the company saw its Australian newspaper revenues fall by $350m compared to the previous year, a fall of 15 per cent. It also wrote down the value of its Australian newspaper assets by $1.4bn.
These are trying times for bonafide journalism, too, which is bad news for us all, but 'bad news' sums up News Corp, and the sinking of the Murdochracy is impossible to lament (and notably Fairfax, a real news organization, suffered a significantly smaller decline!)
The first questioner claims something like there was no warming since 1998, and then when asked where he got his data claimed that all four major (temperature) data sets showed "a 17 year flat trend", despite the fact that 1998 is ~15 years ago rather than 17.
Tony Jones then repeats the "1998" claim. Shame he knows this is a common claim but hasn't even done the basic homework to fact check it. Also a shame that David wasn't better prepared to point out that it's false and also fallacious even if it wasn't false - but then, as he points out, he's not a climatologist so why are they trying to dispute it with him?
The second guy is a professor of environmental science or some such (possibly the same Prof. Stewart Franks who is sometimes quoted in the media as a contrarian of sorts), and he deliberately conflates "scientists" with "climatologists" even after being called on it. And then he reveals that he doesn't understand how to evaluate climate models - comparing observations over periods too short for climatic signals to be observed, and incorrectly expecting models to match the realised noise in the signal.
And then he tries to argue that the only question is whether CO2 will have a catastrophic effect or not (a black and white fallacy, but at least admitting that CO2 is a greenhouse gas), and then falsely implies that the answer to this question is based purely on models which he's tried to discredit on mistaken grounds.
But more importantly this report coming out of the United Nations the IPCC report coming up (out) is saying that most experts believe that by 2083, in 70 years the benefit of climate change will still outweigh the harm.
Why did this blog so degenerate over time that non-scientists like Lotharsson, BBD, Adelady, Lionel, Bernard, Harvey, Marco etc. are allowed to excrement their ideological asshole bullshit?
Strewth, the BBC are really beginning to annoy with their 'balanced' (???) climate with the latest on the 1800 (six o'clock) News this evening 23.8.2013 coverage where they go through the reasons why 'warming has paused' only to bail it on telling how scientists do know that the oceans are warming and that it is understood why surface temperatures have not risen as fast (no pause in reality) as some suggested.
David Shukman did the business in slaloming around evidence, continuing with a warming has stalled and nobody really know why and splicing is a brief statement from, yes you have guessed it Professor Myles Allen, which was probably one small part of what the Professor said just to make sure. The baton was then passed on to none other than Andrew 'Bishop Hill' Montford aka Cardinal Puff and GWPF tool, to provide the take home point.
I am unable to link to this story, their web page is very coy about this news item but here is an earlier one from today
How can such an inoffensive looking little man like Montford be such a danger to society? Because he has not been exposed for what he is, yet, George, Dana and John Abraham.
So another round and your license is safe from the Tory axe BBC.
Why did this blog so degenerate over time that non-scientists..
Where did I write that I was a non-scientists? Did you not catch the bit about an 'interesting' i.e. varied life.
As for the others well I know for a fact that Jeff is a working scientists and the others show definite signs of having more than a nodding acquaintance with the fields.
Now you, Boorish, OTOH well whenever you try it, it comes back at you. Are you not getting sick of the taste?
Gee, Boris, you really are a fruitcake. I did my PhD at Liverpool University in 1995, have worked at a research institute in Holland since 2000 and recently was appointed Visiting Endowed Professor in Amsterdam. I have 135 publications on the Web of Science and 3,200 citations of my work there (h factor of 32). If that doesn't make me a scientist, then please tell me your definition. And while you are at it, I'd love to know your day job. That must be amusing!
But Kai, you are a lying, sock-puppeting nutter! You aren't a fucking scientist - you aren't even a complete human being! You don't have any basis for sneering at others here. We all know hugely more than you do, and none of us are clinically insane.
Rajendra Pachauri, a railway engineer from India who governs the climate scientology church, admitted recently:
"There’s definitely an increase in our belief that climate change is taking place and that human beings are responsible,”
AHA AHA, AN INCREASE IN THEIR BELIEF!!!!!
