There are a couple of things in the wiki ref
But as for “trending” ? (how much, where and over what period?) Luke de Kook would have to substantiate that assertion along with the rest of his Gish-gallop.
Gordy
You are being transparently evasive about a very serious issue.
You are rebroadcasting deliberately misleading information injected into the internet by paid shills for the energy industry.
This has been unequivocally and repeatedly demonstrated above. But you continue.
This makes you a tool of the shills. There is no alternative explanation.
Please explain why you are doing this.
No they aren't. See above. Just click the link!
:-)
Gordon :#18
So, nothing to do with that imaginary being, but eminently believable when it comes to those imaginary beings.
How does your head manage to stay in one piece, Gordon?
Cunts - you have the references
One issue from discussed on Nova's blog - Jo's a ranting rightist anyway - but that's not the point
You are fraudulent piss weak cunts. Address the issues.
William doesn't provide any answer on the arithmetic issue and should be spending more of his time in the row boat. Besides it's not published in a peer reviewed journal - hahahahahaha
Multi-model means is how CSIRO produce Australian climate scenarios you stupid Euro-fuck.
All you cunts have is excuses is appeal to authority, blame big oil, verbal and obfuscate. Gutless DOLTOIDS
You're cunts - stop being cunthooks and answer the questions. You can't as you don't know. The fact that the multi-model mean question popped up from you shows you're not even practitioners. How flakey.
El Gordo - these cunts would have been flat earthers or creationists in previous eras. It is just sickening to watch the sheer lack of ability.
Luke @ #24:
Just answer where Luke. No more, no less.
*Tsk*
Denier nutters, eh?
Who do they think they're fooling?
'nothing to do with that imaginary being'
In the Milky Way Galaxy there are a large number of civilisations.
I think you'll find you've extrapolated a little beyond what can be known, and veered off into Wishfull Thinking Santa Claus land. Rather like your .. ahem .. "understanding" of climate science.
Actually all luke's assertions are correct and well supported with evidence.
Let's pick a couple;
THS; I've referenced Fu; here it is again:
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~qfu/Publications/grl.fu.2011.pdf
Fu is establishment; he's the one who corrected Spencer and Christy's satellite temperature defect to get UAH back on track.
Pan evaporation decreasing is well established:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022169411007487
Even the IPCC has bob each way:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-3-2.html
But since the goons at the IPCC can't even get DTR right we should ignore them.
Luke has definitely got you guys marked.
No, we don't.
* * *
At page 29 #62 you said this:
Please, link to that blog debate with Kellow. I am interested to see what you both had to say.
Nobody has disputed that.
What's disputed is what you denier nutters are inferring from that data.
No, that was Mears and Wentz in 2005. Po-Chedley and Fu have since pointed out that UAH is still probably borked and running cool.
Does anyone know what a cunthook is by they way?
BBD @ #34>
Some Freudian thing of Luke's best not explored, I'd wager.
Luke
Why aren't you linking to that blog debate you had with Kellow? Nobody (bar your denialist chums) believes your ridiculous attempts to conceal the fact that you haven't read the book. So post up some evidence from back in the day.
Make your case. You need to!
Cox ironically believes that the results of modelling prove that the current warming trend is not happening.
Hahahaha, what a doofus he is.
I think Cox should leave the thinking to those who have proven their intellect by actually getting qualifications rather than having to pretend to having them.
It is perfectly clear:
Modelling shows that warming forcings should produce the hot spot.
The hot spot has been observed.
A normal rational sceptic would conclude that either,
- the modelling is wrong
- the observations are wrong
Cox, on the other hand, isn't a sceptic - he is a shill for a political lobby who have drawn a line in the sand between their camp and rational, scientific enquiry. Therefore Cox doesn't behave like a sceptic, instead he performs whatever twist is necessary to fit some small portion of the facts to his ignorance-based and anti-science belief.
How do you think history is going to treat liars and fools like you and your anti-science ilk, Anthony?
"No, that was Mears and Wentz in 2005. Po-Chedley and Fu have since pointed out that UAH is still probably borked and running cool."
That's very good big guy; you're taking the piss; RSS is cooler than UAH; pull the other one; good one BB.
Also good joke about pan evaporation not going down which you pretended not to know about so when I provided the info as any eager vassal would do chek could hit me with the old denier nutter tag; you guys are working tag-teams! Excellent!
Interested readers please note:
If Luke is debating in good faith, he should have said that he was away from his bookshelf straight away.
If Luke is debating in good faith he wouldn't delay linking to the blog debate he says he had with Kellow just to make me look wrong.
If Luke is debating in good faith, he would post the link on request if it exists.
What do we think Luke will do next?
:-)
They can't argue with the data Vince, (do we really have to link to the ocean data yet again?) so now - irony of ironies - they're arguing with the models.
The transparency is laughable.
'Wishfull Thinking Santa Claus land.'
In a carbon based universe and counting the habitable zones ... its the null hypothesis.
Devote a few hours of deep thought into changing his avatar and then pretend none of this ever happened, would be my guess.
