September 2013 Open Thread

The thread, there is more.

More like this

Quick, here's a distraction! It's strange, but over the weekend we've had several threads top out over the magical 666 comment mark that I use as a signal to kill threads. There's the ever-expanding endless thread, of course, but also the Sins of omission thread, which is now being closed, and…
I know many of the HIV threads here get very tedious and repetitive, but occasionally interesting things come out of them. Believe it or not, I've learned a lot about HIV denial over the past year and a half or so. I've long been familiar with Duesberg's objections, but it wasn't until more…
He's still complaining. Maloney is the naturopath in Maine who makes inflated claims about the efficacy of his magic drugs, and who still pops by here and now then to protest feebly, and he's still making stuff up elsewhere. It also turns out that he has a page warning the world about me and you…
By the time this appears, I should be on my way home from the AACR. For some reason, the meeting this year didn't get me all fired up the way it usually does. Perhaps I'll post in more detail about why that may have been after I get home. In the meantime, here's something I've been meaning to try…

September has arrived, hooray.

'But it’s good to see you admitting that he’s dishonest about it '

Abbott is not being dishonest, he's passionate about the idea, but ultimately he his pragmatic and when he realises CO2 doesn't cause global warming ..... he will drop DAP off the end of a cliff and demob the green army.

El Gordo - you realise Nova, Spencer and Lindzen all think that CO2 causes some level of global warming. You're in a very small club there.

That's more like it, Luke!

Please do keep critiquing the physics denial! Every little helps!

:-)

That is true Luke, the Denialati really are a disgrace.

On the other page Luke put up a link on Antarctica, which showed a high accumulation of snow in the 1370s and later in the 1610s.

The LIA does appear to be universal, unless someone wants to make the argument that a build up of snow in Antarctica is due to warming.

Anyway, methinks its a quiet sun which makes the world a cooler place and has nought to do with AGW.

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V6/N4/C3.php

The LIA does appear to be universal, unless someone wants to make the argument that a build up of snow in Antarctica is due to warming.

Snow, especially in the Antarctic, which is largely thermally isolated by the Antarctic circumpolar current, is tricky.

More water vapour in a warmer atmosphere could result in more snow in the Antarctic. And then there's hemispheric antiphased temperature. Cold up North can mean warm down South. This because of the way the global thermohaline ocean circulation works.

This is why quote-mining and hyperfocus on regions are the preferred tactics of fake sceptics who neither understand the science nor respect the norms of intellectual inquiry.

And to that end here's what you should be most concerned about http://meteora.ucsd.edu/~jnorris/sio209.fa11/Johanson2009.pdf

Observations show that the Hadley cell has widened by about 2–5 degrees since 1979. This widening and the
concomitant poleward displacement of the subtropical dry zones may be accompanied by large-scale drying
near 30N and 30S. Such drying poses a risk to inhabitants of these regions who are accustomed to established
rainfall patterns.

And broadly yuh - increased snow in Antarctica due to a warming world - yep

I don’t have a problem with the LIA and MWP being universal.

We must be careful what we say! "Universal" is potentially misleading. Lots of regional climate change over many centuries with a broad cooling trend spanning the last millennium, but no global and synchronous MWP or LIA. See PAGES-2k. Not Steve McIntyre. Science in journals, not misinformation by partisan bloggers.

#9 Yes, we've had this discussion already. I pointed out at the time that Zhou et al. (2011) supports Johanson & Fu.

Drought bad. Food good.

Agreed.

Good links Luke and I have no dispute with either.

'These results support findings of some of the previous studies that showed strengthening of the tropical hydrological cycle and expansion of the Hadley cell that are potentially related to the recent global warming trends.'

'Potentially' is a big word and holds out the promise of further funding.

'There is an excellent understanding now that the multi-year historical droughts in the West are frequently linked to cool La Nin ̃a-like sea surface temperatures (SSTs) in the tropical Pacific El Nin ̃o–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) region...

Cook et al

Anyway, methinks its a quiet sun which makes the world a cooler place and has nought to do with AGW.

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V6/N4/C3.php

Good, let's test that idea:
- The Sun is quiet now.
- Is it cool now?
Answer: No. What you "methinks", is thus shown to be wrong.

Which is hardly surprising as you obtained that thought from a crank blog.

You would do much better to get accurate information from places that make it available, namely,
http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/
http://www.csiro.au/Outcomes/Climate.aspx

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 08 Sep 2013 #permalink

Craig Thomas troll

Did you intend to introduce yourself as climate troll????

:lol:
:lol:
:lol:
:lol:

By Berendaneke (not verified) on 08 Sep 2013 #permalink

BBD troll, what an credible bullshit again:

We must be careful what we say! “Universal” is potentially misleading. Lots of regional climate change over many centuries with a broad cooling trend spanning the last millennium, but no global and synchronous MWP or LIA. See PAGES-2k. Not Steve McIntyre. Science in journals, not misinformation by partisan bloggers.

:mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
:evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:
:mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
:evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:

By Berendaneke (not verified) on 08 Sep 2013 #permalink

I am happy that the Oz electorate has mandated my friend Tony Abbott to finish the climate war and abolish all CO2 insanities from public life in Australia.

:lol: :roll: :lol: :roll: :lol: :roll: :lol: :roll: :lol: :roll: :lol: :roll:
:lol: :roll: :lol: :roll: :lol: :roll: :lol: :roll: :lol: :roll: :lol: :roll:
:lol: :roll: :lol: :roll: :lol: :roll: :lol: :roll: :lol: :roll: :lol: :roll:

:lol: :roll: :lol: :roll: :lol: :roll: :lol: :roll: :lol: :roll: :lol: :roll:
:lol: :roll: :lol: :roll: :lol: :roll: :lol: :roll: :lol: :roll: :lol: :roll:
:lol: :roll: :lol: :roll: :lol: :roll: :lol: :roll: :lol: :roll: :lol: :roll:

:lol: :roll: :lol: :roll: :lol: :roll: :lol: :roll: :lol: :roll: :lol: :roll:
:lol: :roll: :lol: :roll: :lol: :roll: :lol: :roll: :lol: :roll: :lol: :roll:
:lol: :roll: :lol: :roll: :lol: :roll: :lol: :roll: :lol: :roll: :lol: :roll:

:lol: :roll: :lol: :roll: :lol: :roll: :lol: :roll: :lol: :roll: :lol: :roll:
:lol: :roll: :lol: :roll: :lol: :roll: :lol: :roll: :lol: :roll: :lol: :roll:
:lol: :roll: :lol: :roll: :lol: :roll: :lol: :roll: :lol: :roll: :lol: :roll:

By Berendaneke (not verified) on 08 Sep 2013 #permalink

'Is it cool now?'

Its cooler than it ought to be with CO2 forcing.

Craig I accept that CO2 levels are high and growing at a phenomenal rate, also that Australia has been warm this year.

There appears to be a simple correlation, but its unsound.

"El Gordo – you realise Nova, Spencer and Lindzen all think that CO2 causes some level of global warming"

How charitable of Luke. And including Nova as if she somehow has relevant expertise in anything??? Given Nova's shoddy scientific credentials, the next thing he'll be writing is to say that his grandma, a couple of local drunks and his next door neighbor also believe that C02 causes some level of global warming. After all, they have about as much to say as Nova, so why not dredge up anybody?

You are a real hoot, Luke. Keep it up.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 09 Sep 2013 #permalink

el gordo
September 9, 2013

‘Is it cool now?’

Its cooler than it ought to be with CO2 forcing.

Last La Nina was the warmest La Nina ever.

It isn't cool, it is in fact warm.

What it's "ought to be" doesn't exclude expected variability. What it *does* exclude is the kind of "coolness" wrongly predicted by McLean, Lindzen, etc... based on their faulty low-sensitivity models.
The current warmth having proven their models wrong, is it too much to expect that we no longer hear from these people with their provenly wrong ideas any more?

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 09 Sep 2013 #permalink

Jeff Harvey
September 9, 2013

“El Gordo – you realise Nova, Spencer and Lindzen all think that CO2 causes some level of global warming”

How charitable of Luke. And including Nova as if she somehow has relevant expertise in anything???

I read what Luke wrote as meaning, "Even crank-loon Jo Nova doesn't deny the Greenhouse Effect, El Gordo."
First time I've thought a Luke intervention was useful.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 09 Sep 2013 #permalink

Wonderful recovery of Arctc sea ice extent!! Have a look:

September 8 values:
2007: 4194521
2008: 4503523
2009: 5151359
2010: 4769046
2011: 4287925
2012: 3300795
2013: 4861800

What a nice coincidence with current political down-turning of climate scoundrels and greenpissers.

:lol: :cool: :lol: :cool: :lol: :cool: :lol: :cool: :lol: :cool:

By Berendaneke (not verified) on 09 Sep 2013 #permalink

I confess here openly that I don't like James Hansen and his GISS, as the climate delusionists there draw the excellent name and reputation of NASA into ugly dirt. There are many astronauts, among them the world famous moon astronauts who hate to be offended by green lefty eco fundamentalists in NASA GISS who have nothing to to with aeronautics. What a shame for NASA to host such mean pseudoscientists like Hansen, Schmidt, etc.

:evil: :twisted: :evil: :twisted: :evil: :twisted: :evil: :twisted:

By Berendaneke (not verified) on 09 Sep 2013 #permalink

Keep an eye on Indi (my electorate). Anti-science shadow Minister for Science Sophie Mirabella might just get the boot. Fingers crossed! Ugly Sophie was in a "safe" seat with a 9% margin. Independent Cathy McGowan ran a brilliant campaign and is currently slightly ahead. It will be close.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2013/guide/indi/

'Last La Nina was the warmest La Nina ever.'

Link?

"(Reuters) - The 2013 Atlantic hurricane season, which forecasters had predicted would be more active than normal, has turned out to be something of a dud so far as an unusual calm hangs over the tropics.
As the season heads into the historic peak for activity, it may even enter the record books as marking the quietest start to any Atlantic hurricane season in decades.'

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/07/us-weather-hurricanes-idUSBRE…

The failed prediction list and the sea ice are steadily growing :)

Sceptics and the Denialati disagree on this minor matter of CO2 but its no big deal, in a couple of years I may be forced to concede that this harmless trace gas might create a little warming.

Waiting ... waiting ... for our cooling tipping point, which would prove beyond doubt that CO2 plays an insignificant part in climate change and is innocent of all charges laid against it.

"Waiting … waiting … for our cooling tipping point,"

Hi el, you know that when it happens it will be blamed on co2, lol

AGW is unfalsifiable, so I wouldn't put it past them.

"What surprises me is to see “Luke” continuing to post as late as 8 September. I had assumed his/their commission was to expire on 7 September."

Mate when you're independently wealthy with some quality coal industry shares - I can be here 24 x 7 if needed.

El Gordo - pretty well any serious contrarian (not some slayer fuckhead) would give you 1C for 2x CO2. This is seen to be unremarkable and well accepted.

#34

1C/2xCO2 is already *falsified* by the 0.8C from ~280ppm -> 400ppm!

"Serious" is not the word I would use to describe that claim! Not least since it doesn't work even if you imagine the climate system to be in near equilibrium to ~400ppm!

But it isn't. Not even close.

:-)

Mate when you’re independently wealthy with some quality coal industry shares – I can be here 24 x 7 if needed.

So, Gina does tickle your fancy, now there is a surprise.

@BBD ridiculous

1C/2xCO2 is already *falsified* by the 0.8C from ~280ppm -> 400ppm!

What utter idiocy!!! You mentally ill person attribute a deceivingly calculated 0.8C increase entirely to a CO2 increase. You idiot should look at IPPC TAR to see what even the IPCC admitted as "low level of scientific understanding"! Read, you mental dwarf without knowledge and abstain from excrenenting further lies, LIAR!!!!!

By Berendaneke (not verified) on 09 Sep 2013 #permalink

BBD - pity the full 20th century temperature rise isn't attributed to CO2 - try harder !

From Lionel's link.

'However, 2012 wound up besting 2011 for the warmest La Niña year on record. In addition, global average ocean temperatures also set a record for the warmest La Niña year.'

"I can be here 24 x 7 if needed"

You're not needed, except in your own mind,. So get lost.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 09 Sep 2013 #permalink

From our resident psychopath:

"Wonderful recovery of Arctic sea ice extent!"

What about ice thickness? Oh, let's not go down there....

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 09 Sep 2013 #permalink

'pretty well any serious contrarian'

In 18 months time I expect to become a serious contrarian, until then I'll hang with the Denialati.

Karen, you have the wrong link. Try Exxon Secrets. There's where the real profiteers come into play. And this corporate giant is far more of an appropriate metaphor for the devil. Too bad you're too dumb to realize it.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 09 Sep 2013 #permalink

BBD – pity the full 20th century temperature rise isn’t attributed to CO2 – try harder !

Really? What else was it?

AGW is unfalsifiable, so I wouldn’t put it past them.

Mendacious troll ignores the several ways we've pointed out that it can be falsified several times in the past.

News at 11.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 09 Sep 2013 #permalink

Read, you mental dwarf without knowledge and abstain from excrenenting further lies, LIAR!!!!!

Freddy, you cannot even understand a simple graph and repeated, clear explanations of your stupid errors.

So away and fuck yourself!

:-)

'Last La Nina was the warmest La Nina ever.'

That is extremely doubtful, ENSO has been around for simply ever and is unrelated to AGW, so if it was the warmest La Nina this century .....it had nothing to do with AGW.

NOAA was trying it on.

so if it was the warmest La Nina this century …..it had nothing to do with AGW.

A particularly stupid assertion, Gordy!

Lionel and JeFfErY, I take it that you both are quite happy about the planned geoengineering experiments.

Your exxon secrets rubbish is no big deal, everyone has to eat.

How about you guys throw up a few links showing political donations from renewable energy companies, and what about the intimate links between climate science, green groups, the UN, ect.
I suppose they don't need to be paid because they only drink the gravy. lol

Jeff - I'm driven on by your encouragement and I look forward to your interminable off-topic rants.

Lionel and JeFfErY, I take it that you both are quite happy about the people, corporations and the military industrial complex being in the geoengineering.

Lionel and JeFfErY, I take it that you both are quite happy about being a pair of dysfunctional birth canals.

Lionel and JeFfErY, I assume that you think that is ok for arseholes to fuck with our atmosphere if it is written at thinkprogress,

Re the latest rosegate episode, has anyone asked Prof. Tsonis whether the quote attributed to him is genuine?

Professor Anastasios Tsonis, of the University of Wisconsin, said: "We are already in a cooling trend, which I think will continue for the next 15 years at least.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10294082/Glo…

The first assertion is obviously false and the second is ripe for a betting challenge.

But given Rose's form, I'd be surprised if it isn't a fabrication, and if it is then a public statement from Tsonis would be useful for when people bring it up.

Breaking news: very cold South Pole: no sea level rise

[quote]
Current Weather Conditions:
Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station, Antarctica

(NZSP) 90-00S 00-00E 2835M
Conditions at

2013.09.09 1150 UTC
Wind from the NE (050 degrees) at 20 MPH (17 KT) gusting to 29 MPH (25 KT)
Visibility less than 1 mile
Sky conditions mostly cloudy
Weather Blowing snow
Freezing fog
Temperature -65 F (-54 C)
Windchill -106 F (-77 C)
Pressure (altimeter) 28.05 in. Hg (949 hPa)

[end quote]

No ice melting on the South Pole, because too cold, therefore no sea level rise.

hahaha, Doltoids, bite your toes in your anger, hahaha

@Jeff: Biodiversity is not affected in Antarctica by " Global Warming", you moron

By Berendaneke (not verified) on 09 Sep 2013 #permalink

Thanks chek. I do remember that, but this looks like it's being presented as something he's said recently. It seems to me that either way (real quote or not) it would be a good place to apply some heat. I haven't really been keeping up lately so wasn't sure if he's already responded to it or been asked.

Freddy

You are an ignorant fuck!

The mechanism by which the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) is destabilised isn't surface melting!

It is subsurface melting by advected warm water which causes embayed ice shelf collapse which in turn speeds the outflow rate of major glaciers draining the ice sheet. At the same time, seawater begins to penetrate further beneath the edge of the WAIS, which is a marine ice sheet grounded below sea level on a retrograde grounding slope. It is therefore highly unstable. This is why the WAIS has collapsed many times in the past (the last time around was the Eemian interglacial when it was the major contributor to at least 5m increase in mean sea level).

You clearly know absolutely NOTHING about this topic!

So why not take the hint and fuck off? You are just a ranting loon and we've all had enough of your stupid blether.

Dave R

I find it hard to believe that Tsonis actually said "cooling trend". I'm sure we've all read S&T and all know about the step-change climate shift hypothesis, but nowhere IIRC do the authors propose a cooling trend. So the most likely outcome is that Rose is lying. He did this recently to James Annan, who extracted an apology.

Karen

#52
#55
#56
and
#57

Your record is stuck. But even then that is the first time it has been quite so obvious.

"@Jeff: Biodiversity is not affected in Antarctica by ” Global Warming”, you moron"

Please supply some peer-reviewed articles showing this, Berendaneke. Of course you can't. Like all the other garbage you spew out here, its off the top of your psycohpathic little head.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 09 Sep 2013 #permalink

As if it needs pointing out, ranting right wing loon and all-round knucklehead Freddyfred couldn't be more wrong regarding biological impacts of AGW in the Antarctic. But then, we knew that.

"The Scotia Sea/Antarctic Peninsula region has been experiencing alterations due to rapid climatic change
that may exceed the natural abilities of many organisms to cope, especially without the food-back loops in
place brought by a naturally structured foodweb. Particularly in the marine environment, which is predicted
to go through profound changes as a result of climate change, adaptation strategies need to be adopted.
In this region, the foodweb is dominated by euphausids, and in particular Antarctic krill (Euphausia
superba), which support the energetic demands of most of the abundant predator populations still remaining
(Croxall et al., 1988) and also a commercial fishery. The life history and demography of Antarctic krill are
intimately tied to seasonal sea ice conditions, climate, and the physical forcing of ocean currents. Key
spawning, recruitment and nursery areas of krill are located along the Western Antarctic Peninsula; these
krill are then advected northward into the Scotia Sea (Constable et al., 2003). The climate in this area is
warming rapidly (Ducklow 2007, Montes-Hugo et al. 2009), and as a result, the extent and duration of winter sea ice are being reduced (Parkinson 2002; Stammerjohn et al. 2009)".

el gordo
September 9, 2013

‘Last La Nina was the warmest La Nina ever.’

That is extremely doubtful, ENSO has been around for simply ever and is unrelated to AGW, so if it was the warmest La Nina this century …..it had nothing to do with AGW.

Come on El Gordo, do try to think:
ENSO represents variability: El Nino=hot, La Nina=Cool.
and yet,
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Jan-OctGlobalLandOceanTemperatureA…
2012 was hotter than any previous La Nina year, AND hotter than any EL Nino year prior to 1998.

There is a signal there, that is overriding the natural variation we see from the ENSO cycle: a strong warming signal.

As we know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and as we know there is an energy imbalance between solar radiation coming into the system, and radiation leaving the system for space, we know what is causing that signal: the increase in CO2 from 280ppm top 400ppm over the last 150 years.

400ppm CO2 is entirely novel in the history of our species on this planet.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 09 Sep 2013 #permalink

Quite.