IS THERE A MEASURE OF THE BELIEF INCREASE?????
PACHAURI MOST EVIDENTLY ADMITS THAT THERE IS A BELIEF THAT CLIMATE CHANGE TAKES PLACE, AND THAT THE BELIEF IS INCREASING!!!!! VERY INTERESTING STATEMENT!!!!!!!
I am glad I missed the segment with Montford. What goes through the minds of the Tristrams who organise this offal? Really, what?
Who decided to grub up the Sticky Bishop? Who thought it would be a good idea to invite comment from a devious, lying, unqualified shill for the denial machine? Which unspeakable, cretinous little turd did that? Sometimes the smug fucking stupidity of these morons makes me see red.
BBD shut up you criminal, you dared above to incite somebody to kill himself. How far are you asshole willing to go in your hatred and will for physical harm to your superior opponents? You are a monster and human crap!
You are too stupid to understand what Pachauri is talking about. You are a moron. Belief in the sense he used it, meaning "confidence in scientific knowledge" arises from scientific evidence. This has never been stronger.
* * *
Do you talk to Jesus? Are there voices in your head telling you things? Do you have visions?
@chek: Olaf, Boris, Olaus, it all gets laughable. The true Heartland shills mostly know better than to actually engage, so I truly am picturing Alex Jones, Lord Monckton and three schizophrenics in their basements doing all the frothing.
Does anybody of the uninformed Doltoids here (BBD, chek etc.) know why the fuck the holy AGW church asserts (therefore = logical fallacy according to climate fuckwit BBD) that earths's albedo is 0.3??
Why should it be 0.3 and how is this value justified based on measurements in reality?? Answer required, fuckwits
Bernard, Boris AKA Freddy and Berendaneke, will soon be booted off of Deltoid. Watch this space. He'll then try and come back as another sock puppet, and that person will be dealt with as well and so on and so forth. The aim is to drive this foul nutcase away for good.
I hope so - this pathetic loon needs institutionalising before he hurts himself and/or others. I've written to request it, and the permanent sequestration of SpamKan, too.
Dishonest scum should be moderated. Sock puppeteers should be moderated. Previously moderated dishonest scum running a sock really should be moderated.
Well, since there's virtually no peer-reviewed literature among the counter arguments you won't be pressed beyond your epsilon capacity, will you?
You're not likely to be missed. You're a tedious attention-seeking sad act who has demonstrated all too clearly that you don't even have a bright primary-school student's grasp of science.
- There is no "holy AGW church", only scientific evidence and the scientific consensus arising from that evidence. Your first false claim.
- Since there is no "holy church" it cannot assert anything. Your second false claim.
- Science does not argue by assertion, but from evidence, therefore any claim that science "asserts" a value for albedo is false - and an argument by assertion.
- If you want to know more about the calculation of Earth's albedo, fuck off and find out. You do not come here and demand answers. You lunatic scum.
* * *
You have been very quiet about Jesus, your visions, the voices in your head, your racist bigotry, Hell & damnation and the age of the Earth.
#29 BBD, you know that I am not Mr Spot, this is only a pathetic and childish attempt to smear me. It won't work, Timmy would have checked my IP and investigated this lie long before you arrived on the scene, barnturd pushed Timmie privately about it long ago to no avail.
On the contrary, Sunny, I am virtually certain that you *are* Sunspot. I have some skill with textual analysis and the eponymous thread to play with. Your bad luck to run into me, I'm afraid.
IP is a very weak argument. I could spoof a dozen in the next ten minutes if I really had to. Or you might simply have moved, or changed ISP...
* * *
Re your failure to grasp basic physics, no, I'm not remotely troubled. It was hardly a surprise, after all. Adelady, myself and everybody else tried to explain the topic, but you were too stupid to understand.
It is going to be a tough gig for the IPCC to convince policy makers and the population of the planet that the heat has been going into the ocean, when by all accounts the warming has stopped.....and the SST has been at a standstill...........
A difficult question for the climate science community is, how is it that this broad community of researchers — full of bright and thoughtful people — allowed intolerant activists who make false claims to certainty to become the public face of the field? – Roger Pielke, Jr.
