Now how about you admit your error instead of frantically, dishonestly wriggling.
Come on, you sack of bad faith. Admit that you do not understand why Ken is completely wrong to use MT data to argue that Australia did not in fact experience the hottest 12 months in the instrumental surface temperature record.
This is a gross error on his part and a gross misunderstanding on yours.
#97...why did you make an identical link to the error at Ken's Kingdom a second time, after your excruciating dimness was revealed the first? Because #93 is not an answer, BTW.
#1#2, Bill, you silky smooth charmer, that was the very first amendment anyone has seen from Kaz!!! Did you have a shave this morning,or something? I dips me lid!
"massive climate shifts in turn leading to the extinction of dinosaurs.” And what exactly has that to do with co2?
Deductive reasoning and understanding analogues isn't on the denier syllabus then PantieZ? I suppose it could never be as some degree of intelligence would be required, which denier blogs don't offer instruction in.
Oh fuck off, Karen. I didn't even *know* about it until the "sceptic" screeching started, at which point it was established very quickly that it was a bog-standard transposition typo. If you had ever had a proper job, you would *know* that these crop up and can slip through the editing process all-too-easily. It was a distraction then and it is a distraction now.
SpamKan, you do not direct the topic here. Now before making demands of others, apologise for your repeated spamming of KlownsKiingdom tropospheric temperature nonsense. Then admit you didn't understand it either.
'Aussie' like where when shortly after you were in diapers on your daddy's ranch he used to take you in his pickup truck to elementary school and on the weekends sometimes you'd go out to a ball game and perhaps have a cook-out? That kind of Aussie?
See, I am an Aussie, and I'm one of the rare ones who actually knows something about the land, and landscape I live in.
Not like some cretin who can't even identify the value of 'ecosystem services'! Jesus Wept! but you're an ignoramus... And you might as well have been raised in Oklahoma for all the good you're doing this country.
A nation of such perennial expatriates who treat the continent itself (and the people they've usurped) with sneering contempt! Yeah, that's bound to turn out well...
Karen, you can witter all day and it won't make any difference to the facts.
The 2035 figure should have been 2350. It was an error that didn't get spotted and the IPCC handled it badly when it came to light. The fake sceptics had a field day. End of story.
Only desperate deniers keep thrashing away at trivia because trivia is all you have.
This is for bumbling BBD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORRECTION
On page 29 of the following report WWF included the following statement:
"In 1999, a report by the Working Group on Himalayan Glaciology (WGHG) of the International
Commission for Snow and Ice (ICSI) stated: `glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other
part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the livelihood[sic] of them disappearing by the
year 2035 is very high.'"
This statement was used in good faith but it is now clear that this was erroneous and should be disregarded.
The essence of this quote is also used on page 3 in the Executive summary where it states: The New
Scientist magazine carried the article "Flooded Out - Retreating glaciers spell disaster for valley
communities" in their 5 June 1999 issue. It quoted Professor Syed Hasnain, then Chairman of the
International Commission for Snow and Ice's (ICSI) Working Group on Himalayan Glaciology, who said
most of the glaciers in the Himalayan region "will vanish within 40 years as a result of global warming".
This statement should also be disregarded as being unsound.
WWF regret any confusion this may have caused.
Whichever continent has the misfortune to act as a host for SpamKan or any of the other regular Ignorati, what you all are can be summed up in 3 words: Daily Mail Reader.
This is for bumbling BBD
—————————————————————————————-
CORRECTION
On page 29 of the following report WWF included the following statement:
“In 1999, a report by the Working Group on Himalayan Glaciology (WGHG) of the International
Commission for Snow and Ice (ICSI) stated: `glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other
part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the livelihood[sic] of them disappearing by the
year 2035 is very high.’”
This statement was used in good faith but it is now clear that this was erroneous and should be disregarded.
The essence of this quote is also used on page 3 in the Executive summary where it states: The New
Scientist magazine carried the article “Flooded Out – Retreating glaciers spell disaster for valley
communities” in their 5 June 1999 issue. It quoted Professor Syed Hasnain, then Chairman of the
International Commission for Snow and Ice’s (ICSI) Working Group on Himalayan Glaciology, who said
most of the glaciers in the Himalayan region “will vanish within 40 years as a result of global warming”.
This statement should also be disregarded as being unsound.
WWF regret any confusion this may have caused.
Try to understand the dynamics of this discussion, "Karen".
We were discussing your repeated errors and refusal to acknowledge them.
NOT the error in IPCC AR4 WG2. Anyone interested in reviewing that mess can find an unbiased account here. Note that it is critical of the IPCC, and on closer inspection, rightly so.
Note also that I admit being mistaken about the exact nature of the error. I try to act in good faith and have never pretended to perfect knowledge.
Even if he did - and I will check - the problem does not go away. Remember what I was obliged to remind you earlier: the monthly anomaly TLT is much more variable than the surface temperature and especially so in response to ENSO The 1999 and 2010 peaks are the Austral response to EN events. There is no EN event underway now.
Simply put, you cannot use MT or even TLT data to argue that the surface temperature records broken over the last 12 months in Australia are invalid. And you have to wonder why they are so extremely high now, in ENSO-neutral conditions.
yes agree - they are samples of different things. It is a classic high sub-tropical ridge neutral year drought in Australia. The temperatures are high perhaps among the highest. Getting too revved up about absolute highest is a mugs game. The trend will out in the end. (neutral years of course don't mean median rainfall for Australia - anything can still happen)
"Stronger winds also drive ice faster, which leads to still more deformation and ridging. This creates thicker, longer-lasting ice, while exposing surrounding water and thin ice to the blistering cold winds that cause more ice growth."
"You've got more thick ice, more ridged ice, and at the same time you will get more ice extent because the ice just survives longer," Zhang said."
Karen, you dipshit, that is about sea ice not the Antarctic ice sheets. No further discussion with you until you sort out the kindergarten-level basics. Just fuck off.
#36... right you are! So Ken has misidentified it as mid troposphere in text. But it's T2LT [TLT] in fact...these 'sceptics' are reliably unreliable.
However, there is still no reason why one would expect surface thermometry and TLT which weights most strongly at 2000m asl to agree over rankings of closely separated 12 month periods. It is not an apples to apples comparison. It is the closest you will get between methods,but disagreemnet is always real.
And to describe such disagreement, as Ken does, as 'unfortunate' is stupid. To signal to the reader,as Ken does, that one needs make a decision 'between' the metrics on 'trust' is simply misdirection.
'Ahha, OK the Daily Mail readers have all pit their hands up' @ 4:19. Including with all the usual suspects that infest here, Rednoise being one of that breed I am sure.
Rose should be embarrassed, but are socio-paths ever that self aware.
"Still you haven’t produced one single evidence that anthropogenic co2 is causing extinction of species"
OMG, how many bloody times must I repeat it::
BECAUSE THE FRIGGING TIME SCALES INVOLVED ARE TOO SHORT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! REPEAT UNTIL IT SINKS IN DAMMIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I know that Pantie is stupid, that is patently obvious, but even this level of ignorance is hard to deal with. I also pointed out that extinctions are not officially verified by the IUCN until a species has not been observed for a minimum, of 50 years. Finally, given the number of species involved, and the fact that (1) many are cryptic or found in areas where there has been little study, and (2) that there aren't that many scientists around to monitor the demographics of most species, its very difficult to say whether a species exists or not. But we do know that past climate change-related events which took place over much longer time scales than the current rate of warming resulted in mass extinctions. It doesn't take a whole lot of gray matter to argue that a 3 C rise in temperatures in a century or less will have catastrophic effects on many natural ecosystems.
"This is primarily because long-term near-surface temperature observations are restricted to Byrd Station in central West Antarctica, a data set with substantial gaps. Here, we present a complete temperature record for Byrd Station, in which observations have been corrected, and gaps have been filled using global reanalysis data and spatial interpolation. "
The ABC is purely a disseminator of propaganda,...
There goes another irony meter.
Remember, Karen's purpose here is to disseminate lies...or since they are usually constructed to push a particular set of policy positions, "propaganda", if you will.
If I were you, "Karen", I'd leave the graphs alone. Add to paleoclimate and the cryosphere as topics where I will screw you up into a little ball and throw you into the bin.
It's amusing - at least to me - that "Karen" waves Zhang (2013) at me in "her" confusion over the difference between sea ice and ice sheets (marine or otherwise) without joining the dots.
As I have repeatedly tried to explain to "her", it is the increase in zonal wind speeds that is driving the increased upwelling that is driving the increased basal melt that is driving the increased rate of mass loss. Zhang's modelled study simply provides support for the observations.
Poor, stupid, confused "Karen" is so lost in space that "she" doesn't even realise what "she" has done.
I full agree with Tony Abbott to kill the idiotic carbon tax in Australia as fast as possible, as there is no scientific proof that CO2 heats the air 2m above the surface!!!
#66 excuse me for missing that, ministering to the afflicted is wearying. The ratio of staff to inmates is reasonable here, but I must have nodded off ;)
Back in the good old days, Sunspot (who some think donned drag and became Karen) used to give epic displays of clown-trolling.
A real master of the self-defeating argument. Worth trawling back and reading his own private thread, if you have time spare - it was a real theatre of the absurd for the true connaisseur.
Karen, isn't it hillarious to watch the warmiztas constanly moving goalposts, building strawmen, projecting and lying? The stupid moronic regulars on this site really look silly in their tin foil hats. Especially thos of them sho call themselves scientists. Absolutely priceless. Hahahahahaha
You absolutely are not in a position to be calling Jeff a fucking moron. You have posted nothing but arrant nonsense on this (and other) threads. Complete fucking rubbish. Going on your commentary, you are demonstrably ignorant, confused, in denial and fundamentally stupid.
Yes, I've been following this paper through various drafts since it came out of the PALAEOSENS project that culminated in the to-date definitive quantification of climate sensitivity derived from paleoclimate behaviour across the entire Cenozoic. See Rohling et al. (2012) NB: you may have looked at this already - I've posted the link at Deltoid many times.
This is why deniers deny paleoclimate behaviour. It drives a truck through all this lukewarmer rubbish.
How long have we had AGW, under the prevailing dogma? Fucking moron.
Technically, since the Industrial Revolution got underway. But for practical purposes, across the C20th with a definitive emergence of the forced trend since the 1970s.
Describing the laws of physics - specifically radiative transfer - as "dogma" is just buttock-stupid. You have also outed yourself as a physics denier. Thanks for confirming that.
It's actually beyond the comprehension of a moron to understand that the observed rise of 0.72C in the 60 years up to 2012 is but the start of an escalator that on current trajectory could go to 3.5C+. by 2100.
Because it hasn't happened yet, PantieZ is crowing without realising there's no current mechanism to halt it or the consequences that come with it.. And yet morons who aren't renowned for their abstract thinking abilities, somehow imagine their opinion means anything..
Now the odd thing here is that Tim Lambert has come down hard on sock puppetry before, and has explicitly confined Sunspot/"Karen" to a padded cell, sorry thread of it's, sorry its own. So we have a twofer. Surely grounds for a permanent IP-block ban? Or am I being too much of a wishy-washy liberal here?
Always doing that! Why I warned you, but never mind. Good call on the Cronin - it's not exactly light reading, but by God you will know your onions once you get to grips with it.
As I have repeatedly tried to explain to “her”, it is the increase in zonal wind speeds that is driving the increased upwelling that is driving the increased basal melt that is driving the increased rate of mass loss. Zhang’s modelled study simply provides support for the observations.
Poor, stupid, confused “Karen” is so lost in space that “she” doesn’t even realise what “she” has done.
Well Lionel naughty palaeo indeed. One might be sceptical when you read the actual paper which you should have cited not the alarmsist Climate Progress replete with smouldering planet.
- "inherently partially subjective". Issues with aerosols. I have mentioned DMS before.
How heavily all this work depends on proxies based on models themselves.
"Climate sensitivity extracted from Pleistocene climate change is thus inherently partly subjective as it depends on how much weight is given to mutually inconsistent estimates of glacial-to-interglacial global temperature change. Our initial assessment is a fast-feedback sensitivity of 3±1°C for 2×CO2, corresponding to an LGM cooling of 4.5°C, similar to the 2.2–4.8°C estimate of PALAEOSENS [99]. This sensitivity is higher than estimated by Schmittner et al. [94], partly because they included natural aerosol changes as a forcing. In addition, we note that their proxies for LGM sea surface cooling exclude planktic foraminifera data, which suggest larger cooling [126], and, as noted by Schneider von Deimling et al. [95], regions that are not sampled tend to be ones where the largest cooling is expected. It should be possible to gain consensus on a narrower range for climate sensitivity via a community project for the LGM analogous to PRISM Pliocene data reconstruction [97,98] and PlioMIP model intercomparisons [67,68]."
And stop fucking bleating about uncertainty. Even pushing the absolute edge of the lower bound, you cannot get below ~2C and it is vastly more likely to be nearer ~3C. You are being a wanker again, skimming and quote mining with zero real understanding of the methodology or the relative strength of the conclusions.
"jeffieboy, you’re so full of shit! How long have we had AGW, under the prevailing dogma"
Oh, about 25 years since it was officially recognized, and another few more if we look at trends. Not remotely long enough to generate extinctions that would be officially recognized by IUCN. Certainly long enough to extrapolate deleterious effects on biodiversity - and the empirical literature is full of studies demonstrating this.
None of this has been laid to rest - layer upon layer of supposition, proxies, assumptions and models challenged each day as the paper boy brings more journals.
" Not remotely long enough to generate extinctions that would be officially recognized by IUCN. Certainly long enough to extrapolate deleterious effects on biodiversity"
JEff - Not really - more alarmism. I wonder how (myopically speaking) Australian flora and fauna deal with massive interannual and decadal variability. And you want to bedwet over an uncertain trend with modelled plus or minus signs in overall rainfall. Pullease !
What we do know is that cats, dogs, cane toads and poor fire regimes ARE a threat to biodiversity NOW ! Interest - zippo - all going to AGW biodiversity nonsense which frankly is of no help. Grab a gun and stand a post Jeff. Wear a cat fur hat.
"We show that the changes in DMS flux and CCN concentration between the present day and global warming scenario are similar to interannual differences due to variability in windspeed. So although DMS makes a significant contribution to global marine CCN concentrations, the sensitivity of CCN to potential future changes in DMS flux is very low. This finding, together with the predicted small changes in future seawater DMS concentrations, suggests that the role of DMS in climate regulation is very weak."
More modelled rubbish ! "We show" laughable - no "they assert" and "they model". Given the performance of the models - ROFL !
Luke, for once you make a good comment. Well done! I agree that there are multiple threats to biodiversity and that we should not invest disproportionately to mitigate just AGW. But if - and this is a big if - the IPCC projected temperature rise of 2 C or higher is accurate, then this is going to be a major factor driving declines in biodiversity. There are no ifs and buts. If, on the other hand, you think that its OK to throw the dice and tinker with the atmosphere, then so be it. But we will reap what we sow. If you are indeed wrong, then the consequences will be dire.
The Lukes, when you've finished chortling at your own dumbness, would you like to try and name any modern industry - service or manufacturing - that doesn't employ modelling? And for bonus points, why do you think they all do and will continue to do so.
Dog whistling for support from know-nothing numpties like SpamKan'n'PantieZ is what you're reduced to now?
Nick@#83 previous page.
After all that information you posted about how the SH system works,I am a bit surprised that you don't know what the flow on damages from senselessly wasting stored water have been.
Chek above @#92.
That is a good question you ask Luke. Of course I have no wish to answer for Luke and he may have a different answer to me, but IMHO, the answer is of course everybody uses modelling. That's why people other than climate scientists can read them and analyse them and see where they're performing and where they're not.
#94...whatever your level of surprise, or suspicion of my ignorance, tell me what you think the flow on effects of 'senselessly wasting stored water' have been, Stu2
Why worry about who other people worry about? You've got enough issues with your own behaviour to deal with.
I wonder how (myopically speaking) Australian flora and fauna deal with massive interannual and decadal variability.
Er, mate, you might want to rethink your foolish wondering. This is a standard denialist meme based on misunderstanding the problem. You're smart enough to figure out where your error lies...my smart money is on you not doing so though.
(And I'm not talking about myopically focusing on Australia rather than the globe, or egregiously mistaking rainfall for the entirety of climate change.)
Nick.
I don't suspect ignorance but I was surprised.
If you are truly interested and not just trying to score points, may I respectfully suggest you think "triple bottom line". Also think why the system was built in the first place and was managed by one organisation called the Water Conservation and Irrigation Commission (WC&IC).
Then think about what happened to those significant volumes of stored water that were released into a flooding system and was not needed by any part of that triple bottom line: environmental, social, economic.
And finally, I can clearly see that you dislike Marohasy but I don't agree that she had much influence over the events in question and I further believe you have allowed your dislike of her to attribute way too much to any influence she may have.
She neither caused the underlying problem nor did she anything to do with any post flood negotiations/mitigation.
The fact that SHL and others such as NOW had egg on their faces was because they failed to heed the numerous warnings about those licence anomalies well before the crisis hit.
None of this has been laid to rest – layer upon layer of supposition, proxies, assumptions and models challenged each day as the paper boy brings more journals.
More journals! Oh my goodness. That means we don't know everything there is to know yet.
With the exception of (the rather unimportant, really) David Bellamy, is there a denier who is not a biological ignoramus?
People who maintain that an increase in average temps cannot 'affect' ecological systems because the increase is less than interseasonal or diurnal variability ought to die of shame.
But, because DK (they're simply too stupid to appreciate how stupid they are) they just never shut-up instead!
#97 Stu2, I'm not quantifying Marohasy's influence on the December 2010 floods issue. I'm just pointing out that what she tried on was misdirecting and ill-motivated, because she made no attempt to do the numbers. She was happy to be a conduit for confusion, fan the fear, and to poison the well with her ideological blather.
In the end, some factors improved: storages gained water, the lower river wetlands got served, power was generated by renewables not FF burning, and some flood damage was eliminated by NOW, even given the limited influence they could have on the total catchment. Infrastructure damage in the Tumut Valley was bad, SH did not make it worse.
You talk of 'significant volumes of water released into a flooded system' as though you have not acknowledged a thing I've written. So...once more, in the Murrumbidgee flood of December 2010, while SH did release water down the Tumut [suspending releases for at least a day at the height of the down pour], these volumes were an insignificant quantity in the total volume that passed Wagga.
SHL did not have egg on their faces, they copped some mud thrown by ill-informed people.
"His new study (Zhang) shows that stronger westerly winds swirling around the South Pole can explain 80 percent of the increase in Antarctic sea ice volume in the past three decades."
lol........... now this...
"Antarctic weather patterns in August were unusual. Contrary to a 50-year trend towards stronger westerly wind flow—a pattern associated with both ozone loss and increased heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere—August 2013 saw a period of very low westerly wind speed across the continent." http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
quick quick putz the goal post back over here, :)
BBD you need tastier bait than the Sunspot meme.... lol
#1, Don't be a nong,Kaz!
Zhang looks at thirty years of winters data and how winds shape winter ice evolution...you pick one month, the height of winter, when most of the area has been achieved...LOL indeed.
Nick.
I objected to your original comments as they were rather misleading. We now appear to be mostly in agreement.
However:
Factors improved because the drought had broken.
They were definitely NOT improved by the behaviour of the managers at SHL , NOW etc.
Think about what you written here. If their behaviour had NO INFLUENCE on the flooding how could this comment of yours be valid?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the end, some factors improved: storages gained water, the lower river wetlands got served.......?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
And despite your assertions otherwise; SHL et al did indeed have egg on their faces. Not because of the mud slinging by people like Marohasy but because they failed to heed the warnings about those anomalies in the operating licences.
No one cares much about all the media speculation over whether SHL and NOW etc influenced the actual height of the crisis over the space of a few days. That was not the issue for most people who were trying to get those anomalies fixed.
#97,Stu2 ,further to 12/2010 flood on the Murrumbidgee, the contribution to base flow of the river from water used to generate power and honour the RAR DSIV payback sent down the Tumut system works out a 3 to 4 gigalitres/day. Assuming this is all transmitted through Blowering each day [i.e. not stored there], what does this mean at Wagga? At flood peak 6/12/2010 about 150GL passed W. that day. At most 4GL of that was SH inter-basin transferred... Not entirely unrealistically, because we do not know how long water takes to reach Wagga, and I don't know whether SH even used the Tumut generating system on the relevant day, the minimum contribution on the flood peak day could have been zero....
How about this new ninja hot water that has evolved down at the Antarctic, it has awesome selective ice melting abilities. It can sneak right on past the sea ice and like a one billion thermal lances it attack's the land based ice and reduces the the land ice mass, (that has not reduced yet) :)
lol........the crazy alarmist shite they try to spin..... :)
Nick.
I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you posted # 4 before you read my comment @#3.
I will check later today to see if that was perhaps the case?
Nick.
I have decided I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you posted@ # 4 before you read my comment @#3.
I will check later today to see if that was perhaps the case?
The Record Minimum 2013 was achieved on September 16.
Scientific Results:
The September 16 values (km2) of the last 7 years:
2007: 4070114
2008: 4516471
2009: 5125931
2010: 4684325
2011: 4420667
2012: 3177455
2013: 4824927
Scientific Discussion:
The presented arctic sea ice extent data show a substantial increase of arctic sea ice extent during the last seven years. Only 2009 showed a higher arctic sea ice extent in the last seven years than the 2013 value. This trend if increasing arctic sea ice extent is in good agreement with the slightly decreasing global temperatures during the last 16 years. Humanity might therefore consider measures to counter a new cooling period.
Political discussion:
Why on Earth the fuck have idiotic mainstream journalists not alarmed the public of this new cooling trend in the arctic ocean. WHY THE FUCK?????
The Record Minimum 2013 was achieved on September 16.
Scientific Results:
The September 16 values (km2) of the last 7 years:
2007: 4070114
2008: 4516471
2009: 5125931
2010: 4684325
2011: 4420667
2012: 3177455
2013: 4824927
Scientific Discussion:
The presented arctic sea ice extent data show a substantial increase of arctic sea ice extent during the last seven years. Only 2009 showed a higher arctic sea ice extent in the last seven years than the 2013 value. This trend of increasing arctic sea ice extent is in good agreement with the slightly decreasing global temperatures during the last 16 years. Humanity might therefore consider measures to counter a new cooling period.
Political discussion:
Why on Earth the fuck have idiotic mainstream journalists not alarmed the public of this new cooling trend in the arctic ocean. WHY THE FUCK?????
Look at these idiotic CAGW leper islanders and mainstream journalists:
#3 The sound of goal posts shifting... you started off accusing SHL of dumping water for no benefit into an already flooded system. That's rubbish, because the operational contribution of transferred water to the Murrumbidgee during flood is trivial. In dry times it is significant...not in wet. The benefits are more than just base flow, though: power and income.
The benefits of continued operation were real, the downside imaginary. The three floods in the Tumut valley in 2010 were not exacerbated by SH/NOW...in fact for the durations of the first two, NOW completely halted discharge from Blowering, and in the third they minimised it. There was no HARM to the flooding system, only benefit in terms of infrastructure in the Tumut valley. Farmers lost a lot of fencing; it would have been worse with higher peaks. While they were preventing harm they were generating power, and thus income, for the stakeholders and their own operating costs, while reducing GHG production below what it would have been in absence of the scheme. Benefits everywhere! Flooding at Gundagai and downstream was a lower Tumut and whole of Murrumbidgee catchment problem that SH could not control.
"It would have been far more useful if that water had stayed in Eucumbene where there was room to store it" you complained. I'm wondering if you realise how the scheme works. If Eucumbene had stopped sending water down the Tumut generating cascade, then that is power and income lost. SH has to fund its costs...how is this achieved if power production is halted? How long was SH supposed to just reduce their output, and store water ? All because of a perception problem?
People got the wrong end of the stick,and are determined to hold on to it. People overestimated SH's ability to influence a flood and they forgot about SH's benefits in toto.
SH was in discussions to amend the operating license from April 2010,the end of the water year... maybe progress was slow, who knows, but after the floods a more flexible arrangement was achieved.
Oh good. Lil'mike had another faeculent tanty. It's sort of cute in a Fabulous Furry Freaks/Capt Goodvibe- like way. I'm still not sure whether he's a wasted, ex-gunny-bait, aggie dropout, or a cornsyrup-stupified obeast in his Mom's basement, working his way through the pile of old Reader's Digest and vintage flesh mags - but The Pig of Steel, he's not. Your turn, dropkick.
"Fabulous Furry Freaks"
Funnily enough rhw, quickly scanning li'll mike's latest expulsion, it crossed my mind I haven't seen the phrase 'agit-prop' since about the mid '70's.
Maybe you're right and his basement is a time capsule.
Sunspot gets so much wrongness into this it's almost artful:
How about this new ninja hot water that has evolved down at the Antarctic, it has awesome selective ice melting abilities. It can sneak right on past the sea ice and like a one billion thermal lances it attack’s the land based ice and reduces the the land ice mass, (that has not reduced yet)
How many times Sunny?
Strengthening zonal windspeeds are increasing the rate of upwelling around the coast. Warm water is being drawn up from below the surface layer. This is what is increasing the rate of basal melt. It mainly happens during the summer when - gee! - the sea ice has gone. Oh, and despite your stupid lies, net ice mass loss from Antarctica/GIS is increasing and will continue to do so. Be sure to look at the pretty pictures in the link:
The results of the IMBIE 2012 experiments showed that the agreement between mass balance estimates from radar and laser altimetry, gravimetry and the input-output method is good in all ice sheet regions.
In combining the datasets we generated a 19 year time series of ice sheet mass balance from 1992 to 2011. Over this period, we found that the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets together lost mass that equated to a global rise in sea level of 11.1 +/- 3.8 millimetres.
Examining the ice sheet regions individually we show that the Greenland, West Antarctic and Antarctic ice sheets have all lost mass over the past two decades, whilst the East Antarctic ice sheet has undergone a slight snowfall-driven growth. The Greenland ice sheet has lost the largest mass and accounts for about two-thirds of the combined ice sheet loss over the study period. In Antarctica, the largest mass losses have occurred in the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. However, despite occupying just 4% of the total ice sheet area, the Antarctic Peninsula has accounted for around 25% of the Antarctic mass losses.
We created charts of mass change (see figure below) for each geographical region, and these confirm known signals of imbalance. Mass loss from the Greenland, West Antarctic and Antarctic Peninsula Ice Sheets has increase over time. In Greenland, rates of mass loss were modest during the 1990’s but have sharply accelerated since then due to episodes of ice acceleration (Rignot and Kanagaratnam, 2006; Joughin et al.,2004) and decreased surface mass balance (van den Broeke et al.,2009; Ettema et al., 2009). The rate of mass loss from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet increased substantially over the study period, with losses occurring mainly due to glacier acceleration in the Amundsen Sea Sector. The Antarctic Peninsula Ice Sheet was close to balance in the 1990’s, but since then significant mass losses have occurred as a result of ice shelf collapse (Rott et al., 1996;De Angelis and Skvarca, 2003) and calving front retreat (Cook et al., 2005; Pritchard et al.,2009). Overall our time series of mass change show that the combined losses from Greenland and Antarctica have increased over time and the ice sheets are now losing almost three times as much ice as they were in the early 1990’s.
No Nick @#11 &@#12
----------------------------------------------------------------------------.
"To put it more clearly: ‘People overestimated SH’s generating flow as a contribution to flood flow and etc…’
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem was NOT associated with SHL's normal RAR and/or their normal power operations. We love the Snowy Scheme in this part of the world and most who live here would recommend more hydro schemes were developed.
I would guess from reading posts from other people like Jeff Harvey that would not be a particularly popular recommendation here at deltoid even though you are correct and it does indeed reduce our reliance on fossil fuels.
The problem was the extra water that was being released from Eucumbene on both sides of the system as PAYBACK for water that was held back from everything except critical supplies in the depth of the drought.
It was a wasteful anomaly in the licence requirements that STILL EXISTS although some of it has been resolved since the 2010 flood but ONLY on the Murrumbidgee side of the system.
To be very clear, the problem was the EXTRA water over and above the normal requirements of the system, including environmental requirements and SHL power production, and it was being released into an already OVERFUL system BEFORE and AFTER that very short period of time in December when a real crisis hit.
Furthermore, Marohasy was NOT a major player in any of this. She did NOT create the problem. The flooding events merely allowed the media and Marohasy to dramatise the problem.
I agree that in that short timeframe there was little that could have been done and that when it all got critical that everyone involved did everything they could.
It doesn't change the fact that over 2000GL of STORED water was wasted for no good reason and for no good outcomes.
it doesn't change the fact that they were repeatedly warned about this problem.
Also, the maximum that the Tumut river can cope with without causing damage is approx 8GL/ per day. So that extra 3 to 4 that was coming through at that time is far more significant for that particular section of the system than you have indicated.
There are no shifting goal posts Nick.
As I said at the beginning, your original comment missed the point and gave undue recognition to Marohasy.
That water should indeed have stayed in Eucumbene and it then could have been used when the downstream systems could have successfully managed it for triple bottom line outcomes AND when SHL could get maximum benefit from power production, which is why the system was built that way in the first place.
Explaining Goodvibes to one of the spacier inhabitants of The Land That Irony Forgot... nup, not gonna happen.
Yes indeed, RHW nails it. Of course mikey thinks he's normal, because The Republicans, and we're the outsider freaks, but in the golden words of The Pig himself 'mutants are strange, but not half as strange as the ones who think they're normal...'
Unpleasant lies about people's private lives can only backfire horribly (see eg Luke). Best keep the vicious humour at the political/societal level. Then we can all play.
Perhaps existential confusion over identity has interfered with the otherwise crystalline logical processes of his highly-trained scientific mind. But we shouldn't speak of such things aloud.
"On Tuesday, a group of 50 international scientists released a comprehensive new report on the science of climate change that concluded that evidence now leans against global warming resulting from human-related greenhouse gas emissions."