C'mon Gordon. Put two and two together and stick it to the Carbon Barons who'll destroy indiscriminately to live in a shiny house paid for by morons who think it's the natural order.

'Despite the original forecasts, major climate research centres now accept that there has been a “pause” in global warming since 1997.'

Hate media.

“About half of the events … reveal compelling evidence that human-caused change was a [contributing] factor,” said NOAA National Climatic Data Center Director Thomas Karl'

Still clutching at straws, making shit up to fit the meme. Did I mention that CO2 is a harmless trace gas?

Did I mention that CO2 is a harmless trace gas?

Yes you did, Gordon.
You're nothing if not an brainless empty barrel with a few meaningless crank memes rattling around inside.

ENSO is a major CC driver and with a cool IPO in place it stands to reason that there will be few El Nino over the next 15 years. This will keep temperatures cool.

Let me correct #73:
"You’re nothing if not a brainless empty barrel with a few meaningless crank memes rattling around inside who learns nothing.

You've been shown cycles neither add or subtract but it just won't sink in will it? Desperately clinging to your unfounded notions and crank ideas is all you can do.

'...who learns nothing.'

We have much to learn about the complex processes involved.

Contrarian Blogs

'A network of 171 individual blogs is identified, with three blogs in particular found to be the most central: Climate Audit, JoNova and Watts Up With That.

'These blogs predominantly focus on the scientific element of the climate debate, providing either a direct scientifically-based challenge to mainstream climate science, or a critique of the conduct of the climate science system, and appear to be less preoccupied with other types of scepticism that are prevalent in the wider public debate such as ideologically or values-motivated scepticism.

'It is possible that these central blogs in particular are not only acting as translators between scientific research and lay audiences, but, in their reinterpretation of existing climate science knowledge claims, are filling a void by opening up climate science to those who may have been previously unengaged by the mainstream knowledge process and, importantly, acting themselves as public sites of alternative expertise for a climate sceptical audience.

Amelia Sharmanab

el gordo
September 9, 2013

ENSO is a major CC driver and with a cool IPO in place it stands to reason that there will be few El Nino over the next 15 years. This will keep temperatures cool.

No, El Gordo, ENSO doesn't drive global climate change, ENSO is a cycle (or a nest of cycles, even) and that cycle does not explain the current warming trend.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 09 Sep 2013 #permalink

ENSO is a major CC driver...

Says el gordo for the umpteenth time, after having been corrected umpteen - 1 times. The same applies to most of his other naked assertions. What's the point of saying it again, el gordo, unless either (a) you think if you repeat it often enough it might suddenly become true, or (b) you like the intellectual humiliation of making public declaration of bollocks?

Go back to your jail thread, el gordo. Anyone who wants to can reiterate why you are wrong ... and wrong ... and wrong ... and wrong ... and wrong ... over there.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 09 Sep 2013 #permalink

So let me get this right... ENSO is insignificant and AGW is all, no doubt about it we are fkn doomed. Why didn't someone warn me?

Doltoid eco fundamentalists and CO2 addicts, there is one fundamental problem which post-normal 'climatology' cannot overcome:

It is conceivable that the greenhouse gas-induced changes, if in effect they have occurred, are too small to be measured.

Basta!

By Berendaneke (not verified) on 09 Sep 2013 #permalink

#77.... the assessment by Sharmanab that the three identified blogs are "less preoccupied [than other contrarian blogs] with...ideologically or values-motivated scepticism" is just nonsense,simply bullshit....thanks for the giggle.

I haven't seen anyone making the unqualified statement "ENSO is insignificant".

They say in the context of discussions about climate change that ENSO isn't driving the long term warming trend. They also say that it is not driving any significant trend in the radiative imbalance at the top of the atmosphere (which is driving climate change, including producing that long term warming trend as very basic physics indicates that it must).

This has been explained over and over in any number of good resources on the basics of climate science, and quite often directly to you on this site. Your repetition in the face of this knowledge looks to be pathological.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 09 Sep 2013 #permalink

#81 ....says the clown who added 144 emoticons to one of his offerings back up the page...what a fool you are!

...thanks for the giggle.

The suggestion that they "...predominantly focus on the scientific element of the climate debate..." was worth a LOL here.

And the final paragraph was simply ROFLworthy due to its cluelessness and internal inconsistency.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 09 Sep 2013 #permalink

Deltoid focusses more on the science than politics.

Luke, if you're there, could you give me a couple of paragraphs on the part ENSO, SAM and STR play in AGW?

#85, I followed a link using Sharmanab's name, and find some really naive nonsense "Mapping the Climate Sceptical Blogosphere",with abstract beginning:

"While mainstream scientific knowledge production has been extensively examined in the academic literature, comparatively little is known about alternative networks of scientific knowledge production."

Hmm, does she really think that pseudo-sceptic blogs can reasonably be described as being involved in "scientific knowledge production" ?? Jesus wept!

el gordo
September 10, 2013

Deltoid focusses more on the science than politics.

Luke, if you’re there, could you give me a couple of paragraphs on the part ENSO, SAM and STR play in AGW?

El Gordo, ENSO is a cycle - it is a process which dows no of itself create energy or otherwise add energy to the system.
The energy being added to the system is the energy coming from the Sun.

I wonder if you have the potential to understand that a process that doesn't create energy, but just moves energy about within the system, is thus by definition not a driver of global warming?

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 10 Sep 2013 #permalink

Whether AGW influences ENSO is a debate in itself. There has been a recent discussion on trend to a central Pacific form of ENSO called El Nino Modoki. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7263/full/nature08316.html http://www.cawcr.gov.au/staff/sbp/journal_articles/Power_Smith_GRL_2007…
But ..... http://www.cawcr.gov.au/staff/sbp/journal_articles/GW_the_SOI_Power_Koc…

Betrand Timbal (BoM) in the SEACI project looking at southern MDB rainfall decline found an interaction with the strength (not location) of the sub-tropical ridge. STRi has increased in line with global mean temperature. And the behaviour only occurred in GCMs with increased greenhouse forcing. So STRi increase may be a symptom of AGW changing global circulation patterns. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.3406/abstract

http://www.cawcr.gov.au/publications/technicalreports/CTR_026.pdf

Stratospheric ozone depletion and tropospheric greenhouse increases in models reproduce the positive phase of the southern annular mode (SAM) which again has rainfall implications for Australia. But again this is hypothesised to be a feature of the combined anthropogenic impacts.

But for the kicker ! http://2risk.wordpress.com/2013/06/21/sam-enso-divorce/

'...is thus by definition not a driver of global warming?'

No, but I'm convinced its a driver of climate change.

#90, yes, of course you would be...that is worth a LOL!

'The rise in global average temperature over the last century has halted since roughly the year 2000, despite the fact that the release of CO2 into the atmosphere is still increasing.

'It is suggested here that this interruption has been caused by the suspension of the near linear (+ 0.5 °C/100 years or 0.05 °C/10 years) temperature increase over the last two centuries, due to recovery from the Little Ice Age, by a superposed multi-decadal oscillation of a 0.2 °C amplitude and a 50~60 year period, which reached its positive peak in about the year 2000—a halting similar to those that occurred around 1880 and 1940.

'Because both the near linear change and the multi-decadal oscillation are likely to be natural changes (the recovery from the Little Ice Age (LIA) and an oscillation related to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), respectively), they must be carefully subtracted from temperature data before estimating the effects of CO2.'

Syun-Ichi Akasofu

Climate is not a bouncing ball Gordy. There is no "recovery" from the LIA. Climate change is forced. C20th climate change is increasingly forced by the rising RF from CO2.

"Recovery" from the LIA is magical thinking. Akasofu doesn't know what he is talking about. He should stick to auroras.

No, but I’m convinced its a driver of climate change.

Climate variations are usually related to cyclical phenomena like seasons, ENSO, IOD and similar events that cause local or widespread or global changes in temperatures and precipitation.

Climate change, in this case AGW but it could just as easily be Milankovitch forcing, is driven by fairly simple physics changing the total energy content of the ocean-atmosphere system. Climate change does not mean that climate variations involving the redistribution of energy within the systems cease - it just changes the baselines around which the variations occur.

Remember that anthropogenic climate change could just as easily have a cooling effect as a warming effect. If technology required us to dig huge holes or blow up mountains to expose, fracture and aerosolise CO2 absorbing minerals rather than to extract and to burn CO2 producing fossils, we would have accelerated the gradual cooling of our interrupted progress towards the next glaciation. As it happens, we've probably skipped that one unless we start digging-huge-holes-blowing-up-mountains of CO2 absorbing minerals on a large scale.

Fatso.

Do you know when the last time was that a statistically-significant amount of 'global' warming was detectable in a 13-year period?

For bonus points, do you know how many times since 1970 there have been statistically-identifiable 'global' warming events that were detectable within a 13-year period?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 10 Sep 2013 #permalink

'Did you know that the editor of the journal that published Akosofu’s latest rubbish resigned over it?'

Yes, Watts is running the story, but its hardly rubbish. That's your value judgement.

That’s your value judgement.

No, it isn't. I outlined why above. If you actually bothered to read Chris Brierly's statement, you would see that it's not *his* value judgement either:

For example:

The paper also states that the upward trend is solely a recovery from the Little Ice Age, rather than having a strong anthropogenic component. This assertion was not tested in the paper and would have been falsified if it had been. A response shall be published in the same journal doing just that. The reason I resigned from the editorial board was not this false assertion, but rather the poor application of the scientific method in the paper (i.e. not testing the proposed hypotheses).

My emphasis.

Your intellectual laziness is tiresome, Gordy.

One must therefore conclude that this paper does not pass five of the criteria for a distinction at the MSc level, and is therefore logically not of sufficient quality to deserve publication. It appears that neither the three reviewers nor the handling editor of Climate reached the same conclusion. This has made me realize that the journal does not hold the standards that I feel should be strived for in science, leading to my resignation from the editorial board.

That should be "Brierley" btw.

'Climate change is forced.'

No, AGW is supposedly forced.

"These blogs predominantly focus on the scientific element of the climate debate"

Gordo had me on the floor with this quote. Let's see a list of peer-reviewed articles amongst the people involved in running these three denier blogs.

Not difficult. You can count em' on one hand. They aren't science blogs. They are advocacy blogs - like all of those run by AGW deniers.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 10 Sep 2013 #permalink

'Remember that anthropogenic climate change could just as easily have a cooling effect as a warming effect.'

That's a bit farfetched, but if fracking becomes universally popular we could reduce human induced CO2 output (similar to the US) and then wait to see what happens.

Gordy, AGW *is* a forced climate change. Sometimes you astonish even me.

I see you have already abandoned your championing of Akasofu and jumped on to the next thing. But of course we have! We are on a new page! So for you, everything that has gone before has simply vanished as if it never existed, including multiple corrections to your bollocks about ENSO forcing a long-term trend (my own included).

How is it that I can remember correcting your stupid errors on this point very clearly and you apparently cannot? Are you a fuckwit, Gordy? Is your mind going? What can be the matter with you?

Because Gordy, trust me on this, something is profoundly wrong with your brain.

Chris Brierley
http://www.geog.ucl.ac.uk/about-the-department/people/academics/chris-b…

This guy is just a sook, he appears to be a shithead looking for some limelight and funding, he hasn't contributed anything of value to climate science,

He says, "I use climate models", :)
lol....we know how good "climate models" are, don't we :)

On the Present Halting of Global Warming
http://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/1/1/4/pdf
It is a good paper and worth a read.

"Halting" is a more accurate word than "hiatis", 17 years!

I think this blog is an advocacy blog too Jeff Harvey.
I am starting to question your assertions about science and scientists and who is and isn't qualified to comment.
There are many, many scientists and many others who have science in their tertiary qualifications who have chosen no to work in academia (as you appear to do) or for Government organisations.
These people are not required to publish in peer reviewed science journals as those in academia and Government organisations are. Just because their employment description doesn't require it of them doesn't mean they are less capable or less knowledgeable or even less believable. It also doesn't mean they are not qualified to comment on the work of others.
The number of publications in peer reviewed science journals and the number of subsequent citations are only one way to measure the efficacy and intelligence of people who have science qualifications or who work in scientific fields.

#100...all climate change is forced

#4, Brierley may 'appear to be a shithead' to you, Karen, because you are an unambiguously stupid fuckwit.

'I see you have already abandoned your championing of Akasofu'

No, he is good in my book.

He is wrong, Gordy. And you have just had a clear demonstration of how and why he is wrong. So maintaining that he is "good in your book" makes you a fuckwit, does it not?

#8, ....despite his again asserting without any mechanisms or physical reasoning...as in, 'work'... his dogma about the 'LIA rebound' ,Akasofu is 'good'....of course he is for you, you're a breathholder.

That’s your value judgement.

No, it's not a value judgement. The argument made is invalid, regardless of one's "values". Your framing of aspects of climate science as "value judgements" is most revealing of your own unscientific process, but your projection of that unscientific process on to everyone else is mistaken.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 10 Sep 2013 #permalink

here is an astute commenter from wuwt...

"It is worth comparing the execrable behaviour Chris Brierly with the courageous behaviour of Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen.

Brierly has resigned from an Editorial Board because he objects to a paper being accepted for consideration for publication. Note, it is consideration for publication of the paper which has prompted his resignation. If the paper were lacking in quality or otherwise flawed then peer review (i.e. consideration for publication) would have revealed the flaw(s) and, therefore, the consideration would have rejected the paper for publication.

By his resignation prior to consideration of the paper, Brierly has demonstrated that it is NOT the quality of the paper which he dislikes. Therefore, his dislike can only be of the author of the paper, Syun Akasofu, or of the information provided in the paper. Neither reason is a proper objection to the paper.

Thus, Brierly’s resignation can only be an attempt to harm the scientific process which requires the full exchange and questioning of information.

Compare that to the behaviour of Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen who is the Editor of Energy & Environment (E&E). For some years she has wanted to retire but an appropriate successor has been hard to find, and this is not surprising. The so-called ‘Hockey Team’ has attacked and reviled her and her reputation. In attempt to stop E&E publishing one paper they tried to get her sacked from her university position.

The reason for these attacks on Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen are clear. With her as Editor E&E publishes both pro and anti AGW papers. The anti papers included the initial papers of McIntyre and McKitrick which disproved the statistical methods used to create Mann’s ‘hockey stick’. And included a paper reporting the misdemeanors of Wei-Chyung Wang in compiling data from China to supposedly disprove UHI effects. And included etc..

When the history of the AGW-scare is written then Brierly will not merit a footnote. He is merely a coward who runs from the truth. But – at the other end of the scale – there is at least one courageous journal Editor who publishes papers on their merit so science can winnow for the truth."

Remember that anthropogenic climate change could just as easily have a cooling effect as a warming effect.

Gordo, you omitted the rest of my comment.

If... we... used... different... technologies...

... that resulted in absorption rather than production of CO2 it is absolutely true that we could drive cooling rather than warming.

I realise that this contradicts the unphysical notion that there is no such thing as a greenhouse gas, but it's true anyway.

Sonja B-C is a nobody with no relevant credentials whatsoever. She is, however, politicised and profoundly partisan. So how you can criticise Dr Brierly as you do at #4 then blow a trumpet for a charlatan like S B-C is baffling. Perhaps you too are just a politicised liar? Could that be it?

Or perhaps you are simply a fuckwit. You have had a clear demonstration as to why Akasofu is wrong and yet you continue to repeat Teh Stupid.

By his resignation prior to consideration of the paper, Brierly has demonstrated that it is NOT the quality of the paper which he dislikes.

This, for example, is utterly false.

Here, again, is the quote I provied from Dr Brierley's resignation statement:

The paper also states that the upward trend is solely a recovery from the Little Ice Age, rather than having a strong anthropogenic component. This assertion was not tested in the paper and would have been falsified if it had been. A response shall be published in the same journal doing just that. The reason I resigned from the editorial board was not this false assertion, but rather the poor application of the scientific method in the paper (i.e. not testing the proposed hypotheses).

[...]

One must therefore conclude that this paper does not pass five of the criteria for a distinction at the MSc level, and is therefore logically not of sufficient quality to deserve publication. It appears that neither the three reviewers nor the handling editor of Climate reached the same conclusion. This has made me realize that the journal does not hold the standards that I feel should be strived for in science, leading to my resignation from the editorial board.

It is clear and unambiguous. Either you are too stupid to understand what is being said (and should not therefore be commenting on the matter) or you are being dishonest.

The anti papers included the initial papers of McIntyre and McKitrick which disproved the statistical methods used to create Mann’s ‘hockey stick’.

No, they didn't. They were actually junk. This was settled long ago, here in the real world. Only muppets and liars repeat this long-debunked lie.

Just a question that occurred to me. (Talking to husband about this stuff.)

Not just gordy, anyone who denies the properties of CO2. The question. How do you think "heat seeking" missiles work?

And no, they don't "seek" heat.

"No, they didn’t. They were actually junk. This was settled long ago,"

Denier!

'Infrared homing refers to a passive missile guidance system which uses the emission from a target of electromagnetic radiation in the infrared part of the spectrum to track and follow it. Missiles which use infrared seeking are often referred to as "heat-seekers", since infrared (IR) is just below the visible spectrum of light in frequency and is radiated strongly by hot bodies."

co2 ?

There are many, many scientists and many others who have science in their tertiary qualifications who have chosen no to work in academia (as you appear to do) or for Government organisations.

You need to be far more careful in your terminology because the implication you draw from this imprecise claim is false.

A Bachelor's degree in something science related is a tertiary qualification, but it isn't sufficient to demonstrate that one knows what one is talking about in a research field. For one thing, it is not a research degree.

A Master's degree in something science related is a tertiary qualification, but it isn't sufficient either. It does not demonstrate an ability to do unguided research at the basic level of competence required to operate in the professional field. And some Master's degrees are purely by coursework, so they have zero research component!

A Ph.D. in something science related is a tertiary research qualification, but it isn't sufficient to indicate competence in an area unless the subject is something that was researched and published as part of the thesis. A biological science degree provides zero indication of physics research competence and vice-versa - and the same applies to finer grained divisions of the set of topics that make up "science". At this level the graduate has cleared the "can do research (with some supervision, and should be able to start researching on their own)" bar, but that doesn't mean they have any demonstrated competence outside of the (typically narrow) sub-field within which their thesis topic lies.

Usually people who want a research career then go on to a post-doctoral position (with further supervision and collaboration!) where they are expected to provide additional demonstrations of their ability to do quality research of their own - demonstrations that are almost always based on publishing successful papers in peer-reviewed journals (unless it's corporate non-public research). Because that's how the joint project of science is advanced, and the influence your published ideas have in the field is the best metric we have of your research abilities and success.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 10 Sep 2013 #permalink

From the Miller et al. paper we see a regional MWP and LIA.

'Sea ice was rarely present on the North Iceland shelf from 800 AD until the late 13th Century, when an abrupt rise in sea-ice proxies suggests a rapid increase in Arctic Ocean sea ice export, followed by another increase $1450 AD, after which sea ice was continuously present until the 20th Century.

'The increase in sea ice north of Iceland at the start of the LIA, and its persistence throughout the LIA, supports our modeling experiments suggesting explosive volcanism and associated feedbacks resulted in a self-sustaining expanded sea-ice state beginning 1275–1300 AD.'

Karen

I know about all this. And it is all evidence that the climate system is moderately sensitive to radiative perturbation.

What is your point? Are you one of the Konfused who thinks that we are saying that all climate change is caused by CO2? Is that what's going on here?