SSTs are not an indicator of OHC, especially not OHC at depth. A basic, but huge failure of comprehension.
#37
RPJr is arguing from assertion. There is no evidence whatsoever supporting his mischaracterisation of scientists as "activists" making "false claims". It is the crudest and most obvious framing.
In fact the only activist making false claims in this picture is RPJr.
Your fundamental problem (apart from an absolute inability to act in good faith) is that your comprehension is abysmal. Not only are you incapable of understanding the physical underpinnings of climate system processes, you cannot parse. You simply cannot understand what is written. This is yet another example: you don't see the fundamental inversion in RPJr's polemic. It all sails miles over your head.
You gave yourself away a long time ago with your peculiar punctuation spacings, your ellipsis manglings, your focus on the same issues in the guise of your separate socks, and your general usage of language. There were also the odd conversations between your socks at various coincident times, and the fact that you both have the same hit and run approach with no ability to synthesise information from primary sources.
Another peculiarity was that you continued to post at WTFUWT and other cesspits and reference conversations at Deltoid, but 'Karen' was the only sock active here at the time.
As for IP addresses, they are to some extent meaningless - they can be changed by anyone with a clue.
And for what it's worth, I note that you are still unable to answer with any substance my question from a few days ago:
...when by all only the doctored accounts the warming has stopped...
FIFY.
I guess you have trouble comprehending the graphs I've showed you time and time again, including one just last night. You know, where the trend line rises as you move from left (earlier years) to right (later years). Competent year 8 students call that "ongoing warming". But as you've recently demonstrated year 8 science is too much for you.
I support agriculture by advocting for a climate that is at least sometimes anmenable to seasons of production. Climate change is going to be a big game-changer in the coming decades, and in many parts of Australia (and the world) not for the better. Given that future generations of farmers will be working without cheap (and one day, even available) oil, the last thing that primary producers need is for the fundmental milieu of their production environment to be FUBARed.
(With apologies to all who have heard the Daily Mail Song before. But if you haven't, click on the link or Tim will pop out of retirement and ban you for ever and ever and ever...).
So, suspects, you are on notice not to come up with your normal level of asinine drivel over the IPCC and its reports or the science covered thereby. Note that phrase, 'the science covered thereby' which does not mean 'the science carried out by'. But maybe the distinction will remain too subtle for your mall-formed brains and you will pitch in regardless like the zombies you are.
The discussion is not about change being the norm in complex adaptive systems. Of course it is (even though there isn evidence that stability also drives adaptive radiation as evidenced in the riotous species and genetic diversity in tropical biomes`). What is of great concern is the rate at which humans are transforming the chemical composition of the atmosphere and both the structure and biogeochemistry of terrestrial, freshwater and marine ecosystems. This rate far exceeds anything the biosphere has experienced in many millions of years, and against the background humans are reducing both species diversity and genetic diversity, the latter a vital pre-requisite that enables species to respond to the suite of stressors humans are inflicting. A 1998 paper by Hughes et al. in PNAS argued that, at that time, human activities were probably driving as many as 30,000 genetically distinct populations to extinction on a daily basis. Now, if this is indeed true it is profoundly worrying. Underlying this is the combined assault our species is inflicting on nature, with climate warming perhaps being the biggest factor of all.
For those thermodynamic illiterates, who don't know the difference between heat(energy) or temperature, I present thislgem from Zeke:
Total ocean heat content has increased by around 170 Zettajoules since 1970, and about 255 Zettajoules since 1955. This increased temperature has caused the oceans (0-2,000 meters) to warm about 0.09 C over this period. As the UK’s Met Office points out, if the same amount of energy had gone into the lower atmosphere it would of caused about 36 C (nearly 65 degrees F) warming! The oceans are by far the largest heat sink for the Earth, absorbing the vast majority of extra heat trapped in the system by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases.
"As the UK’s Met Office points out, if the same amount of energy had gone into the lower atmosphere it would of caused about 36 C (nearly 65 degrees F)"
I did, or how else how did it get to the ocean? Ninja past it eh..lol
SpamKan, if you don't know the barest, most basic of the science, then all your objections are invalid.