The fucking Heartland-sponsored bollocks-fest that is the NIPCC! You stupid arse. Even by your standards, this is a joke link. A lying right-wing ideologue pushing energy industry sponsored pseudoscience... FFS!
The problem, expressed in the local and state media,and furthered by Marohasy, was a perception that SH operations was exacerbating floods in December 2010.
Regardless of your intention to broaden your complaint to 'water releases were wasteful' in the months leading up to the floods or not, that problem as I express above was what I was criticizing Marohasy over when I first mentioned her. OK?
Marohasy of course broadened her line of attack to include the 'wasteful' meme, especially when her specific charge of culpability became unsupportable. A familiar tactic. She never gave a sourced figure.
"2000 GL of water wasted" What is your source for this figure and how is it calculated? Are you talking about the whole water year 4/2010 to 4/2011? It is frankly ill-informed to suggest this figure. Let me show why.
The basins were coming out of drought in 2010. At the end of May 2010, Blowering was 30% full,and Hume Dam 20%. So any RAR sent down the rivers from April 2010 [start water year] was filling dams,not being wasted. By start November 2010 both dams were full to everyone's delight. That's an extra 3500GL, only part of which was RAR. That's not wasted water. The RAR component of that can be estimated at about 1200GL, about 600GL per catchment. This was obviously released to downstream storage without any foreknowledge of just how wet it was going to get,so it can hardly be described as wasteful at all. It was stored!
Over the period May to December,all the SH mountain storages accumulated water Eucumbene,Jindabyne and Tantangara gained 700GL between them. And Burrinjuck filled,too. So a depleted system rapidly gained around 5000GL...then it kept raining. last six months of 2010 turned out to be the wettest on record for the catchment.
I really don't understand the '2000GL' wasted assertion at all. There is no basis for it. SH sent perhaps 200 GL down each river in the two wet months when the dams were full. Maybe 400-450GL in total. As I said before, it was not wasted because it generated power and needed revenue. It did not exacerbate flooding. Yes the irrigation dams were full by then. Sure, it wasn't needed by irrigators. But 2000GL wasted is an exaggeration, and disregards the half year when there was no flood in sight.
Disappointingly humourless, lil'mike. Your ex-Gunny would have been embarrassed by the lack of creativity and emotional involvement, as would your psychiatrist, Eng. Lit. TA and fantasy partner, though probably less colourfully.
As the esteemed prophet Lotharsson says: it's always projection - though I would add that, in lil'mike, the Freddiot, Spamspot, fLuke, the Scandinavian Troll Collective (Breivik Division) and the regrettably released denizens of the Deltoid dungeon (Fatso, Brangelina, Jonarse, et alia), this trait, is necessarily coupled with the self-awareness of a particularly recently shat cestode proglotid.
I'm willing to persist with the blog-coaching if you are, lil'mike, but please try to keep the humourless jarhead in the closet, OK?
#33 actually, '2000GL was wasted' is BULLSHIT, not merely exaggeration!....and '2000GL of STORED' water wasted is utter bullshit. Blowering and Hume gained 3500GL and SHL gained 700GL! Do the math.
Heh - NIPCC lead authors are Fred Singer, Craig Idso and Bob Carter. Appropriately enough however, Heatland are based at One South Wacker Drive.
You can't say they didn't warn you.
#23 You're a know-nothing ,Petri...the gravy train is just starting now that the COALition has grabbed power. The Climate Commission cost peanuts.
Political donors are lining up for favors. The FBT rort will be restored. The means testing of the private health rebate will be removed on the request of the health privateers. Oh and look Abbott has shaken a few lobbyists out of the tree. It's token but very revealing.
rhwombat draws on his professional training in psychology
You don't know what FRACP stands for, nor are you paying attention. RHW is a chest specialist or similar, IIRC.
Very interesting link though, mike. Not one I would have provided were I you, as it does not bolster your case.
I think more humour and less viciousness would enhance your art. RHW is frequently very funny (hence #15); you sometimes allow your demons too much control. Struggle with them.
It's shill bollocks, Sunny! Not real science! I keep telling you - reference the published literature, not shill bollocks and blog bollocks! It's tedious and it doesn't constitute a supporting reference!
#35 I downloaded the cryosphere section of the NIPCC. So far it's cherry-picking all the way, the section on tropical glaciers excludes papers that ascribe recent retreat to the enhanced GH effect, and argues without data for precipitation decline, also pushing increased solar irradiance as sole factors. It's elaborate and dishonest.
The World Glacier Mass Balance data is ignored,and a lie about no consistency in global glacial behavior is offered. The claim that Antarctic sea ice trend balances Arctic sea ice trend is made,f**king amateurs! Even a kid with a calculator can establish this meaningless meme is mathematically wrong.
One reason I ask is that you periodically shoot yourself in your supersize Clown shoes, as yesterday!
Remember yesterday, goldfish-brained troll?
Think! Try hard! Harder!! Got it yet?
* * *
It’s amusing – at least to me – that “Karen” waves Zhang (2013) at me in “her” confusion over the difference between sea ice and ice sheets (marine or otherwise) without joining the dots.
As I have repeatedly tried to explain to “her”, it is the increase in zonal wind speeds that is driving the increased upwelling that is driving the increased basal melt that is driving the increased rate of mass loss. Zhang’s modelled study simply provides support for the observations.
Poor, stupid, confused “Karen” is so lost in space that “she” doesn’t even realise what “she” has done.
* * *
Then this morning you are off again, repeating your rubbish. So you get stuffed *again*. Why do you do it? What is wrong with your mind?
"LONDON: Predictions that 2013 would see an upsurge in solar activity and geomagnetic storms disrupting power grids and communications systems have proved to be a false alarm. Instead, the current peak in the solar cycle is the weakest for a century.
Subdued solar activity has prompted controversial comparisons with the Maunder Minimum, which occurred between 1645 and 1715, when a prolonged absence of sunspots and other indicators of solar activity coincided with the coldest period in the last millennium."
None of this has been laid to rest – layer upon layer of supposition, proxies, assumptions and models challenged each day as the paper boy brings more journals.
” Not remotely long enough to generate extinctions that would be officially recognized by IUCN. Certainly long enough to extrapolate deleterious effects on biodiversity”
JEff – Not really – more alarmism. I wonder how (myopically speaking) Australian flora and fauna deal with massive interannual and decadal variability. And you want to bedwet over an uncertain trend with modelled plus or minus signs in overall rainfall. Pullease !
This shows on Luke's part a limited understanding of species' bioclimatic responses, and of how these are compounded by interspecific interactions. For many ecophysiological/phenological responses what counts is not just the range of temperature to which a species is exposed, but the trajectory of the mean temperature over days, weeks, months and years.
Luke asks why interannual and decadal variability are not more important than the overall change in mean global temperature. But why stop there? Why not ask why the diurnal variability in a species temperature exposure doesn't overwhelm its seasonal or semiseasonal responses? Why doesn't a particularly cloudy, dark and cool day in summer, after a warm and sunny one the previous day, send a bear into hibernation, when the train of gradually diminishing temperature and light in autumn does?
And it's not just about the direct 'pulse' vs 'press' temperature (ot whatever) effects on a species. As I mentioned above there are species intereactions to consider, and any particular species (especially faunal) is dependent on the ecologies of other, interacting species in its ecosystem - these interacting species are integrators of the bioclimatic milieu.
And further still, it's not just about the biotic arena either: those abiotic factors do play an essential part. Luke seems to disparage the "bedwet[ting] over an uncertain trend with modelled plus or minus signs in overall rainfall", but for many species operating on a finey-tuned ecophysiological budget a very slight alteration in the amount or pattern of precipitation, or of ice cover, or of humidity, or of wind direction, and have profound life-history effects.
Luke, unlike the KarenMackSunspots and the FreddyKaiBorisBerendanekes and the Scandinavian Troll Collective and sundry other idiots here, you are a reasonably smart person. Your blanket dismissal of significant ecolophysiological reponses to alterations in climatic regimes is unbecoming, and it diminishes your overall capacity to be taken seriously. Yes, ecology and evolution can be sublte and profoundly complex subjects to grasp, but cavalier ignorance is no way to make a case. Leave that to the knuckle-draggers here - you can do better than that.
Second, we might not be seeing too many posts from three of the recent serial offenders for awhile. Call it inside information. That cheers me up no end! Now the blog can again get back to the nitty gritty.
Mann deserves all the recognition he gets. MBH98/99 were ground-breaking. His fortitude since nothing short of admirable. The squalid campaigns against his work, integrity and reputation also deserve wide recognition - for what they really are.
As for the culling of the socks, and more, icing on the cake! Things had got a bit out of hand, really. There are limits, even in this free-fire zone.
BBD asshole, you feel well in your German nazi Gestapo role? Fuck yourself you arselick, you son of a cheap bitch and pedophilic monster. The devil will cook you in hell and eat your viscera, fucking idiot! Your insanity will bring you into jail and psychiatric ward. You cannot win with your shit brain and rotten character
YOU ARE A REAL ASSHOLE, A BIG ASSHOLE, AND SO UNINTELLIGENT, FUCK OFF, MOTHERFUCKER.
I WILL NOW CALL MY LAWYERS TO FIND YOU IN YOUR HOLE AND GET YOU, ARSELICK!
But is is possible that abusive trolls using multiple socks (and possibly hiding their real IPs) might be for the chop.
For example, if I had trolled this blog obsessively and abusively for well over a month using multiple socks, as you have, I might be worried, Kai*Freddy*Boris*Berendaneke!
I imagine Sunspot "Karen" is worried too, especially as Sunspot "Karen" is explicitly forbidden to comment outside the Sunspot thread. Doubleplusungood!
You leper islanders are inborn losers, degusting crap. You always lose because you are too decadent and silly and so unintelligent that you don't even catch this with your impaired brains.
Oh No! Boris is Berandaneke! He was banned so he's just using another sock puppet. I've said it before but Freddy/Berandaneke/Boris is a cyber pysychopath.
Tim! Ban this person! Ensure they can't get through the filter!
Without active moderation, it'll have to be a case of going back into ignore mode.
I've heard unsubstantiated gossip that Tim L's health is not at its best which is a shame because when NI Westminster MP and all round fuckwit economist Sammy Wilson outed himself as an AGW denier back in 2007-ish or so, I found as a complete neophyte that Tim's blog topics usually had the best answers and links somewhere in the comments for whatever was stirring the denier soup from week to week.
But, "there is a tide in the affairs of men etc" which means at some point we have to continue on making the best of what we have learned. And if there's one thing we've learned it's that denialism is incapable of making a sound case.
I wish Tim the very best, and hope he'll be able to come out fighting in the face of Abbott's attacks on reality in the name of neolib dogma, but if that's not possible, I fervently hope the rational; community here (you know who you are) can carry on in Tim's place until such time as none of this is required any longer.
Bloody hell, that must have been a particularly good Cab. Sav. this evening. Apologies for any embarrassment caused, and cheers to Tim Lambert
"Scientists working on the most authoritative study on climate change were urged to cover up the fact that the world’s temperature hasn’t risen for the last 15 years, it is claimed.
A leaked copy of a United Nations report, compiled by hundreds of scientists, shows politicians in Belgium, Germany, Hungary and the United States raised concerns about the final draft.
Published next week, it is expected to address the fact that 1998 was the hottest year on record and world temperatures have not yet exceeded it, which scientists have so far struggled to explain."
" the leaked report makes the extraordinary concession that over the past 15 years, recorded world temperatures have increased at only a quarter of the rate of IPCC claimed when it published its last assessment in 2007.
Back then, it said observed warming over the 15 years from 1990-2005 had taken place at a rate of 0.2C per decade, and it predicted this would continue for the following 20 years, on the basis of forecasts made by computer climate models.
But the new report says the observed warming over the more recent 15 years to 2012 was just 0.05C per decade - below almost all computer predictions.
The 31-page ‘summary for policymakers’ is based on a more technical 2,000-page analysis which will be issued at the same time. It also surprisingly reveals: IPCC scientists accept their forecast computers may have exaggerated the effect of increased carbon emissions on world temperatures – and not taken enough notice of natural variability.
They recognise the global warming ‘pause’ first reported by The Mail on Sunday last year is real – and concede that their computer models did not predict it. But they cannot explain why world average temperatures have not shown any statistically significant increase since 1997.
lThey admit large parts of the world were as warm as they are now for decades at a time between 950 and 1250 AD – centuries before the Industrial Revolution, and when the population and CO2 levels were both much lower.
lThe IPCC admits that while computer models forecast a decline in Antarctic sea ice, it has actually grown to a new record high. Again, the IPCC cannot say why."
"IPCC scientists accept their forecast computers may have exaggerated the effect of increased carbon emissions on world temperatures – and not taken enough notice of natural variability."
see guyz, lol, your syense & fizziks failed, or was it all just a lie?!?!?
Soooo, now that the climate scare is over, could we please start discussing more important issues?
Okay, I'll kick it off with this..............
"EXCLUSIVE: 'She puts on a brave face - but she's been trying for a baby for a year': Jennifer Aniston's secret bid to be a mom - as she denies she's pregnant at 44"
If you had any concept of what the phrase 'loaded language' means SpamKan you (like any other reader with more than one functioning braincell) would be on your guard against such crapola as you've been directed to spam.
But as Lotharsson has helpfully pointed out, your mission here is solely to lie but never engage, as you aren't able to defend the indefensible..
The scary thing actually is that shit-fer-brains like you SpamKan actually start to believe your own shit.
Your '9th Army saviours' are a figment of your imagination. It seems you really what a joke you are, SpamKan
You're improvising away from your feed now SpamKan and talking shit from your own native stupidity. What does that - 'jump the fence' - even mean, you moron?
I hadn't appreciated that Murdoch really is the real deal - a True Unbeliever every bit as pole-axingly dense as SpamKan!
Here's a recent tweet from the Dark Lord and Spammy's Saviour -
Al Gore. Pls explain record increase in Arctic ice. Other greenies crippling US growth in opposing safe tracking for natural gas
A statistically-incompetent billionaire - so much for market theory!
Hey, Stupids, here's a prediction for you. Withing 5 years there'll be another record sea-ice minimum, and the year after that all you utter plonkers will be claiming there's another 'record' recovery!
Also, I don't believe SpamKan is a 'liar', as such.
SpamKan has very little capacity to distinguish truth from fiction - hell, as we know, she hasn't actually sorted the distinction between Celsius and Fahrenheit! As has been pointed out, she never engages because since childhood she's known full-well that tricksy clever people always burns us, Precious.
And, anyway, the truth/falsehood thing is not a distinction that's important to her, because she knows what's 'true' in the same way that Abbott does - via 'the gut'. Sorting evidence is too hard, and it's all way over her head anyway. More intelligent (but not that much) and cynical (- monstrously - ) people than her pump out the chum day after day; she 'believes' it, regurgitates it, and she's - literally - happy with that.
One could never attach the word 'sincere' to the beliefs of such a creature - look at the repulsive, Gollum-esque gloating, over what it has fantasized to be Tim's 'conversion' - but it credits its claims as factual in the same way that Creationists, homeopaths and 911-truthers do, and, indeed, all the stupid people of history have.
What is 'sincere' - at least in the sense of being a passionate conviction - is its sense that its winning, and, again, its simply too stupid to discern that it is not.
I corrected the lie. I didn't bother correcting the corollary lie. Readers with half a brain can figure that out, as they can see that Karen's purpose here is to disseminate lies.
"In the end, we don’t yet know how the ocean's heat content has changed, but we know it has. We don’t know exactly how surface temperatures are being (lol) suppressed, but we know warming can't have stopped (lol). We don’t know for sure what's causing the ice to melt (lol) so fast, although we have a pretty good idea that temperature might have something to do with it."..... lol
Communicating the cooling consensus is very important in terms of increasing public awareness of the CO2 climate change lies and support for the disbandment of the IPCC..
Communicating the cooling of the climate change consensus is very important in terms of increasing public awareness of the CO2 climate change lies and support for the disbandment of the IPCC..
In a paper published in the journal Science on Sept. 13, the team describes how at one of their study sites, halfway down the ice shelf, the melt rate was as high as 2.36 inches (6 centimeters) per day.
I don't know whether or not you alarmist guyz realize this, if your CO2 story is even remotely true, and there is still no more warming for a little while, then all that you have done is shot yourselves in the foot with the forecasts of non appearing doom.
In the mean time all your little carbon schemes are to be wound back or demolished, so what is the back up plan ?
#98. Frankly ,the IPCC may well find it difficult to keep getting the time and effort of researchers given the generational political impasse. I would sympathise if the panel stood up and said "At it for nearly thirty years, had enough, it's up to you politicians to lead, as it always has been".
#100, they said 'planet good for life in general', not humans.... if you care to read [reading is not optional]
Nickie, have you seen this?
Ohhh, it should also be of interest to BBD
Citizen Audit - Detailed Findings
BACKGROUND
United Nations countries belong to an organization called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This organization releases a report every six years. Often referred to as the "climate bible," it is relied on by governments around the world.
The 2007 report is divided into three smaller reports - written by Working Group 1, 2 and 3 - and contains 44 chapters in total. The chairman of the IPCC has repeatedly claimed that the report relies solely on peer-reviewed literature to support its findings. This is not the case.
"Planet good for another 1.75 billion years, scientists say"
Two responses: One, humans won't last remotely that long. The planet and biodiversity will persist whatever we do to it. The problem is that our species won't. Given our utter dependence on nature and the services that emerge from it, once these systems break down - and they already are - we will be the most prominent victim.
Second, the fact that you glean ANYTHING fro Fox News should tell everyone what a moron you are. But then again, most of us knew that a long time ago.
#11. the IPCC have always made clear that WGs 2 and 3 could use grey lit. WG1 makes no findings or projections based on grey lit. Some of the WG1 references are very elderly [e.g Agassiz from 1837] and are used to establish an historical timeline. Other refences are to textbooks which themselves cite refereed papers. The quibbling from 'noconsensus' is piffle. And to argue in banner headline that there is 'no consensus on AGW' is childish: if there wasn't [and the IPCC presents it], dopey little auditors would not be humiliating themselves everywhere.
Should be an interesting episode, and I'd love to be in the audience. When I was a kid Suzuki was one of the "Three Davids" who were my heroes, although the third one went rogue about 10 years ago.
I hope that Tony Abbott is watching, and I wish that more scientists had the sort of exposure that Suzuki draws.
"How long have we had AGW, under the prevailing dogma? Fucking moron.
Technically, since the Industrial Revolution got underway. But for practical purposes, across the C20th with a definitive emergence of the forced trend since the 1970s."
Tehnically? Haha, fucking lyer. When reality don't fit just move the goal posts. Both you and jeffieboy know there isn't a single one spieces being extinct since the industrial revolution that can be blamed on AGW. Now, when exactly when did it start? Why do you warmiztas constanly need to lye and move goal posts, shithole? .
jeffie, "– and the empirical literature is full of studies demonstrating this." Executed by the same type of warmiztas as you, I reckon. It doesn't matter how you turn around, your ass is always at your back side. Name one, one species gone extinct due to AGW. One!
#18,20 I am so infinitely relieved we cannot definitively isolate one species extinction from AGW thus far, and we can relax in the knowledge that nearly every extinction seen has been due to mere habitat destruction and clueless over-exploitation. Thanks!
Now, when exactly when did it [AGW] start? Why do you warmiztas constanly need to lye and move goal posts, shithole?
Are you blind as well as a fuckwit? I answered that question in full. You quoted my response in full. And you then accused me of lying and moving the goalposts. I did neither, scum.
Read the words:
Technically, since the Industrial Revolution got underway. But for practical purposes, across the C20th with a definitive emergence of the forced trend since the 1970s.
The reason lying scum like you need to be moderated of this and any blog is neatly illustrated right here. You are the absolute essence of bad faith.
Nick, included in that list of "not peer reviewed" are ALL the IPCC reports themselves. Thaaaaat's right, according to the citizen's audit, not a single IPCC report is peer reviewed.
Also, as I scientist I can tell you that many book chapters are peer reviewed, too (also automatically counted as "not peer reviewed"), and many government and even NGO reports go through the same process.
The citizen audit was flawed from the beginning by re-defining "peer review".
Deniers constantly screech that there is no catastrophe yet, no mass extinction yet, no metre of sea level rise yet, so what the scientists say must be “alarmist” and wrong.
This is as stupid as it is dishonest.
What the scientists actually do say is that if CO2 forcing continues to rise *then* by later this century irreversible changes will be underway that *will* result in abrupt temperature rise and concomitant mass extinctions, sea level rise, drought, agricultural productivity impacts and so on.
What scientists actually do say – but not often or loudly enough – is that we are still right at the beginning of the process. It will be decades before the true magnitude of climate change will emerge definitively from the weather noise. By which time, it will be far too late to stop or even mitigate the worst damage.
Using present conditions to argue that future change will be trivial or non-existent is a glaring example of intellectual dishonesty or profound stupidity.
The only way out of this is denial, starting with denying the laws of physics and working on up. That's what you have to do to your integrity in order to spare yourself the facts.
The glaring thing about PantieZ and his ilk is that he and they know nothing of the subject except what they like to read on denier blogs.
So we have a situation where the output of toxic interpreters of interpretations is re-interpreted by mindless fuckwits who place themselves two removes from actual scientific opinion and rage at being treated as the idiots they've become through their own actions.
The concept of learning anything that doesn't immediately reinforce what they already think is anathema, so they will never read primary literature, never read an interview with any writers of primary literature and continue to submerge themselves in garbage 'truths'.
There really is very little scope for constructive dialogue with such a mindless mind set.
bbd, "Are you blind as well as a fuckwit? I answered that question in full."
No, you didn't! You were moving goal posts (as usual)!
I asked tou a simple enough question: "Now, when exactly when did it start?" But since you have a comprehension disorder (and I managed to make a typo) I'll refraze it: now, when exactly did the industrial revolution start? No need for an essay, which decade is quite enough.
"But for practical purposes..." Very practical indeed. A practical way for you and jeffie and his 50 year meme about extinction of species.
The thirty year data will come in over your head, well at the least you could have wet feet.
You don't get the difference between long term trends and short term messages from the climate system do you. Go ask the people in Boulder Colorado.
Curiously, or not so curiously to thinking people, some of the same industry shills in political appointments above their level of expertise in Colorado shrieking for relief are the same that denied it to those affected by Sandy.
Loaded dice, loaded dice, becoming more loaded over time but quickly affecting outcomes. Can you get your head around a simple message like that?
I think it strange that those familiar with the odds of gambling don't 'get' this picture.
...now, when exactly did the industrial revolution start?
Such a question comes from somebody who is either ignorant or deliberately making mischief, or in your case both.
One answer would be when the bronze age began.
Another when the iron age began.
Another with the advent of canals - which could take us back to Roman times never mind 18th century England.
Getting the problem now. There is no short answer without caveats just as in the processes of climate science. And that is what media pundits and ideologue politicos rely on and such as Monckton with their Gish Gallops.
So 'bust camera' - do your own homework, goodness knows you need to.
Tell me about WG1, fuckwit. You know, the physical science basis.
Indeed
Just as with Penty I could call out that that link from Karenite as coming from somebody who is either ignorant or deliberately making mischief, or in Karenite's case both.
When will they ever realise that with every such post they sink lower. Probably never for they are even ignorant of self.
No, you didn’t! You were moving goal posts (as usual)!
This is simply a lie. Since you are irritating me today, I am going to call you on it. Demonstrate - by quotation - exactly how and when I "moved the goalposts".
I guarantee you cannot do this. So once again, you will be shown up to be a liar acting in absolute bad faith when confronted with unanswerable *facts*.
* * *
You can start arbitrarily at 1850 if you like (that's what I meant by the Industrial Revolution "really getting under way"). Or you can start at the beginning of the C20th - also explicitly stated above, *twice*.
And damned lucky if she/he/it escapes being 'shared' around. Not that I advocate hanging, drawing and quartering but when mob rule hits anything goes, ask Maximilien de Robespierre. Oh! Karenski you can't, he was 'mobbed' and .....!
If you think these times are interesting, and I do, then just wait!
"A practical way for you and jeffie and his 50 year meme about extinction of species"
What a twit Pantie is. This isn't my meme - its the official IUCN policy for classifying the status of species and populations. Some species in the tropics have not been seen since the 1970s and are still classified as 'extant'. Moreover, its far easier to say a species exists than it doesn't. And, given how poorly we know the true number of species on Earth (estimates vary from 5 million to 80 million), there's little doubt that many tropical invertebrates have been extirpated that were never formally classified.
Essentially, like all anti-environmentalists, Pantie plays on the "We don't know how many species there are, then there is no problem" strategy. I am used to these illiterates doing this. Its hardly new.
Australia a democracy, don't make me laugh, well cry as a matter of fact for the UK his heading in the same direction.
This on a Paul Ramsay article found via Nick at Watching The Deniers (see John Byatt's reply on Abbot's hit list), which I in turn found via Byatt's link in a reply on that Flannery sacking article at Sou's HotWhopper: The Half-Million-Dollar Cure.
Look at the link to the right at that page for 'Is This The Most Dangerous Woman In Australia?' and Abbots plans for the CEC - affiliated to US LaRouche organisation.
BBD, before you will be banned here, can you describe in own words which scientific evidence you can reference (peer-reviewed original publications) that show a warming effect of anthropogenic CO2????
Lionel @ #56
A'la'rouchie (pardon my fucking French) in preference to a Green candidate?
I'm not sure what it would be, but there's some mental aberration there either in Abbott or the gallery he's playing to..
Boris/Freddy/Bernadaneke you will soon be booted out of here soon as well. I don't know how many sock puppets you have but you're gonna need em', you sad, pathetic person.
Since I am saying soon a lot (and not that clown Willie Soon), the sooner the better for Boris and his puppets.
And FYI, BBD is going to be here a long time. His posts add tremendous insight into AGW and he has had to take a lot of crap from the scientifically illiterate deniers here.
Ah Jeff Harvey, the fucking AGW prophet, hahahahaha:
"You will soon be booted out", hahahaha.
YOU ARE A SICK SOCK PUPPET, THE SOCK PUPPET OF YOUR INSANE AGW CLIMATE CHURCH SUPERIORS
AND YOU ARE A TRUE FUCKING ASSHOLE FULL OF SHIT WITH ECOSYSTEN SERVICES SHIT AND BIODIVERSITY ECO ASSHOLE SHIT. GO HOME YOU FUCKNG ASSHOLE, FUCKING!!!!
Jeff Harvey and other pathologically vain wannabe pseudo--important impertinents:
YOU FIGHT A POLITICAL WAR FOR DOMNANCE OF YOUR INSANE GREEN LEFTY SHIT IDEOLOGY WHICH AIMS TO THROW MANKIND BACK TO STONE AGE. YOU MUST MUST MUST THEREFORE BO STOPPED BY ALL MEANS, YOU FUCKING ASSHOLES. YOU MUST NOT PREVAIL AND YOUR DESTRUCTIVE IDEOLOGY MUST MUST MUST BE DEFEATED AND WILL BE DEFEATED SOON, YOU UNSPEAKABLE IDIOTS.
Boris (or whatever) doesn't do evidence.
Boris does insane ranting.
Boris thinks insane ranting will make him feel better than when he started.
But it never does.
Boris thinks next time will be different.
But it never is.
Hamsters running on their wheels feel sorry for Boris.
Boris will never realise why they do.
Boris can't even conceive what a mere hamster can.
I looked in innocent surprise,
My wonder showing in my eyes.
"Then why, O Cumberbunce," I cried,
"Did you come walking at my side
And ask me if you, please, might sing,
When you could not warble anything?"
"I did not ask permission, sir,
I really did not, I aver.
You, sir, misunderstood me, quite.
I did not ask you if I might.
Had you correctly understood,
You'd know I asked you if I could
So, as I cannot sing a song,
Your answer, it is plain, was wrong.
The fact I could not sing I knew,
But wanted your opinion, too."
"The media could start by reporting the 15-year pause in global warming. Perhaps the public is mature enough to discuss the full range of possible explanations. Perhaps those associated with the axed climate commission, such as David Karoly and Will Steffen, should give it a go." :) http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/editorials/testing-the-climate-…
"Based upon early drafts of the AR5, the IPCC seemed prepared to dismiss the pause in warming as irrelevant ‘noise’ associated with natural variability. Under pressure, the IPCC now acknowledges the pause and admits that climate models failed to predict it. The IPCC has failed to convincingly explain the pause in terms of external radiative forcing from greenhouse gases, aerosols, solar or volcanic forcing; this leaves natural internal variability as the predominant candidate to explain the pause. If the IPCC attributes to the pause to natural internal variability, then this begs the question as to what extent the warming between 1975 and 2000 can also be explained by natural internal variability. Not to mention raising questions about the confidence that we should place in the IPCC’s projections of future climate change."
"Coming winter, according to predictions of several Russian meteorological services will bring abnormally low temperatures in Europe and might even be the coldest winter in the last 100 years, writes Thursday Noviye Russian newspaper Izvestia quoted Utro portal.
Abnormal frosts
According to the forecast, based on the calculation of climatic indices, there will be a process of transfer of arctic air masses in Europe, resulting in abnormal frosts. In addition, during this period will cause a decrease in solar activity."
#71 "The media could start by reporting the 15 year pause in warming..." That's quite surreal Kaz, because all the ratbag media do IS report the so-called pause.
Welcome to the reality inversion of News Corp. Australia's dominant 'news' media group, telling itself that it needs to start reporting what it already relentlessly flogs in the global conversation!