Explosive volcanism increases stratospheric aerosols which reflect more solar energy back into space, so cooling the surface and triggering *positive* ice albedo feedback. Etc.

As usual, I get the very strong impression that you are parroting some denier crap from somewhere else without the slightest understanding of the actual science involved.

#22,ad nauseum stupid from you Kaz. Did Akasofu cite the Miller et al 2012 in building a case to background his presumption of a matter-of-course LIA climate 'rebound'? No. Do Miller et al 2012 use their findings to argue in their paper that post LIA climate shift is a 'rebound' one? No. Does Watts,who you cite in absence of a clue of your own on the real world, have a reputation as anything other than a narcissist and hypocrite who attempts to invert reality? No.

Remind me about the accuracy of the poodah model projections. :) Falsified I believe

No. Who does millennial hindcasts? You do spout the most utter shite, Karen.

And like another fuckwit here, you do not understand the correct use of the term "falsified" - so stop throwing it around.

#18

Denier!

No, Karen. You are the one indulging in denial. M&M turned out to be wrong. Bad analysis. Junk. Nobody has ever shown the Mannean hockey stick to be seriously flawed, and the most recent and wide-ranging research provides strong validation for it.

Since you are a fuckwit I will skip the analysis in favour of a pretty picture.

Figure caption:

Green dots show the 30-year average of the new PAGES 2k reconstruction. The red curve shows the global mean temperature, according HadCRUT4 data from 1850 onwards. In blue is the original hockey stick of Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1999 ) with its uncertainty range (light blue). Graph by Klaus Bitterman.

Source.

“the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.”

Popper

The number of publications in peer reviewed science journals and the number of subsequent citations are only one way to measure the efficacy and intelligence of people who have science qualifications or who work in scientific fields.

Jeff's point is not to try to measure intelligence or perhaps even efficacy of individuals (and measuring citations etc. isn't trying to measure those attributes either). It's to try and give people outside of a particular field tools to measure claimants' research competence - or more specifically in this context, their lack of research competence for use as a time-saving filter - within a specific (sub-)discipline.

If you haven't published a single successful peer reviewed paper in a discipline then you haven't demonstrated even basic competence in a discipline, especially NOT the kind of strong competence needed to reliably conclude that almost the entire discipline is mistaken.

Hence, it's a valid and useful shortcut to point out that someone making a contrarian argument about a field has no demonstrated research competence in the field. Their argument should generally be treated no more seriously than a random argument from someone you passed on the street, no matter if they have "tertiary qualifications" or not. Maybe one time in a million you'll reject a valid argument that way, but the other 999,999 your rejection will prove to be justified, and if you're like most of us life's way too short to go through the 999,999 in order to find the one gold needle in a haystack of bullshit.

In addition, if a valid argument can be made, it can be made in the peer-reviewed literature. Anyone can submit a paper and lack of tertiary qualifications is no barrier. If it's good enough to pass basic pre-publication peer review and isn't merely repeating something already known then it will find a journal willing to publish it. Accordingly, the lack of publication of an argument strongly suggests that an argument isn't good enough. The joint project of science and the massive distributed ongoing discussion that forms a key part of it takes place in the literature, so any argument that isn't in the peer-reviewed literature isn't part of that joint scientific process. If the claimant can't be bothered to follow the basic procedures to participate in the scientific process, then they are trying to pass off their work as part of science when it's not - but could be, if it is any good.

So this is another useful short cut that winnows out most of the ideas that won't stand up to scrutiny. Those who refuse to participate in the scientific process but want you to take their "scientific" argument seriously are asking you to wade through the bullshit haystack when (if their claims are plausible) they could place their claims into the arena where actual scientific debate happens. Feel free to spend your time wading through the haystack if you like, but don't be surprised when most other people think it's a better use of their limited time to focus on the papers that have passed basic quality checks.

And while these short cuts are very useful for professional researchers who know the field in question, they are even more important if you personally happen to NOT have the skills and knowledge in the particular sub-discipline. When you don't have the ability to reliably judge those arguments yourself (even if you are highly competent to judge arguments in a different sub-discipline), then if you want the best chance of avoiding most of the bullshit you should at least avoid wading through the haystack of non-published claims, and should probably pay a lot more attention to areas of strong consensus than to contrarian claims against a strong consensus. If those contrarian claims are robust they will eventually sway the consensus, but if you're a betting person you might want to note that most initially contrarian ideas prove to be not robust over time.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 10 Sep 2013 #permalink

Gordy

It seems too simplistic.

How the fuck would you know, you ignorant moron?

#30

Neither the models nor the Mannean hockey stick have been *falsified*.

Don't quote Popper to me, you posturing moron.

Who's feeding the Clowns references this time, I wonder?

'Are you one of the Konfused who thinks that we are saying that all climate change is caused by CO2?'

Adelady believes in anthropogenic global cooling, which smacks of hubris, but the general impression around here is that CO2 is the only driver in the 21st century.

Give up the turps BB.

"Neither the models nor the Mannean hockey stick have been *falsified*."

How does "absolutely & positively proven to be utter bullshit" sound ?

Profound Denier!

Wondering if Brierley knows anything about Cook and his “abuse of the scientific method?

SpamKan - all you have are denier myths about the hockey stick being 'broken' (which you religiously believe).

Out in the real world, it's been reinforced by EVERY subsequent study.

Gordon, Adelady was talking about a hypothetical case.
HYPOTHETICAL.
It can be found under 'H' in any dictionary.

#37

Profound Denier!

Nope. That would be you. See eg #29.

Fact - M&M did *not* demonstrate serious flaws with the Mannean hockey stick

Fact - No other millennial reconstruction since has demonstrated significant flaws in the Mannean hockey stick.

Notice that despite being presented with evidence, you are simply shouting abuse and accusations of denial.

You are a fuckwit, Karen!

#35... your 'general impression round here' gambit is a dumb lie,El Gordo, I'm surprised you attempted it....no,wait,its entirely within your modus. In fact it's your only mode: make stuff up,repeat it,and ignore any feedback you get,polite or impolite.

I challenge you to survey a monthly thread and find the backing for your 'general impression'. In fact ,you will find that informed people actually discuss a range of forcing agents;how could they not? THE WHOLE EVIDENCE BASE THING IS ABOUT DETECTION AND ATTRIBUTION WITH CONFIDENCE,you chump! The only way you can persist with your reality inversions is because you're a fuckwit who does not hesitate to lie repeatedly.

Your insanity is on painful display all the time, you poor fool. Karen,ditto,and 'she' still doesn't know the concept of falsification in science.

Give up the turps BB.

What's that supposed to mean, fuckwit?

The problems are with your mind, not mine. See above.

What's your point, Karen?

Linking to a pdf of an entire chapter in an obsolete IPCC report tells me nothing.

Please reference AR4 until AR5 is published.

#38, Cook et als methodology cannot protect you from you own stupid urge to crap on. The 'challenges' against it are trivially dismissable,and were so dismissed months ago...but,yeah,Kaz, you and mundane reality are strangers.

How did Nick escape the rubber room?

..............NURSE!!!!!!!!

I don't believe this. You are pointing to the sketch based on Lamb's long-obsolete conception of a European MWP.

Get a fucking clue, Karen.

Give up the turps BB.

Frack. There goes another irony meter.

(And what Nick said at #41.)

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 10 Sep 2013 #permalink

BBD, let me just confirm that from way up here in the nose-bleed seats where us lurkers hang, el Gordo (Karen too come to think of it) does indeed appear to be a complete and utter nutbusting fuckwit.

Miller suggested ‘explosive volcanism and associated feedbacks’ as the catalyst for a drift into the LIA, but not a word on sol.

As usual, you haven't read the reference your denier source provides you with, but instead parrot mindlessly:

Our precisely dated records demonstrate that the
expansion of ice caps after Medieval times was initiated by
an abrupt and persistent snowline depression late in the 13th
Century, and amplified in the mid 15th Century, coincident
with episodes of repeated explosive volcanism centuries
before the widely cited Maunder sunspot minimum (1645–1715 AD
[Eddy, 1976]). Together with climate modelingand supported by
other proxy climate reconstructions, our
results suggest that repeated explosive volcanism at a time
when Earth’s orbital configuration resulted in low summer
insolation across the NH acted as a climate trigger, allowing
Arctic Ocean sea ice to expand. Increased sea ice export
may have engaged a self-sustaining sea-ice/ocean feedback
unique to the northern North Atlantic region that maintained
suppressed summer air temperatures for centuries after vol-
canic aerosols were removed from the atmosphere. The
coincidence of repeated explosive volcanism with centuries
of lower-than-modern solar irradiance (Figure 2a) [Schmidt
et al., 2011] indicates that volcanic impacts were likely
reinforced by external forcing [Mann et al., 2009], but that
an explanation of the LIA does not require a solar trigger.

How did Nick escape the rubber room?

Altogether now...

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 10 Sep 2013 #permalink

As BBD demonstrates:

...but not a word on sol.

actually means "quite a few words on sol".

News at 11.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 10 Sep 2013 #permalink

'Lamb’s long-obsolete conception of a European MWP.'

** guffaw **

** guffaw **

I presume you're laughing at your own gullibility Gordon. Remember what we said about the CET last week?
Or is that conveniently forgotten again now?

Hi chekie :)

Did you miss this bit from where your NCDC graph came from Karen?

... whereas the warming after 1920 is increasingly difficult to ascribe to natural forcing.

The Overpeck et al. results confirm results of earlier regional studies that suggest the Arctic is warming like never before. The authors also discuss the significant impacts of warming across the Arctic. These impacts include glacial melting, permafrost warming, lake and forest ecology changes, and the retreating of sea-ice.

Now complete the following with me Karen: Once a fuckwit ... always a ...?

'...indicates that volcanic impacts were likely
reinforced by external forcing [Mann et al., 2009], but that
an explanation of the LIA does not require a solar trigger.'

OK I'll pay that.

But ... but ... you posted that NCDC graph (that looks to finish in 1975) didn't you Karen. What sort of deadshit are you ??

'Remember what we said about the CET last week?'

Not sure about the detail, but its along the lines of if its not satellite you can fkn forget it.

No Gordy. What we said was that the CET isn't even representative of England, let alone the UK, still less Northern Europe and the NH as a whole. Therefore claims made about all areas other than central England based on the CET are automatically invalid.

Either your mind is going or you are a liar. Which is it?

Gordon @ #64
OK play it your way, but it would have been polite for you to have warned us you've suffered serious brain damage before wasting everybody's time.

Therefore claims made about all areas other than central England based on the CET are automatically invalid.

Come now, that's awfully dismissive of you, and totally fails to account for the following facts:

a) Some parts of the record are non-instrumental, and as we all know by now all proxies are considered completely useless by "skeptics". Except for these ones, which are entirely appropriate.

b) Some parts of the record are from Utrecht, which very few people have ever considered to be located in Central England. Apart from the Holland deniers who aren't true Scotsmen skeptics, this demonstrates that the record has international global significance.

c) Some parts of the record are temperature measurements recorded in unheated rooms. Of course these are not at all subject to any kind of uncorrected Urban Indoor Heat Island effect because the rooms themselves were unheated.

So the CET is clearly a highly accurate reconstruction that represents the entire globe. Who could deny that?

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 10 Sep 2013 #permalink

Karen

#62

You are a fuckwit.

Miller et al.:

Northern Hemisphere summer temperatures over the past 8000 years have been paced by the slow decrease in summer insolation resulting from the precession of the equinoxes.

That is what the GISP2 core shows.

LOL

Karen - please stay away from paleoclimate. You go face-down every single time. Leave it alone.

Prediction, Ice Free Arctic

13 days to go :)

#67

:-)

Might have to Wegman some of that in due course!

#69

Stop changing the subject away from your stupidity, ignorance and dishonesty, Karen!

Karen of the Thermosphere replies to #68 with two items she/hopes are diversionary...what a surprise! A third item?

Yep. Item 3.

KarenMackSunspot quotes Popper as if to imply that the science of global warming is not falsifiable, or refutable, or testable.

He couldn't be more wrong. And more than that, he brings us to the point that for all the trying by thousands of professional scientists/ the scientific theory of human-caused global warming has withstood probably the greatest collective effort to refute it, in any scientific endeavour ever.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 10 Sep 2013 #permalink

Prediction, Ice Free Arctic

13 days to go :)

I presume this is the one that was 2016 plus or minus 3 years - in which case you are once again suffering from deficiencies of basic arithmetic and comprehension. That one has 13 days and 6 years to go. With that level of numeracy it's a wonder you can understand a grocery docket. (Presuming of course that you can.)

And that prediction was widely rejected in the climate science community when it was made, but what's another false implication when you've got a message to propagate, very little to work with, and an entire litany of false claims already under your belt?

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 10 Sep 2013 #permalink

Nick the stalker, did bbd #68 demonstrate a hokey shtick ?

Karen of the Thermosphere replies to #68 with two items she/hopes are diversionary...

All Gish, all the time.

For obvious reasons.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 10 Sep 2013 #permalink

#78, no just your stupidity.

"Our projection of 2013 "

" Real world
Using supercomputers to crunch through possible future outcomes has become a standard part of climate science in recent years."

"Professor Maslowski's group, which includes co-workers at Nasa and the Institute of Oceanology, Polish Academy of Sciences (PAS), is well known for producing modelled dates tha..."

"So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stm

lol

#80 keep nuffie, we were looking fer hokey pokey shhtickss :)

that would b

#80 keep UP nuffie Nick

"KarenMackSunspot quotes Popper as if to imply that the science of global warming is not falsifiable, or refutable, or testable."

Check your link barnturd, as usual, you are up shit creek with no dunny paper to wipe your lips....

Illiterate, innumerate, generally uneducated, addicted to trash blogs and stupid - although not necessarily in that order at all times.
SpamKan's the classic poster child for denialism and its future.

#82,went right over your head again. Go back and read Miller et al 2012,the paper you so enthusiastically introduced....so,people who read your posts,and remember how risible your whole act is, are 'stalking' you? Not only an idiot but paranoid, to boot...here's a suggestion: stop posting garbage and no one will read it or 'stalk' you,petal.

Lotharsson #77

Shopping docckets? Karen has repeated demonstrated that her mastery of higher maths is limited only by her number of fingers

Thinks -1 + -1 = 0
Hasn't figured out that 86N is more north than 81.5N
Can't even tell Celsius from Fahrenheit.

Gordo may be scraping the bottom of the barrel, but Karen is what you find after you've scraped the bottom of the barrel clean, cut through the bottom and dug down about fifteen feet...every post of hers is worth one of those reality-distorting triple facepalms.

#87,Oh Frank, stop 'stalking' Karen: ya know, reading those posts she chose to place on a public forum. How 'stalky' of you, you know they weren't intended for reading!

@ Bernard J. troll (#76)

utter nonsense and lies, lies, lies:

KarenMackSunspot quotes Popper as if to imply that the science of global warming is not falsifiable, or refutable, or testable.

He couldn’t be more wrong. And more than that, he brings us to the point that for all the trying by thousands of professional scientists/ the scientific theory of human-caused global warming has withstood probably the greatest collective effort to refute it, in any scientific endeavour ever.

Utter bullshit. Do you really think you will escape jail when maintaining that post-modern "Climatology" did a decent job so far? How fanatic, stubborn, stupid must you be to excrement such unspeakable bollocks, you moron.

What a ridiculous joke: "all the trying by thousands of professional scientists/ the scientific theory of human-caused global warming has withstood probably the greatest collective effort to refute it, in any scientific endeavour ever".

ANY SCIENTIFIC ENDEAVOUR EVER, NNNNOOOOOO

INSTEAD:: ANY EVIL SHAMELESS SCIENCE DEVIATION EVER

Describe in own words, no copy from your idols, two of the "greatest collective effort to refute" AGW by "climatology", you blether. You have no idea what REAL SCIENCE is, so mentally deviant are you and your church brothers already.

By Berendaneke (not verified) on 10 Sep 2013 #permalink

Thinks -1 + -1 = 0

She also thinks that axing the carbon price will save the government money rather than cost $6B.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 10 Sep 2013 #permalink

#89,oh look ,it's the Emoticon Kid again. Howdy, Karen

@91

shut up you toe, nobody has asked you, nobody wants your crap

piss off, fuckwit

By Berendaneke (not verified) on 10 Sep 2013 #permalink

Hi Nickie :)

shhheeezzzz.......why is it that I always get little doggies trying to hump my leg?

#73

Vukevic? Your serious? Oh dear, I do believe you are.

Karen, when will you learn that "referencing" dishonest cranks does not bolster your case? Especially when the claim made by the dishonest crank is utterly wrong!

This is the same problem you exhibited when you proved unable to distinguish between the Greenland Ice Sheet and the Eemian.

You are a fuckwit, Karen!

Listen all CAGW idiots

You consider yourself intelligent, however you belong to the most stupid idiots on Earth. Just copy paste morons which follow blindly their worshipped gurus. Degusting crap.

By Berendaneke (not verified) on 10 Sep 2013 #permalink

#92

Barbecue sausage fuck!

Just copy paste morons which follow blindly their worshipped gurus.

Sigh. All together now...

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 10 Sep 2013 #permalink

#95

This from the fuckwitted clown who thinks that Antarctic ice sheet disintegration will be forced by surface temperature rise...

:-)

bbd, what are you yapping on about?
You reference Mann, Marcott ect

You are a wanker, bbd!

@98 shup up, you copy paste idiot so far away from science.

You are no scientist, therefore your crap is irrelevant.

Piss off you fuckwit from this blog as your crap is worthless

By Berendaneke (not verified) on 10 Sep 2013 #permalink

you tell em Berendaneke :)

@BBD, you belong to the uemployed poor and compensate here your leper existence. piss off, fuckwit

By Berendaneke (not verified) on 10 Sep 2013 #permalink

Karen "Fluffy" Sock

At least I know the difference between the Eemian and the GIS, you silly goose, you!

'So the CET is clearly a highly accurate reconstruction that represents the entire globe. Who could deny that?'

Noice attempt at humour.

No, the CET is just regional warming and cooling in a very small area, going back a long way, yet an imperfect reconstruction because of the reasons given.

So in many respects its valueless and should never be taken too seriously.

Freddy "The Sausage" Kai

But you did rather make a quivering heap of arse-meat out of yourself over the "no Antarctic surface melt no SLR" hilarity the other day!

Surely you aren't trying to *deny* that!

Who's a frotting, frothing, know-nothing lunatic then?

:-)

#6 Gordy

You... you aren't admitting having learned something here are you?

Or is this a Poe?

“no Antarctic surface melt no SLR”

correct

#100 abusive little Emoticon Kid! He swings between babbling unjustified gloating and to towering rage! And he's pretending to be a scientist,is he?

@8 oh the clown again, more crap please, you show so wonderfully how stupid the alarmists are. More crap please, clown

By Berendaneke (not verified) on 10 Sep 2013 #permalink

Gordon @ #4

So in many respects its valueless and should never be taken too seriously.

You do realise you've just committed denier heresy and denied the cornerstone of the MWP myth? I suspect you don't, but I like surprises.

#9, you brought the crap,Emoticon Kid--I just read you witterings back up thread--you really know how to present an argument,don't you? That's actually a question:do you know how to do so,you fake?

#93,no idea,question is best asked on a pet care blog,I guess.