Whatever you think you're doing here is invalidated by your level of moronosity. Spamming denier blog lies that you don't understand and nobody here is buying is a complete waste of your time and hours.
I[t] did, or how else how did it get to the ocean? Ninja past it eh..lol
Nope. Utterly wrong, as usual. Energy is delivered to the upper ocean layer as shortwave solar radiation, aka "sunlight". This passes through the atmosphere, which is substantially transparent to it, but stops in the upper 100m of water, where an energetic transfer occurs and ocean heat content increases.
The long-term warming of the troposphere by GHG forcing heats the air directly above the ocean skin layer. Molecular forces dominate in this thin (sub-1mm) layer of water so the only way energy can cross it is by conduction. The warming air at the surface reduces the thermal gradient across the skin layer. This reduces the efficiency of conduction across it, and slows the rate at which the ocean cools. Over time, OHC increases as a consequence.
...and Lionel……..that would be there, not their
I suffered from Dyslexia (as did Wally Broecker - you go look up how many times Cronin cites Wally in his 'Paleoclimates: Understanding Climate Change Past and Present"), besides I have one of these magic Microsoft keyboards where the characters are wearing off. What's your excuse?
This contains a useful backgrounder, for such as you, on a number of things including mechanisms for heat transfer between ocean layers, climate sensitivity and carbon reservoirs. This work was recently, 2010, published in 'The Warming Papers: The Scientific Foundation For Climate Change Forecast' which is a collection of milestone scientific papers on matters pertaining to climate change starting back with Joseph Fourier, John Tyndall and Svante Arrhenius, the collection being edited by inclusion of supporting material by David Archer and Raymond Pierrehumbert.
You would do well to find a copy of this book and start studying.
Now that Charney report acknowledges a number of others for their helpful comments, amongst them being none other than Richard S Lindzen. Note the date 1979 so enough was known about climate sensitivity back then to realise that it was not negligible or less than unity.
So if Richard S Lindzen claims today that climate sensitivity is low, less than unity or even 1.5 then I leave it as an exercise for the reader as to what Lindzen is engaged in. But there is more:
Since then (1979), scientific study has shown that climate sensitivity can depend upon the starting state of the climate at any period under study and also the magnitude and rate of forcing. In other words it is variable (Thomas M Cronin and James Hansen amongst others). The rate of forcing from GHGs and land use changes is such as to increase climate sensitivity.
Demonstrate that you wish to be taken seriously by not dismissing this information with a flippant remark and lol-ing around.
Hit the doormat, damned well nearly went through it! [1]
Cronin looks good, naturally have some of the info' duplicated in other publications but that is rarely a bad thing because the accent on topics is different so fresh perspectives are always a good idea.
One can never read too much, valid material, on this topic.
What do you say Karenspot?
[1] Reminds me of a scene at Yeovilton when a local Somerset farmer drove his pick-up in through the main gate and dumped some tangled metalwork on the quarterdeck with the words, 'nigh on 'it me cow!' No respect for ceremony there..
The quarterdeck being a smartly turned out area with polished canon, canon balls, white painted fences and chains where the flag-pole carrying the White Ensign lived).
The bent metal were a pair of lower fuselage doors, fuel-bay, from a Sea Vixen which had fallen off in flight. The attachment of these doors was rather awkward being designed for quick access for running turn-rounds and the turn-buckled hanging supports needed careful adjustment, these also weakened with age.
Thanks Stu that's very kind of you. Finally realised that the other explanations were going over Karen's head. If this didn't do it, I don't think there's any hope.
Why the fuck is none of the CAGW Doltoid ignorami able to reference a publication about MEASUREMENT (not calculation, the fuckwit BBD) of earth albedo? Why the fuck is the level of information among degenerated Doltoid fuckwits so low?
Short answer to the troll - (who is still refusing to put that gun in his mouth and put himself out of his misery. Just fucking do it Boris and do us all a favour) - dynamic systems being measured by instruments that require time to complete a full scan by necessity require calculation of the results by that apparatus.
Now fuck off and blow your useless brains out fuckwit.