"he stump of an ancient tree is visible at the base of the Mendenhall Glacier in July of 2013. UAS Professor of Geology and Environmental Science Program Coordinator Cathy Connor said she and her team have found the trees to be between 1,400 and 1,200 years old. The oldest she’s tested are around 2,350 years old. She’s also dated some at around 1,870 to 2,000 years old. "
#71, the OZ's editorial of course inverts reality as well. Just one of many examples: Their characterisation of the IPCC process as 'consensus seeking' at the exclusion of claim and counter-claim, and 'scientific theory and measurable result' , is utterly false. Anyone who was even slightly familiar with the report format would know the breadth of discussion and the layout of arguments puts the lie to the newspapers' construct.
So we have an editorial written from the position of utter ignorance....and of course posted here obliviously by a know-nothing.
I have asked this question so many times of the likes of you, who persist in repeating the long-debunked false meme about "no warming for x years", but there's never a response. Perhaps you can be the first to attempt the intellectual exercise of constructing an answer that is based in evidence.
What does it tell you about the period of time required to statistically identify the global warming signal in the weather noise that superimposes on the Earth's climate? For brownie points and a gold star, can you explain how the last 15 years of data compare to any period of data up to any arbitrary year prior to the present?
#81, Ooh, a big word from Kaz! Cast your mind back to the tree stump story,Kaz ...what is the date range of the material so far tested? Hmm? You seemed to see something meaningful in those numbers didn't you, Miss Apohenia? LOL
For all those crowing about the "pause" in warming, there's a question you should be considering. That 15 year period you're so fond of includes several La Nina years and no significant el Ninos along with some pretty feeble sunspot numbers. The question you should be asking yourselves as well as climate scientists is ...
Between about 1880 and 1890, temperatures cooled by about 0.4C.
Between 1900 and 1910 temperatures cooled close to 0.3C.
Between 1945 and 1950 temperatures cooled about 0.35C.
Between 1962 and 1965 temperatures cooled about 0.3C.
There are other examples, but these were decade-scale cooling of 0.3C to 0.4C.
The most recent period of similar relevance starts with the extremely hot year, 1998. Since 1998, through to 2012, the temperatures cooled by 0.03C. However you choose to view the figure you simply have to conclude that natural variability, aerosols and solar variability have caused global cooling in the past of a scale that dwarfs anything that has occurred in the last 15 years.
Nick @#31 &@#34 previous page,
I am away visiting family at the moment and using a very slow computer. This comment will have to be brief.
I have access to all the figures and i have no reason to bullshit.
The issue of wastage is not relevant to the few intense days of the December 2012 flood. There is nothing wrong with my maths and my objection to the wasteful anomaly in the SHL licence regarding RAR payback into a full system is what the real exacerbation problem was. That anomaly still exists on one side of the system which means it will likely happen again the next time a drought breaks.
The downstream storages were already full and spilling by October 2012 and that water was not providing any useful outcomes.
Even SHL would have preferred to leave it in Eucumbene.
Marohasy was not the problem and was not a major player in these events.
My recollection is that she leveraged the media interest in the flooding to highlight the wastage that was occurring.
Furthermore, I don't think marohasy's reporting on this was any more or less duplicitous than the way our ex CC used the media in that earlier link I posted.
Why are you cherry-picking roy Spencer's satellite data? It is not as accurate in describing surface temperature as are data that are actually recorded at the surface, and it is notorious for errors of measurement on top of that.
Even so, here's an exercise for you. Visit the Skeptical Science temperature trend calculator at:
and choose either RSS or UAH and enter 1998 and 2008 as the start and end years respectively. Click 'Calculate'. What happens?
I'll tell you what happens. Even with the most dodgy of the datasets, and even with the most cherry-picked points available, points that have no objective basis in any scientific approach, it is still not possible to statistically exclude an underlying warming trend!
You're full of crap KMS. You have nothing that resembles a scientific argument - just ideological assertion based on your irrational fear and hatred of the objective truth.
And "STUNK"? Is that the only come-back you have? Can't you mount an actual logically-contructed and testably-evidenced counter to my analysis? Or does the truth of it have you so shitting your pants that you can't even admit to what the graph indicates?
#91 You have to demonstrate that 'waste' is more than a selective 'framing' of the water transfer in November and December. You have to show a figure that you can back and in context of the flows generated in the catchment wide flood.
. You have to show where that 'wasted water' compromised landholders and the environment. [Once the river breaks its banks in the flood plain at Wagga, 4GL/day of extra water raises the water level infinitessimally. NOW river profiles and flood data proves that]. You have to show how much more water could have been retained in SH storage without compromising SH's power generation duties. The inquiry into the event, while maintaining the commercial confidentiality of SHs water figures, claimed that SH transferred a net 41GL to Eucumbene from Tumut Pondage during the flood event.
I noted that it is fair to see the water year RAR as stored in Blowering and Hume up until they were spilling from environmental [flood] flow. And I'll repeat that between Tantangara, Eucumbene and Jindabyne the SH system stored 700GL from the rapidly improved rainfall of the last quarter of 2010.
Marohasy is a problem in that her role is to spread disinformation. I don't claim she has much traction generally, but she sought to exploit people's distress during the floods, when she could have actually shone some light,and calmed fears.
Tim won't show but are you going to let this one go past - start off and I'll join you.
Meanwhile I'm engaged with Jen over at Marohasy on science corruption. My local bloghole as you know.
Surely BBD could mount a charge on paleo evidence to start with. A big push by Jeff on precautionary principle and ecosystem services. Then follow though how crap sceptics are, how it is still, warming - the pause explains. Blow them away on the tropo hotty. Are you up for it boys? Or is your excuse you're not going to give the debate oxygen? This isn't a blog debate now - they have actually axed teh climate commission and CSIRO and BoM research is next.
Are you going to have one decent shoot-out in your greenie lives? What did you do in the climate wars I have been told on recent days. Well this is your Kokoda track.
Seeing as there's neither trend line nor baseline nor annual/ 5 year/ 11 year smoothing on that graphic, I see no swing, no straight lines, no curves, no nuttin'.
“Or does the truth of it have you so shitting your pants that you can’t even admit to what the graph indicates?”
Why would it. I followed Bernard's suggestion and here are the trends I got. 1996-2012. 5 year averages. I'm omitting confidence intervals
Land/ocean
GISTEMP 0.126
NOAA 0.097
HADCRUT4 0.108
Land only
BEST 0.246
NOAA 0.250
Satellite
RSS 0.045
UAH 0.137
Where you get 0.00002 from I can't imagine. If you wanted to cherry pick, all but one of these results could give you a negative answer if you chose to muck about with the confidence intervals that way.
"It is not as accurate in describing surface temperature as are data that are actually recorded at the surface, and it is notorious for errors of measurement on top of that"
TELL THIS YOUR CRAP BROTHER BBD, THE INSANE CAGW FUCKWIT ASSHOLE!!!!!
'Cut and Paste' is an expression left over from the old physical copy days, dork! This sort of pedantry coming from someone with your comic grasp of English has just blown my latest irony meter, and all...
And, loon, that all of us here can copy paste, whereas you cannot
Nick @#96 previous page.
Still on a slow computer.
SHL power generating capabilities would NOT have been compromised by holding back the RAR payback water. That is complete rubbish. You seem incapable of understanding that the water releases in question were releases OVER & ABOVE the normal requirements of the system, including SHL power generating capabilities.
Because it was happening after the system had already filled up downstream it was indeed wasted and it did indeed take away any extra capabilities to mitigate any minor flooding. It was indeed significant amounts of stored water. In total it was over 2000GL that should have remained in Eucumbene for later and much wiser use including, of course, power generation.
Your opinion of what marohasy should or shouldn't have done is completely irrelevant to the real problem that developed in 2010/11.
I repeat: Marohasy did NOT cause the problem, she was not part of the negotiations and if her story embarrassed SHL it's because there was a reason for them to be embarrassed. They were indeed tipping water onto to the back of a system that was already full. They were doing it because of the anomaly in the licence requirements that they had been soundly warned about.
That anomaly still exists on the Murray side of the system.
It has only been partly resolved on the Murrumbidgee side.,
bill asshole, what you said to me fits perfectly to yourself and all the CAGW eco lefty sociopaths on leper island of nihilism, but not to me, since I am superior in any dimension that counts. You however are only a mean, vain, envying, fucking. asshole full of green eco shit. Your defeat is a closed case and you morons are even too stupid to catch this tiny truth.
Look in the mirror. You are the most deranged, disturbed individual I have yet encountered on the internet. Well done for that achievement. Its saying a lot.
You will soon be booted off here - I will see to that. How else do you think your alter-egos were booted out? Put two and two together, you pathetic loser.
#9 Your 'over and above' claim needs substantiation. Don't handwave. "...over and above the normal requirements of the system,including SHL power generating capabilities"...why would SHL do that? Why would they transfer water from Eucumbene to the Tumut side to Tumut 1 in such quantities as it would exceed the drop shaft capacity? Makes no sense. If they did it would simply spill down the river bed bypassing Tumut 1 and 2, and pass the spillway at Tumut 3 as well,filling Jounama pondage and compromising that dams management function. They did transfer water from Tooma dam to Tumut pond to mitigate flooding in the Tooma Valley, but that tunnel capacity is little over 3GL/day. And, again your 2000GL figure is rubbish,and you have made no attempt to reference a figure, or source.
Your premise is flawed. The perception of the time was that by operating the SH system through the flood days, flooding would be exacerbated. Thus, conforming to that perception, in order to not exacerbate floods SH would have to cease passing any water from Eucumbene or Tooma down the generators,and restrict their activities to managing Jounama and Tumut Pondage,both very small dams that do not have any capacity to buffer the sustained high flows generated from within the Tumut catchment. Blowering is managed by the NSW Water Office. Blowering is the only dam in the Tumut cascade that can theoretically buffer large floods [Talbingo is always at FSL to create generating head for T3], so the entire Tumut catchment above Blowering is effectively unregulated. SHL can do no more than cease Eucumbene transfers which can be no more than about 9GL/day, the Tumut catchment generated huge runoff in record rainfall conditions : NOW is the flood management agency.
Cumulative net inflow to Blowering from start 1/12 to end 11/12/2010 was 1500GL, almost all generated from within its catchment.
There was not 2000GL of water in Eucumbene at the time of the floods to waste. It was holding about 1000GL and gained 41 in December 2010.
Looks like they changed borisfreddykaitroll's medication again. Must be yet another disappointment: he went back to Boris, but kept the even larger idiocy of Berendaneke.
I would almost suggest some psychiatrist is using this blog to test out how the medication of the troll is working.
The Australian and Judith Curry in the same post, well FFFS it is becoming clearer with each such article quoting or alluding to Judith Curry that she is now descending rapidly down her spiral of decline as a trusted, straight think or speaking scientist
She now joins the ranks of those others who have forsaken science for advocacy to lay audiences such Pat Michaels and Richard Lindzen (more on him latter later if I can keep a bad attack of gout at bay). Ever on the ball Sou at HotWhopper nails Curry in two very recent articles:
The rest of the article is junk. He writes about the incomprehensible comments Judith Curry made to David Rose and what fibs Matt Ridley wrote in the Wall Street Journal plus more on a "forced to deny" garbage.
Seriously, citing any of those taken to task therein will only lower your reputation further.
You make a claim that the last 15 years of temperature data show that there has been "no warming", and yet you refuse to explain why your claim is valid when it is considered in the context of the nature of the data. Sure, it's your prerogative to do so, but in so doing it only demonstrates to the world that you either know that your claim is complete and utter garbage, or that you are so innumerate that you don't actually understand the subject and the nature of my questions.
Given that you have already forfeited to me, I will summarise the data - there is nothing unusual about the current period required to identify statistically significant warming - indeed, over all there is a trend to the period becoming shorter. In other words even though there is ongoing, physically-real retention of extra heat in the Earth system, it takes at least eleven years to detect it statistically.
It was nine months ago when I constructed that graph, but from memory the average interval in my SkS trend calculator exercise was 17 years, which concords with the work of others.
But keeping on tugging on your old fella KMS. In spite of what your mother might have told you, it won't fall off - you'll just continue to look silly doing what you've always done.
And for what it's worth, Australians don't say "fraternize".
At least, the ones literate in Queen's English don't.
That clenching feeling in your lower bowel might well be referred pain arising from the repeated doses of lead administered to the region of your metatarsals.
You know, Bernard, I'm not even sure Sunny actually understands the graph you created. Perhaps his reaction is an attempt to conceal truly abysmal ignorance and stupidty rather than a refusal to acknowledge that it demonstrates that he is spouting very tired denialist bollocks. It's just a hunch.
It's what that Jeff Harvey keeps banging on about! :-)
Scale.
Denier hyperfocus on tiny little bits of things instead of being able to see the bigger picture. Like a centennial forced trend overprinted by natural variability.
BBD, Deniers think that 10m years is a long time, 30 years is a very long time, and that 80 years is eternity. They just cannot get though their collectively thick heads that for systems working at stupendously large scales that all three are a blip in climatological terms. That we are seeing humans force these systems out of short-term equilibrium is nothing short of remarkable - and terrifying.
Jeff, if you're writing to Tim, SpamKan's well past her 'sell by' date, too.
'Fraternize' is yet another instance of an 'Aussie' born on a ranch who ate cookies on her way to elementary school in the pickup truck.
Whether her claimed origins are an outright lie or she's another all-too-willing subject of Coca-Colonization I hope to never have the opportunity to find out...
Doltoid fuckwits, among other talents which you mainstreams lack and I dispose of is computer literacy, unimaginable (for you bloody laymen) computer programming capabilities etc. I am able to program a cms something much better like the ill-performing worldpress junk software in less than 2 hours. So you mentally disabled blatherskites without
"Response: [DB] Improved image width. Bernard, I tried to email you the proper image width code but the message proved undeliverable." :) did the snow bring down the phone line? lol
barnturd, what is it with you? every second post of yours refers to one of your prior posts, nobody cares what you have said, you are the only one that loves yourself.
People, I think we should let this dialogue between SpamKan and Boris The One True Climate Scientist continue.
SpamKan's WFT confection @ #45 tells me it's gonna be hilarious.
“Response: [DB] Improved image width. Bernard, I tried to email you the proper image width code but the message proved undeliverable.” :) did the snow bring down the phone line?
No, my email host was down. For about 6 hours, if I remember correctly. It's instructive though that you look for the least parsimonious scenario posssible - at least you're consistent that way.
barnturd, what is it with you? every second post of yours refers to one of your prior posts, nobody cares what you have said, you are the only one that loves yourself.
Ah, that innumeracy of yours raises its head once more...
“Response: [DB] Improved image width. Bernard, I tried to email you the proper image width code but the message proved undeliverable.” :) did the snow bring down the phone line?
No, my email host was down. For about 6 hours, if I remember correctly. It's instructive though that you look for the least parsimonious scenario posssible - at least you're consistent that way.
barnturd, what is it with you? every second post of yours refers to one of your prior posts, nobody cares what you have said, you are the only one that loves yourself.
Ah, that innumeracy of yours raises its head once more...
"National Geographic – 12 December 2007
“NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: “At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions.”
"Sierra Club – March 23, 2013
“For the record—I do not think that any sea ice will survive this summer. An event unprecedented in human history is today, this very moment, transpiring in the Arctic Ocean….”
[Paul Beckwith - PhD student paleoclimatology and climatology - part-time professor]"
#69,70. Two qualified observers, one offers an "if,then maybe" and the other a prediction [wrong], based on regional climate and the observed and uncontradictable evidence of a downward trend in sea ice cover. The trend has not changed, nor the underlying factors , just the timing of an ice free summer is not known to precision.
Meanwhile,you, Kaz, believe against the evidence that the globe is cooling [while posting data that shows it isn't], choose one data point as evidence of a 'recovery' and an inflexion point in the trend [absurd, but that's you], have a documented string of comprehension failures that are lead in your saddlebags...and now you think you are 'debating'?!
Nick@#12,
Why would SHL do that?
Because the operating licence required it.
You are attempting to mislead with your comments re Tumut ponds and drop shaft capacity.
You are sprouting irrelevant rubbish and that was never the issue under question. Nobody, including Marohasy has ever claimed that SHL was damaging their own drop shaft capacity. That truly is nonsense.
Look up the normal operational RAR requirements for the Murray and Murrumbidgee valleys from SHL.
The water under question is the PAYBACK of those amounts on top of the usual requirements. The licence stipulated it had to be done because that water was held back in the depth of the drought. Ostensibly, it was supposed to be for the environment which of course had already been more than adequately watered by the downstream inflows you have already mentioned.
From no later than OCT 2012, that water was being wasted DOWNSTREAM from the storage systems because it SPILLED through the downstream storage systems into an already over full system.
When I return home if you still can't figure it out, I will find the release amounts for you.
I was offering you the benefit of my knowledge on this matter and tried to warn you that Marohasy was NOT the problem re this issue. SHL, NOW , SWC and Minco were all soundly warned well before the situation became critical in Dec 2012 that there was a developing problem. Their inflexibility was the problem Nick and it remains a problem.
SpamKan, what's obvious is that you've half-digested some snippet from a Denier blog which you, as usual, imagine makes you clever, though you don't even know what Argo floats are. Now, instead of pissing about pretending to know things, either shit or get off the pot.
No, for the umpteenth time you're merely pretending to know about something you do not understand. At all.
You have never managed to explain yourself in this situation and you're not likely to start now, because you are dumber than the contents of your laundry basket.
Given the glee on show about the extent number for this year, who wants to put mouth and/or money on this year's September minimum volume being like that of the previous decade - say 9000 cubic kms or more? Anyone?
OK. Who's surprised that this year's minimum area doesn't even match, let alone exceed, the average for the previous decade? If you look at the table you'll see that it's 3554397. So despite this remarkable, wonderful, science overturning event, it's still 307407 square kms short of the most recent decadal average September minimum.
Adelady, if you're addressing SpamKan you really shouldn't ask her to do so much reading, because she ends up with such sore lips.
Also, area and volume appear to have transposed, but where SpamKan's concerned it makes no difference, as she can't make sense of those concepts and all those numbers anyway!
And KarenMackSunspot, you can pop and fizz like a squib as much as you like, but it's patently obvious to all who are reading this thread that you've capitulated on the matter of addressing the implications of the period of time that is required to identify the global warming signal from contemporaneous climate noise. I'm especially interested in you addressing in your explanation why it is not valid to call every annual temperature that occurs soon after a record high a "cooling", and why it is not valid to call every annual Arctic sea ice area/extent/volume that occurs soon after a record low a "recovery"
You also failed to answer my challenge about your claim that no-one cares what I say - what's scaring you so much in that department?
And as we're on the subject of Argo, you might like to lend some moral support to Thomas Murphy, who ran away when pressed on his egregious statements about the Argo measurements.
So, there you go, you're just coughing up Cod(ling)swallop, just as I predicted.
These endless flatulent emissions prove nothing, SpamKan. You cannot articulate any point in relation to this matter because comprehension of it is completely beyond your grasp.
Everyone here, even your befuddled allies, can see, yet again, how freaking stupid you are, and many of them wish you would simply STFU, because you make them uncomfortably aware of just what a pathetic figure they must cut in the sight of others.
(And believe me, folks, you do, you really do!)
But, don't worry, they won't say anything; because all you losers have is each other.
Marco, I knew that you guyz would look like kids in a lollie shop with that paper
No, you didn't, you dreary, pathetic little thing, you; it was an appalling surprise to you to discover you'd only gone and soiled yourself, yet again. This pathetic 'lol'ing bravado is the sad little defence you've built up against the constant sting of discovery that you just don't get it.
Don't you love Karen's cherrypicked graph at #45 (and repeated later) on the previous page? Do you think she had any qualms that posting it might reveal how hard she (or rather her cut and paste source) is having to work to cherrypick?
Nah, me neither. Her purpose her is to disseminate lies .
Notice that 99% of Karen's 'sources' are denier blogs.
She's disqualified. Or should have been a long time ago. Problem is she's so utterly stupid that she thinks she is making headway here. That's what is so pathetic.
Jeff H?
What is a 'denier blog'? That just looks like petulant name calling. We are talking about the weather/climate modeling here. Everyone who has been to school can spot BS in regard to these issues. What in particular are these 'denier blogs' denying?
WTF is a 'denier blog' anyway?
I also remember you accusing me of linking a 'denier paper' a while back. That paper had been through the 'peer review' process.
So WTF is a 'denier paper'? What are they denying in particular?
Oh Karen, please stop lying. You thought you had found a paper that supported you, only to have someone take the minimal effort to read the abstract and see it didn't.
Another funny thing is your desire to show your ignorance by not knowing what a 0.02 degree rise means for a body of water 1300 meter in vertical size and tens of thousands in width. It's enough to warm the atmosphere with multiple degrees.
Slightly less-dumb fellow-travellers, don't you just cringe every time you see this gormless muppet's icon?
But are you really any smarter yourself - that's the question to ask? Are any of you that remain any brighter than this thing, or Pentax, or Oily, or Boris?
You know, the kinds of bone-headed nong - and it seems Murdoch really is one of you - who thinks a one year regression-to-declining-mean uptick in the sea-ice stats means something?
Goalpost shift! First it was 0.02C isn't enough to mean anything - despite the fact we're talking about the frickin' ocean - now it's Bonehead Incredulity x 2; "how can that 'multiply' into the atmosphere?"
The heat transfer between ocean and atmosphere is an issue for people way brighter than you, dolt. And way brighter than the numpties who run the Dunning-Krugerite blogs you've mistaken for 'Science'.
SpamKan, all you are doing is standing there with a suspicious load pulling down your diaper squalling "look at me! look at me!"
Even your little friends are avoiding the joint because you're so fricking embarrassing! Lol, you gibbering dork.
#88 This is getting very boring ....By pointing out tunnel capacities I'm informing you, Stu2, of the capacity constraints of the Snowy system, which illustrates the absurdity of your insistence that 2000GL of water was wasted by SH and NOW during the floods. That information is relevant! It's essential to understand where you are in error in your claim. You are arguing in bad faith, that's for sure.
I didn't claim anyone was saying SH would damage their infrastructure, I said exceed its capacity. I simply informed you that the figure you have plucked from your backside is not achievable.
I added a 0 in error to the Blowering inflow for 1/12 to 11/12: it was 150 GL,not 1500. Still, this shows a lot of uncontrolled water flowed into Blowering . At most 37GL of that was RAR, actually less because they ceased transfer for a period.
SH told the inquiry it was repaying that water at about 112GL/month into the Tumut, from end April 2010, or about 3.7 GL/day.
It is absurd to say this was wasted because the floods were in the unknown future, and Blowering stored that RAR. When the heavy rain hit, Blowering was close to full. It filled,and overflowed from heavy rain [rain outside the reach of SH infrastructure] , so that 500GL went over the spillway in the last two months but the previous six months RAR was still in the reservoir for accounting.. This spill I suspect is what you regard as wasted RAR? At most, 220 GL of that 500 was RAR,and little of that 220 is relevant to the actual flood peaks because of the way Blowering was micromanaged to hold back water while the Goobarragandra peaked.
So a claim that '2000 GL was wasted', 1000 of that down the Tumut, does not add up. Not only is your claim absurd but your understanding of where the water was, and how much can be saved per day into Eucumbene is lacking. I'll repeat that the SH system gained 700GL in the last three months of 2010 and Blowering banked 1000GL [c.650 of it RAR] before spilling. All you can see is a wildly exaggerated 'waste' figure,it seems.
Karen, in plain English I said that the energy required to heat that amount of water by 0.02 degrees is enough to warm the atmosphere with multiple degrees (as in >1 degrees).
Well I see now that the video link of adelady was on the same page as my suggestion. It is up to you to now answer your own question Karenski. I bet your school reports are interesting.
Which, if he/she/it had paid attention to the link to texts up-thread, and I know that they were noticed because he/she/it commented, then he/she/it WOULD ALREADY BE AWARE OF THESE CONCEPTS.
But it'd be nice to think that Karen and all those like her actually know what they're lying about. My suspicion is that many of them really, really don't know the simplest basics - like the difference between heat capacity of water and air.
(They don't even have to slog through the details, having a yr 9 ish concept of the size of the numbers involved would be enough for general blog conversation.)
#28 Now now Lothie don't be grouchy, the Deltoids are teaching me all about the big scary boiling pot :)
#22 Marco, I am not to sure that was helpful, nice try :)
Lionel, I know that you are a very intelligent man, so maybe you can help me.
We can see that there has been 0.02 C added to the ocean at the depth of 700 - 2000 mtrs, and 0.03 C has added to the ocean at the depth of 0 - 700 mtrs and this happened from about 2004 to now, okay.
Now I know that we are talking about incredibly small temperature rises here, so how can these extremely small amounts of temperature all of a sudden magnify if/when they are transferred to the atmosphere ?
So if'n there was an air temperature of say 15 deg C at night time back in 2004 on the beach, and now we have the same night time temperature at the same place.
What influence did that increased ocean temperature have on the current temperature as compared to 2004?
Did you read what I wrote? ... and then write what you wrote before asking for a further contribution from me?
I'd like to suggest a half hour with wiki - no science papers, no nasty complex references, just straightforward information available to everyone. Start here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_capacity#Table_of_specific_heat_capac… have a look at the rest of that page, then watch that video again.
An absolutely mind-bogglingly vast amount of energy has accumulated in the 0 - 2000m ocean layer since 2004.
Codling has used a crude trick to fool innumerates who do not understand physical concepts. This means you, Sunny.
I see you've been banging this empty can since yesterday. You can stop now and switch to some other denialist chum. Everybody's bored. Everybody's tried - and failed - to explain this to you. The problem, as always, is with your stupidity and ignorance.
1/ so how can these extremely small amounts of temperature all of a sudden magnify if/when they are transferred to the atmosphere ?
So if’n there was an air temperature of say 15 deg C at night time back in 2004 on the beach, and now we have the same night time temperature at the same place.
2/ What influence did that increased ocean temperature have on the current temperature as compared to 2004?
And the Dunning Kruger effect - or the denialist lying effect, it's always hard to tell which - strikes again, as Karen apparently fails to recognise that she's been given several different versions of the answer already and concludes based on her incomprehension or intransigence ...
... that no answer has been given.
A droll LOL would be trenchant. Just not in the way Karen uses it.
Well, I think we managed to find Karen's level of intelligence in the field of rather basic physics. It doesn't look good, most of my first year students (not physicists) would have understood.
(Though I confess to a passing interest in the concept of "amounts" of temperature. I suppose it's a bit like a stocktake of the rulers in the school stationery cupboard.)
I hope most people would realise that area = sq kms and volume = cubic kms, but I thought I’d mention it anyway.
I dunno, 'Lady, that might be a bit if a stretch for Karen. She's proven she can't tell Celsius from Fahrenheit, and she thinks that the amount of ice is measured by extent rather than volume, so take nothing for granted.
I'm intrigued that Karen thinks its time to start wittering on about OHC again, when the last time she did so, she showed she couldn't convert that additional energy to a change in temperature to within five orders of magnitude. To put a scale to that level of fail, Karen's calculator would tell her the surface of the sun is about 0.6C warmer than the surface of the Earth.
Everyone's watching your humiliation, you know. Better to front up and make a go of it than to be recognised as just another ignoramus who couldn't answer a simple question put to him.
Karen said: “Now, can you link me to the Argo temperature charts?”
“As you are too dense to find the data yourself:”
JEfFeRy suffers with comprehension issues also barnturd, lol
No, just you Franknfurter. I know Jeff's work, and it's very good. In fact it about thirty years of study and experience and 50 points of IQ ahead of anything that you exhibit.
Oh, and "qwestyons"?! What's with the regular use of baby talk? And the obsession with peoples' pants? Is there no puerile emotional back-alley that you wouldn't run into in order to avoid addressing a substantive issue of science?
There's no avoiding the obvious - you really are just internet trash.
...so how can these extremely small amounts of temperature all of a sudden magnify if/when they are transferred to the atmosphere ?
I see that I'm in a long queue of people laughing at this, but I have to ask - Franknfurter, do you understand the concept of heat capacity? And do you understand the nature of the heat capacity of water?
Also, do you realise that you're slipping back into the Sunspot signature illiteracy?
And in case anyone's in any doubt that 'Furter is a bloke, his comment on the previous page dispels any lingering uncertainty. No woman, not even a retired autistic prostitute, would come up with that.
I recall one of the older 'entertainers' in the late 1960s proclaiming, 'Well f*** my old sea-boots' where others might say 'stone-the-crows'. She probably learned the expression when younger, during WW2 maybe.
Another look at the The Gut and recalling those well know 'sticky green' drinks for the girls.
Funnily enough I had a short but friendly relationship with one very pretty girl such that we corresponded for awhile after the ship had left Valetta for more exercises in the eastern Mediterranean. The lass, who I won't name but still recall, even sent me a small tobacco pipe from the family firm.
The exercises included a real and nasty fire in one of accompanying destroyers which involved our helo's ferrying fire-fighting equipment, returning with scorched tyres, and a collision with a Russian SAM Kotlin destroyer which had behaved in flagrant breach of the rules of the sea.
Sunny is as clueless as they get. Although dog-brains Gordy ran him a close second.
Think of it like this Sunny: it takes oh so very much more energy to heat a given quantity of water than it does to heat the same mass of atmosphere by the same amount. Think about that. Don't skip ahead. Read it again.
Now, with that crucial bit of physics between your shiny little teeth, let's take another baby step forward.
There's an absolutely fucking vast quantity of water in the top 2000m of the world ocean. To give you the merest hint of an idea, it requires about 362 billion tons of water to raise global sea level by one millimetre.
Now, do you begin to understand why an enormous amount of energy can accumulate in a vast quantity of water and "only" raise its temperature slightly? And can you see that if even a little bit of this enormous store of energy is released it will warm the atmosphere significantly because it takes less energy to warm the atmosphere than it does to warm water?
Can you see what an absolute and utter prat you have made of yourself - yet again - on this thread? Can you see that yet?
Think, Sunny. Think!
:-)
Does this help break the logjam on the conceptual side? Sweetie?