UAH V5.6 Global Temperature Update for August, 2013: +0.16 deg. C

point one six :)

brrrrrrr, turn on the heater

zero point one six

lol.............co2 izn doin its job too goodly :)

@11 clown, please more crap, moron

By Berendaneke (not verified) on 10 Sep 2013 #permalink

lol………….co2 izn doin its job too goodly

Or more likely yet, you haven't a fucking clue what you're talking about ( a '+' sign means 'not cooling') or the faintest clue about cumulative effects.

Duh Spamkan a '+' sign means it's getting wamer, not cooling.

#14...well that's not much of a start, is it, 'Moty Boy. Got anything to offer,you snivelling neo-lib suck-hole pretend scientist? Anything more than 'everyone's deluded 'cept me,and my pal Tony will make climate change disappear by defunding the CC' Yep,strong stuff. Well argued....

I think some of these people must have horrible car repair bills. Waddya mean that noise sounds like trouble? If I take it to a garage those clowns will just tell me it's something that costs a lot of money. My mate reckons it's just one of those one week wonders, it'll all settle back just nicely if you give it a bit of time.

And then the persistent rattle does something truly devastating and you find yourself needing a new transmission or a whole cooling system or a new engine block - all because you couldn't believe those blokes at the garage and your mate, who's always reliable, reassured you all was OK. And now it's costing you thousands rather than hundreds of dollars. Mates who agree with you on everything are not the best people to rely on when something looks to be wrong to everyone else around you.

Substitute climate for car, then flood or drought or wildfire for transmission or engine block, and it all sounds too boringly familiar.

And no, they don’t “seek” heat.

Indeed they don't. Not much heat coming from a hand held 3 volt NATO standard torch (flash-light to some) which is precisely what we used for testing the target acquisition capabilities of Firestreak and Red Top IR (big clue there for the scientific illiterates here) missiles on Sea Vixen aircraft.

'Our precisely dated records demonstrate that the expansion of ice caps after Medieval times was initiated by an abrupt and persistent snowline depression late in the 13th Century, and amplified in the mid 15th Century, coincident with episodes of repeated explosive volcanism centuries before the widely cited Maunder sunspot minimum (1645–1715 AD [Eddy, 1976]).'

Not to mention the episodes of plague that swept over much of the agriculturally active northern hemisphere resulting in a slow down in the anthropogenic emissions of GHGs and an increased draw-down of CO2 as forests made a come back. Ruddiman 2010 'Plows, Plagues, and Petroleum: How Humans Took Control of Climate'.

Now el gordolocks might like to ponder on why those plagues were so fierce. This book The Dreadful Judgement may also give you clues and give you something to ponder WRT the LIA also.

Karen

I say: "no Antarctic surface melt no SLR” and you responded (#7):

correct

Yet again confirming that you are a fuckwit!

The mechanism by which the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) is destabilised isn’t surface melting!

As we know, but you obviously don't, it is *subsurface* melting by advected warm water which causes embayed ice shelf collapse which in turn speeds the outflow rate of major glaciers draining the ice sheet. At the same time, seawater begins to penetrate further beneath the edge of the WAIS, which is a marine ice sheet, meaning that it is grounded below sea level. What's more, it has a retrograde grounding slope (google it) and is therefore highly unstable. This is presumably why the WAIS has collapsed many times in the past (the last time around was the Eemian interglacial when it was the major contributor to at least 5m increase in mean sea level).

You clearly know absolutely nothing at all about this topic! Worse still, this comment was posted on page 1 of this thread so you have almost certainly read it, which makes you a dishonest fuckwit!

Lionel A

Still no sign of Ruddiman's latest book, at least not on Amazon - any luck elsewhere?

* * *

It was predictable, but still amusing, to see the Clowns trot out a reference neither of them had read, never mind tried to understand. I wonder which denier chum-ladler fed them Miller et al. ?

Did you notice how neither Clown reacted to my initial point here, which is that Miller et al. is simply another study demonstrating that the climate system is moderately sensitive to radiative perturbation?

The sheer depth of incomprehension never ceases to amaze me. The only thing still more astonishing is that this abysmal ignorance is coupled with such absolute certainty that they are right and the standard scientific understanding is wrong.

BBD, the master of incomprehension requires comprehension from others! Poor clown without scientific background, no education in meteorology. You are fuckwitted, clown!

Examination of your ignorance: how many stations are covered in the GHCN database? Answer required, clown!

By Berendaneke (not verified) on 10 Sep 2013 #permalink

@17 too cheap crap, do better next time

Tony will let you suck, clown

By Berendaneke (not verified) on 10 Sep 2013 #permalink

#23 Sausage

Depends what you want to know. What a pointless and stupid question.

What we *all* know is that you cannot read a graph and cannot understand that strong agreement between results obtained by two different instrument types and two separate methodologies means increased confidence in those results, and that you know exactly nothing about ice sheet dynamics, sea level rise projections and paleoclimate.

Or indeed, anything else. In summary, you are an ignorant fuckwit!

And a nutter, and a sock!

Sausage

Now you remind me, you still haven't answered this question:

If CO2 is an inefficacious forcing, what physical mechanism produced the PETM?

Answer required, or it's the barbecue for you!

@25, 26 clown

your answer is crap, you know nothing, what an ill informed reply. "... depending on what ...", bullshit, clown, the answer is not depending on anything but your ignoramus wisfom, clown.

I don't believe in any paleodata coz of AGW cherrypicking "scientists". MTOY or whatever did not exist, has nothing to do with CO2, and any climate changes were always natural variability, you leper sucker.

By Berendaneke (not verified) on 10 Sep 2013 #permalink

Further proof that you literally cannot read a graph. The answer to your question will depend on whether you are asking about North America, where the vast majority of the GHCN stations are (obviously), or about the global coverage. It will depend on whether you are asking about daily or monthly reporting, about Tmin/Tmax or precipitation, or specifically snowfall/snow depth.

Get a clue, fuckwit.

I don’t believe in any paleodata

Bit of a glaring argument from incredulity there, Sausage! Logical fallacy means Sausage isn't saying anything, just making the usual shrieking sounds!

What a ridiculous figure you are!

When our insane shrieking Sausage is asked this:

If CO2 is an inefficacious forcing, what physical mechanism produced the PETM?

It screams:

MTOY or whatever did not exist, has nothing to do with CO2

There it is: a completely clueless, truly insane denier.

What a great advert for your team you are, Sausage! They should put your carious, spittle-flecked mouth on a poster!

BBD

Lionel A

Still no sign of Ruddiman’s latest book, at least not on Amazon – any luck elsewhere?

According to John Mashey here it is due out next fall, whether that is about now or next year I am not sure. Although in my copy of Ruddiman's 'Earth's Climate: Past and Future' there is the enigmatic dedication 'To Ginger, for surviving another one'. I wonder...?

Stu 2,

Your response is rubbish. If McIntyre, Nova, or Watts were, IMHO, honest brokers, they'd take their 'science' to a broader arena. Blogs are not peer-reviewed or scrutinized in any way. Like other sources of (dis)information, anything can be written up on the internet. Its is deregulated by design. That means a lot of good stuff ends up on here, but a lot of utter drivel as well. There's a reason that climate change deniers and anti-environmentalists - indeed, many who downplay a variety of human-mediated threats to the biosphere - are typically relegated to blogs. Its because most of their science is shit. Pure and simple. It wouldn't - indeed doesn't - withstand scrutiny amongst the leading experts in the field. But on blogs they can say whatever the hell they like. They can deny, deny, deny and spew out bilge in buckets.

A lot of the people you say have 'chosen' alternative routes to academia have not actually 'chosen' this route, as far as I am concerned. They are cranks and have been booted out (or never made it into) academia. Even amongst those few that have made it nominally in, their publication records are often very poor. And the fact that many of them openly align themselves with corporate front groups or right wing think tanks is further evidence of their clear bias and they are nothing more than advocates.

Try harder, Stu 2. What don't like about people like you is you appear to camouflage their political affiliations with a thin veneer of science, but when push comes to shove, you come out with nonsense like that in your response to a post I made earlier.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 10 Sep 2013 #permalink

I have just spotted this over at Climate Progress New Study: Climate Change To Help Spread West Nile Virus-Carrying Mosquitos which is something I was only reading about this morning whilst waiting to see the doc. I was into 'What Has Nature Ever Done for US?' by Tony Juniper (highly recommended) where on pages 136-138 he discusses how dilution of species, i.e. fewer distinct animal species in an area can result in human infections from such diseases as West Nile and Lyme becoming more prevalent. The law of unintended consequences kicks in again as it does with destruction of 'cloud forests'. Those who have missed the importance of these latter go look it up.

Could the UK badger cull have an effect here, I wonder? This as the incidence of Lyme disease, tick borne, is increasing in Southern England and the New Forest. Ticks are something we got used to looking out for in Scotland, another deer countryside, indeed two of our party discovered ticks on theme, fortunately before they drew blood. There is a special tick remover, like a fine pair of pincers, available so best to have one handy if in such terrain.

'Or is this a Poe?'

No, the fact that they kept the early thermometers in house means the data was corrupted.

'You do realise you’ve just committed denier heresy and denied the cornerstone of the MWP myth?'

We don't need the CET to confirm the MWP and LIA.

'Not to mention the episodes of plague that swept over much of the agriculturally active northern hemisphere resulting in a slow down in the anthropogenic emissions of GHGs and an increased draw-down of CO2 as forests made a come back.'

This is unacceptable, Lionel.

#35

Do you understand what the phrase there was no global, synchronous MWP or LIA" means? I have to ask, as you have had this explained - with references and relevant quotation - several times now. So, is the problem fundamentally one of compromised reading comprehension on your part?

#36

Why unacceptable? Just because you haven't got a fucking clue what the Ruddiman Hypothesis is doesn't make it "unacceptable". You are arguing from ignorance and incredulity, as usual. Twin logical fallacies.

...

Do you understand what the phrase there was no global, synchronous MWP or LIA means? I have to ask, as you have had this explained – with references and relevant quotation – several times now. So, is the problem fundamentally one of compromised reading comprehension on your part?

#36

Why unacceptable? Just because you haven’t got a fucking clue what the Ruddiman Hypothesis is doesn’t make it “unacceptable”. You are arguing from ignorance and incredulity, as usual. Twin logical fallacies.

Gordon, you do know that if not for the Lamb graph in FAR, none of you self-appointed experts would have heard of the MWP?

'f McIntyre, Nova, or Watts were, IMHO, honest brokers, they’d take their ‘science’ to a broader arena. Blogs are not peer-reviewed or scrutinized in any way.'

Post Normal Science on the blogosphere is harmless and has no effect on forming policy, unlike peer reviewed AGW which has had a profound influence on political thinking.

Alright, so what about the Roman Warm Period and the Minoan Warm Period? They were clearly warmer than the MWP.

Post Normal Science on the blogosphere is harmless and has no effect on forming policy

Bollocks. Wegman used M&M's junk science to lie to policy makers. Get a fucking clue. This is actually serious.

# 41

Really? You have evidence for a global and synchronous RWP and MiWP?

Let's see it. All I hear is argument from assertion, and from ignorance. Twin logical fallacies.

Back your shit up, or withdraw it. I'm getting very tired of your antics, Gordy.

Post Normal Science has had no influence on Australian policy development, although obviously the new PM must have been talking to someone of a contrarian nature when he told school children that the world was a warmer place ”at the time of Julius Caesar and Jesus of Nazareth”.

"who downplay a variety of human-mediated threats to the biosphere " you're just a cossetted academic wanker Jeff. Like putting bogus GCM recent into shitty eco/extinction models. The real world doesn't run like your luxury little university. "oooo it's the end of the world". Fuck off Jeff.

"Oh those wascals - it just isn't cricket - they wouldn't play by the Queensbury rules". "ooooo oooo Martha the rapscallions"

Jeff - McIntyre has SHREDDED vast amount of shonky practice. The establishment hates him. Fuck the rules. And fuck your shitty closeted science cabal. GET OVER IT and do better or be eaten alive by the hordes.

If you're that wussy weak that you can't do a few rounds at Nova's without pissing your pants and assuming the foetal position that's your problem. Don't go over there guys - they'll rip your balls off and feed them to their dogs.

Agree Watts is a shit hole and wouldn't waste any time on it. The whole site needs to be nuked from space.

The trouble with you Jeff is that your mates are aligned with too many left green front groups with massive amounts of lobbyist funding. How can YOU be trusted. Fucking watermelons.

OK El Gordo - I gave you and answer on your ENSO, STR, SAM thingy - so wassup?

Post Normal Science on the blogosphere is harmless and has no effect on forming policy

Oh you innocent child Gordon. Do you seriously think that armies of intellectually corrupted morons and numpties being groomed by fakes and demagogues is just some unforeseen by-product of t'internet and not the product of someone spending hard cash to achieve a political end?

Look at your own fantasy beliefs - on life-support only within your own bubble. There's nothing there that withstands critical examination.

BB do you accept Marcott et al?

“Global temperatures are warmer than at any time in at least 4,000 years” and “Global temperature….. has risen from near the coldest to the warmest levels of the Holocene within the past century.”

'I gave you and answer on your ENSO, STR, SAM thingy – so wassup?'

I need to know in layman's language what is happening to our weather and a couple of simple pars will be more than adequate.

Luke

Don’t go over there guys – they’ll rip your balls off and feed them to their dogs.

They are as stupid and mad as you are, and many are worse. As well as tediously repetitive you are a hypocrite. You repeatedly raised a bogus argument about computational replicability but never went over to Stoat's to argue your bollocks with the experts. So fuck off with your crap about Nova. She's a shill, you are twat and that's the end of it.

#48

Why should I not? Since I'm not a shill or an idiot, I didn't have any problems with M13.

Gordy

Will you please answer my question.

Do you understand what the phrase there was no global, synchronous MWP or LIA means? I have to ask, as you have had this explained – with references and relevant quotation – several times now. So, is the problem fundamentally one of compromised reading comprehension on your part?

el gordo
September 10, 2013

‘Climate change is forced.’

No, AGW is supposedly forced.

Oh dear, not content with failing to progress, it appears El Gordo is actually going backwards in his understanding.

Here is a simple explanation of what we mean by, "climate forcing":

A climate forcing can be defined as an imposed perturbation of Earth's energy balance. Energy flows in from the sun, much of it in the visible wavelengths, and back out again as long-wave infrared (heat) radiation.

An increase in the luminosity of the sun, for example, is a positive forcing that tends to make Earth warmer.
A very large volcanic eruption, on the other hand, can increase the aerosols (fine particles) in the lower stratosphere (altitudes of 10–15 miles) that reflect sunlight to space and thus reduce the solar energy delivered to Earth's surface.

These examples are natural forcings.

Human-made forcings result from, for example, the gases and aerosols produced by fossil fuel burning, and alterations of Earth's surface from various changes in land use, such as the conversion of forests into agricultural land. Those gases that absorb infrared radiation, i.e., the “greenhouse” gases, tend to prevent this heat radiation from escaping to space, leading eventually to a warming of Earth's surface.

The observations of human-induced forcings underlie the current concerns about climate change.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10139&page=6

Hopefully El Gordo can now understand why his previous post was meaningless?

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 10 Sep 2013 #permalink

'Do you understand what the phrase there was no global, synchronous MWP or LIA means?'

Its not universal? But surely sea level rise is universal and as you know there were Roman harbours which are now high and dry. Just sayin'...

#48 It's extraordinary Marcott dismays science rejectors! No one could have anticipated that.!! For instance,at #27, Emoticon Boy "reject[s] all palaeodata" based on the rigor of his untreated paranoia,his Liberal Party donor status, and his demonstrated and comprehensive ignorance of the field. Pretty much identical to #45s deluded ranting.

Karen
September 10, 2013

“no Antarctic surface melt no SLR”

correct

They positively revel in rolling in ignorance the way a dog will roll in shit, don't they?

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/earth20130613.html

The study found basal melt accounted for 55 percent of all Antarctic ice shelf mass loss from 2003 to 2008, an amount much higher than previously thought.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 10 Sep 2013 #permalink

#55 "Roman harbors that are now dry" and Roman harbor infrastructures that are under water...isn't the world baffling?

BBD - Stoat isn't a climate scientist and has very little in the peer reviewed literature - a secondary authorship perhaps? So I used your rules. I preferred the PEER REVIEWED paper. Don't over to Novas you chicken. You're simply not up to it.

BBD - by now it's apparent that you're hiding here as you wouldn't make it over on Novas - I dare you to go over and rage war.

Chooky chooky chooky .... squark !

el gordo
September 10, 2013

‘Do you understand what the phrase there was no global, synchronous MWP or LIA means?’

Its not universal? But surely sea level rise is universal and as you know there were Roman harbours which are now high and dry. Just sayin’…

Here's the thing, El Gordo - Are there Roman Harbours that are "high and dry"?
Ask yourself - where do you get that information from?
Be sceptical - Find the primary research, ensure your understanding has a sound basis in observation and science.

So - at the conclusion of your personal study of reliable primary sources, do you find that sea levels in Roman times were higher than today's?

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 10 Sep 2013 #permalink

'Roman harbor infrastructures that are under water…'

Link?

#59, they have not the faintest whiff of an overview of the state of study of SLR or the cryosphere past and present,and fully intend to maintain that purity of mind....

Gordy

But surely sea level rise is universal and as you know there were Roman harbours which are now high and dry. Just sayin’…

And as usual, you are completely wrong. Much apparent or *relative* sea level change is regional because it is caused by uplift or subsidence of the land relative to the sea. Is there anything that you *do* know anything about?

Now dig out your examples and do some background - bet you they are the result of local geology on the move... But you can do the work, Gordy, because I'm fed up with debunking your crap.

#60, you are sitting in front of a computer,no? Honestly, how hard is it, maintaining your act?

Luke

I preferred the PEER REVIEWED paper.

Which you failed to understand or indeed probably even read. Why not get your mouthy little self over to Stoat and read the comments there by people who actually understand this issue? Then you might - eventually - come to recognise that this is a deliberate denier confusion of no relevance as a critique of model performance generally.

Fuck but you are clueless for such a bigmouth, Luke!

Now piss off and get a clue - fourth time of asking.

Why is it that fuckwits like Luke, who know little and understand less, are so prone to the Galileo delusion? Not to mention paranoia and grandiose fantasies wherein they are credentialled experts with hot links into the modelling community - not to mention personal riches and a portfolio of mining shares... And to cap it all, this prat repeatedly describes *others* as Walter Mitty types! Self-awareness is just not there, is it, Luke?!

* * *

All together now: it's always projection!

#18 adelady
"Substitute climate for car, then flood or drought or wildfire for transmission or engine block, and it all sounds too boringly familiar."

Most of the new cars have climate control sweety :)

#21 BBD
"I say: “no Antarctic surface melt no SLR” and you responded (#7):

correct

Yet again confirming that you are a fuckwit!

The mechanism by which the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) is destabilised isn’t surface melting!"

I was correct bbd, so your statement "Yet again confirming that you are a fuckwit!" applies to yourself, so get your hand off it!

As for the theory.....

"As we know, but you obviously don’t, it is *subsurface* melting by advected warm water which causes embayed ice shelf collapse which in turn speeds the outflow rate of major glaciers draining the ice sheet"

Yes I have read that meme before and I am aware that there must be some sort of boogy man scare story for the non melting Antarctic....lol

So why not hide the boogy man under the ice, I mean alarmists would believe it, those suckers are still trying to tell us that co2 is going to melt the planet :)

one day, trooolie wooolie :)

Yes I have read that meme before and I am aware that there must be some sort of boogy man scare story for the non melting Antarctic….lol

lol yourself, fuckwit

In Antarctica the mass loss increased from 104 Gt/yr in 2002–2006 to 246 Gt/yr in 2006–2009, i.e., an acceleration of 26 ± 14 Gt/yr2 in 2002–2009. The observed acceleration in ice sheet mass loss helps reconcile GRACE ice mass estimates obtained for different time periods.