The following steps were taken to produce the final albedo products:
1. Satellite Top-of-Atmosphere 1km reflectances, corrected for Sun-Earth distance and using the same solar irradiance model are used as input from the ESA MERIS and SPOT-VEGETATION instruments
2. Every input Pixel is identified as land, water, cloud, snow with a given probability
3. Spectral Directional Reflectance, SDR (sometimes known as Top-of-Canopy reflectances or Bidirectional Reflectance Factors, BRFs) are retrieved correcting for the effects of the atmosphere using aerosol optical depth estimates produced from the same input data
4. SDRs are integrated into Broad Band Directional Reflectances (BBDRs) using radiative transfer models
5. Every orbit is binned into the MODIS SIN 10° x 10° tiles
6. The BBDRs in MODIS SIN tiles are then transferred to UCL-MSSL
7. Bi-directional Reflectance Distribution Functions (BRDFs) in netCDF are derived from the BBDRs using an optimal estimation model and gaps are filled in (due to persistent cloud cover or low solar elevations) from a 10 year climatology derived from an every 8 days MODIS BRDF time series
8. Bi-Hemispherical Reflectances (BHR, sometimes known as "white-sky" albedo) and Direct Hemispherical Reflectances (DHR, sometimes known as "black-sky" albedo) are then integrated from the BRDF for a particular solar angle range every 8 days in netCDF
9. 1km MODIS SIN tiles are then upscaled, mosaiced and projected into 0.05° and 0.5° and into monthly time-steps in netCDF
10. Browse products are generated from each albedo product at 1km, 0.05° and 0.5° mosaics in PNG and animations with annotations created in GIF or MPEG2 and placed on the right area of the website
* * *
Now do as chek suggests, and don't botch it. Hold the weapon upside-down and shoot up through the palate into the cranium. I'd hate for you to be maimed instead of killed outright.
I’d hate for you to be maimed instead of killed outright.
If he missed the synapse he wouldn't be mained. He'd carry on as usual, with no detectable difference in mental acuity, and with only one more entry wound and a few extra grams of lead in his head.
So the new Education minister Christopher Pyne is putting quotas on the number of uni students, removing initiatives to put disadvantaged students into uni, and removing the ammenities charge for students.
The Coalition government really hates the 'lower' classes lifting themselves up, and it really hates the regional institutions competing with the inner city unis to which the rich send their privileged offspring.
And ironically it's a significant portion of 'lower' class that elected this elitist government. The kids of these voters will have to thank their parents for this astute electoral insight...
Nick@#20 previous page
Yes this is getting boring.
I am now back home and I have the SHL figs in front of me.
Because this is a public site I am not going to put them on this blog as even though this was several years ago they were 'commercial in confidence' at the time.
However very simply.
I have no reason to hand wave or make anything up. Unlike Marohasy, I was involved in these events and I did try to politely correct your original comments and warn you that you had been misinformed about the real issues surrounding those SHL RAR releases and the level of Marohasy's influence.
You have used the information from the inquiry which had very tight 'terms of reference' and only looked at the releases in that short period in December when the flooding was critical.
That inquiry correctly found that the rules were followed. You seem to be refusing to understand that it was actually the rules that were the problem. Your figures regarding what SHL and the downstream storages gained in the short Dec timeframe is completely irrelevant to the larger problem that was created by the inflexible rules re RAR payback.
No later than October 2010, SHL was indeed tipping that payback water into an overfull system that was unable to manage it. Therefore, significant amounts of water, which did indeed total over 2000GL was wasted for no good outcomes for anyone, including SHL. There is a cumulative effect that you don't seem to understand. Because all the downstream storages were already full, there was not even the capacity to mitigate the minor flooding events that occurred prior to and after the major event in Dec 2012.
Also, if Marohasy had defamed or unduly embarrassed SHL and NOW and/or unduly panicked people as you originally claimed, then they would have gladly sued her for defamation or at least forced her to print a retraction. They probably like her even less than you do. You might perhaps ask yourself why they didn't do that?
Perhaps Nick, there was indeed substance to her claims that water was being wasted and exacerbating a system that was already in minor flooding well before the December floods?
Anyway, as you say this is getting boring. I was just not prepared to allow the misrepresentation of events re water management in the Murray and Murrumbidgee Valley stand unchallenged on a site that I once liked and respected.