You don't even understand what that means,Gordon.
Chek#26 on references - I started at 64 on http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/08/01/august-2013-open-thread/comm…
Go through from there and collect my cites and dear Cohenites. This "where's the refs" crap is wearing thin.
"Pan evaporation decreasing is well established:
Nobody has disputed that." says Chek - well strangely CSIRO keeps saying it will going up? hmmmmm - well at the seminars I go to.
Well Cheky poos http://www.csiro.au/en/Organisation-Structure/Divisions/Marine--Atmosph…
Now if you knew anything you'd know that temperature in your Penman-Monteith equation is the least important of the variables - radiation, vapor pressure (~humidity), and wind are more important.
So that's why a warmer Darwin has less pan evaporation than a relatively cooler but low humidity arid Alice Springs.
The wind story seems to be a global trend to stilling at 2m height
You dumb fucks wouldn't even think about such things.
cohenite
A sceptic would take the view that *neither* data set was reliable. A sceptic might look at the land surface reconstruction (the best we have for sampling density and measurement accuracy) and compare two different methodologies to see if they arrived at broadly the same result. This is exactly what BEST did.
Look at the satellite data. Odd.
* * *
I don't know anything about the pan evaporation data so I offered no opinion.
Luke
#39
BBD you got fucked up the arse on the Kellow business - we'll just keep you hanging for a few days like last time. You see - you pre-suppose I think you're important - I don't - I think you're a lying fuck.
This isn't a good faith debate - you guys are bad fuckers and showed your vile little nastiness straight away and so you need to be taken down! It's a public service to get rid of ferals like yourselves.
BBD answer the fucking questions you gutless piece of shit ! You only get one try-on - you've had it and were ratfucked - now hunker down dough boy.
You have never provided references supporting any of your claims:
Provide a published study that justifies your assertion.
Go on.
Do it now.
Cohenite not a shill - he's just a bad ass sceptic mother fucker who wants to rip you a new arsehole. I can dig it myself. Even though he's misguided. Anyway I like his hot girlfriend. I'm jealous.
In response to this:
If Luke is debating in good faith, he should have said that he was away from his bookshelf straight away.
If Luke is debating in good faith he wouldn’t delay linking to the blog debate he says he had with Kellow just to make me look wrong.
If Luke is debating in good faith, he would post the link on request if it exists.
What do we think Luke will do next?
:-)
* * *
Tricky, eh, Luke?
"You have never provided references supporting any of your claims:" Well BBD - that's because you're a fucking idiot.
When we do, we wonder what might be *causing* this effect?
What we do not do is grab it and pretend that it somehow undermines the standard position.
You are fond of yelling "activist" and "ignorant" but it's you that goes beyond the data, every time.
Well, he spent some hours fruitfully substituting a blank for his avatar, and imagining references from some alternate universe we don't have access to.
So who knows?
More bluster would be my best guess.
Luke
You are not answering the questions. Again.
It's not convincing anyone except you.
Provide a published study that justifies your assertion.
Go on.
Do it now.
And let's have that link to the blog debate with Kellow. Amazon cannot fix that for you, so delay only means bad faith.
Bad faith, Luke. Why would you *demonstrate* bad faith like this?
What do you think you will gain by doing this?
Well ya hafta take your chances on Kellow don't you. Roll the dice and see where the numbers fall. You see would be pretty hard to retro fit an old blog debate wouldn't it. I'll make you a deal - you promise here and now that you're cock sure - and if I'm right and a thread with moi and Aynsley exists well you fuck off forever from this blog and never return (as a sock puppet either). Come on write out the promise to your mates here and now. Deal? Double or nothing cunt !
Bad faith. All I asked you for was the link.
So provide it.
Well take the bet - come on....
Look it's 50:50 - you've only been ratfucked once today already.
Next, we have more bad faith.
Provide a published study that justifies your assertion.
Go on.
Do it now.
Links, Luke.
You have nowhere else to go now.
Except bad faith.
How are you going on Kellow - you have 5 minutes.
Chek#26 on references – I started at 64 on http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/08/01/august-2013-open-thread/comm…
Do I have to repeat myself.
Tick tick tick
No, Luke.
What I need to see is *evidence* that you have read the book. A bit of back-and-forth with AK in blog comments might bolster your case, or it might not.
If it did, you would link to it straight away and have a dance and wave your willy.
The fact that you won't is strongly suggestive that it doesn't.
But that's your call.
Meanwhile, bad faith!
:-)
Tick, tick, tick!
One minute remaining!
BB, you linked to BEST as evidence that the land-based records are better than the satellites; that's a leap of faith I think; any way Muller co-authors BEST with Curry, who I recall you guys are skanky about.
Even I can understand the issues with BEST's latest effort where they 'prove' there is no UHIE.
No UHIE?
Anyway, luke won't be pleased but here is my critique of BEST's no UHIE 'paper',
http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2013/05/new-ten-worst-ag…
I know what this is all about, of course, because I am not a child.
Provide a published study that justifies your assertion.
Go on.
Do it now.
Tick, tick, tick!
Bad faith!