BBD - pissing his pants- too scared to go over to Novas - prefers to live on leper island screaming authority. I say fuck the authority. Earn it and answer the questions you grubby little fucker.

Chooky chooky chooky

(and remember Luke's axiom - first person to mention Galileo, Feynman or Dunning-Kruger loses)

Mining shares - says fucking BBD - the hypocrite sitting at a computer full of rare earths probably mined in some Mongolian shithole in 4th world conditions and you'd like to lecture about first world mining practice. Fuck off you hypocritical watermelon cunt.

What a bitter creep you are The Lukes.

Shilling for yet another of Heartland's ex-(long, long ago)minor TV poppet heads trying to drum up click-thru to some shit-swamp ghetto where they rail against a reality they neither comprehend nor understand. Fucking authority like only adolescent regressed geriatric nihilists can.

Well, this explains a lot even if it's a bit depressing.

From the abstract,

Why does public conflict over societal risks persist in the face of compelling and widely accessible scientific evidence?
..... and the “Identity-protective Cognition Thesis” (ICT) which treats cultural conflict as disabling the faculties that members of the public use to make sense of decision-relevant science.
... polarization did not abate among subjects highest in Numeracy; instead, it increased.
... predicted that more Numerate subjects would use their quantitative-reasoning capacity selectively to conform their interpretation of the data to the result most consistent with their political outlooks. ...

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2319992

Lotharsson and Jeff Harvey,
In no way was I attempting to elevate one type of scientist or intelligent person over another. I don't think that any one branch of science or any area of research can claim it holds the crown of knowledge or it is where all magic answers will come from.
I was actually criticising you for claiming something like that.
You both did it again as Luke rather crudely highlights.
Your left wing/ right wing/ think tank/ libertarianism/ capitalism comments just confirm that this has turned into an advocacy blog.
As I previously said, judging scientists by your criteria means that a lot of very intelligent and very clever people would get locked out of any contribution.
And Jeff Harvey, you are highly critical of what you call "right wing libertarianism". I have seen you throw that out a few times. That is just petty name calling and politicking like calling people "deniers". I could easily claim that you must therefore be a "left wing authoritarian" which proves absolutely nothing about the weather, the climate or the environment. Neither does it indicate who cares about what is happening politically or environmentally.

BBD
September 10, 2013

Gordy

But surely sea level rise is universal and as you know there were Roman harbours which are now high and dry. Just sayin’…

And as usual, you are completely wrong.

Let's give El Gordo a headstart - sea level rise since 2000 years ago has averaged 0.65mm/decade.
Since the start of the industrial revolution, sea level rise has averaged 1.6mm/year.
Since 1980, sea level rise has averaged 3.2mm/year.

See a pattern there, El Gordo?

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 10 Sep 2013 #permalink

'See a pattern there, El Gordo?'

The Roman Warm Period was coming to a close and SLR had slowed.

The Modern Climate Optimum only peaked in 2000 so it may take a few more years to see much of a slowdown in SLR.

I'm not sure what this "Roman Warm Period" is that you refer to, El Gordo - sure you haven't swallowed something you should have been more sceptical of?

I'm not sure what the rest of what you wrote is all about - would you have any link to any science that describes what you mean?

In the meantime, the following graphic seems to show where sea level was at by ROman times:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Post-Glacial_Sea_Le…

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 10 Sep 2013 #permalink

#74 example of the tedious tit-for-tat of these much- diminished human beings...article features Sen. George Brandis saying that Bracks had no "obvious qualifications for the job". I expect that Brandis will therefore reject any such post-politics role for the same reason...it has to be asked what are the 'obvious qualifications for the job' of any of the minor lawyers/deadbeat businesspeople/party flunkies holding portfolios? Nothing these people say is of any worth, but their seeking and possession of power is frightening.

#76...two simply wrong claims.

The 'Modern Climate Optimum peaking in 2000' is feebly provocative wishfulness.

SL was drifting downwards from Mid-Holocene highstands 6 to 8000 y back,to about 2 to 3000 y, stabilised then has risen dramitically recently. Plenty of SLR recons have detected this shape in the record. RWP and MWP regional climate bumps do not perturb the SLR record much if at all. Nothing like what we see now. Any shuffling about of a Roman harbor here or there is local geological factors: the sinking Nile Delta has put whole Roman harbor zones well under water, the silting of estuaries in an area subject to post-glacial rebound has pushed former waterside villages inland in the UK,EL G

Post Normal Science on the blogosphere is harmless and has no effect on forming policy,...

Bullshit.

It has an obvious influence on the political discourse, which in turn has an influence on who is elected (see: Australia, 2013), which in turn has an influence on policy.

You're really not thinking, el gordo. But then your posts aren't about trying to understand reality, are they?

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 10 Sep 2013 #permalink

Chooky chooky chooky …. squark !

Says the guy who daren't answer any of a host of questions he's been asked here, and doesn't take his questions about models to a forum with actual modelling expertise, and so forth.

Is he too stupid to understand that we'll notice this and hence respond with all together now: ... or so hubristic that he thinks he'll pull the wool over our eyes?

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 10 Sep 2013 #permalink

There doesn’t appear to have been any peak in sea levels around the time El Gordo mentions:

For a really interesting take on sea levels, check out this talk by Jerry Mitrovica. There are three main features (from my perspective).
1. He states that his interest in pursuing these lines of enquiry was provoked by the most frequent SLR questions and statements by sceptics / deniers. So they should be interested.
2. The Roman fish tanks - start around 2.00 - a really fascinating combination of apparently unimportant archaeology with earth science.
3. The uneven SLR (and falling sea levels) caused by ice sheet melting. From about 12.00 onwards.

@80 clown from leper island: wring dirt, all unsubstantiated speculation, leper sucker

SL was drifting downwards from Mid-Holocene highstands 6 to 8000 y back,to about 2 to 3000 y, stabilised then has risen dramitically recently. Plenty of SLR recons have detected this shape in the record. RWP and MWP regional climate bumps do not perturb the SLR record much if at all. Nothing like what we see now. Any shuffling about of a Roman harbor here or there is local geological factors: the sinking Nile Delta has put whole Roman harbor zones well under water, the silting of estuaries in an area subject to post-glacial rebound has pushed former waterside villages inland in the UK,EL G

piss off, clown

By Berendaneke (not verified) on 10 Sep 2013 #permalink

adelady troll: "unimportant archaeology"

Is archaeology for you "unimportant" if unrelated to CO2???

Answer required, fuckwit!

By Berendaneke (not verified) on 10 Sep 2013 #permalink

Answer? I said "apparently unimportant" because - if you were to watch the talk - Jerry says that's what he was told. There are lots of these things and none of them is protected.

Your left wing/ right wing/ think tank/ libertarianism/ capitalism comments just confirm that this has turned into an advocacy blog.

Huh? What's an "advocacy blog"? Is it any blog where anyone mentions anything with a hint of political perspective? If so, this blog was always an advocacy blog, if only because Tim's posts responded primarily to newspaper articles mauling science in the name of political advocacy. And the fact that politics underlies many attacks on climate science is rather pertinent.

And secondly, that observation does not mean that science isn't discussed here. You seem to be indulging in binary thinking - a blog is either one thing or the other, and never the twain shall meet - or perhaps you want to pretend the scientific discussion didn't happen or isn't valid if there's anything you can label "advocacy".

That's not very smart.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 10 Sep 2013 #permalink

#84,your ignorance is noted Emoti-boy. "Unsubstantiated speculation", you poor dumb redneck? You "reject all palaeo-evidence" as a matter of dogma, which is not good for knowing its content, you know-nothing fraud.

In no way was I attempting to elevate one type of scientist or intelligent person over another.

I didn't claim you were doing that. (Start with this: your claim is impressively universalised, a universalisation that I took pains not to engage in. Continue with this: I took care to separate the validity of the claims from the credentials or lack of credentials of the claimant. You did not, for reasons that are becoming obvious.)

I don’t think that any one branch of science or any area of research can claim it holds the crown of knowledge or it is where all magic answers will come from.

Another red herring, at least as far as what I wrote. And also very sloppy thinking, again due to inappropriate universalisation.

If we're talking about a specific field of inquiry, then the appropriate branch of science for that set of inquiries is where the best understanding will be found. No-one is generalising it to say one branch of science has "all the answers" for every field of inquiry (except you and your strawman).

But we are rejecting your (implied?) claim that knowledge from outside the scientific process is likely to be better or add to the understanding. The scientific process is clearly a far better method for figuring out what's what for scientific questions than paying attention to various and sundry claims made outside of that process and hoping one of them is valid.

I was actually criticising you for claiming something like that.

Then you need to go and re-read what I claimed because I claimed nothing of the sort. The specific qualifications I used and distinctions I made matter. You can't just strip them out and pretend I never made them and be expected to be taken seriously.

You both did it again as Luke rather crudely highlights.

Er, no, I'm pretty sure you are incorrect on that front too, at least as far as what I wrote. You'll have to do much better than "you did so" and "Luke says so" (especially since Luke is frequently wrong when relaying what other people say). How about providing an accurate quote with appropriate context that supports your claim?

That is just petty name calling and politicking like calling people “deniers”.

That's really sloppy thinking. Calling people "deniers" is accurately labelling behaviour. It is not "name calling" and it is most certainly not "politicking".

As I previously said, judging scientists by your criteria means that a lot of very intelligent and very clever people would get locked out of any contribution.

And as I pointed out, you are completely wrong. Repeating your falsehood doesn't change its falseness. To reiterate:

a) The criteria are useful and proven shortcuts to filter out a mountain comprised almost entirely of bullshit.

You are advocating that people wade through that, especially people who don't have the skills to distinguish gold from bullshit. Your agenda is starting to show.

b) "They" can contribute if they choose to participate in the scientific process. "Locked out" is a lie that seeks to serve the concept that their un-reviewed claims should be put on a par with peer-reviewed claims.

You seem to have a clearer and clearer agenda on this front.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 10 Sep 2013 #permalink

'It has an obvious influence on the political discourse'

You give far too much credit to Nova and the other Australian sceptical blogs. The reality is that the Murdocracy is fair and balanced on CC, while the Fairfax stable has been pro AGW, along with the ABC.

When the AR5 comes out I expect Aunty to cover it fairly, pointing out that the models are wrong and the IPCC is lowering their alarmist tone.

I would ask Greg Hunt did he know that ...

‘The IPCC’s 2001 Summary for Policymakers Report (TAR) stated: “Most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.”

‘The IPCC’s 2007 report (4AR) said: “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”

‘And now, a leaked draft of the new 2013 (5AR) is expected to conclude: “It is extremely likely that human influence on climate caused more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010.”

Forbes

@88 paleo-boy from leper island

listen, clown:

paleo is:

1. long ago

2. nobody was there

3. extremely unrealiable results which please the leper boy

4. undefinable error bars for numeric, constructed data

piss off, clown and eco retard

By Berendaneke (not verified) on 10 Sep 2013 #permalink

@88 leper boy

tpThe only thing paleo shows is that most of the time during OFEA it was warmer than today, clown

By Berendaneke (not verified) on 10 Sep 2013 #permalink

Translations of scientific content to laymen level (Lotharsson, BBD, leper boy etc.) regularly is misunderstood or wrongly misinterpreted and falsely communicated further by these clowns.

By Berendaneke (not verified) on 10 Sep 2013 #permalink

BBD clown cannot understand AND answer the simple question:

How many stations are covered by the GHCN database?

Try again, clown Ignoramus

By Berendaneke (not verified) on 10 Sep 2013 #permalink

#91 paleo is long ago? Who knew? You reject all paleo evidence,clearly because it pleases you to do so, is that not obvious to you ? I'm not the one taking refuge in 'unreliability'. You're some kind of real arbiter of the field? No, you're some kind of volatile half-wit with an axe to grind. Why would anyone 'listen' to you, Emoti-boy?

Lotharsson,
You have now claimed twice that I have misinterpreted you and then you have used that assertion to compose a lecture.
None of what you write either proves or disproves anything that I have written.
If you feel that people are misinterpreting you then maybe you could reconsider the way you write. It must be ambiguous.

And additionally lotharsson @#87, go to Jeff Harvey's comment @#2 previous page and you will discover that he introduced the complaint about blogs being 'advocacy blogs'. I was just pointing out that this blog is an advocacy blog too.

@95 leper boy: some kind of volatile half-wit with an axe to grind. Why would anyone ‘listen’ to you

Wrong perception, idiot! The correct one is: Why should one listen to leper boys on psycho meds?

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Count further emoticons, leper boy, and report the results, clown!

By Berendaneke (not verified) on 10 Sep 2013 #permalink

...paleo is long ago...

How do you know? Nobody was there.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 10 Sep 2013 #permalink

@99 clown, pseudo-intelligent

By Berendaneke (not verified) on 10 Sep 2013 #permalink

# 100 clown, genuinely stupid, now has decided to not reject all paleo evidence...

@1 leper clown, your answer is wrong.

Count the emoticons again, clown!

My name is Berendaneke and I am cool :cool:, very cool :cool: :cool: :cool:,

inifinitely cooler :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool:

than you evil CAGW clowns :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:

from leper island of nihilism!

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

By Berendaneke (not verified) on 10 Sep 2013 #permalink

#2 ,I count 29 emoticons and one halfwit. Clearly, your constant references to psych meds point to a dependency on your part. Going through them a little faster than Doc intended,'Moty?

@3 leper boy :evil:

could you engage in flawless punctuation: after a comma follows a space, fuckwit :evil:

Further, you missed the total count of emoticons :lol: :lol:

Therefore you have failed :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: !!

By Berendaneke (not verified) on 10 Sep 2013 #permalink

#4, punctuation monitor is more your speed,I guess, Emoticon Kid...look at you,you're such a mess...I'm starting to feel sorry for you...are you mixing the pills with other stuff?

El Gordo, do you not understand the meaning of the following progression:
"likely" (2001)
"very likely" (2007)
"extremely likely" (2013)

Seems fairly easily-comprehended to me. Maybe you are related to Spangled Drongo?

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 10 Sep 2013 #permalink

@4 clown :devil:

without further comment due to bullshit content of fuckwit :devil:

By Berendaneke (not verified) on 10 Sep 2013 #permalink

Snork.

From 50 minutes ago:

Sophie Mirabella trails as 1003 missing votes uncovered

by: John Ferguson
From: The Australian
September 11, 2013 2:17PM

A mystery pile of 1003 votes misplaced by the electoral commission could seal Coalition industry spokeswoman Sophie Mirabella's fate.

The Australian Electoral Commission has found the votes at the Wangaratta pre-poll station in north-east Victoria.

The votes go to Ms Mirabella’s opponent, the independent Cathy McGowan, the AEC has confirmed.

It will mean, on current voting, Ms Mirabella will trail by 1773 votes, making her task of holding onto the seat increasingly difficult.

An AEC spokesman said that scrutineers had discovered a disparity between the Senate vote and the House of Representatives vote.

The spokesman said there was a 1003 vote difference between the houses and that a search had been undertaken.

This had resulted in a pile of McGowan votes being discovered which will be added to her total this afternoon.

The discovery of the votes will be a huge setback for Ms Mirabella, who is struggling to hold onto a seat that was until Saturday a safe Liberal electorate.

Ms Mirabella held the seat with a two party-preferred margin of 9 per cent until the weekend.

The exact lead held by Ms McGowan is not known because the AEC hasn't updated the numbers in the seat of Indi, which covers a large swathe of north-eastern Victoria, for several hours.

Ms McGowan's previous lead was 770 votes. Liberals have been hoping that Ms Mirabella will be able to pick up a majority of postal votes, which are still being counted.

But if Ms McGowan's lead has blown out by a further 1000, it will become increasingly difficult for Ms Mirabella to claw back the numbers.

If elected, Ms Mirabella is odds-on to be made a key member of Tony Abbott's Cabinet and inner sanctum.

If one had to choose one conservative to boot out Mirabella would be on the short-list.

It seems that Sou will get her wish...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 10 Sep 2013 #permalink

I wish Mirabella all the best to wihstand Oz green eco fundamentalism insanities :evil:

By Berendaneke (not verified) on 10 Sep 2013 #permalink

Why Arctic sea ice will vanish in 2013

"I am just looking at the “big-picture” using all available data while considering feedbacks that have been incorrectly considered (or unidentified) and in the context of abrupt changes that are CLEARLY documented in climate paleorecords.

I really hope I’m wrong folks but I just don’t see it any other way. Time will tell…"

http://www.sierraclub.ca/en/AdultDiscussionPlease

lol...........time told him :)

sheeezzz.... sierraclub.....barbeque sausage fucks :) lol

#10 know-nothing infant, Mirabella is deeply unpopular with her electorate because she is incompetent and lazy. She has been losing her margin since she was given what used to be a safe seat. On LOCAL issues she is a failure, and her conservative electorate have had enough of her arrogance and poor performance as a local member. Green issues have nothing to do with it. She has been outcampaigned by a committed local candidate who has the backing of many figures who by ordinary political persuasion would be Coalition voters.

"My name is Berendaneke and I am cool , very cool"

All psychopaths are narcissists, Berendaneke. You think you're cool, but the truth is you're a complete fruitcake. And your English is utterly appalling.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 10 Sep 2013 #permalink

Bernard!
Snork away all you like :-)
It makes very little difference to the overall result of the election. Nick is correct that Mirabella has become unpopular locally. McGowan is supported by conservative votes. You appear to be clutching at straws with that snork. :-)

By chameleon (not verified) on 11 Sep 2013 #permalink

Good grief moderator/s! !!!!!!!!
What's the point of moderating comments from me on a rambling open thread????????

By chameleon (not verified) on 11 Sep 2013 #permalink

Limits in detecting acceleration of ice sheet mass loss due to climate variability

"The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have been reported to be losing mass at accelerating rates1, 2. If sustained, this accelerating mass loss will result in a global mean sea-level rise by the year 2100 that is approximately 43 cm greater than if a linear trend is assumed2.

However, at present there is no scientific consensus on whether these reported accelerations result from variability inherent to the ice-sheet–climate system, or reflect long-term changes and thus permit extrapolation to the future3.

Here we compare mass loss trends and accelerations in satellite data collected between January 2003 and September 2012 from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment to long-term mass balance time series from a regional surface mass balance model forced by re-analysis data.

We find that the record length of spaceborne gravity observations is too short at present to meaningfully separate long-term accelerations from short-term ice sheet variability.

We also find that the detection threshold of mass loss acceleration depends on record length: to detect an acceleration at an accuracy within ±10 Gt yr−2, a period of 10 years or more of observations is required for Antarctica and about 20 years for Greenland.

Therefore, climate variability adds uncertainty to extrapolations of future mass loss and sea-level rise, underscoring the need for continuous long-term satellite monitoring.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n8/abs/ngeo1874.html

This para is worth repeating...............
"However, at present there is no scientific consensus on whether these reported accelerations result from variability inherent to the ice-sheet–climate system, or reflect long-term changes and thus permit extrapolation to the future"

:)

"...at present there is no scientific consensus whether these reported accelerations result from etc...." The question posed is: is observed short-term acceleration a reflection of a long term loss trajectory or is it natural variability superimposed on a steady ice loss trend? We want to know because we want to estimate future loss and SLR.