Stu2, pretty much all your claims are crap. If you are not going to read or understand what I have put forward, and refuse to use NOW data to check your assertions, I see little point in continuing an exchange with you while you cling to a 2000GL figure that you cannot back, and accuse me of misrepresentation.
You write: " Because all the downstream storages were already full, there was not even the capacity to mitigate the minor flooding events that occurred prior to and after the major event in Dec 2012"
Firstly, "all the downstream storages" is misleading: there is only one downstream storage on the Tumut, and that is Blowering. This is the only dam on that river with a prime storage and buffering brief. It went from 30% to full over the last few months of 2010. Whatever spilled, the 70% gain was 'banked'. A lot of that was RAR.
Secondly, Blowering was managed to mitigate all the floods on the Tumut. It did have the capacity to do that. In the first two events [flooding at Tumut ] no [none, zip] water from the SH process,or from catchment runoff above Blowering was released below the dam. Flooding at Tumut and downstream came entirely from the Goobarragandra, Gilmore Creek and other tributaries that enter the river downstream of the dam. In the biggest flood, spill from Blowering was a factor, but the top half of the peak at Tumut was again from the Goobarragandra, and Blowering's spill contributed to a second and considerably lower peak. Also, this flood at Tumut had no effect on the peak at Gundagai and Wagga,which was generated from the whole Murrumbidgee catchment and peaked days before the Tumut flood water reached those towns.
These facts were available to be reconstructed, as I did, from real time data as they happened. They can still be reconstructed, if you have knowledge of the dates. The subsequent inquiry handed down the following year confirmed my recon. BOM special reporting of the late 2010 rain events is also useful background.
Thirdly the floods at issue were in 2010, not 2012.
In context, the rains [record breaking] brought to an end a record breaking drought. Blowering and Burrinjuck went from low to spill, ditto Hume Dam. Snowy Hydro's system also gained considerably despite being to the east of the most intense falls. For SH to have been meaningfully able to add to its already considerable storage gains would have meant many weeks of foregone power generation...and this would have had vanishingly small influence on the Murrumbidgee flood peak heights. In the end there was not enough storage space for the massive amount of water dropped on the Murrumbidgee,and flood mitigation capacity was exhausted. Nobody's fault.
This site is what you make it. If you wish to 'like and respect' it bring data and facts. I have not misrepresented the event. You have.
BBD, why the fuck are you so terribly stupid to think that anything you copied from globalbedo.org has anything to do with answering my fucking question.
YOU IDIOT SHOULD HAVE GIVEN A REFERENCE TO A PUBLICATION WHICH PUBLISHED A VALUE FOR GLOBAL ALBEDO BASED ON REAL DATA.
I GIVE YOU IDIOT AN EXAMPLE WHAT A "ORIGINAL PUBLICATION" IS, YOU FUCKNG ASSHOLE
$£¥£$££¥£$$££¥£$£¥£$££$£
THE ESA GLOBALBEDO PROJECT FOR MAPPING THE EARTH'S LAND SURFACE ALBEDO FOR 15 YEARS FROM EUROPEAN SENSORS.
Jan-Peter Muller, Gerardo López, Gill Watson, Neville Shane, Tom Kennedy, Peter Yuen (1)
P. Lewis (2), Jürgen Fischer, Luis Guanter, Carlos Domench, Réné Preusker (3) Peter North, Andreas Heckel (4); Olaf Danne, Uwe Krämer, Marco Zühlke, Carsten Brockmann (5), Simon Pinnock (6)
(1) Mullard Space Science Laboratory, Dept. of Space & Climate Physics; (2) Dept. of Geography, University College London, UK
(3) Institut für Weltraumwissenschaften, Freie Universität Berlin, Germany (4) Department of Geography, Swansea University, UK
(5) Brockmann Consult, Geesthacht, Germany
(6) ESA-ESRIN, Frascati, Italy
1. GLOBALBEDO PROCESSING AND SAMPLES
A land surface broadband albedo map of the entire Earth’s land surface (snow and snow-free) is required for use in Global Climate Model initialisation and verification. A group of 10 users have been selected to work with the GlobAlbedo* Implementation team to define requirements and drive the project towards practical applications of the product. These requirements defined the need to generate a final product on 8-daily at spatial resolutions of 1km in sinusoidal projection using the MODIS 10o x 10o tiling scheme and 0.05o and 0.5o on monthly time-steps.