There’s an absolutely fucking vast quantity of water in the top 2000m of the world ocean. To give you the merest hint of an idea, it requires about 362 billion tons of water to raise global sea level by one millimetre.
Now, do you begin to understand why an enormous amount of energy can accumulate in a vast quantity of water and “only” raise its temperature slightly? And can you see that if even a little bit of this enormous store of energy is released it will warm the atmosphere significantly because it takes less energy to warm the atmosphere than it does to warm water?
Can you see what an absolute and utter prat you have made of yourself – yet again – on this thread? Can you see that yet?
On a general note, is there any point calling "Karen" Karen? It seems all-but certain that this is simply Sunspot running a sock, so why should we be complicit in that deception?
Think of it like this Sunny: it takes oh so very much more energy to heat a given quantity of water than it does to heat the same mass of atmosphere by the same amount. Think about that. Don’t skip ahead. Read it again.
It is not like, he/she/it will bother reading such words as I have asked before why vehicles use water in cooling systems and buildings use it for heating. There is also the form of solar energy captured using water. Now the clever money would be a device which is both a PV cell and a solar water heater.
I see that Dorset landowner and millionaire Richard Drax has applied to be allowed to put a huge solar installation on his Charbourough Estate in Dorset - the one with a long wall alongside the A31 near Wimborne where one gate is surmounted by the sculpture of a 5 legged stag. Drax earlier voted against similar installations elsewhere in the county and the offshore wind-farm.
Drax is descended from a naval Admiral Plunket-Ernle-Erle-Drax and is a Tory minister - the party pushing fracking. Perhaps they could try fracking his estate. Fair is fair.
German Greens have dramatically lost votes in Gernany's federal election due to pedophilia problems. AGW had no role at all in the the national elections.
Physics doesn't care about politics, Kai/Freddy/Boris/Berendwanker. You are looking at this back-to-front. You start with politics instead of with physics. And it all goes wrong from there.
AGW had no role at all in the the national elections.
Hurrah!!!
Actually agree with that... it wasn't an election issue because it's not controversial. Hurrah for the Germans for being so well informed and intelligent. Now remind me again how it went in Australia...
Putting it like that, one can imagine what an Abbott in Oz or a Cameron in the UK would be doing if their 20% renewables by 2020 target was hitting 17% in 2011.
Complacency doesn't begin to describe the Boristroll's stance.
"What they all point to is the declining credibility of demands for cutting back CO2 emissions by switching from abundant, affordable, reliable increasingly scarce and more expensive fossil fuels to scarcer, more expensive, less reliable never ending wind, solar, and biofuels, the effect of which would be [in the short term slightly] higher energy costs and therefore {possibly in the short term] higher costs for everything else—harming the world’s poor {who, hypocritically, we've never given a fuck about before as our cartel jacked up prices] most of all".
"What they all point to is the declining credibility of demands for cutting back CO2 emissions by switching from abundant, affordable, reliable increasingly scarce and more expensive fossil fuels to scarcer, more expensive, less reliable never ending wind, solar, and biofuels, the effect of which would be [in the short term slightly] higher energy costs and therefore {possibly in the short term] higher costs for everything else—harming the world’s poor {who, hypocritically, we've never given a fuck about before as our cartel jacked up prices] most of all".
“What they all point to is the declining credibility of demands for cutting back CO2 emissions by switching from abundant, affordable, reliable increasingly scarce and more expensive fossil fuels to scarcer, more expensive, less reliable never ending wind, solar, and biofuels, the effect of which would be [in the short term slightly] higher energy costs and therefore {possibly in the short term] higher costs for everything else—harming the world’s poor {who, hypocritically, we’ve never given a fuck about before as our cartel jacked up prices] most of all”.
Still, on the bright side, Gordon and The Lukes seem to have fucked off now the Aussie elections are over, and we seem to be left with the fuck-for-brains who can't understand the difference between temperature and heat, and an occasional spasmic depths-of-stupid response by The Lomborg Fanbois Collective.
With five days to go, it could be worse..
BBD: I have written in 2 hours a much better cms than this junk here. But you are NOT able to do so as you have less talents compared to me. Poor fuckwit
BBD, in addition I look much better than you small, ugly, fat, senile and bald moron, and have at least 100 times more money than you poor unemployed, ignorant fuckwit
Boris could write a better paper in 2 hours than ever you have written. He pities you all with your significantly less talents and your many times more ugly faces. Boris is so much the handsome and more successful individual that he spends his time as an internet troll who has upended your so-called science with his tactical abusive snippets. He has no need of your puny blockquotes, as he invented the internet, and will do so again many times. Puny mortals!
A naturalistic investigation of New Jersey residents, both before and after they experienced Hurricanes Irene and Sandy, examined support for politicians committed or opposed to policies designed to combat climate change. At Time 1, before both hurricanes, participants showed negative implicit attitudes toward a green politician, but at Time 2, after the hurricanes, participants drawn from the same cohort showed a reversed automatic preference. Moreover, those who were significantly affected by Hurricane Sandy were especially likely to implicitly prefer the green politician, and implicit attitudes were the best predictor of voting after the storms, whereas explicit climate-change beliefs was the best predictor before the storms. In concert, the results suggest that direct experience with extreme weather can increase pro-environmentalism, and further support conceptualizing affective experiences as a source of implicit attitudes.
So all we need to educate the public about risks from climate is for them to lose their power supply, or their food and water, or their house, or a neighbour's life to appreciate the worth of good policy. I'll be the one sitting in the corner staring at the walls.
So, not one of you can explain how a small increase in ocean temperature can magnify the temperature of the atmosphere ?
1/ An ocean temperature of 15 C, that is then heated to 15.03 C, will raise the temperature of the atmosphere by how much ?
2/ Does a rise in ocean temperature of 0.03 add an extra 0.03 C to the atmosphere ?
3/ Or will the increase of 0.03 C only be added to the atmosphere when the atmosphere temperature is below the ocean temperature ?
4/ If only 0.03 C will be added to the atmosphere then what is the big deal?
Calling me a moron doesn't answer my query's, so guyz, can someone please help me with this?
Obviously most people in here don't know the answers either.
Oh, bugger off you vacuous, pointless, drooling nong.
You've demonstrated for all to see that you are utterly incapable of understanding the issue, and that you're a semi-literate, quasi-edumacated dill performing an sordid online drag act.
The sooner we're finally shot of this one the better.
Why don't you run off and look for some of those ' small amounts of temperature' running around the place? They might be little Celciuses, or Fahrenheits, but, hang on, that's right; you won't be able to tell the difference, will you, plonker?
So, not one of you ....can someone please ... Obviously most people in here don’t know
My. so much passive aggression!
Tell you what Spam, if you can explain why OHC isn't measured in your 'Temp C', and show you've done some non-denier blog reading, then maybe...
Or maybe not.
Who knows?
It's not like you generate any goodwill.
An ocean temperature of 15 C, that is then heated to 15.03 C, will raise the temperature of the atmosphere by how much ?
OK. I know the others are completely fed up, but I'm pretty sure you're not the only person in the world who's confused about this - for whatever reason.
1. If the heating has gone into the oceans And Stays There - there can be no effect on the temperature of anything that isn't the ocean.
2. What if the heat / energy doesn't stay there? Depends where it goes. If it goes into melting ice, then there will be no effect on atmospheric temperature, the energy will be expended in the phase change from ice to water or vapour.
3. What happens when the heat that initially went into the ocean goes entirely or partly into the atmosphere? That's the big one that's tripping you up.
An experiment at a cooking school. We have 3 ovens all calibrated to exactly the same heat output but unheated at the moment. In the first we put a container of water frozen solid. In the next, we put the same quantity of water in the same size container. The last oven gets an empty container. Turn all the ovens on to the same setting. Check the temperatures in all 3 containers at regular intervals.
No need to go any further with this - everyone knows what happens next. The empty container's "contents" - the air - heats up much, much faster to much higher temperatures than either of the other 2 even though the heat input is the same.
I'll leave that there as food for further thought for the time being.
Then we can think about other versions of heat absorption, transfer between the containers outside an oven and other changes. And - eventually - think about what happens during an el Nino.
...not one of you can explain how a small increase in ocean temperature can magnify the temperature of the atmosphere ?
Impressively moronic, even by your high standards.
(After correcting for your incoherent English expression) practically everyone has explained it. It only requires basic high school science, and fairly early science at that, if I recall correctly.
The problem is that you are too stupid or hidebound to recognise that it has been explained which also means that you are unable to recognise just how deeply scientifically incompetent you are. (Where's that number for D&K again?)
This would explain why you keep posting links to material that directly refute the claims you allege the material supports. High school students taking their first year of science classes generally understand more about science than you appear to.
It only requires basic high school science, and fairly early science at that, if I recall correctly.
That's my thought. This is not the further reaches of radiative physics or choosing alternatives among options for sophisticated statistical analysis. I'm thinking of it a bit like the stuff we did (in my case in 1960) on heating black and white surfaces - which is a pretty good basis for starting a discussion about albedo when you think about it for 10 seconds or so.
(Ex-schoolteacher husband just got back. He mentioned that he always, always, always made sure that he got the basics of energy input and phase change into the not-always-eager heads of year 8/9/10 science classes. Missing that kind of fundamental concept would make most other stuff more difficult.)
Yes, and your cooking thought experiment would be understood by practically every housewife and househusband in the land, even those who had never taken a science class.
This is very very basic stuff, and is showing Karen up very very clearly. But never mind, I'm sure she'll Gish Gallop merrily on to the next point any minute now and pretend it never happened...
I understand the thermal mass concept, and I understand there is a huge amount of energy in the ocean.
A huge amount of energy can also be stored in a reservoir, but that stored energy will not flow uphill without a push.
Neither will the energy from the ocean multiply when it moves from water to air, heat is a form of energy, and temperature is the measure of it, I cannot see that the temperature can multiply when moving from one medium to another yet we are led to believe that this "OHC" will come back to get us by causing higher atmospheric temperatures.
Neither will the energy from the ocean multiply when it moves from water to air, heat is a form of energy, and temperature is the measure of it,
But ....
this shows that you didn't really grasp the concept clearly. Heat is a form of energy. But measuring the result of the input of energy by reading off the temperature does not set the temperature forever. If you transfer the energy, you can get a much different temperature depending on what substance you transfer the energy into.
The same energy gives different results depending on its - those words again - heat capacity.
Just think for a minute about melting ice. You have eleventy gazillion litres of ocean water and half a million litres of ice. What happens to the temperature of the ice even though contact with the water allows transfer of energy?
Absolutely nothing. Ice, and the water in immediate contact with it. will stay at 0C until it is melted. Only then will the water-formerly-ice begin changing temperature more towards the temperature of the larger body of water.
Look at the wiki definition
Heat capacity, or thermal capacity, is the measurable physical quantity that specifies the amount of heat required to change the temperature of an object or body by a given amount.
So if a certain volume of water has had energy sufficient to change its temperature by a certain amount, it will depend on what substance it is transferring that energy to how much change there will be in the temperature of that new recipient of that energy. It is unlikely (look at the table in the wiki page) that there will ever be an exact match in heat capacities of two substances which are transferring energy. Therefore it is highly unlikely that there will be a similar change in temperature when the same amount of energy is transferred.
Bernard. I looked at that last night and was initially keen.
To watch it, I'd have to rely on the ABC to select decent participants from the pro and anti groups they've promised us. I know Suzuki is experienced and competent at dealing with this sort of thing - but I've been a tad annoyed at the sorts of people and the tone of "debate" the ABC likes to promote for these events.
I'll see what sort of mood I'm in at the time to make the decision to watch. If I'm already grumpy and fed up, I'll give it a miss.
The dopey men in here haven't a clue, they just pretend they do, then insult me and sook about me teasing them... lol........wah wah wah :)
I have been searching to try to find a more definitive answer to my questions, re how much the air temp will rise with the miniscule rise in ocean temps, obviously El Nino is a powerful influence on our weather and may get stronger in the future, but........ I am not convinced that a rise of 0.03 C at 0 - 700 mtrs has affected air temp's noticeably or even that could be measured, obviously I don't have the skills to work it out, fizziks iz not my forte, fizziks evidently iz also a talent sadly lacking among the Deltiods.....
If someone could work out the temp figures or supply a link to a reputable website that has done the maths I would appreciate it.
My monthly data has just run out! sheeezzzz, snails pace till Saturday!
I know you all will miss me.............xoxoxoxoxo.. till then :)
TRANSLATION: Even I have, the poster child for the Dunning-Kruuger effect, have managed to finally comprehend that I really have made an utter fool of myself. So I'm making my excuses and running away until such time as I can return and pretend it all never happened.
I am not convinced that a rise of 0.03 C at 0 – 700 mtrs has affected air temp’s noticeably or even that could be measured, obviously I don’t have the skills to work it out
Read my previous comment. If the energy has heated the water and the water's temperature shows that the energy has been retained and not transferred to the air, then it can't have heated anything else.
The el Nino issue arises because that is when energy is released from some areas of the Pacific - and the temperature of the water will go down. The temperature of the water was raised, say 0.03C, by a certain amount of energy. When that energy is free to heat something else, that something else's temperature will be raised by an amount relevant to its own heat capacity unrelated to the temperature of the source of the energy.
(check that wiki list again http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_capacity#Table_of_specific_heat_capac… )
There's no need to know the exact temperatures before and after these processes, but it's very important to understand that the energy will change the temperature of different solids, liquids, gases according to their own heat capacity. What that energy might have done, or did in fact do, to affect the temperature of another item is irrelevant to the temperature of the item in question once it is absorbed.
Energy has no memory. It just does what it does in the circumstances it happens to be in.
'Furter is wingeing about how no-one will answer his question (whilst ignoring the fact that many people have pointed to the underlying phenomena), but he has left hundreds of unanswered questions in his wake during his time clogging the arteries of Deltoid.
What's the word I'm looking for? The one that starts with an 'H', and ends with 'ypocrisy'?
So, not one of you can explain how a small increase in ocean temperature can magnify the temperature of the atmosphere ?
Many of us have pointed to the mechanism and it is up to you to figure out how it all works by doing some text book study (not at WUWT etc as they will confuse you further) - seeing as you don't appear to have experience with the concepts.
Now adelady having more patience, but wasted I am afraid because giving stuff on a plate rarely leads to increased understanding in the recipient and I doubt that you would be amongst the exceptions.
Now of course we know how it works, after all how could we provide such succinct prompts.
I am pleased that adelady has mentioned 'phase change' (I very nearly went there earlier but thought better of it not wanting to push you into running before you could crawl) do you know how much heat energy is required to phase change one gram of ice vis a vis raising the temperature of one gram of fresh water through one degree Celcius. Answer in calories will do.
Now start behaving like a sensible enquirer after the truth and stop fuck-arsing around.
Spent part of the day encouraging a 7 year old to read - well, write down a few 3 letter words to be truthful. Frustrating but we'll get there in the end. Not so sure about the same approach here.
I'm used to it.
Spent part of the day encouraging a 7 year old to read
Me too, used to it that is. Four children, eleven grandchildren (and no doubts some GGC before long) and all that plus degree level teaching qualifications with experience of 7-8 year olds 36 at a time. Taught adults Maths A-level, computer stuff like programming, DTP, spreadsheets, databases, SAGE and some other odds and sods. Have had an interesting life.
Now for the adults here there is an interesting concept just broached at the Rabett's Freezing about a possible difference in freezing point of water droplets on nucleating dust particles.
Russell Seitz introduces a very pertinent and confounding factor in the comments.
Of course when working with particles of geological origin there is a danger of developing the debilitating, and potentially lethal condition:
pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis
which word was brought to my attention by one of those eleven grandchildren mentioned above, who is at first year secondary school level (i.e. way above Karenski). Evidently this is the longest word in the English dictionary. Dictionary version not mentioned by grandson's source.
Re-read your own #97, SpamKan.
grey
I did. I said that it was a trivial typo.
Now how about you admit your error instead of frantically, dishonestly wriggling.
Come on, you sack of bad faith. Admit that you do not understand why Ken is completely wrong to use MT data to argue that Australia did not in fact experience the hottest 12 months in the instrumental surface temperature record.
This is a gross error on his part and a gross misunderstanding on yours.
Now admit it. Come on.
#97...why did you make an identical link to the error at Ken's Kingdom a second time, after your excruciating dimness was revealed the first? Because #93 is not an answer, BTW.
Aussie, born and bred you flaccid nappy wearing old fart factory :)
No grey literature in WG1, you fucking moron.
#1#2, Bill, you silky smooth charmer, that was the very first amendment anyone has seen from Kaz!!! Did you have a shave this morning,or something? I dips me lid!
Tell me BBD, when the IPCC used the faulty grEy literature that stated that the Himalayas would be melted within 35 years -
a/ did you believe it, and defend it as being valid ?
b/ did you disbelieve it, and pass on your concerns about that being total rubbish ?
c/ did you disbelieve it, and keep quiet ?
Deductive reasoning and understanding analogues isn't on the denier syllabus then PantieZ? I suppose it could never be as some degree of intelligence would be required, which denier blogs don't offer instruction in.
Oh fuck off, Karen. I didn't even *know* about it until the "sceptic" screeching started, at which point it was established very quickly that it was a bog-standard transposition typo. If you had ever had a proper job, you would *know* that these crop up and can slip through the editing process all-too-easily. It was a distraction then and it is a distraction now.
When are you going to admit your errors about MT?
Come on.
You do know what a transposition typo is, don't you Karen?
I've already explained this once, but given your stunning thickness, perhaps I'd better do it again:
2350 got muddled into 2035. See how easliy that cna happen? ;-)
SpamKan, you do not direct the topic here. Now before making demands of others, apologise for your repeated spamming of KlownsKiingdom tropospheric temperature nonsense. Then admit you didn't understand it either.
#10 BBD
Oh deary me, how awkward for you BBD, something you didn't know about cc,
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18363-debate-heats-up-over-ipcc-m…
A double lie I tink :)
BBD,
How many climategate "transposition typos" were there ?
& why do you think Phil Jones was shitting bricks ?
#13 How is this important? Could you imagine giving an answer that a rational person might accept?
# 14 You first...how many?
#14 what is the typical vertical distance in summer between the mid troposphere layer and the surface layer at Australian latitudes?
Nickie,
You look as though your tongue is firmly imbedded inside BBD's arsehole.................
#18 stop fantasizing and answer the question...any question,in fact.
'Aussie' like where when shortly after you were in diapers on your daddy's ranch he used to take you in his pickup truck to elementary school and on the weekends sometimes you'd go out to a ball game and perhaps have a cook-out? That kind of Aussie?
See, I am an Aussie, and I'm one of the rare ones who actually knows something about the land, and landscape I live in.
Not like some cretin who can't even identify the value of 'ecosystem services'! Jesus Wept! but you're an ignoramus... And you might as well have been raised in Oklahoma for all the good you're doing this country.
A nation of such perennial expatriates who treat the continent itself (and the people they've usurped) with sneering contempt! Yeah, that's bound to turn out well...
Since I don't want it to get lost - so much for 'Waubra Syndrome'...
"See, I am an Aussie, and I’m one of the rare ones who actually knows something about the land, and landscape I live in."
You are a city greenie that drove taxi
"Since I don’t want it to get lost"
bookmark it you silly flatulent old fool
Karen, you can witter all day and it won't make any difference to the facts.
The 2035 figure should have been 2350. It was an error that didn't get spotted and the IPCC handled it badly when it came to light. The fake sceptics had a field day. End of story.
Only desperate deniers keep thrashing away at trivia because trivia is all you have.
And you know it.
When are you going to admit your gross error - twice repeated despite correction - over MT vs TLT data?
Come on. You snivelling little shit.
Sunshine, you know bugger-all about the continent of Australia and are nothing but a burden on it.
SpamKan is about to get a lesson in blog etiquette. All further comments to be struck through until "she" admits her error re MT/TLT.
All - please assist with teaching SpamKan how to behave! Thanks!
bill page 15 #100
Indeed, and the comparison of that to the experiences of those who have allowed fracking on or near their land:
Fracking Vs. The Drought: They Call It Texas Tea, But You Can’t Drink Oil,
More Than Flaming Water: New Report Tracks Health Impacts of Fracking on Pennsylvania Residents’ Health,
and I was betting on something like this happening,
Colorado Floodwaters Cover Fracking And Oil Projects: ‘We Have No Idea What Those Wells Are Leaking’.
adapt to that Tillerson, but of course you don't have to because you have found a secure spot for yourself and your kin.
"ee, I am an Aussie, and I’m one of the rare ones who actually knows something about the land, and landscape I live in.
Not like some cretin who can’t even identify the value of ‘ecosystem services’!"
1/ Oz is a big place Billie, I'm so glad you can find your way around your aftercare
centre now sweetie :)
2/ ecosystem services, maybe you can offer some evidence that co2 has had an impact ?
This is for bumbling BBD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORRECTION
On page 29 of the following report WWF included the following statement:
"In 1999, a report by the Working Group on Himalayan Glaciology (WGHG) of the International
Commission for Snow and Ice (ICSI) stated: `glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other
part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the livelihood[sic] of them disappearing by the
year 2035 is very high.'"
This statement was used in good faith but it is now clear that this was erroneous and should be disregarded.
The essence of this quote is also used on page 3 in the Executive summary where it states: The New
Scientist magazine carried the article "Flooded Out - Retreating glaciers spell disaster for valley
communities" in their 5 June 1999 issue. It quoted Professor Syed Hasnain, then Chairman of the
International Commission for Snow and Ice's (ICSI) Working Group on Himalayan Glaciology, who said
most of the glaciers in the Himalayan region "will vanish within 40 years as a result of global warming".
This statement should also be disregarded as being unsound.
WWF regret any confusion this may have caused.
http://assets.panda.org/downloads/himalayaglaciersreport2005.pdf
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WWF & the IPCC regret any confusion this may have caused you BBD.......??
Actually I think you are lying.............. everyone knew about this
Whichever continent has the misfortune to act as a host for SpamKan or any of the other regular Ignorati, what you all are can be summed up in 3 words: Daily Mail Reader.
So this one's for you!
Very good Bill, here is one from the same category,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6KhMlcwTf0
This is for bumbling BBD
—————————————————————————————-
CORRECTION
On page 29 of the following report WWF included the following statement:
“In 1999, a report by the Working Group on Himalayan Glaciology (WGHG) of the International
Commission for Snow and Ice (ICSI) stated: `glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other
part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the livelihood[sic] of them disappearing by the
year 2035 is very high.’”
This statement was used in good faith but it is now clear that this was erroneous and should be disregarded.
The essence of this quote is also used on page 3 in the Executive summary where it states: The New
Scientist magazine carried the article “Flooded Out – Retreating glaciers spell disaster for valley
communities” in their 5 June 1999 issue. It quoted Professor Syed Hasnain, then Chairman of the
International Commission for Snow and Ice’s (ICSI) Working Group on Himalayan Glaciology, who said
most of the glaciers in the Himalayan region “will vanish within 40 years as a result of global warming”.
This statement should also be disregarded as being unsound.
WWF regret any confusion this may have caused.
http://assets.panda.org/downloads/himalayaglaciersreport2005.pdf
——————————————————————————————-
WWF & the IPCC regret any confusion this may have caused you BBD…….??
Actually I think you are lying………….. everyone knew about this
Stop rabbitting about fucking irrelevancies you dishonest, evasive little shit!
When are you going to admit your gross error – twice repeated despite correction – over MT vs TLT data?
Come on. Do it. Now.
We are all sick of your lies and evasions. We are all waiting for evidence that you are capable of a modicum of honesty.
BBD he has used the T2LT data. Check his reference.
My guy checked the whole surface DB and we got non areal weighted 3rd behind 2005 and 2010.
Berendaneke, :)
you are a mentor to BBD...
Try to understand the dynamics of this discussion, "Karen".
We were discussing your repeated errors and refusal to acknowledge them.
NOT the error in IPCC AR4 WG2. Anyone interested in reviewing that mess can find an unbiased account here. Note that it is critical of the IPCC, and on closer inspection, rightly so.
Note also that I admit being mistaken about the exact nature of the error. I try to act in good faith and have never pretended to perfect knowledge.
BBD be nice and for some of us you can find out why people may have other perspectives..
In fact you should show some leadership and make the discussion not respond to fluff. Jeff too. See I'm back on my meds.
Luke
Even if he did - and I will check - the problem does not go away. Remember what I was obliged to remind you earlier: the monthly anomaly TLT is much more variable than the surface temperature and especially so in response to ENSO The 1999 and 2010 peaks are the Austral response to EN events. There is no EN event underway now.
Simply put, you cannot use MT or even TLT data to argue that the surface temperature records broken over the last 12 months in Australia are invalid. And you have to wonder why they are so extremely high now, in ENSO-neutral conditions.
yes agree - they are samples of different things. It is a classic high sub-tropical ridge neutral year drought in Australia. The temperatures are high perhaps among the highest. Getting too revved up about absolute highest is a mugs game. The trend will out in the end. (neutral years of course don't mean median rainfall for Australia - anything can still happen)
"Stronger winds also drive ice faster, which leads to still more deformation and ridging. This creates thicker, longer-lasting ice, while exposing surrounding water and thin ice to the blistering cold winds that cause more ice growth."
"You've got more thick ice, more ridged ice, and at the same time you will get more ice extent because the ice just survives longer," Zhang said."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130918001910.htm?utm_sourc…
So much for basal melt......... lol
Why can't you be like this all the time? Fruitful discussion would be possible. Can you stick in rational mode? Will you at least try?
If you do, I will be responsive to your tone.
#44 was @ Luke
Karen, you dipshit, that is about sea ice not the Antarctic ice sheets. No further discussion with you until you sort out the kindergarten-level basics. Just fuck off.
#36... right you are! So Ken has misidentified it as mid troposphere in text. But it's T2LT [TLT] in fact...these 'sceptics' are reliably unreliable.
However, there is still no reason why one would expect surface thermometry and TLT which weights most strongly at 2000m asl to agree over rankings of closely separated 12 month periods. It is not an apples to apples comparison. It is the closest you will get between methods,but disagreemnet is always real.
And to describe such disagreement, as Ken does, as 'unfortunate' is stupid. To signal to the reader,as Ken does, that one needs make a decision 'between' the metrics on 'trust' is simply misdirection.
Luke, be careful, that big lump on BBD's arse is Nicks head
#47, some of your issues cannot be sorted out here, Kaz. Try the sphincteric issues site.
Excellent take down of that latest Dail Mail nonsense from David Rose.
'Ahha, OK the Daily Mail readers have all pit their hands up' @ 4:19. Including with all the usual suspects that infest here, Rednoise being one of that breed I am sure.
Rose should be embarrassed, but are socio-paths ever that self aware.
No Warming In Antarctica Since The Start Of Satellite Records
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/05/10/no-warming-in-antarctica-…
"Still you haven’t produced one single evidence that anthropogenic co2 is causing extinction of species"
OMG, how many bloody times must I repeat it::
BECAUSE THE FRIGGING TIME SCALES INVOLVED ARE TOO SHORT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! REPEAT UNTIL IT SINKS IN DAMMIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I know that Pantie is stupid, that is patently obvious, but even this level of ignorance is hard to deal with. I also pointed out that extinctions are not officially verified by the IUCN until a species has not been observed for a minimum, of 50 years. Finally, given the number of species involved, and the fact that (1) many are cryptic or found in areas where there has been little study, and (2) that there aren't that many scientists around to monitor the demographics of most species, its very difficult to say whether a species exists or not. But we do know that past climate change-related events which took place over much longer time scales than the current rate of warming resulted in mass extinctions. It doesn't take a whole lot of gray matter to argue that a 3 C rise in temperatures in a century or less will have catastrophic effects on many natural ecosystems.
Don't waste my time with lies from "Goddard".
Reference the published literature or shut up.
FFS.
#51 as far as coverage goes...and what's happening to ocean temperatures?
"This is primarily because long-term near-surface temperature observations are restricted to Byrd Station in central West Antarctica, a data set with substantial gaps. Here, we present a complete temperature record for Byrd Station, in which observations have been corrected, and gaps have been filled using global reanalysis data and spatial interpolation. "
tug tug tug tug tug tug tug tug tug tug tug tug tug tug tug tug tug tug tug tug tug tug tug tug tug tug tug tug tug tug tug tug tug tug tug tug tug tug tug tug tug tug tug tug tug tug tug tug tug tug
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997/trend
There goes another irony meter.
Remember, Karen's purpose here is to disseminate lies...or since they are usually constructed to push a particular set of policy positions, "propaganda", if you will.
#55 I can do one too:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1993/plot/rss/from:1993/trend
What are you trying to prove?
Ah yes, that you are a cherry picking bullshitter - well done, another level down your hole!
#55
Do it properly so we can see which data set is the outlier.
Well, well, well...
If I were you, "Karen", I'd leave the graphs alone. Add to paleoclimate and the cryosphere as topics where I will screw you up into a little ball and throw you into the bin.
I've already given Karen a graph of the other data sets twice in the last week or so.
Remember: Karen's purpose here is to disseminate lies.
She will never acknowledge being caught out, nor will that stop here posting an identified lie again in the future.
Karen’s purpose here is to disseminate lies.
Yup, and she's been doing it for a long time now...
It's amusing - at least to me - that "Karen" waves Zhang (2013) at me in "her" confusion over the difference between sea ice and ice sheets (marine or otherwise) without joining the dots.
As I have repeatedly tried to explain to "her", it is the increase in zonal wind speeds that is driving the increased upwelling that is driving the increased basal melt that is driving the increased rate of mass loss. Zhang's modelled study simply provides support for the observations.
Poor, stupid, confused "Karen" is so lost in space that "she" doesn't even realise what "she" has done.
The lie of the IPCC on Hamalayan glacier disappearance by 2035 was intentional and in bad faith, AND NOT A TYPO, BBD CLOWN :lol: :roll: :evil:
You could also be forgiven for thinking that SpamKan's purpose is to make deniers look like ignorant, dishonest clowns. They're very good at that.