There is consensus that Antarctica is losing mass due to climate change,and the evidence is ample in the lit. and mechanisms explained up thread.

"Our SMB reconstructions indicate that the SMB changes over most of Antarctica are statistically negligible and that the current SMB is not exceptionally high compared to the last 800 yr. High-accumulation periods have occurred in the past, specifically during the 1370s and 1610s. However, a clear increase in accumulation of more than 10% has occurred in high SMB coastal regions and over the highest part of the East Antarctic ice divide since the 1960s."

http://www.the-cryosphere.net/7/303/2013/tc-7-303-2013.html

And the LIA wasn't global :)
"High-accumulation periods have occurred in the past, specifically during the 1370s and 1610s."

"However, a clear increase in accumulation of more than 10% has occurred in high SMB coastal regions and over the highest part of the East Antarctic ice divide since the 1960s."

"and mechanisms explained up thread." you mean shit dribbling ... lol

#17 moron, higher snow accumulation periods in a supercold environment will occur with warming climate,at elevation while at sea level SMB can fall...it may as well be shit dribbling to slow types like yourself,it's all the same to you: too complex.

Snow accumulation at altitude in the WAP was seen to increase with rise in atmospheric moisture,even while coastal shelves collapsed and lower glaciers accelerated and lost surface height. It's a dynamic system not some two-dimensional sketch.

Karen

Yet another paper you have not understood! Wouters et al. is about detecting an acceleration in ice mass loss. Nobody - and I do mean nobody - disputes that there is a substantial and ongoing ice mass loss from both the GIS and the WAIS. The critical question here is that it is difficult to say if it is now accelerating because the observational data only exist for short periods.

Now, here's the thing. Most glaciologists think that the rate of ice mass loss *is* accelerating, but being good scientists, they need to demonstrate the acceleration rigorously. At present, this is not really possible because you can argue that some sort of natural variability is responsible for the *apparent* acceleration. Longer observational data sets required.

You also fail to understand the Zwally study. You have conflated the WEST Antarctic Ice Sheet with the EAST Antarctic Ice Sheet. The former is losing mass at a rapid (and probably accelerating) rate while the latter is gaining mass because of increased precipitation, widely accepted to be a consequence of AGW. Zwally points out that increasing mass loss from the WAIS will initiate a contribution to SLR within the decade. This is a near-universal expectation. When, not if.

It's also worth noting that the latest research suggests that parts of the EAIS (Wilkes Subglacial Basin) are much more sensitive to warming than previously thought, which provides the so-far elusive physical mechanism for early/mid-Pliocene sea level highstands at least 10m above present levels.

See Cook et al. (2013) No relation.

Nick

The fuckwit is getting all this from Climatedepot etc. It understands nothing. Just spews out other peoples' misrepresentations.

Karen

And the LIA wasn’t global

No, it wasn't global and synchronous. Lots of episodes of regional cooling, offset by simultaneous episodes of regional warmth elsewhere. Pointing to two decade-long periods in the past when SMB increased briefly is evidence of nothing at all except increased *regional* precipitation over Antarctica. SMB isn't even a proxy for cool temperatures, you dozy muppet.

Read the words, plankton.

It understands nothing. Just spews out other peoples’ misrepresentations.

That's its job. All that carefully crafted propaganda is useless if only the gormless peanut brains see it.

"We find that data from climate model reanalyses are not able to characterise the contemporary snowfall fluctuation with useful accuracy and our best estimate of the overall mass trend—growth of 27±29 Gt yr−1—is based on an assessment of the expected snowfall variability. Mass gains from accumulating snow, particularly on the Antarctic Peninsula and within East Antarctica, exceed the ice dynamic mass loss from West Antarctica. The result exacerbates the difficulty of explaining twentieth century sea-level rise. "

http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/364/1844/1627.short

lol...........I suppose that snow is a recent phenomenon in Antarctica :)

"Satellite radar altimetry measurements indicate that the East Antarctic ice-sheet interior north of 81.6°S increased in mass by 45 ± 7 billion metric tons per year from 1992 to 2003. Comparisons with contemporaneous meteorological model snowfall estimates suggest that the gain in mass was associated with increased precipitation. A gain of this magnitude is enough to slow sea-level rise by 0.12 ± 0.02 millimeters per year. "

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/308/5730/1898.short

Yes that's exactly right fuckwit. Any further understanding on your part is entirely wasted. They should know not to use words with more than one syllable

Karen

If only you had a clue.

The result exacerbates the difficulty of explaining twentieth century sea-level rise.

So what might balance the sea level budget? Obviously more thermosteric SLR and/or more glacial melt contribution.

You don't *see*. You don't understand anything.

Now go back to #19 paragraph 3 read the words again.

Karen, I know you are sitting there with ClimateDepot or similar, just clicking through the tags for "Antarctic" or similar and spamming. I *know* this. Just as I know you are stupid, ignorant and insane.

What "Karen" is too stupid to understand is that this is a *dynamic* process (see Nick #18). SMB gain in parts of the EAIS interior is currently possible because outflow glaciers are plugged by embayed ice shelves or firmly grounded. But this is already changing.

Advected warm water is increasing the rate of basal melting of ice shelved right around the continent. Rates differ, but this is the shape of things to come because the laws of physics say so. See here.

Once the ice shelves begin to break up, the rate of drainage by outflow glaciers increases very rapidly, and the dynamics of SMB gain and IMB loss reverse.

Poor Karen, lost in spam and lies, cannot understand the basic concept.

"Karen" will probably continue to spam the thread with links from ClimateDepot that "she" has neither read nor understood. The rest of us can go and have a nice cup of tea.

"Advected warm water is increasing the rate of basal melting of ice shelved right around the continent. Rates differ, but this is the shape of things to come because the laws of physics say so. See here."

so this has never happened before ?

lol.... the nuttery is astounding, bbd did you just find that at dotearth?

It's a process SpamKan.
The kind of stuff it's not thought worth acquainting you with at Spam Central, because it would come dangerously close to actually beginning to educate you.

so this has never happened before ?

It's happened time and again, Karen.

did you just find that at dotearth?

No, of course not, you idiot. We aren't all know-nothings like you. Can't you tell? Really?

"It’s happened time and again, Karen."

Thank you BBD :)

#32 BBD

I think you did just get it from dotearth, I read that when it came out and thought at the time that some numptie, like yourself, would try to blame basal melting on co2.

BBd, maybe I can organize funding from exxon for you, would you be willing to scuba dive at several locations around Antarctica with a temp gauge to gather water temp data ?

Don't worry the water is supposed to be warm :)

'No, it wasn’t global and synchronous.'

It was global but not in sync.

1250 AD increasing icebergs in the north Atlantic
1300 AD Pacific Ocean cools markedly
1370 AD high accumulation Antarctica

There does appear to be a cool lag.

Hi chekie :)

How tall are you ?

#33

Karen

Past climate change isn't all determined by CO2. This is just denialist fuckwittery. *You* are confused.

Let's take the Eemian. Orbital dynamics made the Eemian warmer than the Holocene - but not by much. Global average temperature was ~1 - 2C warmer but MSL during the Eemian was *at least* 5m higher than the Holocene. Where did all that extra water come from?

The GIS and the WAIS. People who *know* about this know that the latest work (NEEM) suggests that the GIS contributed *no more* that ~2m to the MSL highstand, so the rest came from the WAIS (where else - an alternative universe?).

WAIS collapse during the Eemian is demonstrated. Remember, Eemian GAT was just ~1 - 2C above Holocene.

PS - I don't read DotEarth.

Measured in inches, very likely still exceeding your IQ SpamKan.

Hi el :)

The global and synchronous thingo is like a skeleton in the closet, very embarrassing to them.

shhh, don't tell :)

I think you did just get it from dotearth, I read that when it came out and thought at the time that some numptie, like yourself, would try to blame basal melting on co2.

Educate yourself, fuckwit. Read.

Pritchard et al. (2012). Antarctic ice-sheet loss driven by basal melting of ice shelves.

I can't do it for you.

NB: it's not simple. It's zonal wind speeds modulating upwelling and so basal melt of ice shelves, not CO2-forced warming of subsurface waters.

Not Found

The requested URL /~broek112/home_files/MB_pubs_pdf/2012_Pritchard_Nature.pdf was not found on this server.
Apache/2.2.22 (CentOS) Server at www.staff.science.uu.nl Port 80

#41

Compare and contrast: two denialist fuckwits frotting each other on a blog vs the latest, multi-author research:

PAGES 2k Consortium (2013) Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia

Past global climate changes had strong regional expression. To elucidate their spatio-temporal pattern, we reconstructed past temperatures for seven continental-scale regions during the past one to two millennia. The most coherent feature in nearly all of the regional temperature reconstructions is a long-term cooling trend, which ended late in the nineteenth century. At multi-decadal to centennial scales, temperature variability shows distinctly different regional patterns, with more similarity within each hemisphere than between them. There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age, but all reconstructions show generally cold conditions between ad 1580 and 1880, punctuated in some regions by warm decades during the eighteenth century. The transition to these colder conditions occurred earlier in the Arctic, Europe and Asia than in North America or the Southern Hemisphere regions. Recent warming reversed the long-term cooling; during the period ad 1971–2000, the area-weighted average reconstructed temperature was higher than any other time in nearly 1,400 years.

You two are pathetic beyond belief.

It was global but not in sync.

Yes, we can see what you desperately want it to mean, but that doesn't work, Gordon.

It's either global or it's not. 'Partially' isn't 'global'.
But your desperation and enthusiasm for orwellising the langauage in pursuit of your goal is duly noted

Most of the new cars have climate control sweety

LOL :-)

Oh fuck off, "Karen". Just... fuck off.

"Oh fuck off, “Karen”. Just… fuck off."

hahahahaha

No, Karen. Don't bray. Read. Try to be *less* of a fuckwit, not more of one.

What you are doing here is just thrashing around in your own stupidity.

"There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age, but all reconstructions show generally cold conditions between ad 1580 and 1880,"

lol

sorta like now there is global warming, but not in Antarctica, but, really trooly woolie it is global :)

even though zilch for 17 yrs ?

Notice how Karen The Fuckwit totally blanked #38.

Notice that.

sorta like now there is global warming, but not in Antarctica

East Antarctica is thermally isolated by the Antarctic Circumpolar Current, fuckwit. The West Antarctic Peninsula is not. The WAP is warming up at a cracking pace, as is well known except amongst denialist buffoons.

And now back to #38, which Karen is going to deal with, like it or not:

Past climate change isn’t all determined by CO2. This is just denialist fuckwittery. *You* are confused.

Let’s take the Eemian. Orbital dynamics made the Eemian warmer than the Holocene – but not by much. Global average temperature was ~1 – 2C warmer but MSL during the Eemian was *at least* 5m higher than the Holocene. Where did all that extra water come from?

The GIS and the WAIS. People who *know* about this know that the latest work (NEEM) suggests that the GIS contributed *no more* that ~2m to the MSL highstand, so the rest came from the WAIS (where else – an alternative universe?).

WAIS collapse during the Eemian is demonstrated. Remember, Eemian GAT was just ~1 – 2C above Holocene.

'It’s either global or it’s not.'

It was global but at different times, unlike AGW which has had an impact on the whole world at once. Hopefully the hiatus will be over soon.

"Remember, Eemian GAT was just ~1 – 2C above Holocene."

problemo..........you don't know what the high temp of the holocene was, for some stooopid reason you think that it is hotter now.

'... for some stooopid reason you think that it is hotter now.'

Good point Karen.
------------------------

BB the Holocene would have been as warm as the Eemian except for the intrusion of the Younger Dryas, which acted as a damper.

Hopefully it will be over soon? ?????????
So you do now say there is a hiatus?
Why are you hoping it will be over BBD?
SUUUURRRRREEEELLLLYYYYY it would be better if all the doomsday predictions/projections are incorrect??????

By chameleon (not verified) on 11 Sep 2013 #permalink

#57 at the climate scale,what hiatus? Oh, of course, that little daft meme of yours.
#58,the 'stooopid reason' being the state of the cryosphere and organic matter revealed across the NH by glacial retreat. Ignorant /play dumb Kaz.

#59, reference for the damping effect of the YD on optimum Holo temps plz

Crap! Sorry! el gordo said that, not BBD.
My bad, sincere apologies :-)

By chameleon (not verified) on 11 Sep 2013 #permalink

"the NH by glacial retreat. Ignorant /play dumb Kaz."

is not gwowbell

#62,well that proves it's not warming: one data point in early spring...yes I think we can dismiss all the thousands of other data points,this ones a cracker! Very Steve Goddard of you Kaz, the shucks-its-a cold-day counter...only available to the cream of the absolute idiots.

#63,I just am not up to speed on glacial organic remnants in the SH, where glaciers are secretly [to you apparently] retreating at_a_cracking_pace. Let me apologise for not doing your work for you,dimwit.

#58 Karen

problemo……….you don’t know what the high temp of the holocene was, for some stooopid reason you think that it is hotter now.

Too stupid for words. See Marcott et al. (2013):

Our results indicate that global mean temperature for the decade 2000–2009 (34) has not yet exceeded the warmest temperatures of the early Holocene (5000 to 10,000 yr B.P.). These temperatures are, however, warmer than 82% of the Holocene distribution as represented by the Standard 5×5 stack, or 72% after making plausible corrections for inherent smoothing of the high frequencies in the stack (6) (Fig. 3). In contrast, the decadal mean global temperature of the early 20th century (1900–1909) was cooler than >95% of the Holocene distribution under both the Standard 5×5 and high-frequency corrected scenarios. Global temperature, therefore, has risen from near the coldest to the warmest levels of the Holocene within the past century, reversing the long-term cooling trend that began ~5000 yr B.P.

Eemian GAT was ~1 - 2C above Holocene *average*. Idiot.

#59 Gordy

BB the Holocene would have been as warm as the Eemian except for the intrusion of the Younger Dryas, which acted as a damper.

Utter fucking bollocks. Go away and do some reading. Start with orbital dynamics. Then move on to causes of the YD. Then look at climate dynamics. Try to understand what "quasi-equilibrium" actually means. How could an event like the YD depress GAT for the rest of the Holocene? Physical mechanism... oh don't bother. Idiot.

Gordy and Karen are beyond parody.

#68,Gordy's Gambit was priceless..the first 'original' material I've seen from him....though it does smell a bit like something you'd see in a Jo Nova thread. Or Monckton might blurt that sort of thing out before a suitably moronic audience.

But surely sea level rise is universal and as you know there were Roman harbours which are now high and dry. Just sayin’…

Ever heard of the concepts of orogeny and isostatic rebound el gordolocks? Clearly not.

Charles Darwin recognised these for their roles in evolution in turn building on the work of Charles Lyell. Indeed Darwin had a copy of Lyell's 'Principles of Geology' with him on HMS Beagle, I trust you have some knowledge of Darwin and the Beagle. Indeed Lyell's book gave Darwin valuable insights when the Beagle stopped at St Jago, now Santiago in the Cape Verde Islands (Portugal)

Once again you are caught spouting crap from a position of ignorance. When will you stop doing this and start broadening your education.

You could start with Darwin's' 'Voyage of the Beagle' and 'Origin...' if you have not already. Bill McGuire's 'Waking the Giant: How a changing climate triggers earthquakes, tsunamis, and volcanoes' contains much enlightenment and some food for thought.

#70, any further development is now at the whim of the shareholders of fossil fuel companies. So far they are more interested in keeping their asset bubble afloat until they cash out.

@70 clown from leper island :evil:

you envy rich people their money: admit the truth, clown :evil:

By Berendaneke (not verified) on 11 Sep 2013 #permalink

@70 sorry el Gordo, I have meant of course the clown #73 :evil:

By Berendaneke (not verified) on 11 Sep 2013 #permalink

#74,I am a rich person, you moron. You on the other hand just gave your last five bucks to your friend Tony Abbott LOL

'Ever heard of the concepts of orogeny and isostatic rebound?'

Yeah but thermal expansion seems the more likely cause of SLR during the RWP.

Nick, some (all) of your posts are a bit rich...lol

How much are you worth honey :)

Yeah but thermal expansion seems the more likely cause of SLR during the RWP.

Now think carefully about your original statement,

But surely sea level rise is universal and as you know there were Roman harbours which are now high and dry. Just sayin’…

,

which prompted that reply of mine. Now what have you got wrong?

#79

:-)

As I said, beyond parody.

#70

You are changing the topic in order to avoid acknowledging your utter bollocks about the YD "cooling down" the Holocene.

Not just a fuckwit, but a dishonest fuckwit.

The reality is that the Murdocracy is fair and balanced on CC...

ROFLMAO!

And on a blog with a tag called "The Australian's War On Science", no less.

Oh, wait...you meant the Fox News propaganda-ish definition of "Fair and Balanced". Right you are. Carry on!

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 11 Sep 2013 #permalink

You have now claimed twice that I have misinterpreted you...

...and explained how, to no avail. Interesting.

Are you capable of understanding the distinctions I draw between how you interpret what I write and what I write, but choose to pretend they don't exist? Or do you genuinely not see the differences?

If you feel that people are misinterpreting you then maybe you could reconsider the way you write.

Or I could clarify in a subsequent comment where the misinterpretation lies, as people generally do in conversation...

None of what you write either proves or disproves anything that I have written.

This is patently false, as pointed out at least twice now, hence this claim is another misinterpretation.

I'm beginning to suspect there's a pattern here.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 11 Sep 2013 #permalink

Lionel... Isostatic uplift during the RWP seems less likely than thermal expansion to explain SLR.

BB the CO2 content in the atmosphere remained steady during the Younger Dryas, so we can safely assume temperatures fell sharply and rose again without any assistance from carbon dioxide.

...you will discover that he introduced the complaint about blogs being ‘advocacy blogs’. I was just pointing out that this blog is an advocacy blog too.

I don't think you and Jeff are using the term the same way.

a) Jeff's comment was talking about blog posts by the blog owners (and those they choose to invite to write posts).

You are drawing a false equivalence by comparing that with commenters here, and a small subset of commenters here at that.

b) In addition Jeff appears to be using "advocacy blog" to describe one that advocates for particular (policy or political) position, often cloaking itself in pseudo-science in an attempt to mislead many of their readers that their positions are derived from science.

Referring back to point (a), the blog posts here aren't doing that (and weren't even doing that back when the posts consisted of more than Open Thread posts)

And moving past (a) to look at the commenters here, the only commenters doing that kind of advocacy and claiming (pseudo-scientific) support for it here are the self-styled "skeptics". You skipped right over their "advocacy" and instead focused on Jeff based on his use of certain words with political connotations. You have not shown that he is engaging in advocacy based on pseudo-science - and you can't, because he is careful to cite the mainstream science, especially in areas outside of his own scope of scientific competence. So once again you've drawn a false equivalence.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 11 Sep 2013 #permalink

Geeeze you're a crashing bore Lotharsson.