:-) :-) :-)
You're making a claim against me - you're saying bad faith defend your honour and back up your sleight or be a big fat lying prick.
Liar liar - can't back up your slur can .... pussy !
That's not quite what I was asking you for, Luke!
:-)
Try again!
TICK, TICK, TICK!
There are links from you to von Storch's latest non-peer reviewed 1998, cherry-picked bloviating. Are those your "references"? Really??
You are crap at this, Luke. Sorry to pop your bubble, but it needs saying.
Let me break it down for you.
1/. Provide a published study that justifies your assertion.
Go on.
Do it now.
2/. Link to the blog debate with Kellow.
Go on.
Do it now.
Hope that clarifies any confusion.
TICK, TICK, TICK!
;-)
Not cherry picked. Lucia supports independently. So does Spencer. You're history fuck nuts.
If there is no issue - why do have a discussion "the pause" ?
And von Storch is ? and you are - some fucking loon.
And times up on Kellow.... you gutless wonder. You squat to piss. I spit on your whole thesis - you're a flake - now get off our blog.
Indeed I am.
So why the fuck don't you defend yourself against it?
TICK
TICK
TICK
?
chek the null hypothesis is the baseline hypothesis.
The Klimatariat turned their back on the null hypothesis, ie global warming and cooling is a natural phenomenon, instead they sought an alternative hypothesis that CO2 was increasing temperatures.
It has proved very lucrative over the past few decades, but the party is drawing to a close because a harmless trace gas is innocent of the charges laid against it.
BBD - the gutless fucking wonder wasn't cock sure after all. Now this begs the question - what else is he bluffing on and not cock sure about. EVERYTHING !
This goes right to the heart of this creep.
?
1/. Provide a published study that justifies your assertion.
Go on.
Do it now.
2/. Link to the blog debate with Kellow.
Go on.
Do it now.
Luke
These are your claims.
Not mine.
So defend them.
Models falsified:
http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/report/Climate%20Change%20Ass…
No mate - you've had your go. All your mates can see you've been done.
You don't get third and 4th goes.
The models are FALSIFIED and you are ratfucked. Write the Von and tell him where he's wrong. He'd rip your nuts off and feed them to the pigs.
Do you have to misrepresent everything you lay your shit-caked hands upon, Cox?
I think that the urban heat island has been addressed by the three major groups, and now it's been addressed by us. The fact is urban heating is seen, but the fraction of the globe that's urban is so small that it's very hard to imagine that there would be a major urban heat island effect contribution." ~ Richard Muller
"
Yawn.
#84 cohenite
Can you point me to the bit where it demonstrates that the models are FALSIFIED (OMG!).
Because I can't find it.
cohenite @# 84
Perhaps you can specify which part of the 123 page IAC Report you linked supports your interpretation?
Luke
I know you can't find a study that backs up your assertion, but at least link to the blog debate with Kellow.
Come on, man! Defend your claims!
This does not look good.
Luke if vS can't be arsed putting together a publishable case, then I can't be arsed correcting him.
Settle down chek, otherwise you'll blow a poffle valve.
I see Muller and Berkeley have taken down their paper which I linked to at The venerable Climate Sceptics blog to which I unreservedly invite all the wonderful folk here to go to and have their valuable comments published.
In that paper Muller and his group prove that the UHIE, if it does exist, is inconsequential; we could quibble as to whether something which is so slight as to be immeasurable actually exists but it doesn't change the fact that if it can't be measured then for attribution purposes it doesn't exist.
I could be wrong and someone may produce some fractal basis for saying an immeasurable effect still has consequence in which case I will pay all due notice of it.
So chek, fractal away and feel free to introduce the Ouroboros effect with or without sphincters.
So these are Codling's stormtroopers, eh BBD?
No wonder she needs the Heartland money.
The click-through revenue on these bozos must be minimal.
No we're not Jo's stormtroopers - just an independent maverick outfit prepared to ask some tough questions of ourselves.
Frankly it doesn't matter how Nova is funded or not funded. Is she right or wrong?
I suppose you communists would like to stifle all dissent.
You're big boys; use that great intelligence; clue, Appendix D,9. Consider “Structural uncertainty”, “Inadequate models, incomplete or competing conceptual frameworks, lack of agreement on model structure, ambiguous system boundaries or definitions, significant processes or relationships wrongly specified or not considered.”
Chek has always been a disappointment BB, but you are letting me down; question asked, question answered; man up buddy, admit your error, move on, move up and don't forget Ouroboros.
But not to answer them.
* * *
BTW, is anyone else getting lots of 505s?
You class your manufactured, think-tank bred, intellectual effluent as genuine dissent? You really are delusional.
"BTW, is anyone else getting lots of 505s?"
Not here using IE10
Thanks chek.
cohenite @ # 95
"Inadequate models, incomplete or competing conceptual frameworks, lack of agreement on model structure, ambiguous system boundaries or definitions, significant processes or relationships wrongly specified or not considered.”
You haven't the slightest clue what you're reading, do you Cox? It's all just black shapes on white background to you.