I full agree with Tony Abbott to kill the idiotic carbon tax in Australia as fast as possible, as there is no scientific proof that CO2 heats the air 2m above the surface!!!
Can't remember if this is already linked southern sea ice
#65
Yes - that's the Zhang paper that "Karen" just hit "herself" over the head with in a master-class of physical comedy! Let's hear it now: Bravo! Clown!
;-)
#66 excuse me for missing that, ministering to the afflicted is wearying. The ratio of staff to inmates is reasonable here, but I must have nodded off ;)
That's okay, Nick. Being here rots my mind too!
But there are compensations, like watching "Karen" do the clowning equivalent of Bruce Lee on a good day.
I'd suggest not giving the game away, but Karen hasn't learned a single thing from anyone else here yet, so there's not much danger of that ;-)
Back in the good old days, Sunspot (who some think donned drag and became Karen) used to give epic displays of clown-trolling.
A real master of the self-defeating argument. Worth trawling back and reading his own private thread, if you have time spare - it was a real theatre of the absurd for the true connaisseur.
Good times...
BBD and all, in case you have not picked up on the new Hansen open access (that is two such, open access, this week) paper on Climate Sensitivity then there is a link in this article Hansen Study: Climate Sensitivity Is High, Burning All Fossil Fuels Would Make Most Of Planet ‘Uninhabitable’.
But of course Luke won't like this because it discusses,
. Naughty palaeo-data, naughty palaeo-data.
Hahaha...jeffieboy, you're so full of shit! How long have we had AGW, under the prevailing dogma? Fucking moron.
Karen, isn't it hillarious to watch the warmiztas constanly moving goalposts, building strawmen, projecting and lying? The stupid moronic regulars on this site really look silly in their tin foil hats. Especially thos of them sho call themselves scientists. Absolutely priceless. Hahahahahaha
Pentax
You absolutely are not in a position to be calling Jeff a fucking moron. You have posted nothing but arrant nonsense on this (and other) threads. Complete fucking rubbish. Going on your commentary, you are demonstrably ignorant, confused, in denial and fundamentally stupid.
Lionel A
Yes, I've been following this paper through various drafts since it came out of the PALAEOSENS project that culminated in the to-date definitive quantification of climate sensitivity derived from paleoclimate behaviour across the entire Cenozoic. See Rohling et al. (2012) NB: you may have looked at this already - I've posted the link at Deltoid many times.
This is why deniers deny paleoclimate behaviour. It drives a truck through all this lukewarmer rubbish.
Technically, since the Industrial Revolution got underway. But for practical purposes, across the C20th with a definitive emergence of the forced trend since the 1970s.
Describing the laws of physics - specifically radiative transfer - as "dogma" is just buttock-stupid. You have also outed yourself as a physics denier. Thanks for confirming that.
It's actually beyond the comprehension of a moron to understand that the observed rise of 0.72C in the 60 years up to 2012 is but the start of an escalator that on current trajectory could go to 3.5C+. by 2100.
Because it hasn't happened yet, PantieZ is crowing without realising there's no current mechanism to halt it or the consequences that come with it.. And yet morons who aren't renowned for their abstract thinking abilities, somehow imagine their opinion means anything..
#70 Frank D
Thanks for the prompt. I looked. I'd say that's a positive ID alright: "Karen" is Sunspot. No doubt in my mind at all.
Check out the misuse of the apostrophe! I wondered why "Karen" was so touchy about that the other day. Now I know.
Lie's!
Now the odd thing here is that Tim Lambert has come down hard on sock puppetry before, and has explicitly confined Sunspot/"Karen" to a padded cell, sorry thread of it's, sorry its own. So we have a twofer. Surely grounds for a permanent IP-block ban? Or am I being too much of a wishy-washy liberal here?
Thanks for that Rohling link BBD. Now I have downloaded it I have found where I stored it last time around.
I am expecting Thomas Cronin any-day soon.
#81
Always doing that! Why I warned you, but never mind. Good call on the Cronin - it's not exactly light reading, but by God you will know your onions once you get to grips with it.
BBD - why worry about Karen - show some leadership instead of being towed around responding.
@BBD clown :evil:
wrong claim, therefore rejection accomplished
As I have repeatedly tried to explain to “her”, it is the increase in zonal wind speeds that is driving the increased upwelling that is driving the increased basal melt that is driving the increased rate of mass loss. Zhang’s modelled study simply provides support for the observations.
Poor, stupid, confused “Karen” is so lost in space that “she” doesn’t even realise what “she” has done.
Well Lionel naughty palaeo indeed. One might be sceptical when you read the actual paper which you should have cited not the alarmsist Climate Progress replete with smouldering planet.
- "inherently partially subjective". Issues with aerosols. I have mentioned DMS before.
How heavily all this work depends on proxies based on models themselves.
More work to be done etc......... "it should be possible to gain a consensus".... "data reconstruction" .... "model intercomparisons" ....
http://m.rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/371/2001/20120294.full
"Climate sensitivity extracted from Pleistocene climate change is thus inherently partly subjective as it depends on how much weight is given to mutually inconsistent estimates of glacial-to-interglacial global temperature change. Our initial assessment is a fast-feedback sensitivity of 3±1°C for 2×CO2, corresponding to an LGM cooling of 4.5°C, similar to the 2.2–4.8°C estimate of PALAEOSENS [99]. This sensitivity is higher than estimated by Schmittner et al. [94], partly because they included natural aerosol changes as a forcing. In addition, we note that their proxies for LGM sea surface cooling exclude planktic foraminifera data, which suggest larger cooling [126], and, as noted by Schneider von Deimling et al. [95], regions that are not sampled tend to be ones where the largest cooling is expected. It should be possible to gain consensus on a narrower range for climate sensitivity via a community project for the LGM analogous to PRISM Pliocene data reconstruction [97,98] and PlioMIP model intercomparisons [67,68]."
Now if Luke had been awake he would have realised that I had previously mentioned that Hansen paper on this very page.
Ho! Hum! Another detention for Luke, sleeping in class.
So have I, to point out that the CLAW hypothesis has formally been laid to rest. You are bluffing again. Stop it.
And stop fucking bleating about uncertainty. Even pushing the absolute edge of the lower bound, you cannot get below ~2C and it is vastly more likely to be nearer ~3C. You are being a wanker again, skimming and quote mining with zero real understanding of the methodology or the relative strength of the conclusions.
"jeffieboy, you’re so full of shit! How long have we had AGW, under the prevailing dogma"
Oh, about 25 years since it was officially recognized, and another few more if we look at trends. Not remotely long enough to generate extinctions that would be officially recognized by IUCN. Certainly long enough to extrapolate deleterious effects on biodiversity - and the empirical literature is full of studies demonstrating this.
Back to your dunce corner, Pantie. Moron.
None of this has been laid to rest - layer upon layer of supposition, proxies, assumptions and models challenged each day as the paper boy brings more journals.
" Not remotely long enough to generate extinctions that would be officially recognized by IUCN. Certainly long enough to extrapolate deleterious effects on biodiversity"
JEff - Not really - more alarmism. I wonder how (myopically speaking) Australian flora and fauna deal with massive interannual and decadal variability. And you want to bedwet over an uncertain trend with modelled plus or minus signs in overall rainfall. Pullease !
What we do know is that cats, dogs, cane toads and poor fire regimes ARE a threat to biodiversity NOW ! Interest - zippo - all going to AGW biodiversity nonsense which frankly is of no help. Grab a gun and stand a post Jeff. Wear a cat fur hat.
"We show that the changes in DMS flux and CCN concentration between the present day and global warming scenario are similar to interannual differences due to variability in windspeed. So although DMS makes a significant contribution to global marine CCN concentrations, the sensitivity of CCN to potential future changes in DMS flux is very low. This finding, together with the predicted small changes in future seawater DMS concentrations, suggests that the role of DMS in climate regulation is very weak."
More modelled rubbish ! "We show" laughable - no "they assert" and "they model". Given the performance of the models - ROFL !
Luke, for once you make a good comment. Well done! I agree that there are multiple threats to biodiversity and that we should not invest disproportionately to mitigate just AGW. But if - and this is a big if - the IPCC projected temperature rise of 2 C or higher is accurate, then this is going to be a major factor driving declines in biodiversity. There are no ifs and buts. If, on the other hand, you think that its OK to throw the dice and tinker with the atmosphere, then so be it. But we will reap what we sow. If you are indeed wrong, then the consequences will be dire.
The Lukes, when you've finished chortling at your own dumbness, would you like to try and name any modern industry - service or manufacturing - that doesn't employ modelling? And for bonus points, why do you think they all do and will continue to do so.
Dog whistling for support from know-nothing numpties like SpamKan'n'PantieZ is what you're reduced to now?
Bill McKibben on the Colorado flooding and the KXL pipeline.
Nick@#83 previous page.
After all that information you posted about how the SH system works,I am a bit surprised that you don't know what the flow on damages from senselessly wasting stored water have been.
Chek above @#92.
That is a good question you ask Luke. Of course I have no wish to answer for Luke and he may have a different answer to me, but IMHO, the answer is of course everybody uses modelling. That's why people other than climate scientists can read them and analyse them and see where they're performing and where they're not.
#94...whatever your level of surprise, or suspicion of my ignorance, tell me what you think the flow on effects of 'senselessly wasting stored water' have been, Stu2
Why worry about who other people worry about? You've got enough issues with your own behaviour to deal with.
Er, mate, you might want to rethink your foolish wondering. This is a standard denialist meme based on misunderstanding the problem. You're smart enough to figure out where your error lies...my smart money is on you not doing so though.
(And I'm not talking about myopically focusing on Australia rather than the globe, or egregiously mistaking rainfall for the entirety of climate change.)
Nick.
I don't suspect ignorance but I was surprised.
If you are truly interested and not just trying to score points, may I respectfully suggest you think "triple bottom line". Also think why the system was built in the first place and was managed by one organisation called the Water Conservation and Irrigation Commission (WC&IC).
Then think about what happened to those significant volumes of stored water that were released into a flooding system and was not needed by any part of that triple bottom line: environmental, social, economic.
And finally, I can clearly see that you dislike Marohasy but I don't agree that she had much influence over the events in question and I further believe you have allowed your dislike of her to attribute way too much to any influence she may have.
She neither caused the underlying problem nor did she anything to do with any post flood negotiations/mitigation.
The fact that SHL and others such as NOW had egg on their faces was because they failed to heed the numerous warnings about those licence anomalies well before the crisis hit.
More journals! Oh my goodness. That means we don't know everything there is to know yet.
Dara O'Briain tells us about that. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHVVKAKWXcg
With the exception of (the rather unimportant, really) David Bellamy, is there a denier who is not a biological ignoramus?
People who maintain that an increase in average temps cannot 'affect' ecological systems because the increase is less than interseasonal or diurnal variability ought to die of shame.
But, because DK (they're simply too stupid to appreciate how stupid they are) they just never shut-up instead!
#97 Stu2, I'm not quantifying Marohasy's influence on the December 2010 floods issue. I'm just pointing out that what she tried on was misdirecting and ill-motivated, because she made no attempt to do the numbers. She was happy to be a conduit for confusion, fan the fear, and to poison the well with her ideological blather.
In the end, some factors improved: storages gained water, the lower river wetlands got served, power was generated by renewables not FF burning, and some flood damage was eliminated by NOW, even given the limited influence they could have on the total catchment. Infrastructure damage in the Tumut Valley was bad, SH did not make it worse.
You talk of 'significant volumes of water released into a flooded system' as though you have not acknowledged a thing I've written. So...once more, in the Murrumbidgee flood of December 2010, while SH did release water down the Tumut [suspending releases for at least a day at the height of the down pour], these volumes were an insignificant quantity in the total volume that passed Wagga.
SHL did not have egg on their faces, they copped some mud thrown by ill-informed people.
"His new study (Zhang) shows that stronger westerly winds swirling around the South Pole can explain 80 percent of the increase in Antarctic sea ice volume in the past three decades."
lol........... now this...
"Antarctic weather patterns in August were unusual. Contrary to a 50-year trend towards stronger westerly wind flow—a pattern associated with both ozone loss and increased heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere—August 2013 saw a period of very low westerly wind speed across the continent." http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
quick quick putz the goal post back over here, :)
BBD you need tastier bait than the Sunspot meme.... lol
#1, Don't be a nong,Kaz!
Zhang looks at thirty years of winters data and how winds shape winter ice evolution...you pick one month, the height of winter, when most of the area has been achieved...LOL indeed.
Nick.
I objected to your original comments as they were rather misleading. We now appear to be mostly in agreement.
However:
Factors improved because the drought had broken.
They were definitely NOT improved by the behaviour of the managers at SHL , NOW etc.
Think about what you written here. If their behaviour had NO INFLUENCE on the flooding how could this comment of yours be valid?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the end, some factors improved: storages gained water, the lower river wetlands got served.......?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
And despite your assertions otherwise; SHL et al did indeed have egg on their faces. Not because of the mud slinging by people like Marohasy but because they failed to heed the warnings about those anomalies in the operating licences.
No one cares much about all the media speculation over whether SHL and NOW etc influenced the actual height of the crisis over the space of a few days. That was not the issue for most people who were trying to get those anomalies fixed.
#97,Stu2 ,further to 12/2010 flood on the Murrumbidgee, the contribution to base flow of the river from water used to generate power and honour the RAR DSIV payback sent down the Tumut system works out a 3 to 4 gigalitres/day. Assuming this is all transmitted through Blowering each day [i.e. not stored there], what does this mean at Wagga? At flood peak 6/12/2010 about 150GL passed W. that day. At most 4GL of that was SH inter-basin transferred... Not entirely unrealistically, because we do not know how long water takes to reach Wagga, and I don't know whether SH even used the Tumut generating system on the relevant day, the minimum contribution on the flood peak day could have been zero....
How about this new ninja hot water that has evolved down at the Antarctic, it has awesome selective ice melting abilities. It can sneak right on past the sea ice and like a one billion thermal lances it attack's the land based ice and reduces the the land ice mass, (that has not reduced yet) :)
lol........the crazy alarmist shite they try to spin..... :)
Nick.
I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you posted # 4 before you read my comment @#3.
I will check later today to see if that was perhaps the case?
Nick.
I have decided I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you posted@ # 4 before you read my comment @#3.
I will check later today to see if that was perhaps the case?
Sorry,
That only needed to be said once.
BREAKING NEWS ++++++++ BREAKING NEWS ++++++++ BREAKING NEWS ++++++++
Arctic Sea Ice Minimum 2013 dramatically high:
The Record Minimum 2013 was achieved on September 16.
Scientific Results:
The September 16 values (km2) of the last 7 years:
2007: 4070114
2008: 4516471
2009: 5125931
2010: 4684325
2011: 4420667
2012: 3177455
2013: 4824927
Scientific Discussion:
The presented arctic sea ice extent data show a substantial increase of arctic sea ice extent during the last seven years. Only 2009 showed a higher arctic sea ice extent in the last seven years than the 2013 value. This trend if increasing arctic sea ice extent is in good agreement with the slightly decreasing global temperatures during the last 16 years. Humanity might therefore consider measures to counter a new cooling period.
Political discussion:
Why on Earth the fuck have idiotic mainstream journalists not alarmed the public of this new cooling trend in the arctic ocean. WHY THE FUCK?????
:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
BREAKING NEWS ++++++++ BREAKING NEWS ++++++++ BREAKING NEWS ++++++++
Correction : Message improvement!!!
++++++++ BREAKING NEWS ++++++++ BREAKING NEWS ++++++++ BREAKING NEWS
Arctic Sea Ice Minimum 2013 dramatically high:
The Record Minimum 2013 was achieved on September 16.
Scientific Results:
The September 16 values (km2) of the last 7 years:
2007: 4070114
2008: 4516471
2009: 5125931
2010: 4684325
2011: 4420667
2012: 3177455
2013: 4824927
Scientific Discussion:
The presented arctic sea ice extent data show a substantial increase of arctic sea ice extent during the last seven years. Only 2009 showed a higher arctic sea ice extent in the last seven years than the 2013 value. This trend of increasing arctic sea ice extent is in good agreement with the slightly decreasing global temperatures during the last 16 years. Humanity might therefore consider measures to counter a new cooling period.
Political discussion:
Why on Earth the fuck have idiotic mainstream journalists not alarmed the public of this new cooling trend in the arctic ocean. WHY THE FUCK?????
Look at these idiotic CAGW leper islanders and mainstream journalists:
:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
++++++++ BREAKING NEWS ++++++++ BREAKING NEWS ++++++++ BREAKING NEWS
#3 The sound of goal posts shifting... you started off accusing SHL of dumping water for no benefit into an already flooded system. That's rubbish, because the operational contribution of transferred water to the Murrumbidgee during flood is trivial. In dry times it is significant...not in wet. The benefits are more than just base flow, though: power and income.
The benefits of continued operation were real, the downside imaginary. The three floods in the Tumut valley in 2010 were not exacerbated by SH/NOW...in fact for the durations of the first two, NOW completely halted discharge from Blowering, and in the third they minimised it. There was no HARM to the flooding system, only benefit in terms of infrastructure in the Tumut valley. Farmers lost a lot of fencing; it would have been worse with higher peaks. While they were preventing harm they were generating power, and thus income, for the stakeholders and their own operating costs, while reducing GHG production below what it would have been in absence of the scheme. Benefits everywhere! Flooding at Gundagai and downstream was a lower Tumut and whole of Murrumbidgee catchment problem that SH could not control.
"It would have been far more useful if that water had stayed in Eucumbene where there was room to store it" you complained. I'm wondering if you realise how the scheme works. If Eucumbene had stopped sending water down the Tumut generating cascade, then that is power and income lost. SH has to fund its costs...how is this achieved if power production is halted? How long was SH supposed to just reduce their output, and store water ? All because of a perception problem?
People got the wrong end of the stick,and are determined to hold on to it. People overestimated SH's ability to influence a flood and they forgot about SH's benefits in toto.
SH was in discussions to amend the operating license from April 2010,the end of the water year... maybe progress was slow, who knows, but after the floods a more flexible arrangement was achieved.
#11 To put it more clearly: 'People overestimated SH's generating flow as a contribution to flood flow and etc...'
Ah, little mike; mark 'unread'.
Oh good. Lil'mike had another faeculent tanty. It's sort of cute in a Fabulous Furry Freaks/Capt Goodvibe- like way. I'm still not sure whether he's a wasted, ex-gunny-bait, aggie dropout, or a cornsyrup-stupified obeast in his Mom's basement, working his way through the pile of old Reader's Digest and vintage flesh mags - but The Pig of Steel, he's not. Your turn, dropkick.
"Fabulous Furry Freaks"
Funnily enough rhw, quickly scanning li'll mike's latest expulsion, it crossed my mind I haven't seen the phrase 'agit-prop' since about the mid '70's.
Maybe you're right and his basement is a time capsule.
#15 rhw
In fine style!
Well wherever that basement is, it ain't Australia.
No Australian has referred to "Australian ranchers" in the history of ever.
Sunspot gets so much wrongness into this it's almost artful:
How many times Sunny?
Strengthening zonal windspeeds are increasing the rate of upwelling around the coast. Warm water is being drawn up from below the surface layer. This is what is increasing the rate of basal melt. It mainly happens during the summer when - gee! - the sea ice has gone. Oh, and despite your stupid lies, net ice mass loss from Antarctica/GIS is increasing and will continue to do so. Be sure to look at the pretty pictures in the link:
No Nick @#11 &@#12
----------------------------------------------------------------------------.
"To put it more clearly: ‘People overestimated SH’s generating flow as a contribution to flood flow and etc…’
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem was NOT associated with SHL's normal RAR and/or their normal power operations. We love the Snowy Scheme in this part of the world and most who live here would recommend more hydro schemes were developed.
I would guess from reading posts from other people like Jeff Harvey that would not be a particularly popular recommendation here at deltoid even though you are correct and it does indeed reduce our reliance on fossil fuels.
The problem was the extra water that was being released from Eucumbene on both sides of the system as PAYBACK for water that was held back from everything except critical supplies in the depth of the drought.
It was a wasteful anomaly in the licence requirements that STILL EXISTS although some of it has been resolved since the 2010 flood but ONLY on the Murrumbidgee side of the system.
To be very clear, the problem was the EXTRA water over and above the normal requirements of the system, including environmental requirements and SHL power production, and it was being released into an already OVERFUL system BEFORE and AFTER that very short period of time in December when a real crisis hit.
Furthermore, Marohasy was NOT a major player in any of this. She did NOT create the problem. The flooding events merely allowed the media and Marohasy to dramatise the problem.
I agree that in that short timeframe there was little that could have been done and that when it all got critical that everyone involved did everything they could.
It doesn't change the fact that over 2000GL of STORED water was wasted for no good reason and for no good outcomes.
it doesn't change the fact that they were repeatedly warned about this problem.
Also, the maximum that the Tumut river can cope with without causing damage is approx 8GL/ per day. So that extra 3 to 4 that was coming through at that time is far more significant for that particular section of the system than you have indicated.
There are no shifting goal posts Nick.
As I said at the beginning, your original comment missed the point and gave undue recognition to Marohasy.
That water should indeed have stayed in Eucumbene and it then could have been used when the downstream systems could have successfully managed it for triple bottom line outcomes AND when SHL could get maximum benefit from power production, which is why the system was built that way in the first place.
Well, adelady, yes they have. ;-)
Explaining Goodvibes to one of the spacier inhabitants of The Land That Irony Forgot... nup, not gonna happen.
Yes indeed, RHW nails it. Of course mikey thinks he's normal, because The Republicans, and we're the outsider freaks, but in the golden words of The Pig himself 'mutants are strange, but not half as strange as the ones who think they're normal...'
Speaking of nailing it!
The gravy train Down has problems. No steam. Is Australia's war on science flannery over? ;-)
I'll bet it's the coal-itions fault?
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/tim-flannery-sacked-climate-c…
Mike
Unpleasant lies about people's private lives can only backfire horribly (see eg Luke). Best keep the vicious humour at the political/societal level. Then we can all play.
Boris doesn't seem to know the difference between extent, area and volume. Or statistical significance, for that matter.
Surprising from a senior pubished scientist like him.
Is mike still here?
#26
Perhaps existential confusion over identity has interfered with the otherwise crystalline logical processes of his highly-trained scientific mind. But we shouldn't speak of such things aloud.
Naming calls.
"is it even remotely possible that “mom” keeps a sharp eye on you when you’re around the kids. "
I think he would be more of a 'petsophile' judging by his wombat fucking avitar................
#19
"On Tuesday, a group of 50 international scientists released a comprehensive new report on the science of climate change that concluded that evidence now leans against global warming resulting from human-related greenhouse gas emissions."
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/09/16/PLS-HOLD-FOR-TUESDAY…
The fucking Heartland-sponsored bollocks-fest that is the NIPCC! You stupid arse. Even by your standards, this is a joke link. A lying right-wing ideologue pushing energy industry sponsored pseudoscience... FFS!
Get a clue, Sunny!
* * *
#19.
#20, Stu2 you need to get some facts straight:
The problem, expressed in the local and state media,and furthered by Marohasy, was a perception that SH operations was exacerbating floods in December 2010.
Regardless of your intention to broaden your complaint to 'water releases were wasteful' in the months leading up to the floods or not, that problem as I express above was what I was criticizing Marohasy over when I first mentioned her. OK?
Marohasy of course broadened her line of attack to include the 'wasteful' meme, especially when her specific charge of culpability became unsupportable. A familiar tactic. She never gave a sourced figure.
"2000 GL of water wasted" What is your source for this figure and how is it calculated? Are you talking about the whole water year 4/2010 to 4/2011? It is frankly ill-informed to suggest this figure. Let me show why.
The basins were coming out of drought in 2010. At the end of May 2010, Blowering was 30% full,and Hume Dam 20%. So any RAR sent down the rivers from April 2010 [start water year] was filling dams,not being wasted. By start November 2010 both dams were full to everyone's delight. That's an extra 3500GL, only part of which was RAR. That's not wasted water. The RAR component of that can be estimated at about 1200GL, about 600GL per catchment. This was obviously released to downstream storage without any foreknowledge of just how wet it was going to get,so it can hardly be described as wasteful at all. It was stored!
Over the period May to December,all the SH mountain storages accumulated water Eucumbene,Jindabyne and Tantangara gained 700GL between them. And Burrinjuck filled,too. So a depleted system rapidly gained around 5000GL...then it kept raining. last six months of 2010 turned out to be the wettest on record for the catchment.
I really don't understand the '2000GL' wasted assertion at all. There is no basis for it. SH sent perhaps 200 GL down each river in the two wet months when the dams were full. Maybe 400-450GL in total. As I said before, it was not wasted because it generated power and needed revenue. It did not exacerbate flooding. Yes the irrigation dams were full by then. Sure, it wasn't needed by irrigators. But 2000GL wasted is an exaggeration, and disregards the half year when there was no flood in sight.
#24.
Disappointingly humourless, lil'mike. Your ex-Gunny would have been embarrassed by the lack of creativity and emotional involvement, as would your psychiatrist, Eng. Lit. TA and fantasy partner, though probably less colourfully.
As the esteemed prophet Lotharsson says: it's always projection - though I would add that, in lil'mike, the Freddiot, Spamspot, fLuke, the Scandinavian Troll Collective (Breivik Division) and the regrettably released denizens of the Deltoid dungeon (Fatso, Brangelina, Jonarse, et alia), this trait, is necessarily coupled with the self-awareness of a particularly recently shat cestode proglotid.
I'm willing to persist with the blog-coaching if you are, lil'mike, but please try to keep the humourless jarhead in the closet, OK?
http://climatechangereconsidered.org/
#33 actually, '2000GL was wasted' is BULLSHIT, not merely exaggeration!....and '2000GL of STORED' water wasted is utter bullshit. Blowering and Hume gained 3500GL and SHL gained 700GL! Do the math.
Heh - NIPCC lead authors are Fred Singer, Craig Idso and Bob Carter. Appropriately enough however, Heatland are based at One South Wacker Drive.
You can't say they didn't warn you.
#23 You're a know-nothing ,Petri...the gravy train is just starting now that the COALition has grabbed power. The Climate Commission cost peanuts.
Political donors are lining up for favors. The FBT rort will be restored. The means testing of the private health rebate will be removed on the request of the health privateers. Oh and look Abbott has shaken a few lobbyists out of the tree. It's token but very revealing.
#35
You don't know what FRACP stands for, nor are you paying attention. RHW is a chest specialist or similar, IIRC.
Very interesting link though, mike. Not one I would have provided were I you, as it does not bolster your case.
I think more humour and less viciousness would enhance your art. RHW is frequently very funny (hence #15); you sometimes allow your demons too much control. Struggle with them.
#35
It's shill bollocks, Sunny! Not real science! I keep telling you - reference the published literature, not shill bollocks and blog bollocks! It's tedious and it doesn't constitute a supporting reference!
Get a clue, Sunny!
;-)
* * *
#19
#35 I downloaded the cryosphere section of the NIPCC. So far it's cherry-picking all the way, the section on tropical glaciers excludes papers that ascribe recent retreat to the enhanced GH effect, and argues without data for precipitation decline, also pushing increased solar irradiance as sole factors. It's elaborate and dishonest.
The World Glacier Mass Balance data is ignored,and a lie about no consistency in global glacial behavior is offered. The claim that Antarctic sea ice trend balances Arctic sea ice trend is made,f**king amateurs! Even a kid with a calculator can establish this meaningless meme is mathematically wrong.
Amid 'Uncertainty', Scientists Blame Mankind for Global Warming
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/global-warming-uncertainty-blaming/201…
Sunny, do you actually *read* the stuff you link to? Because there's no comfort for deniers in your last.
One reason I ask is that you periodically shoot yourself in your supersize Clown shoes, as yesterday!
Remember yesterday, goldfish-brained troll?
Think! Try hard! Harder!! Got it yet?
* * *
It’s amusing – at least to me – that “Karen” waves Zhang (2013) at me in “her” confusion over the difference between sea ice and ice sheets (marine or otherwise) without joining the dots.
As I have repeatedly tried to explain to “her”, it is the increase in zonal wind speeds that is driving the increased upwelling that is driving the increased basal melt that is driving the increased rate of mass loss. Zhang’s modelled study simply provides support for the observations.
Poor, stupid, confused “Karen” is so lost in space that “she” doesn’t even realise what “she” has done.
* * *
Then this morning you are off again, repeating your rubbish. So you get stuffed *again*. Why do you do it? What is wrong with your mind?
Now, goldfish-brained troll, go back and read #19!!
See what I mean? Your stupid, lying bollocks yesterday is still stupid lying bollocks today! Amazing! Wow!
I beg to differ. They are professionals who are paid for what they do - professionally mislead.
Along similar lines, although maybe not with the professional angle:
Remember, Karen's purpose here is to disseminate lies (regardless of how stupid or gullible it makes her look).
Lotharsson
Oh, I know. And my purpose here is to give Sunny a hard time about those porky pies!
Hopefully while others are watching!
;-)
"LONDON: Predictions that 2013 would see an upsurge in solar activity and geomagnetic storms disrupting power grids and communications systems have proved to be a false alarm. Instead, the current peak in the solar cycle is the weakest for a century.
Subdued solar activity has prompted controversial comparisons with the Maunder Minimum, which occurred between 1645 and 1715, when a prolonged absence of sunspots and other indicators of solar activity coincided with the coldest period in the last millennium."
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/science/Solar-activity-drops-to…
Back here Luke said:
This shows on Luke's part a limited understanding of species' bioclimatic responses, and of how these are compounded by interspecific interactions. For many ecophysiological/phenological responses what counts is not just the range of temperature to which a species is exposed, but the trajectory of the mean temperature over days, weeks, months and years.