By chameleon (not verified) on 11 Sep 2013 #permalink

From Zeke H. at the YaleForum:

Total ocean heat content has increased by around 170 Zettajoules since 1970, and about 255 Zettajoules since 1955. This increased temperature has caused the oceans (0-2,000 meters) to warm about 0.09 C over this period. As the UK’s Met Office points out, if the same amount of energy had gone into the lower atmosphere it would of caused about 36 C (nearly 65 degrees F) warming! The oceans are by far the largest heat sink for the Earth, absorbing the vast majority of extra heat trapped in the system by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases.

http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2013/09/examining-the-recent-slow-…

OH MY GAWD !!!!!!

Bumbling BBD won't shut up about Zettajoules now !!!

2nd admonition: clown BBD :evil:

Admit that you don't know how many stations are covered by the GHCN database, clown :evil: !!

By Berendaneke (not verified) on 11 Sep 2013 #permalink

@74 clown from leper island :evil:

How much is "rich" for you leper island inhabitant :evil::

a) a 3-digit Oz dollar amount of own property?
b) a 4-digit Oz dollar amount of own property?
c) even a 5-digit Oz dollar amount of own property (I would bet that this is impossible)?

You cannot be "rich" as an inhabitant :evil: of CAGW leper island where all mainstream idiots who believe in AGW scientology live

By Berendaneke (not verified) on 11 Sep 2013 #permalink

#84

<blockquote.

Lionel… Isostatic uplift during the RWP seems less likely than thermal expansion to explain SLR.

BB the CO2 content in the atmosphere remained steady during the Younger Dryas, so we can safely assume temperatures fell sharply and rose again without any assistance from carbon dioxide.

Gordy, you haven't spotted your own idiocy yet! Go back and look at #79.

If thermosteric SLR raised sea levels *universally* as you claim, then we should see global evidence of a sharp fall in MSL - everything - not just a couple of Roman harbour, should be "high and dry". Idiot.

Second point. I asked you for evidence for a global and synchronous Roman Warm Period. You haven't provided *any*. Ditto for this supposed "Minoan Warm Period".

Now, I've got Gornitz here in front of me, and nowhere in all its 1000 pages is there a reference to the "Minoan Warm Period" or the "Roman Warm Period". Nowhere.

But if I google these terms, lots of disinformer blogs pop up. Lots of liars and shills and idiots. Now that ought to tell you something important about just how far from mainstream paleoclimatology this all is. You are living in a fantasy world created by liars and shills and idiots. Wake up, Gordy.

Third point. You, like the abysmally stupid "Karen" are clinging with all your might to a strawman. *Nobody* is claiming that all past climate change was caused by CO2. That is why I asked you to get off your lazy arse and find out about the causes of the YD. Which you obviously haven't bothered to do, preferring instead to post fuckwittery on the Internet.

Get the mess in your head sorted out.

#88

Sausage

For the last time, I don't care how many fucking stations there are. It is utterly fucking irrelevant. If I wanted to know I would find out, in under 30 seconds, but I can't even be bothered. Especially since you are mithering me about it.

You have been shown up to be utterly clueless on topics that *do* matter, over and over again. You cannot read graphs. You cannot understand basic scientific modes of thinking. You deny evidence. You deny physics.

You are a worthless pile of lunatic shite bubbling away in a cellar somewhere. Sane people aren't interested in your lunatic gibbering.

Fuck off!

Fatso once again shows his ignorance about anything connected to climate change, sea level rise, basic geology etc. etc:

Isostatic uplift during the RWP seems less likely than thermal expansion to explain SLR

Anyone who studied geography in early high school years knows about isostatic rebound (especially in Scotland where it is a well known phenomenon). He doe not realize that it is the land which is rising during isostatic rebound, not the sea.

What a fool.

By Ian Forrester (not verified) on 11 Sep 2013 #permalink

#92 Ian Forrester

Not just a fool. Dishonest.

I explained his nonsense to him on the previous page. But here he is, over a hundred comments later, still repeating debunked crap.

Lies, lies, lies. And so it goes on with these scum.

Up today at DesmogBlog in 'Dealing in Doubt: Greenpeace Report Exposes Fossil Fuel Funded Climate Denial Machine' pointing to information on the denial machine with some right-on graphics across the top of every page, with Joseph Bast in the line up at left and Richard Lindzen at right. Lindzen must be proud to be so aligned with Bast - the pinnacle of a scientific career, what!

This latest report is an expanded and updated one since the last in 2010, just in case you think you already have it.

There is also a pertinent article on Marc Morano Climate Denial Playbook: Marc Morano's History of Bullying Scientists seeing as our usual suspects seem to be muddying their boots by dragging there feet through that source then coming here and trying to dump.

Anybody know of a whack-a-mole emoticon?

BBD fuckwit :evil:

For the last time, I don’t care how many fucking stations there are. You must care, clown :evil:, as the GHCN database is at the heart of your warming delusion. All your pagan warming belief is based on the values in the GHCN database. And your worshipped paleo shit is totally irrelevant, fuckwit :evil:

It is utterly fucking irrelevant. Wrong, clown :evil:, it is dramatically relevant, and you complete idiot don't know this, you leper putrid moron :evil:

If I wanted to know I would find out, in under 30 seconds, but I can’t even be bothered. Especially since you are mithering me about it. No, you idiot :evil: will not find out, as you are at war with information provision and a computer illiterate

You have been shown up to be utterly clueless on topics that *do* matter, over and over again. Ah, fuqwit :evil: confess now which things "matter" according to your incompetence

You cannot read graphs.

You cannot understand basic scientific modes of thinking. I am the one who understands science and YOU NOT, non-scientist and clown :evil:

You deny evidence. Which evidence, clown :evil:, SPEAK which not-existing evidence

You deny physics. Bollocks, moron, YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND PHYSICS AS AGW TROLL

You are a worthless pile of lunatic shite bubbling away in a cellar somewhere. Sane people aren’t interested in your lunatic gibbering. blah blah blah blah :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

PISS OFF CLOWN :evil:

By Berendaneke (not verified) on 11 Sep 2013 #permalink

@ Sausage

The stupidest commenter on Deltoid still can't read a graph and understand that the number of stations in the GHCN network is utterly irrelevant!

Despite multiple explanations! We need a new word. "Stupid" doesn't go nearly far enough!

You're a religious nutter, aren't you Sausage? That's why your mind is so horribly scrambled. Or was it drugs, or a motorcycle accident? Please don't tell us you were born this way.

Poor Freddyfuckwit.

Unable to answer the 'why' about any of his nutter statements and mesmerised by his stupid little rows of emoticons. It must be like the movies for him.

Even buses and trains avoid contact with Berenfreddydanek, so much vitriol, enough to behave like thermite.

You’re a religious nutter, aren’t you

Word usage as above which include 'confess', 'pagan' and 'leper' suggest more than passing familiarity with the Big Book of Imaginary Friends for our wizened little cocktail sausage contributor. The Pope style pronounce,ents as if from on high further reinforce the perception.

Maybe Andy Montford concocted one conspiracy too many than was good for him, and when not spattering up these pages he's chewing carpets or pine trees.

the Big Book of Imaginary Friends

Ha! New one on me, that. Very droll.

Thanks! But, I shouldn't mock really as several folks I have a great deal of respect for are believers. And in the end, Freddyfred's just another frightened child pretending not to be.

If only they'd direct their energies in more productive, life-enhancing ways, but that's likely too much to expect given the ubiquity of Morano-style thought policing in the environs inhabited by our denier contingent.

Alright, let me get this right, you think the Minoan, Roman and Medieval periods showed a bit of regional warming, but they were not universal like AGW.

Whereas the universal temperature rise over the last quarter of the 20th century is unprecedented throughout the Holocene?

The science on the YD is still not settled, but the Antarctic Cool Reversal (ACR) a couple of thousand years before the YD is generally recognised as being caused by meltwater.

A very strong example of global warming leading to cooling.

Ah yes the ongoing verbal violence of Deltoidia. The land that time forgot.

Where cunts are cunts unrelenting.

Guys it's time to dust off and nuke the entire site from space. Time to do something useful with your lives instead of this ongoing nihilistic whine. The sound of fingernails down the chalk board.

Paint peeling on the verandah. Leaves falling off the tree.

It's dead Jim !

And sheer (and WILL YOU SHUT THE FUCK UP AND HAVE A DAY OFF YOU BORING FUCKING CUNT) tedium of BBD.

So utterly pointless. So boring.

you think the Minoan, Roman and Medieval periods showed a bit of regional warming

Where are you getting your data for all these grandiosely titled 'periods' (which, let's not forget are invented by interested parties to diminish the significance of the modern warming)

This is interesting: more on *seasonal* temperature trends from Kosaka & Xie via Tamino.

If this catches your attention, you will also be interested in Cohen et al. (2012) Asymmetric seasonal temperature trends.

Argh! Being badgered, its late.

Yes chek, that Morano thuggish domination of a ‘conversation’, that is why

I posted this.

Luke, what are you still doing here?

Why don't *you* fuck off Luke?!

After all, we now know you are a rather sad Walter Mitty type with a very large mouth but nothing to say. Further irruptions are redundant.

But of course, you have nowhere to go, having been banned even from DK Corrals like Nova's.

Ever wondered why you get kicked out of every moderated blog in the world Luke? Does this not trouble you? But as I said yesterday, self-awareness isn't really part of your psychological make-up, is it?

:-)

Gordy

A very strong example of global warming leading to cooling.

Nope. Hemispheric effects in antiphase, not global cooling. As usual, fucking wrong.

Read this. Get a clue.

Shakun et al. (2012).

How about you stop commenting on paleoclimate, eh? Seriously. Just stop. Please. Enough bullshit and sheer bloody wrongness is enough. Come on now.

Stop.

Yes chek, that Morano thuggish domination of a ‘conversation’, that is why I posted this

Still reading through it Lionel, and thanks for the link.
At one time I'd have checked in there at least once or twice a week, but with the number of papers thrown up here during the course of the monthly open threads it's a lot less now.

Which is a shame because Jim, Brendan and Ross make a major contribution in their own way. Keep your eye on the thimble and all that.

'How about you stop commenting on paleoclimate, eh?'

Do you want me to remain ignorant?

Isostasy

'In Sweden, post-glacial shorelines rise northward and are still rising at a rate of about 1 meter per century. In Stockholm, a notch was chiseled in rock in 1704 with a historic document telling where sea level was relative to the notch. Now that notch is 300 years old and the Baltic is 3 meters lower there. The same kind of story is repeated again and again, always the same–old shorelines have not just risen, they have risen progressively higher as you go in the direction of thicker ice. The coincidence is well beyond random probability.'

Don Easterbrook

Gordy

Do you want me to remain ignorant?

No, I want you to stop posting horse-shit on the Internet and instead use your time to educate yourself.

Don Easterbrook is a liar, Gordy. A notorious liar. Never mention his name to me again. It does not help you. Quite the reverse.

'...use your time to educate yourself.'

That is precisely why I'm here.

Shakun but not stirred.

'The implication of this relationship for understanding the role of CO2 in glacial cycles, however, remains unclear. For instance, proxy data have variously been interpreted to suggest that CO2 was the primary driver of the ice ages, a more modest feedback on warming, or, perhaps, largely a consequence rather than cause of past climate change.'

Gordon, I asked you @ #8 "Where are you getting your data for all these grandiosely titled ‘periods" and you've ignored it.

Why is that? I suspect it's very likely because you're talking denier shite again, but now you know it and hope the question will go away and disappear down the page.

It won't.

If you really are here to educate yourself Gordy, why the fuck are you wittering to me about isostasy? I told you about this, albeit without using technical language. Can't you just read the fucking words? See Page 3 #63:

"And as usual, you are completely wrong. Much apparent or *relative* sea level change is regional because it is caused by uplift or subsidence of the land relative to the sea. Is there anything that you *do* know anything about?

Now dig out your examples and do some background – bet you they are the result of local geology on the move… But you can do the work, Gordy, because I’m fed up with debunking your crap."

* * *

You have not read S12. There has not been time. Nor do you ever read the many references I provide for you, so I don't believe your shitting lies about being here to educate yourself. Fuck no. You are here to spew out denialist horse-shit, repetitiously, despite endless correction, forever and ever amen.

Fuck you, and fuck your lies. You insult not just my intelligence, but that of every other good faith commenter present.

You are scum, Gordy.

Here, for others, is a summary of the findings of Shakun (2012):

- NH summer insolation increases from ~ 21.5ka

- By ~19ka, mid/high latitude NH temperature increase causes sufficient melt from NH ice sheets for freshwater flux to inhibit NADW formation and halt AMOC

- NH *cools* as equatorial -> poleward heat transport stops

- With the NH ‘heat sink’ turned off, the SH *warms*, as it must

- Deep water warming in SH causes release of carbon to atmosphere. This *positive feedback* globalises and amplifies the warming

- NH melt resumes, fully engaging strongly positive ice albedo feedback

- Deglaciation accelerates until largely complete by ~11.5ka. Holocene interglacial begins

#19 chek

Yes, I've asked him to provide evidence for global and synchronous "Roman" and "Minoan" warm periods - at least twice and probably three times now. Because I cannot find any.

No response from Gordy. But on the lying SOB ploughs, blanking us both, repeating his rubbish.

As I said, scum.

I suspect it's mostly based on memories of movies filmed in Arizona or some such. BBD.

Fucking clowns who don't even realise they're wearing greasepaint and size 60 shoes.

There was no synchronous warming during the Minoan, Roman or Medieval periods, the only time there has been synchronous warming over the last 10,000 years is the last 25 years of the 20th century?

Well, quite.
But that wasn't the question.
Let's try again:
“Where are you getting your data for all these grandiosely titled ‘periods?”

chek you are an ignorant nasty piece of work.

I always go straight to the SS bible for everything worth knowing.

chek you are an ignorant nasty piece of work

Thanks, I expect nothing less from disinformed denier trash.
Now, about the RWP and MWP you've been wittering about:
“Where are you getting your data for all these grandiosely titled ‘periods?”

Come now Gordon, how are we expected to believe in your carefully constructed alternate universe if you won't share the fucking data?

Is there still a sly, vulgar fool on this thread? A hypocrite with a heart so full of petty spite that almost any scapegoat would do? A gutless abuser who hides his real name? Someone who seems to resent the general, common core of human decency by default? Someone who would deny this mirror? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder#Symptoms .

By Andrew Strang (not verified) on 11 Sep 2013 #permalink

So asking unqualified ignorami to verify their disinformed assertions and quack histories marks one as a sufferer of NPD, does it Gordon?
Who knew?

Lotharsson,
If you're trying to say that you think this blog is better than other blogs of a different political persuasion to yours then I would have to say that's a total no brainer. Of course you would think that and argue that. You seem to be highly offended that my observation has been that this blog has somewhat dropped in standards. My comment about Jeff Harvey's tendency to over use the word denier and also accuse people of being right wing libertarians is a feature of that observation.
The fact remains that this blog along with many others may pretend they are science blogs but in truth they are not.
As you yourself said earlier:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
" If so, this blog was always an advocacy blog, if only because Tim’s posts responded primarily to newspaper articles mauling science in the name of political advocacy. "
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with that comment of yours Lotharsson but on your MO to this point I would suspect you're now contemplating writing yet another lecture style response that will conclude that there is something wrong with my comprehension skills and I have suspiciously misinterpreted you.
Don't bother Lotharsson. Jeff Harvey agreed with me earlier that this blog is not what it once was.

Your comment is awaiting moderation.!!
I mistyped my email address. This is a copy/paste
My apologies if it appears twice.

Lotharsson,
If you’re trying to say that you think this blog is better than other blogs of a different political persuasion to yours then I would have to say that’s a total no brainer. Of course you would think that and argue that. You seem to be highly offended that my observation has been that this blog has somewhat dropped in standards. My comment about Jeff Harvey’s tendency to over use the word denier and also accuse people of being right wing libertarians is a feature of that observation.
The fact remains that this blog along with many others may pretend they are science blogs but in truth they are not.
As you yourself said earlier:
————————————————————————–
” If so, this blog was always an advocacy blog, if only because Tim’s posts responded primarily to newspaper articles mauling science in the name of political advocacy. ”
————————————————————————-
I agree with that comment of yours Lotharsson but on your MO to this point I would suspect you’re now contemplating writing yet another lecture style response that will conclude that there is something wrong with my comprehension skills and I have suspiciously misinterpreted you.
Don’t bother Lotharsson. Jeff Harvey agreed with me earlier that this blog is not what it once was.

Andrew, you're the only one here using a 'real name'...it might even be your own. But to answer your question, Emoticon Boy, Luke, Kaz...

#34, this blog is at its best when Tim has time to give an analysis or media/science deconstruction and we discuss...otherwise a rump of bad faith actors will just dump Moranoish mendacity here for the patient few committed to explicatory answers to get increasingly impatient about as those answers are ignored. There is still a lot to be gained IF you read links and are genuinely interested in papers.

It seems a waste of time asking contrarians to reply to questions, because of the adversarial nature of the debate.

Looking forward, it would be worthwhile looking at the incoming data and have a robust discussion without vitriol.

Yes of course Nick but despite what Lotharsson argues, this blog has not been a good place for discussions for quite some time.
I have also noticed that National Geographic seems to no longer sponsor this blog? Their logo has disappeared from this page?

That is precisely why I’m here.

Then, just like Luke, you're doing it wrong.

You have to learn to crawl before you can try to run, and I seem to remember there was even another step in the process in there somewhere.

You haven't learned to apply the very basics of climate science yet (let alone learnt to be actually skeptical). There are much better resources to use if you want to learn the basics of climate science than posting contrarian bollocks here that's clearly far beyond your level of understanding and waiting for informative responses, and you've been pointed to some of those resources many times over.

Curiously, however, there's no evidence that you've availed yourself of any of those resources or improved your level of basic understanding over all this time. One might be tempted to infer that you're not actually here for the reason you claim. Feel free to prove me wrong!

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 11 Sep 2013 #permalink

Don’t bother Lotharsson.

Pre-emptive critique innoculation doesn't work with me.

So don't bother ;-)

If you’re trying to say that you think this blog is better than other blogs of a different political persuasion to yours ...

No, I'm saying that you've misidentified this blog as a blog of a political persuasion, and you've ducked and weaved on that point ever since.

It is a blog of a scientific persuasion. Or to use the term you were previously using, this is a science advocacy blog, not a political advocacy blog.

Such a blog dealing with climate science necessarily ends up discussing political positions sometimes, because many of the people vocally pushing anti-science and pseudo-science in the domain of climate are doing so in order to advance their political positions. But that no more makes it a political advocacy blog than a blog that advocates the modern understanding of geography is a religious advocacy blog on the basis that it needs to point out that many of the Flat Earthers are motivated to take their positions on religious grounds.

You seem to be highly offended that my observation has been that this blog has somewhat dropped in standards.

Irrelevant and wrong. I'm not offended because I agree with the generalised observation but as I explained six different ways I disagree with your reasoning and further characterisations.

My comment about Jeff Harvey’s tendency to over use the word denier...

On what basis do you make that judgement? There is a veritable shitload of evidence of denial, and in most cases where I've noticed Jeff applying the term it seems well supported by the evidence, in which case it's not "overused".

... and also accuse people of being right wing libertarians is a feature of that observation.

That is the basis of the observation that blog standards have dropped or the blog is "political"?

How very odd. I'm not going to explain it again - most readers have already got it.

The fact remains that this blog along with many others may pretend they are science blogs but in truth they are not.

And I'm calling that out as bullshit.

Again.

(The quote of mine that you provided in an apparent attempt to support this false claim says that this is a science advocacy blog which must discuss anti- and pseudo-science motivated by political advocacy. In other words it says the very opposite of what you claim. See the beginning of this comment...)