Luke asks why interannual and decadal variability are not more important than the overall change in mean global temperature. But why stop there? Why not ask why the diurnal variability in a species temperature exposure doesn't overwhelm its seasonal or semiseasonal responses? Why doesn't a particularly cloudy, dark and cool day in summer, after a warm and sunny one the previous day, send a bear into hibernation, when the train of gradually diminishing temperature and light in autumn does?
And it's not just about the direct 'pulse' vs 'press' temperature (ot whatever) effects on a species. As I mentioned above there are species intereactions to consider, and any particular species (especially faunal) is dependent on the ecologies of other, interacting species in its ecosystem - these interacting species are integrators of the bioclimatic milieu.
And further still, it's not just about the biotic arena either: those abiotic factors do play an essential part. Luke seems to disparage the "bedwet[ting] over an uncertain trend with modelled plus or minus signs in overall rainfall", but for many species operating on a finey-tuned ecophysiological budget a very slight alteration in the amount or pattern of precipitation, or of ice cover, or of humidity, or of wind direction, and have profound life-history effects.
Luke, unlike the KarenMackSunspots and the FreddyKaiBorisBerendanekes and the Scandinavian Troll Collective and sundry other idiots here, you are a reasonably smart person. Your blanket dismissal of significant ecolophysiological reponses to alterations in climatic regimes is unbecoming, and it diminishes your overall capacity to be taken seriously. Yes, ecology and evolution can be sublte and profoundly complex subjects to grasp, but cavalier ignorance is no way to make a case. Leave that to the knuckle-draggers here - you can do better than that.
We can only hope.
Two bits of good news: first, this:
http://news.psu.edu/story/287752/2013/09/16/bloomberg-markets-names-mic…
Second, we might not be seeing too many posts from three of the recent serial offenders for awhile. Call it inside information. That cheers me up no end! Now the blog can again get back to the nitty gritty.
#49
Mann deserves all the recognition he gets. MBH98/99 were ground-breaking. His fortitude since nothing short of admirable. The squalid campaigns against his work, integrity and reputation also deserve wide recognition - for what they really are.
As for the culling of the socks, and more, icing on the cake! Things had got a bit out of hand, really. There are limits, even in this free-fire zone.
Jeff Harvey
which serial offenders did you mean?
You'll have to wait and see, KaiFreddyBorisBerendaneke!
Why, the GMO crop growers and their monocultured, ecocidic, plants of course!
BBD asshole, you feel well in your German nazi Gestapo role? Fuck yourself you arselick, you son of a cheap bitch and pedophilic monster. The devil will cook you in hell and eat your viscera, fucking idiot! Your insanity will bring you into jail and psychiatric ward. You cannot win with your shit brain and rotten character
YOU ARE A REAL ASSHOLE, A BIG ASSHOLE, AND SO UNINTELLIGENT, FUCK OFF, MOTHERFUCKER.
I WILL NOW CALL MY LAWYERS TO FIND YOU IN YOUR HOLE AND GET YOU, ARSELICK!
But is is possible that abusive trolls using multiple socks (and possibly hiding their real IPs) might be for the chop.
For example, if I had trolled this blog obsessively and abusively for well over a month using multiple socks, as you have, I might be worried, Kai*Freddy*Boris*Berendaneke!
I imagine Sunspot "Karen" is worried too, especially as Sunspot "Karen" is explicitly forbidden to comment outside the Sunspot thread. Doubleplusungood!
Oh dear Kai*Freddy*Boris*Berendaneke! Did we hit a nerve!
Keep it up while you can!
:-)
You leper islanders are inborn losers, degusting crap. You always lose because you are too decadent and silly and so unintelligent that you don't even catch this with your impaired brains.
Then he obvious solution for you is not to click on this blog, isn't it 'Boris'?
That seems simple enough to any rational person ... oh wait..
Asshole BBD
you are a true eco fundamentalist CAGW asshole!
The tears of a thwarted troll taste quite delicious.
Oh No! Boris is Berandaneke! He was banned so he's just using another sock puppet. I've said it before but Freddy/Berandaneke/Boris is a cyber pysychopath.
Tim! Ban this person! Ensure they can't get through the filter!
The problem these days is that it's sooo easy to set up zillions of fake IPs and hang screen names off them. Even fuckwits like Kai can do it.
Steps will have to be taken. Jeff is correct.
'Boris'.
You forgot to mention the colour of environmentalists' urine.
Without active moderation, it'll have to be a case of going back into ignore mode.
I've heard unsubstantiated gossip that Tim L's health is not at its best which is a shame because when NI Westminster MP and all round fuckwit economist Sammy Wilson outed himself as an AGW denier back in 2007-ish or so, I found as a complete neophyte that Tim's blog topics usually had the best answers and links somewhere in the comments for whatever was stirring the denier soup from week to week.
But, "there is a tide in the affairs of men etc" which means at some point we have to continue on making the best of what we have learned. And if there's one thing we've learned it's that denialism is incapable of making a sound case.
I wish Tim the very best, and hope he'll be able to come out fighting in the face of Abbott's attacks on reality in the name of neolib dogma, but if that's not possible, I fervently hope the rational; community here (you know who you are) can carry on in Tim's place until such time as none of this is required any longer.
Bloody hell, that must have been a particularly good Cab. Sav. this evening. Apologies for any embarrassment caused, and cheers to Tim Lambert
The Maslowski Countdown
Ice Free Arctic 2013 September 22nd, 2013
3 days to go.
"Scientists working on the most authoritative study on climate change were urged to cover up the fact that the world’s temperature hasn’t risen for the last 15 years, it is claimed.
A leaked copy of a United Nations report, compiled by hundreds of scientists, shows politicians in Belgium, Germany, Hungary and the United States raised concerns about the final draft.
Published next week, it is expected to address the fact that 1998 was the hottest year on record and world temperatures have not yet exceeded it, which scientists have so far struggled to explain."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2425775/Climate-scientists-told…
Fantastic times, eh guyz :)
Yep, fantastic times for liars SpamKan. Until the 27th.
Still unable to do basic arithmetic, eh SpamKan?
What an asset you are to jackasses everywhere.
oh, and here is a goodie,,,,,,,,, :)
" the leaked report makes the extraordinary concession that over the past 15 years, recorded world temperatures have increased at only a quarter of the rate of IPCC claimed when it published its last assessment in 2007.
Back then, it said observed warming over the 15 years from 1990-2005 had taken place at a rate of 0.2C per decade, and it predicted this would continue for the following 20 years, on the basis of forecasts made by computer climate models.
But the new report says the observed warming over the more recent 15 years to 2012 was just 0.05C per decade - below almost all computer predictions.
The 31-page ‘summary for policymakers’ is based on a more technical 2,000-page analysis which will be issued at the same time. It also surprisingly reveals: IPCC scientists accept their forecast computers may have exaggerated the effect of increased carbon emissions on world temperatures – and not taken enough notice of natural variability.
They recognise the global warming ‘pause’ first reported by The Mail on Sunday last year is real – and concede that their computer models did not predict it. But they cannot explain why world average temperatures have not shown any statistically significant increase since 1997.
lThey admit large parts of the world were as warm as they are now for decades at a time between 950 and 1250 AD – centuries before the Industrial Revolution, and when the population and CO2 levels were both much lower.
lThe IPCC admits that while computer models forecast a decline in Antarctic sea ice, it has actually grown to a new record high. Again, the IPCC cannot say why."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2420783/Worlds-climate-scientis…
The evidence of the co2 fail is spreading exponentially now shrekie, lol
oooooooooh, this is very exciting :)
"IPCC scientists accept their forecast computers may have exaggerated the effect of increased carbon emissions on world temperatures – and not taken enough notice of natural variability."
see guyz, lol, your syense & fizziks failed, or was it all just a lie?!?!?
See, SpamKan?; you are, indeed, a Daily Mail Reader.
It's what we call a 'Moron Magnet'.
Soooo, now that the climate scare is over, could we please start discussing more important issues?
Okay, I'll kick it off with this..............
"EXCLUSIVE: 'She puts on a brave face - but she's been trying for a baby for a year': Jennifer Aniston's secret bid to be a mom - as she denies she's pregnant at 44"
:)
If you had any concept of what the phrase 'loaded language' means SpamKan you (like any other reader with more than one functioning braincell) would be on your guard against such crapola as you've been directed to spam.
But as Lotharsson has helpfully pointed out, your mission here is solely to lie but never engage, as you aren't able to defend the indefensible..
#73 chek,I have tried and tried honey, but I never know when someone is talking to me?
I think the problem seems to be that the dumbtoid nuffies constantly get my name wrong?
The scary thing actually is that shit-fer-brains like you SpamKan actually start to believe your own shit.
Your '9th Army saviours' are a figment of your imagination. It seems you really what a joke you are, SpamKan
Reliance on the Daily Mail for your stories, Karen?
What a shame.
In 2007 Gore Says Arctic Ice Could Disappear By 2013, Earth Gains Record Amount Of Sea Ice In 2013
http://nation.foxnews.com/2013/09/15/2007-gore-says-arctic-ice-could-di…
I have been searching and searching, I have been desperately trying to find any predictions that haven't failed !
I did find my prediction from last week tho, and it came troo, yep ?
Flannery got the arse.......... lol
Blog names are transient, but identities are harder to hide, SpamKan. Particularly for those as stupid as you.
#77, you predicted that? The IPA demanded it months ago. Abbott signalled he'd do it weeks ago. Foregone conclusion.
Flannery will more than likely jump the fence now.
You're improvising away from your feed now SpamKan and talking shit from your own native stupidity. What does that - 'jump the fence' - even mean, you moron?
#81 shrekie......... the same thing that Timmie did....
Stick to your given script SpamKan.
You make no sense without it
psssst, change sides :)
Your 'side' has nothing but idiocy to offer SpamKan.
You're testament to that.
I hadn't appreciated that Murdoch really is the real deal - a True Unbeliever every bit as pole-axingly dense as SpamKan!
Here's a recent tweet from the Dark Lord and Spammy's Saviour -
A statistically-incompetent billionaire - so much for market theory!
Hey, Stupids, here's a prediction for you. Withing 5 years there'll be another record sea-ice minimum, and the year after that all you utter plonkers will be claiming there's another 'record' recovery!
#86, ..so Rupert reads his own papers! No wonder he's such a stupid fuckwit! The propagandist captured by his own propaganda.
'Pls explain'...who is he, Pauline Hanson? News Corp needs to retire the old coot.
PS, was 'tracking' intended to be 'fracking'?
Also, I don't believe SpamKan is a 'liar', as such.
SpamKan has very little capacity to distinguish truth from fiction - hell, as we know, she hasn't actually sorted the distinction between Celsius and Fahrenheit! As has been pointed out, she never engages because since childhood she's known full-well that tricksy clever people always burns us, Precious.
And, anyway, the truth/falsehood thing is not a distinction that's important to her, because she knows what's 'true' in the same way that Abbott does - via 'the gut'. Sorting evidence is too hard, and it's all way over her head anyway. More intelligent (but not that much) and cynical (- monstrously - ) people than her pump out the chum day after day; she 'believes' it, regurgitates it, and she's - literally - happy with that.
One could never attach the word 'sincere' to the beliefs of such a creature - look at the repulsive, Gollum-esque gloating, over what it has fantasized to be Tim's 'conversion' - but it credits its claims as factual in the same way that Creationists, homeopaths and 911-truthers do, and, indeed, all the stupid people of history have.
What is 'sincere' - at least in the sense of being a passionate conviction - is its sense that its winning, and, again, its simply too stupid to discern that it is not.
I corrected the lie. I didn't bother correcting the corollary lie. Readers with half a brain can figure that out, as they can see that Karen's purpose here is to disseminate lies.
Hey Billie :)
Here is an astute synopsis of the situation.......
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/09/08/september-2013-open-thread/c…
#90..an appeal to the authority of someone possibly more stupid than yourself. 'Astute', indeed.
"In the end, we don’t yet know how the ocean's heat content has changed, but we know it has. We don’t know exactly how surface temperatures are being (lol) suppressed, but we know warming can't have stopped (lol). We don’t know for sure what's causing the ice to melt (lol) so fast, although we have a pretty good idea that temperature might have something to do with it."..... lol
http://www.skepticalscience.com/nrc-report-on-ocean-heat.html
lol...... I love that website :)
Regurgitating Idiot fails to read own link (yet again).
#92.."lol....I love that website" Ah, but do you understand it, Kaz?
It's never read it. It's just regurgitating.
Communicating the cooling consensus is very important in terms of increasing public awareness of the CO2 climate change lies and support for the disbandment of the IPCC..
But if there's a consensus that means it's wrong, remember?
Does this sound better Billie?
Communicating the cooling of the climate change consensus is very important in terms of increasing public awareness of the CO2 climate change lies and support for the disbandment of the IPCC..
Jeff Harvey
YOU ARE THE PSYCHOPATH
and one thing IS clear:
YOU DUMBTOIDS WILL LOSE THE CLIMATE WAR
For Jeff, :)
Planet good for another 1.75 billion years, scientists say
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/19/how-much-longer-can-earth-sup…
50th Daily Record of Year for Antarctic Sea Ice Extent on Sept 19th
http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2013/09/19/50th-daily-record-of-year…
Gosh !!! WITHOUT AUGUST WINDS ??????
foxnews.com/science is an oxymoron
whereas spamkan and boris are carbondioxymorons
And in news about the other kind of Antarctic ice (the kind that's supposed not to melt out each year) ....
Press Release http://climate.nasa.gov/news/983
Abstract http://www.sciencemag.org/content/341/6151/1236.short
Anyone with access should have a look at the full paper.
#3 adelady
It will be interesting to see the 30 yr data.
I don't know whether or not you alarmist guyz realize this, if your CO2 story is even remotely true, and there is still no more warming for a little while, then all that you have done is shot yourselves in the foot with the forecasts of non appearing doom.
In the mean time all your little carbon schemes are to be wound back or demolished, so what is the back up plan ?
More bullshit won't work !
Now now, don't pretend to be a thinking person who reads!
SpamKan, you immerse yourself in rubbish and end up spouting nonsense exactly like #5.
Nothing has changed except the amount of rubbish you've spammed and come to believe.
#7 chekie, your in denial honey :)
#5 "More bullshit won't work" ...we have been telling you that for just a while now, sweets.
#98. Frankly ,the IPCC may well find it difficult to keep getting the time and effort of researchers given the generational political impasse. I would sympathise if the panel stood up and said "At it for nearly thirty years, had enough, it's up to you politicians to lead, as it always has been".
#100, they said 'planet good for life in general', not humans.... if you care to read [reading is not optional]
Nickie, have you seen this?
Ohhh, it should also be of interest to BBD
Citizen Audit - Detailed Findings
BACKGROUND
United Nations countries belong to an organization called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This organization releases a report every six years. Often referred to as the "climate bible," it is relied on by governments around the world.
The 2007 report is divided into three smaller reports - written by Working Group 1, 2 and 3 - and contains 44 chapters in total. The chairman of the IPCC has repeatedly claimed that the report relies solely on peer-reviewed literature to support its findings. This is not the case.
number not peer-reviewed 5,587
http://www.noconsensus.org/ipcc-audit/findings-detailed.php
The public would be shocked, if only they knew......
I suppose we should at least congratulate you on your firm commitment to recycling garbage.
Hurrah. Tim's back, and lil'mike isn't. Anyone want to posit how many post Spam will persist with if we just ignore it?
"Planet good for another 1.75 billion years, scientists say"
Two responses: One, humans won't last remotely that long. The planet and biodiversity will persist whatever we do to it. The problem is that our species won't. Given our utter dependence on nature and the services that emerge from it, once these systems break down - and they already are - we will be the most prominent victim.
Second, the fact that you glean ANYTHING fro Fox News should tell everyone what a moron you are. But then again, most of us knew that a long time ago.
#11. the IPCC have always made clear that WGs 2 and 3 could use grey lit. WG1 makes no findings or projections based on grey lit. Some of the WG1 references are very elderly [e.g Agassiz from 1837] and are used to establish an historical timeline. Other refences are to textbooks which themselves cite refereed papers. The quibbling from 'noconsensus' is piffle. And to argue in banner headline that there is 'no consensus on AGW' is childish: if there wasn't [and the IPCC presents it], dopey little auditors would not be humiliating themselves everywhere.
David Suzuki is the sole interviewee on next week's Q and A on the Australian ABC:
http://archive.is/bFNkx
Should be an interesting episode, and I'd love to be in the audience. When I was a kid Suzuki was one of the "Three Davids" who were my heroes, although the third one went rogue about 10 years ago.
I hope that Tony Abbott is watching, and I wish that more scientists had the sort of exposure that Suzuki draws.
It's difficult not to see this as a totalitarian purge
bbd
"How long have we had AGW, under the prevailing dogma? Fucking moron.
Technically, since the Industrial Revolution got underway. But for practical purposes, across the C20th with a definitive emergence of the forced trend since the 1970s."
Tehnically? Haha, fucking lyer. When reality don't fit just move the goal posts. Both you and jeffieboy know there isn't a single one spieces being extinct since the industrial revolution that can be blamed on AGW. Now, when exactly when did it start? Why do you warmiztas constanly need to lye and move goal posts, shithole? .
"Now the odd thing here is that Tim Lambert has come down hard on sock puppetry before,"
Crying out for daddy now, bbd? Poor little thing, can't handle the debate without help from an adult, can you?
jeffie, "– and the empirical literature is full of studies demonstrating this." Executed by the same type of warmiztas as you, I reckon. It doesn't matter how you turn around, your ass is always at your back side. Name one, one species gone extinct due to AGW. One!
All together now: it's always...
#18,20 I am so infinitely relieved we cannot definitively isolate one species extinction from AGW thus far, and we can relax in the knowledge that nearly every extinction seen has been due to mere habitat destruction and clueless over-exploitation. Thanks!
#18
Are you blind as well as a fuckwit? I answered that question in full. You quoted my response in full. And you then accused me of lying and moving the goalposts. I did neither, scum.
Read the words:
The reason lying scum like you need to be moderated of this and any blog is neatly illustrated right here. You are the absolute essence of bad faith.
Nick, included in that list of "not peer reviewed" are ALL the IPCC reports themselves. Thaaaaat's right, according to the citizen's audit, not a single IPCC report is peer reviewed.
Also, as I scientist I can tell you that many book chapters are peer reviewed, too (also automatically counted as "not peer reviewed"), and many government and even NGO reports go through the same process.
The citizen audit was flawed from the beginning by re-defining "peer review".
Deniers constantly screech that there is no catastrophe yet, no mass extinction yet, no metre of sea level rise yet, so what the scientists say must be “alarmist” and wrong.
This is as stupid as it is dishonest.
What the scientists actually do say is that if CO2 forcing continues to rise *then* by later this century irreversible changes will be underway that *will* result in abrupt temperature rise and concomitant mass extinctions, sea level rise, drought, agricultural productivity impacts and so on.
What scientists actually do say – but not often or loudly enough – is that we are still right at the beginning of the process. It will be decades before the true magnitude of climate change will emerge definitively from the weather noise. By which time, it will be far too late to stop or even mitigate the worst damage.
Using present conditions to argue that future change will be trivial or non-existent is a glaring example of intellectual dishonesty or profound stupidity.
The only way out of this is denial, starting with denying the laws of physics and working on up. That's what you have to do to your integrity in order to spare yourself the facts.
#24. Marco, I knew 'noconcensus' pseudo-audit was useless...now you tell me it's worse than useless!!! Alarmist! ;)
all 18,531 references cited in the 2007 IPCC report were examined,
5,587 are not peer-reviewed
http://www.noconsensus.org/ipcc-audit/findings-main-page.php
An example
peer-reviewed references, highlighted in yellow: 12
http://www.noconsensus.org/ipcc-audit/2007/WG3chapter1-A.html
#27 You must be heavily sedated: you've already posted that nonsense. See #24, pumpkin.
#29 IPCC's Climate Bible Gets 21 'F's on Report Card
Working Group 3, Chapter 5
total number of references: 260
peer-reviewed references, highlighted in yellow: ONLY 64 out of 260, golly :)
Working Group 3, Chapter 6 of the 2007 IPCC report
audited by John Moore, 17 March 2010
total number of references: 379
peer-reviewed references, highlighted in yellow: 103
uncertain/second-opinion-required references, highlighted in blue: 30
percentage of chapter references from peer-reviewed literature: 27.17 percent
http://www.noconsensus.org/ipcc-audit/2007/WG3chapter6-B.html
Bernard J - 3Ds; Suzuki, Attenborough, and Bellamy?
A lot of us remember the latter fondly for his efforts during the Franklin campaign, (while Harry Butler, on the other hand...)
It's a pity indeed that he and the plot appear to have parted company!
Tell me about WG1, fuckwit. You know, the physical science basis.
The glaring thing about PantieZ and his ilk is that he and they know nothing of the subject except what they like to read on denier blogs.
So we have a situation where the output of toxic interpreters of interpretations is re-interpreted by mindless fuckwits who place themselves two removes from actual scientific opinion and rage at being treated as the idiots they've become through their own actions.
The concept of learning anything that doesn't immediately reinforce what they already think is anathema, so they will never read primary literature, never read an interview with any writers of primary literature and continue to submerge themselves in garbage 'truths'.
There really is very little scope for constructive dialogue with such a mindless mind set.
Moron, we already knew all that, as mentioned above. By Christ you are THICK.
They've got SpamKan really shuffling those 'stories' along now and there's still a week to go.
Clickety clickety click.
#37 chekie
hoo iz they ?
Why, whoever has you making 33 posts since yesterday SpamKan.
bbd, "Are you blind as well as a fuckwit? I answered that question in full."
No, you didn't! You were moving goal posts (as usual)!
I asked tou a simple enough question: "Now, when exactly when did it start?" But since you have a comprehension disorder (and I managed to make a typo) I'll refraze it: now, when exactly did the industrial revolution start? No need for an essay, which decade is quite enough.
"But for practical purposes..." Very practical indeed. A practical way for you and jeffie and his 50 year meme about extinction of species.
18 chekie :)
oh I am a little chatterbox :)
Innumerate as well as illiterate SpamKan
#1 Page 17 to date = now 34 posts.
Now let me see?
34 posts at $15/post = ?
ummm......what duz that = chekie ?
Why don't you try reading something about the subject PantieZ? Perhaps then you could frame a sensible question.
There's more available on the internet than denier blogs.
It all adds up to your usual vacuous drivel, SpamKan.
Karen #4
The thirty year data will come in over your head, well at the least you could have wet feet.
You don't get the difference between long term trends and short term messages from the climate system do you. Go ask the people in Boulder Colorado.
Curiously, or not so curiously to thinking people, some of the same industry shills in political appointments above their level of expertise in Colorado shrieking for relief are the same that denied it to those affected by Sandy.
Loaded dice, loaded dice, becoming more loaded over time but quickly affecting outcomes. Can you get your head around a simple message like that?
I think it strange that those familiar with the odds of gambling don't 'get' this picture.
Well whadayouknow!
Shortly after writing the above at #46 I visited Rabett's place and found this: Storms crashing on peoples' heads can fill some information deficits on climate.
There is a word for that sort of coincidence, what is it Karen?
Such a question comes from somebody who is either ignorant or deliberately making mischief, or in your case both.
One answer would be when the bronze age began.
Another when the iron age began.
Another with the advent of canals - which could take us back to Roman times never mind 18th century England.
Getting the problem now. There is no short answer without caveats just as in the processes of climate science. And that is what media pundits and ideologue politicos rely on and such as Monckton with their Gish Gallops.
So 'bust camera' - do your own homework, goodness knows you need to.
Indeed
Just as with Penty I could call out that that link from Karenite as coming from somebody who is either ignorant or deliberately making mischief, or in Karenite's case both.
When will they ever realise that with every such post they sink lower. Probably never for they are even ignorant of self.
Pentax
This is simply a lie. Since you are irritating me today, I am going to call you on it. Demonstrate - by quotation - exactly how and when I "moved the goalposts".
I guarantee you cannot do this. So once again, you will be shown up to be a liar acting in absolute bad faith when confronted with unanswerable *facts*.
* * *
You can start arbitrarily at 1850 if you like (that's what I meant by the Industrial Revolution "really getting under way"). Or you can start at the beginning of the C20th - also explicitly stated above, *twice*.
Now read this instead of ignoring it yet again.
* * *
It's not me who's moving the goalposts and being evasive, it is *you*.
All together now: it's always projection.
Then chatter to me about WG1. You have not responded to my direct question at #34.
"Chatterbox" is not the correct description. You are a prolific and exceptionally dishonest troll.
Tell your paymasters, SpamKan, that all you're achieving is significantly increasing the likelihood that one day you'll all be placed in stocks.
And damned lucky if she/he/it escapes being 'shared' around. Not that I advocate hanging, drawing and quartering but when mob rule hits anything goes, ask Maximilien de Robespierre. Oh! Karenski you can't, he was 'mobbed' and .....!
If you think these times are interesting, and I do, then just wait!
Betty's ghost will whinge and whine! Remember all the fuss last time!
"A practical way for you and jeffie and his 50 year meme about extinction of species"
What a twit Pantie is. This isn't my meme - its the official IUCN policy for classifying the status of species and populations. Some species in the tropics have not been seen since the 1970s and are still classified as 'extant'. Moreover, its far easier to say a species exists than it doesn't. And, given how poorly we know the true number of species on Earth (estimates vary from 5 million to 80 million), there's little doubt that many tropical invertebrates have been extirpated that were never formally classified.
Essentially, like all anti-environmentalists, Pantie plays on the "We don't know how many species there are, then there is no problem" strategy. I am used to these illiterates doing this. Its hardly new.
Australia a democracy, don't make me laugh, well cry as a matter of fact for the UK his heading in the same direction.
This on a Paul Ramsay article found via Nick at Watching The Deniers (see John Byatt's reply on Abbot's hit list), which I in turn found via Byatt's link in a reply on that Flannery sacking article at Sou's HotWhopper: The Half-Million-Dollar Cure.
Look at the link to the right at that page for 'Is This The Most Dangerous Woman In Australia?' and Abbots plans for the CEC - affiliated to US LaRouche organisation.
Dirty deeds being played out.
Hurrah, Tim is back and will soon ban the most degusting fuckwit if this site: twerp BBD :evil:
BBD, before you will be banned here, can you describe in own words which scientific evidence you can reference (peer-reviewed original publications) that show a warming effect of anthropogenic CO2????
I am sure you cannot, fuckwit
Lionel @ #56
A'la'rouchie (pardon my fucking French) in preference to a Green candidate?
I'm not sure what it would be, but there's some mental aberration there either in Abbott or the gallery he's playing to..
Boorish #58
Santer et. al. 1996 and Santer et. al. 2013
for starters.
Boris/Freddy/Bernadaneke you will soon be booted out of here soon as well. I don't know how many sock puppets you have but you're gonna need em', you sad, pathetic person.
Since I am saying soon a lot (and not that clown Willie Soon), the sooner the better for Boris and his puppets.
And FYI, BBD is going to be here a long time. His posts add tremendous insight into AGW and he has had to take a lot of crap from the scientifically illiterate deniers here.
+1
Thank you for your kind words.
I suspect that #57 is mistaken, but we shall see!
Asshole BBD is a fucking idiot, basta! And he has no fucking insight in AGW as there is no AGW, fucking twerp
Ah Jeff Harvey, the fucking AGW prophet, hahahahaha:
"You will soon be booted out", hahahaha.
YOU ARE A SICK SOCK PUPPET, THE SOCK PUPPET OF YOUR INSANE AGW CLIMATE CHURCH SUPERIORS
AND YOU ARE A TRUE FUCKING ASSHOLE FULL OF SHIT WITH ECOSYSTEN SERVICES SHIT AND BIODIVERSITY ECO ASSHOLE SHIT. GO HOME YOU FUCKNG ASSHOLE, FUCKING!!!!
Argument by assertion is a logical fallacy, Boris!
Lionel A #60 provides references!
Play the game, Boris!
:-)
Jeff Harvey and other pathologically vain wannabe pseudo--important impertinents:
YOU FIGHT A POLITICAL WAR FOR DOMNANCE OF YOUR INSANE GREEN LEFTY SHIT IDEOLOGY WHICH AIMS TO THROW MANKIND BACK TO STONE AGE. YOU MUST MUST MUST THEREFORE BO STOPPED BY ALL MEANS, YOU FUCKING ASSHOLES. YOU MUST NOT PREVAIL AND YOUR DESTRUCTIVE IDEOLOGY MUST MUST MUST BE DEFEATED AND WILL BE DEFEATED SOON, YOU UNSPEAKABLE IDIOTS.
Boris (or whatever) doesn't do evidence.
Boris does insane ranting.
Boris thinks insane ranting will make him feel better than when he started.
But it never does.
Boris thinks next time will be different.
But it never is.
Hamsters running on their wheels feel sorry for Boris.
Boris will never realise why they do.
Boris can't even conceive what a mere hamster can.
:-)
I looked in innocent surprise,
My wonder showing in my eyes.
"Then why, O Cumberbunce," I cried,
"Did you come walking at my side
And ask me if you, please, might sing,
When you could not warble anything?"
"I did not ask permission, sir,
I really did not, I aver.
You, sir, misunderstood me, quite.
I did not ask you if I might.
Had you correctly understood,
You'd know I asked you if I could
So, as I cannot sing a song,
Your answer, it is plain, was wrong.
The fact I could not sing I knew,
But wanted your opinion, too."
Paul West - The Cumberbunce
http://f2.org/humour/language/nonsense.html#Cumberbunce
"The media could start by reporting the 15-year pause in global warming. Perhaps the public is mature enough to discuss the full range of possible explanations. Perhaps those associated with the axed climate commission, such as David Karoly and Will Steffen, should give it a go." :)
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/editorials/testing-the-climate-…
"Based upon early drafts of the AR5, the IPCC seemed prepared to dismiss the pause in warming as irrelevant ‘noise’ associated with natural variability. Under pressure, the IPCC now acknowledges the pause and admits that climate models failed to predict it. The IPCC has failed to convincingly explain the pause in terms of external radiative forcing from greenhouse gases, aerosols, solar or volcanic forcing; this leaves natural internal variability as the predominant candidate to explain the pause. If the IPCC attributes to the pause to natural internal variability, then this begs the question as to what extent the warming between 1975 and 2000 can also be explained by natural internal variability. Not to mention raising questions about the confidence that we should place in the IPCC’s projections of future climate change."
http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/20/the-ipccs-inconvenient-truth/
this is all over the headlines also......
World’s top climate scientists told to ‘cover up’ the fact that the Earth’s temperature hasn’t risen for the last 15 years
lol
"Coming winter, according to predictions of several Russian meteorological services will bring abnormally low temperatures in Europe and might even be the coldest winter in the last 100 years, writes Thursday Noviye Russian newspaper Izvestia quoted Utro portal.
Abnormal frosts
According to the forecast, based on the calculation of climatic indices, there will be a process of transfer of arctic air masses in Europe, resulting in abnormal frosts. In addition, during this period will cause a decrease in solar activity."
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ro&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2F…
:)
#71 "The media could start by reporting the 15 year pause in warming..." That's quite surreal Kaz, because all the ratbag media do IS report the so-called pause.
Welcome to the reality inversion of News Corp. Australia's dominant 'news' media group, telling itself that it needs to start reporting what it already relentlessly flogs in the global conversation!
Ancient trees emerge from frozen forest 'tomb'
"he stump of an ancient tree is visible at the base of the Mendenhall Glacier in July of 2013. UAS Professor of Geology and Environmental Science Program Coordinator Cathy Connor said she and her team have found the trees to be between 1,400 and 1,200 years old. The oldest she’s tested are around 2,350 years old. She’s also dated some at around 1,870 to 2,000 years old. "
http://juneauempire.com/outdoors/2013-09-13/ancient-trees-emerge-frozen…
lol......... so it is warmer now, eh.
"IF" the ice keeps melting it will interesting to see what else pops out from the "recent" past :)
#71, the OZ's editorial of course inverts reality as well. Just one of many examples: Their characterisation of the IPCC process as 'consensus seeking' at the exclusion of claim and counter-claim, and 'scientific theory and measurable result' , is utterly false. Anyone who was even slightly familiar with the report format would know the breadth of discussion and the layout of arguments puts the lie to the newspapers' construct.
So we have an editorial written from the position of utter ignorance....and of course posted here obliviously by a know-nothing.
Hey Nickie, I hope that I am helping you to confront your CO2 confirmation bias :)
#75...oh dear, where's your MWP, Kaz? Not showing up in western North America, that's for sure.
#77 Sweetie, you are confronting your own but are unable to see it!
Illusory correlation is your demon Nickie
A propose a new medical condition
CO2 Apophenia
:)
KarenMackSunspot.
I have asked this question so many times of the likes of you, who persist in repeating the long-debunked false meme about "no warming for x years", but there's never a response. Perhaps you can be the first to attempt the intellectual exercise of constructing an answer that is based in evidence.
Consider the graph here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=5&t=237&&a=11#89115
What does it tell you about the period of time required to statistically identify the global warming signal in the weather noise that superimposes on the Earth's climate? For brownie points and a gold star, can you explain how the last 15 years of data compare to any period of data up to any arbitrary year prior to the present?
"That’s quite surreal Kaz"
How long have you been having these surreal visions Nickie ?
#81, Ooh, a big word from Kaz! Cast your mind back to the tree stump story,Kaz ...what is the date range of the material so far tested? Hmm? You seemed to see something meaningful in those numbers didn't you, Miss Apohenia? LOL
Nickie, did you just smell something, disgusting ?
For all those crowing about the "pause" in warming, there's a question you should be considering. That 15 year period you're so fond of includes several La Nina years and no significant el Ninos along with some pretty feeble sunspot numbers. The question you should be asking yourselves as well as climate scientists is ...
Why hasn't it cooled by 0.02 or more?
This item in The Conversation gives all the details and the following quote. http://theconversation.com/is-global-warming-in-a-hiatus-18367
Read the whole item. Now ask yourself again.
Why hasn't it cooled in the last 15 years?
Oh lawks.
Why hasn't it cooled by 0.2 or more?
Oh lawks.
Why hasn't it cooled by 0.2 or more?
#85, No I just read something moronic. It smelled of nothing at all. Not a whiff of comprehension.
#82..very instructive link, Bernard,thank you....have a look, Kaz, it won't bite you.
Nick @#31 &@#34 previous page,
I am away visiting family at the moment and using a very slow computer. This comment will have to be brief.
I have access to all the figures and i have no reason to bullshit.
The issue of wastage is not relevant to the few intense days of the December 2012 flood. There is nothing wrong with my maths and my objection to the wasteful anomaly in the SHL licence regarding RAR payback into a full system is what the real exacerbation problem was. That anomaly still exists on one side of the system which means it will likely happen again the next time a drought breaks.
The downstream storages were already full and spilling by October 2012 and that water was not providing any useful outcomes.
Even SHL would have preferred to leave it in Eucumbene.
Marohasy was not the problem and was not a major player in these events.
My recollection is that she leveraged the media interest in the flooding to highlight the wastage that was occurring.
Furthermore, I don't think marohasy's reporting on this was any more or less duplicitous than the way our ex CC used the media in that earlier link I posted.
adelady, from 1998 to 2008 the from + 0.68 down to - .24
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
check the swing in surface temp http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.C.gif
CO2 Apophenia
:)
#90 Nickie !!
that STUNK !
KarenMackSunspot.
Why are you cherry-picking roy Spencer's satellite data? It is not as accurate in describing surface temperature as are data that are actually recorded at the surface, and it is notorious for errors of measurement on top of that.
Even so, here's an exercise for you. Visit the Skeptical Science temperature trend calculator at:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php
and choose either RSS or UAH and enter 1998 and 2008 as the start and end years respectively. Click 'Calculate'. What happens?
I'll tell you what happens. Even with the most dodgy of the datasets, and even with the most cherry-picked points available, points that have no objective basis in any scientific approach, it is still not possible to statistically exclude an underlying warming trend!
You're full of crap KMS. You have nothing that resembles a scientific argument - just ideological assertion based on your irrational fear and hatred of the objective truth.
And "STUNK"? Is that the only come-back you have? Can't you mount an actual logically-contructed and testably-evidenced counter to my analysis? Or does the truth of it have you so shitting your pants that you can't even admit to what the graph indicates?
yOU ARE A DISGUSTING CRETIN BARNTURD.
go away
#91 You have to demonstrate that 'waste' is more than a selective 'framing' of the water transfer in November and December. You have to show a figure that you can back and in context of the flows generated in the catchment wide flood.
. You have to show where that 'wasted water' compromised landholders and the environment. [Once the river breaks its banks in the flood plain at Wagga, 4GL/day of extra water raises the water level infinitessimally. NOW river profiles and flood data proves that]. You have to show how much more water could have been retained in SH storage without compromising SH's power generation duties. The inquiry into the event, while maintaining the commercial confidentiality of SHs water figures, claimed that SH transferred a net 41GL to Eucumbene from Tumut Pondage during the flood event.
I noted that it is fair to see the water year RAR as stored in Blowering and Hume up until they were spilling from environmental [flood] flow. And I'll repeat that between Tantangara, Eucumbene and Jindabyne the SH system stored 700GL from the rapidly improved rainfall of the last quarter of 2010.
Marohasy is a problem in that her role is to spread disinformation. I don't claim she has much traction generally, but she sought to exploit people's distress during the floods, when she could have actually shone some light,and calmed fears.
"Or does the truth of it have you so shitting your pants that you can’t even admit to what the graph indicates?"
0.00002 C
OK Bernard, BBD, Jeff, Nick, Stu et al - here it is - http://joannenova.com.au/2013/09/an-open-invitation-to-tim-flannery-to-…
Tim won't show but are you going to let this one go past - start off and I'll join you.
Meanwhile I'm engaged with Jen over at Marohasy on science corruption. My local bloghole as you know.
Surely BBD could mount a charge on paleo evidence to start with. A big push by Jeff on precautionary principle and ecosystem services. Then follow though how crap sceptics are, how it is still, warming - the pause explains. Blow them away on the tropo hotty. Are you up for it boys? Or is your excuse you're not going to give the debate oxygen? This isn't a blog debate now - they have actually axed teh climate commission and CSIRO and BoM research is next.
Are you going to have one decent shoot-out in your greenie lives? What did you do in the climate wars I have been told on recent days. Well this is your Kokoda track.
At least Andy is holding the ground http://theconversation.com/is-global-warming-in-a-hiatus-18367 Go Andy !
Flannery (who did fuck up a fair bit - never rain again etc - but still gives good mammal http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/it-pays-to-check-out-flannerys… ) has been dissed. Are you going to let his memory go down without a memorial all out nuclear attack. !
Seeing as there's neither trend line nor baseline nor annual/ 5 year/ 11 year smoothing on that graphic, I see no swing, no straight lines, no curves, no nuttin'.
#97 Kaz has conceded that it's not cooling.
adelady
not familiar with html tags?
bernard
"It is not as accurate in describing surface temperature as are data that are actually recorded at the surface, and it is notorious for errors of measurement on top of that"
TELL THIS YOUR CRAP BROTHER BBD, THE INSANE CAGW FUCKWIT ASSHOLE!!!!!
Translated it on Karen's behalf.
Says the commenter who is not familiar with the blockquote tag. Good thing I buy irony meters in bulk.
Never heard of them.
"not familiar with html tags?
Says the commenter who is not familiar with the blockquote tag. Good thing I buy irony meters in bulk"
says the commenter who does know the difference between cut and paste and copy paste
Boris/Kai/Freddy/TheBoyChurnedOutTheBurnin'dreck.
You are one sick individual. Congratulations on managing to stand out as a truly galactic loon on an internet already saturated with loons...
'Cut and Paste' is an expression left over from the old physical copy days, dork! This sort of pedantry coming from someone with your comic grasp of English has just blown my latest irony meter, and all...
And, loon, that all of us here can copy paste, whereas you cannot
Pa. Thet. Ic.
Nick @#96 previous page.
Still on a slow computer.
SHL power generating capabilities would NOT have been compromised by holding back the RAR payback water. That is complete rubbish. You seem incapable of understanding that the water releases in question were releases OVER & ABOVE the normal requirements of the system, including SHL power generating capabilities.
Because it was happening after the system had already filled up downstream it was indeed wasted and it did indeed take away any extra capabilities to mitigate any minor flooding. It was indeed significant amounts of stored water. In total it was over 2000GL that should have remained in Eucumbene for later and much wiser use including, of course, power generation.
Your opinion of what marohasy should or shouldn't have done is completely irrelevant to the real problem that developed in 2010/11.
I repeat: Marohasy did NOT cause the problem, she was not part of the negotiations and if her story embarrassed SHL it's because there was a reason for them to be embarrassed. They were indeed tipping water onto to the back of a system that was already full. They were doing it because of the anomaly in the licence requirements that they had been soundly warned about.
That anomaly still exists on the Murray side of the system.
It has only been partly resolved on the Murrumbidgee side.,
bill asshole, what you said to me fits perfectly to yourself and all the CAGW eco lefty sociopaths on leper island of nihilism, but not to me, since I am superior in any dimension that counts. You however are only a mean, vain, envying, fucking. asshole full of green eco shit. Your defeat is a closed case and you morons are even too stupid to catch this tiny truth.
"CAGW eco lefty sociopaths"
Freddy, oops, I mean Berendaneke, oops, Boris...
Look in the mirror. You are the most deranged, disturbed individual I have yet encountered on the internet. Well done for that achievement. Its saying a lot.
You will soon be booted off here - I will see to that. How else do you think your alter-egos were booted out? Put two and two together, you pathetic loser.
#9 Your 'over and above' claim needs substantiation. Don't handwave. "...over and above the normal requirements of the system,including SHL power generating capabilities"...why would SHL do that? Why would they transfer water from Eucumbene to the Tumut side to Tumut 1 in such quantities as it would exceed the drop shaft capacity? Makes no sense. If they did it would simply spill down the river bed bypassing Tumut 1 and 2, and pass the spillway at Tumut 3 as well,filling Jounama pondage and compromising that dams management function. They did transfer water from Tooma dam to Tumut pond to mitigate flooding in the Tooma Valley, but that tunnel capacity is little over 3GL/day. And, again your 2000GL figure is rubbish,and you have made no attempt to reference a figure, or source.
Your premise is flawed. The perception of the time was that by operating the SH system through the flood days, flooding would be exacerbated. Thus, conforming to that perception, in order to not exacerbate floods SH would have to cease passing any water from Eucumbene or Tooma down the generators,and restrict their activities to managing Jounama and Tumut Pondage,both very small dams that do not have any capacity to buffer the sustained high flows generated from within the Tumut catchment. Blowering is managed by the NSW Water Office. Blowering is the only dam in the Tumut cascade that can theoretically buffer large floods [Talbingo is always at FSL to create generating head for T3], so the entire Tumut catchment above Blowering is effectively unregulated. SHL can do no more than cease Eucumbene transfers which can be no more than about 9GL/day, the Tumut catchment generated huge runoff in record rainfall conditions : NOW is the flood management agency.
Cumulative net inflow to Blowering from start 1/12 to end 11/12/2010 was 1500GL, almost all generated from within its catchment.
There was not 2000GL of water in Eucumbene at the time of the floods to waste. It was holding about 1000GL and gained 41 in December 2010.
Shorter Berendaneke:
Oooh, burn, Bill! I bet you haven't been owned like that since Grade four. What zinger will he hit you with, next?
What a maroon....
Looks like they changed borisfreddykaitroll's medication again. Must be yet another disappointment: he went back to Boris, but kept the even larger idiocy of Berendaneke.
I would almost suggest some psychiatrist is using this blog to test out how the medication of the troll is working.
Thanks for proving me right KarenMackSunspot.
You don't have a clue.
Karenski #71
The Australian and Judith Curry in the same post, well FFFS it is becoming clearer with each such article quoting or alluding to Judith Curry that she is now descending rapidly down her spiral of decline as a trusted, straight think or speaking scientist
She now joins the ranks of those others who have forsaken science for advocacy to lay audiences such Pat Michaels and Richard Lindzen (more on him latter later if I can keep a bad attack of gout at bay). Ever on the ball Sou at HotWhopper nails Curry in two very recent articles:
Curry and Watts - dejected, rejected
Wicked messy Judith Curry's vexing denial of science . Why I am reminded of 'The Magic Roundabout'?
and on the 'down-under' echo of David Rose's dissembling there is this Sou article:
Editing the Environment out of Existence: Graham Lloyd and The Australian tell Big Fat Lies where we find this, a revelation for you Karenski eh:
Seriously, citing any of those taken to task therein will only lower your reputation further.
Marco, you mean your shit text seriously? Really? If yes, then you are an intellectually impaired idiot.
Boris, you would not recognize intellect if it hit you in the face repeatedly.
#15 barnturd
"Thanks for proving me right KarenMackSunspot.You don’t have a clue."
I would prefer to drink a cup of dogs vomit than to fraternize with you, cretin.
SpamKan once again proving the axiom that a denier would rather do anything but get their information from a scientist.
Keep up the good work, Jeff. Boris needs to go the way of his alter-egos. Banned.
I didn't ask you to fraternise with me.
I asked you to consider, for any year since 1980, the number of years prior that are required to detect a statistically-significant warming trend.
I even linked to a graph depicting this very thing.
You make a claim that the last 15 years of temperature data show that there has been "no warming", and yet you refuse to explain why your claim is valid when it is considered in the context of the nature of the data. Sure, it's your prerogative to do so, but in so doing it only demonstrates to the world that you either know that your claim is complete and utter garbage, or that you are so innumerate that you don't actually understand the subject and the nature of my questions.
Given that you have already forfeited to me, I will summarise the data - there is nothing unusual about the current period required to identify statistically significant warming - indeed, over all there is a trend to the period becoming shorter. In other words even though there is ongoing, physically-real retention of extra heat in the Earth system, it takes at least eleven years to detect it statistically.
It was nine months ago when I constructed that graph, but from memory the average interval in my SkS trend calculator exercise was 17 years, which concords with the work of others.
But keeping on tugging on your old fella KMS. In spite of what your mother might have told you, it won't fall off - you'll just continue to look silly doing what you've always done.
And for what it's worth, Australians don't say "fraternize".
At least, the ones literate in Queen's English don't.
That clenching feeling in your lower bowel might well be referred pain arising from the repeated doses of lead administered to the region of your metatarsals.
@22,23 far exaggerated self-esteem of a chronic loser who cannot master his life.
#24
Now that sound like projection to me!
BTW, have you figured out how to:
You know, Bernard, I'm not even sure Sunny actually understands the graph you created. Perhaps his reaction is an attempt to conceal truly abysmal ignorance and stupidty rather than a refusal to acknowledge that it demonstrates that he is spouting very tired denialist bollocks. It's just a hunch.
Tamino writes on Curried Tripe, Watts and Double Standards.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/09/21/double-standard/
I'd just read that johnl and was about to link this graph which gives a good example of short term trends within the bigger picture, noting that even the blue line is still positive.
But then I remembered that the representatives of denial we get here don't understand graphs. Or anything much apart from crank theory, really.
^ html clutz ^
It's what that Jeff Harvey keeps banging on about! :-)
Scale.
Denier hyperfocus on tiny little bits of things instead of being able to see the bigger picture. Like a centennial forced trend overprinted by natural variability.
BBD, Deniers think that 10m years is a long time, 30 years is a very long time, and that 80 years is eternity. They just cannot get though their collectively thick heads that for systems working at stupendously large scales that all three are a blip in climatological terms. That we are seeing humans force these systems out of short-term equilibrium is nothing short of remarkable - and terrifying.
I mean 10 years, not 10m! God Forbid!
Harvey: That we are seeing humans force these systems out of short-term equilibrium is nothing short of remarkable – and terrifying
WRONG: WE DON'T SEE THIS, HOWEVER YOU HALLUCINATE THIS. TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS DON'T CONFFIRM YOUR IDEOLOGY, FUCKWIT
lol
Jeff, if you're writing to Tim, SpamKan's well past her 'sell by' date, too.
'Fraternize' is yet another instance of an 'Aussie' born on a ranch who ate cookies on her way to elementary school in the pickup truck.
Whether her claimed origins are an outright lie or she's another all-too-willing subject of Coca-Colonization I hope to never have the opportunity to find out...
Boris
Top one "Boris"!
Now show us how you do blockquote!
This I have to see!
:-) :-) :-)
Doltoid fuckwits, among other talents which you mainstreams lack and I dispose of is computer literacy, unimaginable (for you bloody laymen) computer programming capabilities etc. I am able to program a cms something much better like the ill-performing worldpress junk software in less than 2 hours. So you mentally disabled blatherskites without
#38....oh, bummer, Boris fell asleep mid-sentence. They must have had to up the dose.
Nick, wrong interpretation as always, your low intelligence did not allow the correct interpretation.
Jeff
I'm not surprised that some people retreat into denial. It is terrifying. Once properly considered. So best not.
Clever monkeys digging up fossil sunshine accidentally change the climate? Don't be ridiculous. Have another scotch.
Your delusions of grandeur are risible, Boris. Yeah, a buffoon who can't even
can build a CMS to outperform WordPress!
Just rock those block... quotes, "Boris"!
Go for it, Loris!
Bill, that's twice we've crossed and that's enough! Stop thinking faster than me! It's not fair.
"Response: [DB] Improved image width. Bernard, I tried to email you the proper image width code but the message proved undeliverable." :) did the snow bring down the phone line? lol
barnturd, what is it with you? every second post of yours refers to one of your prior posts, nobody cares what you have said, you are the only one that loves yourself.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.33/trend/plot/gis…
Your delusions of grandeur are risible, barnturd. Yeah, a buffoon
Jeff, if you’re writing to Tim, barnturd & flaccid Bill well past their ‘sell by’ date''''s, too.
Keep up the good work Boris, having a real climate scientist in here to educate the loons is a real bonus :)
#48, don't mock Boris, Kaz, he's fragile.
People, I think we should let this dialogue between SpamKan and Boris The One True Climate Scientist continue.
SpamKan's WFT confection @ #45 tells me it's gonna be hilarious.
#45
1/ You haven't understood Bernard J's question.
2/ Your graph is an arpeggio of cherry-picks.
3/ You still screw up on basic #1:
The troposphere ≠ the climate system
Which brings us neatly to 4/.
4/ Ocean heat content.
:-)
"4/ Ocean heat content."
BBD, could you find a temperature chart for the deep ocean for us to have look at?
Yes, please do BBD.
SpamKan needs something new to colour in with they're new crayons.
I see on the grapevine that you guyz didn't get your ice free Arctic that you needed so desperately.,,lol
No, my email host was down. For about 6 hours, if I remember correctly. It's instructive though that you look for the least parsimonious scenario posssible - at least you're consistent that way.
No, my email host was down. For about 6 hours, if I remember correctly. It's instructive though that you look for the least parsimonious scenario posssible - at least you're consistent that way.
Ah, that innumeracy of yours raises its head once more...
However, here's an offer. Find someone else who has posted the particular graph that I constructed and I'll link to that the next time I point out that you are unable to address the implications of the period of time that is required to identify the global warming signal from contemporaneous climate noise
A for you comment about nobody caring about what I have said, that is easily disproved. I wonder if you can guess how...?
.
2012 3410000 sq. klms.
2013 5100000 sq. klms.
Proooving the theory that global warming makes more ice?
:)
I notice that you are stammering and stuttering again, cretin.
"Ah, that innumeracy of yours raises its head once more…"
yes barnturd, grandiloquence fail on your part AGAIN !
Out of context, "parsimonious"
Nah, more like proving the theory that denier morons don't even understand what AGW is if they really think it can override winter.
barnturd,
From your link http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Nuccitelli_Fig1.jpg
Could you make another chart barnturd, replicate the chart above with Temp C rather than Joules. :)
#58, proving again that rejectionists never need data to 'make' their 'arguments'...
#60 and also proving they don't understand the difference between temperature and heat.
#60, so joules doesn't mean anything to you, Kaz? Too bad.
"so joules doesn’t mean anything to you, Kaz? "
Yes Nickie, indeed, I understand honey :)
Tell me something ?
Duzzz the Argo system measure and transmit the recorded data in Joules ?
Your question at #60 rather confirms that you most certainly do not understand. Far from it.
I can see the little cogs and little gears getting stuck in your head chekie :)
Where is the coprophagous barnturd?
"National Geographic – 12 December 2007
“NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: “At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions.”
"Sierra Club – March 23, 2013
“For the record—I do not think that any sea ice will survive this summer. An event unprecedented in human history is today, this very moment, transpiring in the Arctic Ocean….”
[Paul Beckwith - PhD student paleoclimatology and climatology - part-time professor]"
paleoslimatology :)
#64, bullshit!
#72 Nickie, your debating technique is nothing short of awesome sweety ......................lol
#73, Oh, you're debating are you, Kaz? Pardon me. LOL indeed.
#69,70. Two qualified observers, one offers an "if,then maybe" and the other a prediction [wrong], based on regional climate and the observed and uncontradictable evidence of a downward trend in sea ice cover. The trend has not changed, nor the underlying factors , just the timing of an ice free summer is not known to precision.
Meanwhile,you, Kaz, believe against the evidence that the globe is cooling [while posting data that shows it isn't], choose one data point as evidence of a 'recovery' and an inflexion point in the trend [absurd, but that's you], have a documented string of comprehension failures that are lead in your saddlebags...and now you think you are 'debating'?!
#74 Nickie,
No I suppose not, schooling may be the more appropriate phrase .........
"Meanwhile,you, Kaz, believe against the evidence that the globe is cooling"
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.33/trend/plot/gis…
#76 Now you think you're schooling ?! ... and 'schooling' is a phrase? ROFL ... that's a pretty deep hole you been 'schooling' for yourself, Kazzie.
#77, you posted that cherry pick just upthread, Kaz. Now you're twice as stupid. Hint: don't double up the dumbness.
"that’s a pretty deep hole"
sorry!
I forgot I wasn't wearing knickers :(
Soooo Nickie, can you link me to an Argo temperature chart that demonstrates the warming at 2000 mtrs below the sea surface ?
#80, you always forget, Empress.
Nickie, can you link me to an Argo temperature chart
I don't think SpamKan's ever going to realise why OHC isn't measured in 'Temp C'. lol.
chekeee, can you link me to an Argo temperature chart, the raw data sweetie :)
#82 Nickie your comment was very witty honey :)
Now, can you link me to the Argo temperature charts?
It is obvious that you guyz fear the ARGO data, why would that be? hmmm
Nick@#12,
Why would SHL do that?
Because the operating licence required it.
You are attempting to mislead with your comments re Tumut ponds and drop shaft capacity.
You are sprouting irrelevant rubbish and that was never the issue under question. Nobody, including Marohasy has ever claimed that SHL was damaging their own drop shaft capacity. That truly is nonsense.
Look up the normal operational RAR requirements for the Murray and Murrumbidgee valleys from SHL.
The water under question is the PAYBACK of those amounts on top of the usual requirements. The licence stipulated it had to be done because that water was held back in the depth of the drought. Ostensibly, it was supposed to be for the environment which of course had already been more than adequately watered by the downstream inflows you have already mentioned.
From no later than OCT 2012, that water was being wasted DOWNSTREAM from the storage systems because it SPILLED through the downstream storage systems into an already over full system.
When I return home if you still can't figure it out, I will find the release amounts for you.
I was offering you the benefit of my knowledge on this matter and tried to warn you that Marohasy was NOT the problem re this issue. SHL, NOW , SWC and Minco were all soundly warned well before the situation became critical in Dec 2012 that there was a developing problem. Their inflexibility was the problem Nick and it remains a problem.
SpamKan, what's obvious is that you've half-digested some snippet from a Denier blog which you, as usual, imagine makes you clever, though you don't even know what Argo floats are. Now, instead of pissing about pretending to know things, either shit or get off the pot.
Hi Billee, see #87
No, for the umpteenth time you're merely pretending to know about something you do not understand. At all.
You have never managed to explain yourself in this situation and you're not likely to start now, because you are dumber than the contents of your laundry basket.
Prove me wrong.
#91 billee, just a little peek at the argo data surely wouldn't hurt :)
QED.
You have no idea what it is you're claiming. You're just parroting something you read somewhere.
You do this all the time, and nobody is fooled - except maybe yourself, but you're the dumbest one here.
So we have a number for this year for minimum extent. Not all reports are in for all of this stuff.
Let's make a couple of guesses. These are the averages I quickly extracted from http://iwantsomeproof.com/extimg/siv_september_average_polar_graph.png and http://iwantsomeproof.com/extimg/sia_max_min_plus_step_days.png for the last 3 years and the previous 3 decades for area and volume.
1980s1990s2000s‘10s
Area150261299093674042cubic kms
Volume51310584642024 38618042941319sq kms
Given the glee on show about the extent number for this year, who wants to put mouth and/or money on this year's September minimum volume being like that of the previous decade - say 9000 cubic kms or more? Anyone?
OK. Who's surprised that this year's minimum area doesn't even match, let alone exceed, the average for the previous decade? If you look at the table you'll see that it's 3554397. So despite this remarkable, wonderful, science overturning event, it's still 307407 square kms short of the most recent decadal average September minimum.
It could get nasty
http://theconversation.com/is-global-warming-in-a-hiatus-18367
Rats. I transposed the titles for those numbers.
I hope most people would realise that area = sq kms and volume = cubic kms, but I thought I'd mention it anyway.
Adelady, if you're addressing SpamKan you really shouldn't ask her to do so much reading, because she ends up with such sore lips.
Also, area and volume appear to have transposed, but where SpamKan's concerned it makes no difference, as she can't make sense of those concepts and all those numbers anyway!
here is a paper to suit the meme :)
On the subarctic North Atlantic cooling due to global warming
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00704-012-0805-9
lol... bbd will luv it
Karen, second sentence from that paper you linked to:
"A similar cooling pattern is found in the doubling CO2 experiment obtained from the CMIP3"
Say what? Climate models accurately modeling an observation? Why, yes!
Own goal, Karen.
Marco, I knew that you guyz would look like kids in a lollie shop with that paper :)
No one seems to be able to find any ARGO data for me, silly duffers :)
ummm.............. http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/ocean/global-ocean-temperature-70…
Lets start with this eh.
As you are too dense to find the data yourself:
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/argo/floats_data.htm
And KarenMackSunspot, you can pop and fizz like a squib as much as you like, but it's patently obvious to all who are reading this thread that you've capitulated on the matter of addressing the implications of the period of time that is required to identify the global warming signal from contemporaneous climate noise. I'm especially interested in you addressing in your explanation why it is not valid to call every annual temperature that occurs soon after a record high a "cooling", and why it is not valid to call every annual Arctic sea ice area/extent/volume that occurs soon after a record low a "recovery"
You also failed to answer my challenge about your claim that no-one cares what I say - what's scaring you so much in that department?
If numbers are too challenging for you, there is always the picture version:
http://www.marine.csiro.au/~gronell/ArgoRT/select_floats_WMO.html
And as we're on the subject of Argo, you might like to lend some moral support to Thomas Murphy, who ran away when pressed on his egregious statements about the Argo measurements.
#2 barnturd
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/09/08/september-2013-open-thread/c…
At 700 - 2000 mtrs, according to the argo data, there appears to be a temperature increase of 0.02 degrees C between the years 2005 - 2013.
Is this agreed ?
So, there you go, you're just coughing up Cod(ling)swallop, just as I predicted.
These endless flatulent emissions prove nothing, SpamKan. You cannot articulate any point in relation to this matter because comprehension of it is completely beyond your grasp.