You seem to be strongly motivated to dismiss this blog as "not being a science blog" and even frame it as "a political blog", despite all of the scientific discussion that takes place here. What possible motivation might one have to dismiss the scientific discussion? Hmmmm......

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 11 Sep 2013 #permalink

BBD moron :evil:

I give you a last chance to tell us how many stations are covered in the Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN) database, which is by far the most holy sancatuary of post-normal crap "climatology" to which you :evil: and the other inhabitants of leper island are addicted to, and which is inifnitely more relevant for the CAGW scientology church to found its unethical claim of doing harm to the economy of western nations, as compared to all the completeky irrelevant paleo crap from a few cherryoicked trees or cores or similar "robust' shit specimen of partizan greenpisser ideology research.

BBD fuvkwit :evil: ! Try to focus on the essentials in your miserable life and shit on your paleo crap!

How many stations the fuck are covered in your holy GHCN database. YOU HAVE TO KNOW THIS, MORON :evil: :evil: !!!

By Berendaneke (not verified) on 11 Sep 2013 #permalink

Lotsrsoon fuvkwit :evil:

despite all of the scientific discussion that takes place here.

SCENTIFIC DISCUSSION HERE :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

WHAT A STUPID CHOKE, SCIENTIFIC DISCUSSION HERE BY ALL LEPER ISLAND INHABITANTS WITH THEIR GREEN POLITICAL LEPER SPIN :evil:

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

All now: IT'S akways political!

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

By Berendaneke (not verified) on 11 Sep 2013 #permalink

Freddy, take your meds.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 11 Sep 2013 #permalink

Losth fuqwit :evil: still released from your psychiatric ward and off your thioridazine?

By Berendaneke (not verified) on 11 Sep 2013 #permalink

I have also noticed that National Geographic seems to no longer sponsor this blog? Their logo has disappeared from this page?

I don't believe it was ever sponsorship. I seem to recall National Geographic took over day to day site management whilst ownership was retained by SEED. That initially led National Geographic to brand the ScienceBlogs sites using their icon (and remove some of the comment authoring options and a couple of other changes that weren't uniformly positive), but the icon reverted a while back.

Given that ScienceBlogs has always had its own brand and as pointed out at the bottom of the page has its own registered trademark owned by its own corporation, it's difficult to conclude purely from that change that National Geographic has ceased their involvement (although that could have happened without any fanfare).

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 11 Sep 2013 #permalink

#45: it's always projection...

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 11 Sep 2013 #permalink

New paper finds IPCC climate models don't realistically simulate convection
More problems for the models: A paper published today in Geophysical Research Letters finds climate models do not realistically simulate convection, "a key element of the weather and climate system for transporting mass, momentum, and thermal energy," because of a large gap in the scale or resolution required to simulate convection [1-2 km] compared to global atmospheric motions [on the order of 10,000 km].

According to the authors, "It has been challenging to simulate convection realistically in global atmospheric models, because of the large gap in spatial scales between convection (10^0 km) and global motions (10^4 km)." The authors find "an essential change for convection statistics occurred around 2-km grid spacing. The convection structure, number of convective cells, and distance to the nearest convective cell dramatically changed at this [2 km] resolution," which is a much, much smaller resolution than used by IPCC climate models.

Skeptics such as Dr. Noor van Andel have shown that the so-called "human fingerprint" or "hot spot" of global warming [that exists only in climate models] is a consequence of incorrect assumptions regarding convection, and this new paper may shed light on the reasons why.

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2013/09/new-paper-finds-ipcc-clima…

Deep moist atmospheric convection in a sub-kilometer global simulation
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50944/abstract

#47: WRONG, BUT it’s always political…

you are not very intelligent

By Berendaneke (not verified) on 11 Sep 2013 #permalink

"There are much better resources to use if you want to learn the basics of climate science than posting contrarian bollocks here that’s clearly far beyond your level of understanding and waiting for informative responses, and you’ve been pointed to some of those resources many times over."

Pigs bum - you just don't being shown up. You could some serious issues - a list from me - and all you get back are diversions and appeals to authority, verballing and devotee apologies for material that is a disgrace or a serious concern.

Verballing is a serious issue here - I never said I liked Nova, didn't believe in AGW, didn't think it to be a risk (at some level). I didn't vote for the LNP at the recent election either and I'm here of my own free will and profit not from the interaction. So assume nothing !

So given your house etiquette - swearing at you is more profitable and enjoyable.

@46 blah blah blah no meat no substance just bpnarcisstic blah blah bkah from an inteklectualy impaired leper island greenpisser :evil: off his meds

I don’t believe it was ever sponsorship. I seem to recall National Geographic took over day to day site management whilst ownership was retained by SEED. That initially led National Geographic to brand the ScienceBlogs sites using their icon (and remove some of the comment authoring options and a couple of other changes that weren’t uniformly positive), but the icon reverted a while back.

Given that ScienceBlogs has always had its own brand and as pointed out at the bottom of the page has its own registered trademark owned by its own corporation, it’s difficult to conclude purely from that change that National Geographic has ceased their involvement (although that could have happened without any fanfare).

blah blah I I and I blah blah blah

How boring and irrelevant!

By Berendaneke (not verified) on 11 Sep 2013 #permalink

Questions may be needed to address the obvious long-wave radiation deficit.

Speaking of a science advocacy blog needing to mention politics, we have a vocal climate science denier loudly lobbying to become science minister.

He advocates delaying action apparently on the basis that climate sensitivity is low, and even says publicly that "Most of the stuff [Lord Monckton] says is entirely reasonable..." whilst repudiating overwhelming consensus amongst the researchers.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 11 Sep 2013 #permalink

All: it's always nausea with Lotharsson ...

the leper island greenpisser :evil: off his meds

By Berendaneke (not verified) on 11 Sep 2013 #permalink

" Dr Jensen, the member for Tangney in Western Australia, who has a master's degree in physics and a PhD in material science."

Just what we need Lothie, some sensible balance.

Vote 1 ........Dennis Jensen.. Science minister.

Pigs bum – you just don’t being shown up.

Bollocks. You've entirely - but reliably - missed the point.

My mention of you was to point out that your claim to be coming here to try and resolve your list of "issues" is a distinctly sub-optimal strategy, just as el gordo's "come here to learn" strategy is. If you really wanted to investigate those issues you'd go somewhere that people with the specific expertise hang out - and you wouldn't display the myriad signs of bad faith discussion that you display here.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 11 Sep 2013 #permalink

Dr. Jensen is a physics master (unlike all the CAGW lepers) and best qualified as Oz science mininster. In addition he treats "climate scientists" consensus of paid greenpissers, most of them laywers, economists, political lobbyists, very few deranged meteorologists, as what this crao consnsus is:

PURE SHIT!!!

All: it's always political ..... :evil:

By Berendaneke (not verified) on 11 Sep 2013 #permalink

"bad faith discussion": oh poor Lotharsson, go whining to mummy, what a pity with your "bad faith" of believing in crap scientology of greenpisser CAGW.

Fuck off you whining in-patient off his meds

All: it's always political ... :evil:

By Berendaneke (not verified) on 11 Sep 2013 #permalink

I think there's a bit of a heatwave at the moment in Freddy's part of the world.

As to his emoticon use, perhaps those are merely mistranslated chunks of Schwyzerdütsch?

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 11 Sep 2013 #permalink

#49...is it 'new' ice or just old ice spread out further? None of us know do we? We do know short-term fluctuation is highly likely to be an ice re-distribution,not generation,at any time of the year. It is simply not possible to call it 'new' ,as in newly frozen,because the satellite is simply detecting extent. Volume may have dropped while extent increased. Calling it 'new' is misleading,and as the blog owner spends his time trawling the data he'd be well aware of that...

@62 clown, wrong, you pour out your ignorance here:

We do know short-term fluctuation is highly likely to be an ice re-distribution,not generation,at any time of the year. It is simply not possible to call it ‘new’ ,as in newly frozen,because the satellite is simply detecting extent. Volume may have dropped while extent increased. Calling it ‘new’ is misleading,and as the blog owner spends his time trawling the data he’d be well aware of that…

wrong and boring. Go studying textbooks of glaciology, moron!

Have you ever seen ice in nature, you idiot?

By Berendaneke (not verified) on 11 Sep 2013 #permalink

@61 boring and irrelevant. Fuq off, fiiot

By Berendaneke (not verified) on 11 Sep 2013 #permalink

# 55, That's the pity with Jensen: on paper he has what's needed for a Science portfolio, but as he's a right-wing hysteric / techno-Cornucopian, he defers to liars like Monckton....really, just extraordinary, but true.

#63, sea ice extent has nothing to do with 'textbooks of glaciology', you moron...really,you are an utter incompetent. Go and play with your shiny buttons.

I advocate the appointment of the honorary MP Dr. Jensen as next Minister of Science of Australia and have written a letter to my friend Tony Abbott recommending this. This will help to put the international greenpisser CAGW ideology and irresponsible hysteria into perspective of scientifically irrelevant and economically harmful deviation by fanatic eco fundamentalists who want to overturn our world again to communism and poverty.

And, beware of Lotharsson and Thomas: both are off their meds at the moment and not accountable.

All: it's always political ... :evil:

By Berendaneke (not verified) on 11 Sep 2013 #permalink

@63, off your meds again?

sea ice has nothing to do with ice, insane moron? Piss off fuqvit

Your political spin is untenable :evil:

YOU ARE A PRIMITIVE RIGHT WING NUTTER WITHOUT DECENCY

By Berendaneke (not verified) on 11 Sep 2013 #permalink

#68...projection again! You seriously need to consider rehab.

You will not find anything much useful about sea ice edge behavior in a textbook about glaciology, sweetie, glaciology is land-based...

Thanks for that SMH link Loth.

Dr. Jensen is a physics master...

...or more specifically, his Ph.D. is in material science (and he hasn't published any successful peer-reviewed climate science research unless I'm mistaken), all of which fails to demonstrate competence in climate science.

This is a perfect example of the discussion I was having with Stu 2 about people who may have tertiary science qualifications but have no expertise in climate science. Regardless of their "science" tertiary qualifications, if they have no demonstrated competence in climate science their opinions should carry no more weight than anyone else who has no expertise in climate science such as your baker, auto mechanic, heart surgeon, or your favourite loopy foreign viscount.

This is especially true when they claim that the heavy consensus that has formed amongst those with demonstrable competence in the field based on the evidence is mistaken. The not-competent calling the demonstrably competent "mistaken" (or worse) should be a red flag in any field of knowledge where anyone is free to submit a paper for peer-reviewed publication and thereby demonstrate at least basic competence.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 11 Sep 2013 #permalink

Lotharsson @#40 and@#46.
Your use of the term "pre-emptive" presupposes that there are battle lines drawn.
There aren't.
At least I don't view you as an enemy. From your rather acerbic comments to me however, I will say that it's becoming increasingly unlikely that I would consider you as a friendly blogger.
I was just observing that this site is no longer what it once was and that people are making unfounded accusations about each other largely based on their political affiliations. Nick's comment above @#55 about Jensen being a very recent example.
You are of course entitled to your opinion as I am mine.
I was not intending to offend, I was just offering an observation. If you have decided to be offended or perhaps overly defensive that is entirely your decision.
As for National Geographic, I apologise if "sponsor" was the wrong word choice. Their logo has nonetheless disappeared from this site.
I think it's a shame that this site has degenerated.

"I was just observing that this site is no longer what it once was"

That's because Tim doesn't invest much energy here any more and we are left with endless 'open threads'.

You have to realize, Stu2, that its the deniers who are distorting and mangling science to bolster a political agenda, and not scientists on the other side. That's why deniers are for the most part relegated to blogs, where there is no peer-review and thus anything can get said and packaged as 'sound science'. It also explains why many on the academic fringe - Nova and McIntyre are good examples - end up here.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 11 Sep 2013 #permalink

Ah, the irony....

Dr Jensen suggests he would be better qualified than anyone to take charge of science.

"I'm not aware of any other scientist [in the Parliament]," he said.

Then...

"In the climate area there is appeal to authority and appeal to consensus, neither of which is scientific at all," Dr Jensen told Fairfax Media on Thursday.

What. A. Clown.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 11 Sep 2013 #permalink

I substantially agree Jeff Harvey except that it isn't only those you call "right wing" or call "deniers" who are guilty of this behaviour.
Plenty of others who are not qualified are running blogs on the "other side" as well.
There have also been plenty of science ministers appointed by government who have far less scientific qualifications than Jensen.

This article pretty well eviscerates everything the Arctic ice-collapse deniers have been saying here.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23964372

Note what many have been saying about ice thickness - far more of an important indicator of ice loss than extent.

B-bye Karen and Berendaneke. Its back to your respective caves.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 11 Sep 2013 #permalink

Your use of the term “pre-emptive” presupposes that there are battle lines drawn.

Huh? Pre-emptive doesn't imply that. Pre-emptive was a description of your "don't bother".

...people are making unfounded accusations about each other largely based on their political affiliations. Nick’s comment above @#55 about Jensen being a very recent example.

I'm not sure that's correct. I presume you're referring to his comment on Dr. Jensen. It's difficult to find a more plausible motive than political position for any politician with some scientific training to delegate his scientific understanding to a propagandistic unscientific vaudeville act like Monckton (unless perhaps one wants to invoke religion, but that doesn't appear to be the case here).

Which leads to a linked topic, although the link may not be immediately obvious:

Plenty of others who are not qualified are running blogs on the “other side” as well.

And what has been pointed out here is that the situation is not symmetrical, so the same critique doesn't apply to "both sides" when one side is siding with the experts and the evidence and one is not.

A writer who isn't scientifically competent pointing out that the scientific evidence is sufficient basis for concern isn't espousing an opinion that goes against the evidence-based opinion drawn by the heavy majority of those who are competent.

A non-mechanic car driving enthusiast writing a blog for non-mechanics that accurately reports best maintenance practices as specified by competent mechanics and car manufacturers based on their experience and extensive evidence is in a very different position to another non-mechanic who blogs that the large body of mechanics are getting it wrong because he says so or based on his own analysis.

An attempted critique of the former blog on the basis that the author is not a mechanic is not valid, because their advocated maintenance practices are NOT predicated on their own expertise but on the real expertise of the body of mechanics and manufacturers.

The same critique against the latter blog carries much more weight. The non-expert needs to provide sufficient evidence and analysis to demonstrate that the vast body of mechanics are wrong, and usually evidence is simply not provided. Even when evidence & analysis is provided and is asserted by the non-qualified author to be of sufficient quality, the audience are also non-mechanics. That means they don't have the ability to figure out whether the argument is actually robust (in part because they don't know what they don't know but need to know in order to assess the quality of evidence). The auto maintenance contrarian blog in this case is in effect asking unskilled readers to trust its unskilled analysis and evidence OVER the analysis of the evidence performed by the skilled - which is precisely what Dr. Jensen is doing when he offers his own unskilled opinion and cites the even more unskilled Monckton.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 12 Sep 2013 #permalink

#72, My comments on Jensen,Stu2, are based on his writing and behavior: I've read his offerings on science and politics at Jo Nova's. I stated that he was on paper very suitable...but his openly offered opinions on science are highly political where they should be cautious, play shamelessly to an audience, and reveal poor judgement. Even offering a qualified endorsement of Monckton's views is a mistake, simply on the basis that Monckton is known to have lied about his CV and achievements,let alone on his serial misrepresentation of papers despite their authors explicit positions. Politicians have to show better judgement....Jensen fails.

@72 clown, YOU FAIL, not Dr. Jensen.

Forgotten to take your meds, clown :evil:

All (with deep empathy please): it's always political ... :evil:

By Berendaneke (not verified) on 12 Sep 2013 #permalink

@78, not 72: clown, YOU FAIL, not Dr. Jensen.

Forgotten to take your meds, clown

All (with deep empathy please): it’s always political …

By Berendaneke (not verified) on 12 Sep 2013 #permalink

#72, and as Jensen has happily partaken in the Coalitions campaign,the strategy of which was to create alarm by fibbing about the state of the economy, he is a right-wing hysteric as a matter of mundane reality. It's not personal.

Losthsome clown :evil:

you are more than anybody else here a political propagandist. That reproach this anybody else is a ridiculous perversion in its own right. Your connection to science and research is zero.

Since when are you off your meds, fuckwit :evil: ?

By Berendaneke (not verified) on 12 Sep 2013 #permalink

@81 partizan fuckwit :evil:

Master your hatred, clown, and accept the new government, clown :evil:

You should take your meds again, clown :evil:

By Berendaneke (not verified) on 12 Sep 2013 #permalink

#80, it's perfectly clear you are quite mad, Emoticon Boy...with deep empathy please,seek some help. You are only upsetting yourself,you are incapable of rational comment,and it seems you are getting sicker.

Harvey, you ALWAYS cherrypick those parameters which best fit your bad faith of insane CAGW scientology and hate those which reject your bad pagan faith. Therefore you are a true science fuckwit :evil: !!

You should now take your anti-schizophrenic drugs again!

PS: you have no knowledge of meteorology, hence don't open your dirty mouth so wide, you are an irrelevant science ignoramus and ugly narcist (I, I, my ego, I, I, ...). Shut up and piss off, blether)

By Berendaneke (not verified) on 12 Sep 2013 #permalink

@84, still off your meds with derealization problems, clown :evil: ?

- You now nothing about meteorology
- You are poor
- You are ugly
- Your paleo addiction is crap behavior
- You are an insane leper island inhabitant

Take your meds now, go to your doctor to get your treatment, fuckwit :evil:!!!!!

By Berendaneke (not verified) on 12 Sep 2013 #permalink

@74 Thomas, the clown are you, not Dr. Jensen!

You are a superbrat without manners. You parents should be ashamed!

Nobody likes you, nobody cares about the crap you produce.

Just piss off, moron :evil:

By Berendaneke (not verified) on 12 Sep 2013 #permalink

@73 Harvey whining:

That’s because Tim doesn’t invest much energy here any more and we are left with endless ‘open threads’

Oh, you poor boys, daddys protection missing, oh huhuhuhu, we are left alone with superior and far more intelligent counterparts than us and don't know now to impose our bad faith ... whiny ... whiny

Poor Jeffrey what a pity that somebody disturbs your insane weather dreams

... its getting warmer, how bad, bad, mummy please help me

By Berendaneke (not verified) on 12 Sep 2013 #permalink

#84 Nick

You should have seen him when he was "Freddy"!

Mind you, I think we are witnessing reversion to the mean.

:-)

You are a superbrat without manners. You parents should be ashamed!

It's always projection!

:-)

#85-89...Tim, can you block this person, please?

sorry BBD,#85-88, ha!....

@71 Loathsome indredulty

should be a red flag in any field of knowledge where anyone is free to submit a paper for peer-reviewed

Listen, you asshole: What you excrement here is

1) Again and always appeal to authority

2) Advocacy of scientific dictatorship

To which degree are you already degeneratec, fuckwit. :evil:

NEVER EVER WILL ANYBODY GIVEN AUTHORITARIAN PRIORITY, UNDER NO AUSPICES, UNDERSTOOD, YOU MORON!!!

Go to North Korea where you can pursue your authoritarian wishes!

By Berendaneke (not verified) on 12 Sep 2013 #permalink

@89-92

helpless appeal to authority by climate fuckwits

By Berendaneke (not verified) on 12 Sep 2013 #permalink