Everyone here, even your befuddled allies, can see, yet again, how freaking stupid you are, and many of them wish you would simply STFU, because you make them uncomfortably aware of just what a pathetic figure they must cut in the sight of others.
(And believe me, folks, you do, you really do!)
But, don't worry, they won't say anything; because all you losers have is each other.
No, you didn't, you dreary, pathetic little thing, you; it was an appalling surprise to you to discover you'd only gone and soiled yourself, yet again. This pathetic 'lol'ing bravado is the sad little defence you've built up against the constant sting of discovery that you just don't get it.
Billie you can read more about the paper here, :)
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2013/09/new-paper-attempts-to-expl…
Billeeee, you didn't disagree with my #5
#2 Bernard J.
Karen said: "Now, can you link me to the Argo temperature charts?"
"As you are too dense to find the data yourself:"
JEfFeRy suffers with comprehension issues also barnturd, lol
Billy
700 – 2000 mtrs, temperature increase of 0.02 degrees C between the years 2005 – 2013.
0.02 C............ correct !
Don't you love Karen's cherrypicked graph at #45 (and repeated later) on the previous page? Do you think she had any qualms that posting it might reveal how hard she (or rather her cut and paste source) is having to work to cherrypick?
Nah, me neither. Her purpose her is to disseminate lies .
Notice that 99% of Karen's 'sources' are denier blogs.
She's disqualified. Or should have been a long time ago. Problem is she's so utterly stupid that she thinks she is making headway here. That's what is so pathetic.
Jeff H?
What is a 'denier blog'? That just looks like petulant name calling. We are talking about the weather/climate modeling here. Everyone who has been to school can spot BS in regard to these issues. What in particular are these 'denier blogs' denying?
WTF is a 'denier blog' anyway?
I also remember you accusing me of linking a 'denier paper' a while back. That paper had been through the 'peer review' process.
So WTF is a 'denier paper'? What are they denying in particular?
Oh Karen, please stop lying. You thought you had found a paper that supported you, only to have someone take the minimal effort to read the abstract and see it didn't.
Another funny thing is your desire to show your ignorance by not knowing what a 0.02 degree rise means for a body of water 1300 meter in vertical size and tens of thousands in width. It's enough to warm the atmosphere with multiple degrees.
Oh for God's sake - an Argument From Bonehead Incredulity!
I mean, SpamKan, seriously, what Marco said - you're even more freaking stupid than I thought!
Try looking here, you B-grade loon!
Slightly less-dumb fellow-travellers, don't you just cringe every time you see this gormless muppet's icon?
But are you really any smarter yourself - that's the question to ask? Are any of you that remain any brighter than this thing, or Pentax, or Oily, or Boris?
You know, the kinds of bone-headed nong - and it seems Murdoch really is one of you - who thinks a one year regression-to-declining-mean uptick in the sea-ice stats means something?
"It’s enough to warm the atmosphere with multiple degrees."
How Marco ?
c'mon Billee, in your own words...........
how will 0.02 degree rise at 700 – 2000 mtrs multiply the temp of the atmosphere with multiple degrees?
Good grief. Karen really is impressively innumerate. She doesn't even know what multiply means.
0K Karen, I'll bite.
We'll keep it simple to start with. Not a paper, not an equation in sight, and a mere 4 minutes of time watching a video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyPLusD-tyM
If you want more details or references just ask.
Goalpost shift! First it was 0.02C isn't enough to mean anything - despite the fact we're talking about the frickin' ocean - now it's Bonehead Incredulity x 2; "how can that 'multiply' into the atmosphere?"
The heat transfer between ocean and atmosphere is an issue for people way brighter than you, dolt. And way brighter than the numpties who run the Dunning-Krugerite blogs you've mistaken for 'Science'.
SpamKan, all you are doing is standing there with a suspicious load pulling down your diaper squalling "look at me! look at me!"
Even your little friends are avoiding the joint because you're so fricking embarrassing! Lol, you gibbering dork.
FFS! Why do my comments languish in moderation?
#88 This is getting very boring ....By pointing out tunnel capacities I'm informing you, Stu2, of the capacity constraints of the Snowy system, which illustrates the absurdity of your insistence that 2000GL of water was wasted by SH and NOW during the floods. That information is relevant! It's essential to understand where you are in error in your claim. You are arguing in bad faith, that's for sure.
I didn't claim anyone was saying SH would damage their infrastructure, I said exceed its capacity. I simply informed you that the figure you have plucked from your backside is not achievable.
I added a 0 in error to the Blowering inflow for 1/12 to 11/12: it was 150 GL,not 1500. Still, this shows a lot of uncontrolled water flowed into Blowering . At most 37GL of that was RAR, actually less because they ceased transfer for a period.
SH told the inquiry it was repaying that water at about 112GL/month into the Tumut, from end April 2010, or about 3.7 GL/day.
It is absurd to say this was wasted because the floods were in the unknown future, and Blowering stored that RAR. When the heavy rain hit, Blowering was close to full. It filled,and overflowed from heavy rain [rain outside the reach of SH infrastructure] , so that 500GL went over the spillway in the last two months but the previous six months RAR was still in the reservoir for accounting.. This spill I suspect is what you regard as wasted RAR? At most, 220 GL of that 500 was RAR,and little of that 220 is relevant to the actual flood peaks because of the way Blowering was micromanaged to hold back water while the Goobarragandra peaked.
So a claim that '2000 GL was wasted', 1000 of that down the Tumut, does not add up. Not only is your claim absurd but your understanding of where the water was, and how much can be saved per day into Eucumbene is lacking. I'll repeat that the SH system gained 700GL in the last three months of 2010 and Blowering banked 1000GL [c.650 of it RAR] before spilling. All you can see is a wildly exaggerated 'waste' figure,it seems.
Billie, there is no goalpost shift, see the #13 Marco comment deary, :)
Thankyou adelady for the lovely youtube clip, that was sweet of you :)
It didn't answer the question tho ?
Poor old Billee has had to change his pants twice while trying work this out. lol
Karen, in plain English I said that the energy required to heat that amount of water by 0.02 degrees is enough to warm the atmosphere with multiple degrees (as in >1 degrees).
For anybody interested here is Curry's Australian frolic.
Note that Tamino nails one big issue with Curry's (and Willard Tony's) methodology of assessing trends.
Is it cognitive dissonance or dishonesty from the Punch & Judy show?
Heat capacity and volumes you duffer. Now have you got it?
Heat capacity and volumes you duffer.
Or more correctly heat capacity and masses, but I thought that would really confusing this retard with little education - Karenski that is.
BTW Karenski, you should go read that Tamino (@ #23) piece which involves trends seeing your confusion about this on display here very recently.
Well I see now that the video link of adelady was on the same page as my suggestion. It is up to you to now answer your own question Karenski. I bet your school reports are interesting.
Here is another, Primary School, lesson for Karenski.
Which, if he/she/it had paid attention to the link to texts up-thread, and I know that they were noticed because he/she/it commented, then he/she/it WOULD ALREADY BE AWARE OF THESE CONCEPTS.
He/she/it feels no need, because Karen's purpose here is to disseminate lies.
But it'd be nice to think that Karen and all those like her actually know what they're lying about. My suspicion is that many of them really, really don't know the simplest basics - like the difference between heat capacity of water and air.
(They don't even have to slog through the details, having a yr 9 ish concept of the size of the numbers involved would be enough for general blog conversation.)
#28 Now now Lothie don't be grouchy, the Deltoids are teaching me all about the big scary boiling pot :)
#22 Marco, I am not to sure that was helpful, nice try :)
Lionel, I know that you are a very intelligent man, so maybe you can help me.
We can see that there has been 0.02 C added to the ocean at the depth of 700 - 2000 mtrs, and 0.03 C has added to the ocean at the depth of 0 - 700 mtrs and this happened from about 2004 to now, okay.
Now I know that we are talking about incredibly small temperature rises here, so how can these extremely small amounts of temperature all of a sudden magnify if/when they are transferred to the atmosphere ?
So if'n there was an air temperature of say 15 deg C at night time back in 2004 on the beach, and now we have the same night time temperature at the same place.
What influence did that increased ocean temperature have on the current temperature as compared to 2004?
Hi adelady, I would appreciate you input also :)
Krrrreyest on a trick bicycle!
Did you read what I wrote? ... and then write what you wrote before asking for a further contribution from me?
I'd like to suggest a half hour with wiki - no science papers, no nasty complex references, just straightforward information available to everyone. Start here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_capacity#Table_of_specific_heat_capac… have a look at the rest of that page, then watch that video again.
Translated for Sunny:
An absolutely mind-bogglingly vast amount of energy has accumulated in the 0 - 2000m ocean layer since 2004.
Codling has used a crude trick to fool innumerates who do not understand physical concepts. This means you, Sunny.
I see you've been banging this empty can since yesterday. You can stop now and switch to some other denialist chum. Everybody's bored. Everybody's tried - and failed - to explain this to you. The problem, as always, is with your stupidity and ignorance.
#31 adelady,
In other words you can't answer...... lol
BBD, 2 easy qwestyons for you luvie :)
1/ so how can these extremely small amounts of temperature all of a sudden magnify if/when they are transferred to the atmosphere ?
So if’n there was an air temperature of say 15 deg C at night time back in 2004 on the beach, and now we have the same night time temperature at the same place.
2/ What influence did that increased ocean temperature have on the current temperature as compared to 2004?
thanks in advance :)
And the Dunning Kruger effect - or the denialist lying effect, it's always hard to tell which - strikes again, as Karen apparently fails to recognise that she's been given several different versions of the answer already and concludes based on her incomprehension or intransigence ...
... that no answer has been given.
A droll LOL would be trenchant. Just not in the way Karen uses it.
sweet dreams guyz & gal :)
snort!
Well, I think we managed to find Karen's level of intelligence in the field of rather basic physics. It doesn't look good, most of my first year students (not physicists) would have understood.
Snort indeed.
(Though I confess to a passing interest in the concept of "amounts" of temperature. I suppose it's a bit like a stocktake of the rulers in the school stationery cupboard.)
Adelady:
I dunno, 'Lady, that might be a bit if a stretch for Karen. She's proven she can't tell Celsius from Fahrenheit, and she thinks that the amount of ice is measured by extent rather than volume, so take nothing for granted.
I'm intrigued that Karen thinks its time to start wittering on about OHC again, when the last time she did so, she showed she couldn't convert that additional energy to a change in temperature to within five orders of magnitude. To put a scale to that level of fail, Karen's calculator would tell her the surface of the sun is about 0.6C warmer than the surface of the Earth.
Said without the slightest hint of irony.
But wreaking of profound hypocrisy.
It;s interesting to note that you're still struggling with the questions piling up regarding the implications of the period of time that is required to identify the global warming signal from contemporaneous climate noise, and the supplementary questions that followed on. What's the problem little feller, does the thought of facing some honest scientific truth have you wetting your pants?
Everyone's watching your humiliation, you know. Better to front up and make a go of it than to be recognised as just another ignoramus who couldn't answer a simple question put to him.
sorry, I meant to add..... lol.
Marco, please stop lying.Thank you!
First year students, blablabla
hahahahaha
No, just you Franknfurter. I know Jeff's work, and it's very good. In fact it about thirty years of study and experience and 50 points of IQ ahead of anything that you exhibit.
Oh, and "qwestyons"?! What's with the regular use of baby talk? And the obsession with peoples' pants? Is there no puerile emotional back-alley that you wouldn't run into in order to avoid addressing a substantive issue of science?
There's no avoiding the obvious - you really are just internet trash.
Karenski the lazy ignoramus strikes again:
Temperature is not heat.
Now write 100 times (multiplied by an order of magnitude - quantifying an order of magnitude may open up another can of worms in your head)
Temperature is not heat
And stop running away to bed when things get sticky, you can't go to bed 'till your homework is done.
I see that I'm in a long queue of people laughing at this, but I have to ask - Franknfurter, do you understand the concept of heat capacity? And do you understand the nature of the heat capacity of water?
Also, do you realise that you're slipping back into the Sunspot signature illiteracy?
And in case anyone's in any doubt that 'Furter is a bloke, his comment on the previous page dispels any lingering uncertainty. No woman, not even a retired autistic prostitute, would come up with that.
Yuck. What a grub.
Never been to Strait Street Valetta aka 'The Gut' then.
I recall one of the older 'entertainers' in the late 1960s proclaiming, 'Well f*** my old sea-boots' where others might say 'stone-the-crows'. She probably learned the expression when younger, during WW2 maybe.
Another look at the The Gut and recalling those well know 'sticky green' drinks for the girls.
Funnily enough I had a short but friendly relationship with one very pretty girl such that we corresponded for awhile after the ship had left Valetta for more exercises in the eastern Mediterranean. The lass, who I won't name but still recall, even sent me a small tobacco pipe from the family firm.
The exercises included a real and nasty fire in one of accompanying destroyers which involved our helo's ferrying fire-fighting equipment, returning with scorched tyres, and a collision with a Russian SAM Kotlin destroyer which had behaved in flagrant breach of the rules of the sea.
Some other recent 'unfortunate behaviour' from the Russians. Expect more of this as the Arctic opens up.
Sunny is as clueless as they get. Although dog-brains Gordy ran him a close second.
Think of it like this Sunny: it takes oh so very much more energy to heat a given quantity of water than it does to heat the same mass of atmosphere by the same amount. Think about that. Don't skip ahead. Read it again.
Now, with that crucial bit of physics between your shiny little teeth, let's take another baby step forward.
There's an absolutely fucking vast quantity of water in the top 2000m of the world ocean. To give you the merest hint of an idea, it requires about 362 billion tons of water to raise global sea level by one millimetre.
Now, do you begin to understand why an enormous amount of energy can accumulate in a vast quantity of water and "only" raise its temperature slightly? And can you see that if even a little bit of this enormous store of energy is released it will warm the atmosphere significantly because it takes less energy to warm the atmosphere than it does to warm water?
Can you see what an absolute and utter prat you have made of yourself - yet again - on this thread? Can you see that yet?
Think, Sunny. Think!
:-)
Does this help break the logjam on the conceptual side? Sweetie?
Sodding html.
There’s an absolutely fucking vast quantity of water in the top 2000m of the world ocean. To give you the merest hint of an idea, it requires about 362 billion tons of water to raise global sea level by one millimetre.
Now, do you begin to understand why an enormous amount of energy can accumulate in a vast quantity of water and “only” raise its temperature slightly? And can you see that if even a little bit of this enormous store of energy is released it will warm the atmosphere significantly because it takes less energy to warm the atmosphere than it does to warm water?
Can you see what an absolute and utter prat you have made of yourself – yet again – on this thread? Can you see that yet?
Think, Sunny. Think!
On a general note, is there any point calling "Karen" Karen? It seems all-but certain that this is simply Sunspot running a sock, so why should we be complicit in that deception?
Sunspot = Sunspot. Let's call a sock a sock!
It is not like, he/she/it will bother reading such words as I have asked before why vehicles use water in cooling systems and buildings use it for heating. There is also the form of solar energy captured using water. Now the clever money would be a device which is both a PV cell and a solar water heater.
I see that Dorset landowner and millionaire Richard Drax has applied to be allowed to put a huge solar installation on his Charbourough Estate in Dorset - the one with a long wall alongside the A31 near Wimborne where one gate is surmounted by the sculpture of a 5 legged stag. Drax earlier voted against similar installations elsewhere in the county and the offshore wind-farm.
Drax is descended from a naval Admiral Plunket-Ernle-Erle-Drax and is a Tory minister - the party pushing fracking. Perhaps they could try fracking his estate. Fair is fair.
+++++++ BREAKING NEWS +++++++ BREAKING NEWS
German Greens have dramatically lost votes in Gernany's federal election due to pedophilia problems. AGW had no role at all in the the national elections.
Hurrah!!!
Physics doesn't care about politics, Kai/Freddy/Boris/Berendwanker. You are looking at this back-to-front. You start with politics instead of with physics. And it all goes wrong from there.
Economic powerhouse with well educated citizens and a robust AGW policy reelects the same leader. Compare with Australia.
AGW had no role at all in the the national elections.
Hurrah!!!
Actually agree with that... it wasn't an election issue because it's not controversial. Hurrah for the Germans for being so well informed and intelligent. Now remind me again how it went in Australia...
Putting it like that, one can imagine what an Abbott in Oz or a Cameron in the UK would be doing if their 20% renewables by 2020 target was hitting 17% in 2011.
Complacency doesn't begin to describe the Boristroll's stance.
The Company Line is in need of some drastic correction, as it appears to be an Alice-type inversion of reality.
"What they all point to is the declining credibility of demands for cutting back CO2 emissions by switching from abundant, affordable, reliable increasingly scarce and more expensive fossil fuels to scarcer, more expensive, less reliable never ending wind, solar, and biofuels, the effect of which would be [in the short term slightly] higher energy costs and therefore {possibly in the short term] higher costs for everything else—harming the world’s poor {who, hypocritically, we've never given a fuck about before as our cartel jacked up prices] most of all".
Corection:
The Company Line is in need of some drastic correction, as it appears to be an Alice-type inversion of reality.
"What they all point to is the declining credibility of demands for cutting back CO2 emissions by switching from abundant, affordable, reliable increasingly scarce and more expensive fossil fuels to scarcer, more expensive, less reliable never ending wind, solar, and biofuels, the effect of which would be [in the short term slightly] higher energy costs and therefore {possibly in the short term] higher costs for everything else—harming the world’s poor {who, hypocritically, we've never given a fuck about before as our cartel jacked up prices] most of all".
Correction 2 (leaving off the italics):
The Company Line is in need of some drastic correction, as it appears to be an Alice-type inversion of reality.
“What they all point to is the declining credibility of demands for cutting back CO2 emissions by switching from abundant, affordable, reliable increasingly scarce and more expensive fossil fuels to scarcer, more expensive, less reliable never ending wind, solar, and biofuels, the effect of which would be [in the short term slightly] higher energy costs and therefore {possibly in the short term] higher costs for everything else—harming the world’s poor {who, hypocritically, we’ve never given a fuck about before as our cartel jacked up prices] most of all”.
Sodding html.
Comments software needs to grow up!
A preview function would be good at the very least.
Still, on the bright side, Gordon and The Lukes seem to have fucked off now the Aussie elections are over, and we seem to be left with the fuck-for-brains who can't understand the difference between temperature and heat, and an occasional spasmic depths-of-stupid response by The Lomborg Fanbois Collective.
With five days to go, it could be worse..
Yep, SpamKan ain't a woman, it's a very sick individual indeed.
And a deeply, deeply stupid one.
BBD: I have written in 2 hours a much better cms than this junk here. But you are NOT able to do so as you have less talents compared to me. Poor fuckwit
BBD, in addition I look much better than you small, ugly, fat, senile and bald moron, and have at least 100 times more money than you poor unemployed, ignorant fuckwit
Argument from assertion is a logical fallacy, Kai.
;-)
No
What can Boris be projecting from?
#66 'Boris is handsome and wealthy therefore AGW is a conspiracy'. Ever thought of putting a paper together on this angle, Borrie? It's quite novel.
Boris could write a better paper in 2 hours than ever you have written. He pities you all with your significantly less talents and your many times more ugly faces. Boris is so much the handsome and more successful individual that he spends his time as an internet troll who has upended your so-called science with his tactical abusive snippets. He has no need of your puny blockquotes, as he invented the internet, and will do so again many times. Puny mortals!
Steven Goddard melts down on a Guardian comments thread
Scroll up and down for further hysteria and Godwinning...
#72 Goddard is probably the fuckwit's fuckwit. Now he has made even more internet users aware of that.
Well, this is depressing if entirely unsurprising.
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/news/releases/after-the-s…
The abstract reads
So all we need to educate the public about risks from climate is for them to lose their power supply, or their food and water, or their house, or a neighbour's life to appreciate the worth of good policy. I'll be the one sitting in the corner staring at the walls.
So, not one of you can explain how a small increase in ocean temperature can magnify the temperature of the atmosphere ?
1/ An ocean temperature of 15 C, that is then heated to 15.03 C, will raise the temperature of the atmosphere by how much ?
2/ Does a rise in ocean temperature of 0.03 add an extra 0.03 C to the atmosphere ?
3/ Or will the increase of 0.03 C only be added to the atmosphere when the atmosphere temperature is below the ocean temperature ?
4/ If only 0.03 C will be added to the atmosphere then what is the big deal?
Calling me a moron doesn't answer my query's, so guyz, can someone please help me with this?
Obviously most people in here don't know the answers either.
Oh, bugger off you vacuous, pointless, drooling nong.
You've demonstrated for all to see that you are utterly incapable of understanding the issue, and that you're a semi-literate, quasi-edumacated dill performing an sordid online drag act.
The sooner we're finally shot of this one the better.
Why don't you run off and look for some of those ' small amounts of temperature' running around the place? They might be little Celciuses, or Fahrenheits, but, hang on, that's right; you won't be able to tell the difference, will you, plonker?
OK........ Bill doesn't have a clue either, that demonstrates that you have the same lack of knowledge on this subject as me, well done Billie :)
SpamKan @#75
My. so much passive aggression!
Tell you what Spam, if you can explain why OHC isn't measured in your 'Temp C', and show you've done some non-denier blog reading, then maybe...
Or maybe not.
Who knows?
It's not like you generate any goodwill.
"if you can explain why OHC isn’t measured in your ‘Temp C’, "
chekie, OHC is the measure of solar energy in the ocean, a temperature measurement does not indicate the amount of energy stored.
OK. I know the others are completely fed up, but I'm pretty sure you're not the only person in the world who's confused about this - for whatever reason.
1. If the heating has gone into the oceans And Stays There - there can be no effect on the temperature of anything that isn't the ocean.
2. What if the heat / energy doesn't stay there? Depends where it goes. If it goes into melting ice, then there will be no effect on atmospheric temperature, the energy will be expended in the phase change from ice to water or vapour.
3. What happens when the heat that initially went into the ocean goes entirely or partly into the atmosphere? That's the big one that's tripping you up.
An experiment at a cooking school. We have 3 ovens all calibrated to exactly the same heat output but unheated at the moment. In the first we put a container of water frozen solid. In the next, we put the same quantity of water in the same size container. The last oven gets an empty container. Turn all the ovens on to the same setting. Check the temperatures in all 3 containers at regular intervals.
No need to go any further with this - everyone knows what happens next. The empty container's "contents" - the air - heats up much, much faster to much higher temperatures than either of the other 2 even though the heat input is the same.
I'll leave that there as food for further thought for the time being.
Then we can think about other versions of heat absorption, transfer between the containers outside an oven and other changes. And - eventually - think about what happens during an el Nino.
Impressively moronic, even by your high standards.
(After correcting for your incoherent English expression) practically everyone has explained it. It only requires basic high school science, and fairly early science at that, if I recall correctly.
The problem is that you are too stupid or hidebound to recognise that it has been explained which also means that you are unable to recognise just how deeply scientifically incompetent you are. (Where's that number for D&K again?)
This would explain why you keep posting links to material that directly refute the claims you allege the material supports. High school students taking their first year of science classes generally understand more about science than you appear to.
That's my thought. This is not the further reaches of radiative physics or choosing alternatives among options for sophisticated statistical analysis. I'm thinking of it a bit like the stuff we did (in my case in 1960) on heating black and white surfaces - which is a pretty good basis for starting a discussion about albedo when you think about it for 10 seconds or so.
(Ex-schoolteacher husband just got back. He mentioned that he always, always, always made sure that he got the basics of energy input and phase change into the not-always-eager heads of year 8/9/10 science classes. Missing that kind of fundamental concept would make most other stuff more difficult.)
Yes, and your cooking thought experiment would be understood by practically every housewife and househusband in the land, even those who had never taken a science class.
This is very very basic stuff, and is showing Karen up very very clearly. But never mind, I'm sure she'll Gish Gallop merrily on to the next point any minute now and pretend it never happened...
Thank you adelady :)
I understand the thermal mass concept, and I understand there is a huge amount of energy in the ocean.
A huge amount of energy can also be stored in a reservoir, but that stored energy will not flow uphill without a push.
Neither will the energy from the ocean multiply when it moves from water to air, heat is a form of energy, and temperature is the measure of it, I cannot see that the temperature can multiply when moving from one medium to another yet we are led to believe that this "OHC" will come back to get us by causing higher atmospheric temperatures.
0.03 C, how ?
But ....
this shows that you didn't really grasp the concept clearly. Heat is a form of energy. But measuring the result of the input of energy by reading off the temperature does not set the temperature forever. If you transfer the energy, you can get a much different temperature depending on what substance you transfer the energy into.
The same energy gives different results depending on its - those words again - heat capacity.
Just to remind, David Suzuki is appearing as the sole interviewee on tonight's episode of Q and A:
http://archive.is/bFNkx
Should be very interesting...
Just think for a minute about melting ice. You have eleventy gazillion litres of ocean water and half a million litres of ice. What happens to the temperature of the ice even though contact with the water allows transfer of energy?
Absolutely nothing. Ice, and the water in immediate contact with it. will stay at 0C until it is melted. Only then will the water-formerly-ice begin changing temperature more towards the temperature of the larger body of water.
Look at the wiki definition
So if a certain volume of water has had energy sufficient to change its temperature by a certain amount, it will depend on what substance it is transferring that energy to how much change there will be in the temperature of that new recipient of that energy. It is unlikely (look at the table in the wiki page) that there will ever be an exact match in heat capacities of two substances which are transferring energy. Therefore it is highly unlikely that there will be a similar change in temperature when the same amount of energy is transferred.
Bernard. I looked at that last night and was initially keen.
To watch it, I'd have to rely on the ABC to select decent participants from the pro and anti groups they've promised us. I know Suzuki is experienced and competent at dealing with this sort of thing - but I've been a tad annoyed at the sorts of people and the tone of "debate" the ABC likes to promote for these events.
I'll see what sort of mood I'm in at the time to make the decision to watch. If I'm already grumpy and fed up, I'll give it a miss.
Thank you again adelady, :)
The dopey men in here haven't a clue, they just pretend they do, then insult me and sook about me teasing them... lol........wah wah wah :)
I have been searching to try to find a more definitive answer to my questions, re how much the air temp will rise with the miniscule rise in ocean temps, obviously El Nino is a powerful influence on our weather and may get stronger in the future, but........ I am not convinced that a rise of 0.03 C at 0 - 700 mtrs has affected air temp's noticeably or even that could be measured, obviously I don't have the skills to work it out, fizziks iz not my forte, fizziks evidently iz also a talent sadly lacking among the Deltiods.....
If someone could work out the temp figures or supply a link to a reputable website that has done the maths I would appreciate it.
My monthly data has just run out! sheeezzzz, snails pace till Saturday!
I know you all will miss me.............xoxoxoxoxo.. till then :)
TRANSLATION: Even I have, the poster child for the Dunning-Kruuger effect, have managed to finally comprehend that I really have made an utter fool of myself. So I'm making my excuses and running away until such time as I can return and pretend it all never happened.
Lol, dork.
Stll ere' Willie, are you trying to tell me that academia cannot answer my question?
Read my previous comment. If the energy has heated the water and the water's temperature shows that the energy has been retained and not transferred to the air, then it can't have heated anything else.
The el Nino issue arises because that is when energy is released from some areas of the Pacific - and the temperature of the water will go down. The temperature of the water was raised, say 0.03C, by a certain amount of energy. When that energy is free to heat something else, that something else's temperature will be raised by an amount relevant to its own heat capacity unrelated to the temperature of the source of the energy.
(check that wiki list again http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_capacity#Table_of_specific_heat_capac… )
There's no need to know the exact temperatures before and after these processes, but it's very important to understand that the energy will change the temperature of different solids, liquids, gases according to their own heat capacity. What that energy might have done, or did in fact do, to affect the temperature of another item is irrelevant to the temperature of the item in question once it is absorbed.
Energy has no memory. It just does what it does in the circumstances it happens to be in.
How cute.
'Furter is wingeing about how no-one will answer his question (whilst ignoring the fact that many people have pointed to the underlying phenomena), but he has left hundreds of unanswered questions in his wake during his time clogging the arteries of Deltoid.
What's the word I'm looking for? The one that starts with an 'H', and ends with 'ypocrisy'?
Karenski:
Many of us have pointed to the mechanism and it is up to you to figure out how it all works by doing some text book study (not at WUWT etc as they will confuse you further) - seeing as you don't appear to have experience with the concepts.
Now adelady having more patience, but wasted I am afraid because giving stuff on a plate rarely leads to increased understanding in the recipient and I doubt that you would be amongst the exceptions.
Now of course we know how it works, after all how could we provide such succinct prompts.
I am pleased that adelady has mentioned 'phase change' (I very nearly went there earlier but thought better of it not wanting to push you into running before you could crawl) do you know how much heat energy is required to phase change one gram of ice vis a vis raising the temperature of one gram of fresh water through one degree Celcius. Answer in calories will do.
Now start behaving like a sensible enquirer after the truth and stop fuck-arsing around.
I'm used to it.
Spent part of the day encouraging a 7 year old to read - well, write down a few 3 letter words to be truthful. Frustrating but we'll get there in the end. Not so sure about the same approach here.
Me too, used to it that is. Four children, eleven grandchildren (and no doubts some GGC before long) and all that plus degree level teaching qualifications with experience of 7-8 year olds 36 at a time. Taught adults Maths A-level, computer stuff like programming, DTP, spreadsheets, databases, SAGE and some other odds and sods. Have had an interesting life.
Now for the adults here there is an interesting concept just broached at the Rabett's Freezing about a possible difference in freezing point of water droplets on nucleating dust particles.
Russell Seitz introduces a very pertinent and confounding factor in the comments.
Of course when working with particles of geological origin there is a danger of developing the debilitating, and potentially lethal condition:
pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis
which word was brought to my attention by one of those eleven grandchildren mentioned above, who is at first year secondary school level (i.e. way above Karenski). Evidently this is the longest word in the English dictionary. Dictionary version not mentioned by grandson's source.