To generate such a global map by temporal compositing requires both sufficient directional looks and the very precise correction of top-of-atmosphere radiances to “at surface” directional reflectances (SDRs). In addition, such a map requires precise radiometric calibration and inter-calibration of different sensors [1] and the computation of radiative transfer coefficients to derive broadband SDRs from different input narrowband SDRs and given sufficient angular sampling from all the directional looks within a given temporal window, derive a suitable BRDF. This BRDF can be integrated to produce DHR (Direct Hemispherical Reflectance known as “black-sky”) and BHR (BiHemispherical Reflectance, known as “white-sky”) [2]. The final albedo product has been integrated in three spectral broadband ranges, namely the solar spectrum shortwave (400-3000nm), the visible PAR region (400-700nm) and the near- and shortwave-infrared (700-3000nm). In addition, maps of normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) and the fraction of absorbed photosynthetically active radiation (fAPAR) will be generated consistent with the albedo product to complement the Globalbedo data set for analysis of vegetation-related processes [3].
To achieve the aim of deriving independent estimates using European only assets, GlobAlbedo set out to create a 15 year time series by employing SPOT4-VEGETATION and SPOT5-VEGETATION2 as well as MERIS. Legacy algorithms for deriving SDRs using an optimal estimation approach are outlined [2] as well as a novel system for gap-filling using ten year mean estimates derived from equivalent BRDFs from MODIS [2]. Each and every output pixel albedo value has an estimated uncertainty associated with it and the corresponding BRDF a full uncertainty matrix for each pixel. Separate BRDFs are computed for snow and snow-free pixels and combined together to yield a gap-free dataset. An example of a sample output product browse in Figure 1 shows the BHR and the coefficient of variation derived from the uncertainty divided by the expectation value (loc.cit.)
Animations of 8-daily and monthly browse products including the full-resolution 1km tiles are available on the website for the products available to date (2005, 2009, 2010 and the first 6 months of 2011). An OGC-compliant server based on OpenLayers also allows display of global data and inter-comparison by flickering from one date with another. Global data at 0.05o and 0.5o, as well as individual tiles at 1km, can be downloaded using wget and scripts can be easily written by the user to harvest the data they require. A novel facility is the ability to extract a single pixel or a group of 3 x 3 or 5 x 5 pixels in CSV format through time for immediate plotting locally.
2. GLOBALBEDO VALIDATION
Extensive validation has been performed on final GlobAlbedo product for each and every year that correlative data is available. Shown here from [4], in Figure 2 is an example of a time series plot of Blue-Sky albedo from GlobAlbedo, MODIS priors, MODIS Collection 5 and MISR measurements. Uncertainties calculated from within the product [2] are shown for GlobAlbedo and MISR. For a desert bare rock site (upper panel), the GlobAlbedo product shows reasonable agreement with the other EO datasets and with the tower measurements. The differences shown at the year start may be related to spatial variability of the site (loc.cit.). The Toravere site like most BSRN sites is not chosen for its spatial homogeneity but rather it’s location close to a suitable laboratory. It has a high degree of spatial variability and almost all BSRN are in this category. In addition, unlike the SURFRAD tower albedometer at 30m with a 100m footprint, Toravere albedometers are at 5m above the surface with a 5m footprint so rendering them unhelpful for the purpose of validating spaceborne-derived land surface albedo. The time series shown for Travere shows a common phenomenon for the more than 80 sites worldwide which have been employed to date, related to the effect of snow in winter. Due to very different fields of view of the local albedometer and the 1km EO-derived equivalent values, snow albedo values from EO are typically 50% of the ones retrieved from local albedometers. In this case, GlobAlbedo appears to be slightly more sensitive to the snow values but this is not necessarily typical.
3. GLOBALBEDO PROSPECTS
The GlobAlbedo data production at UCL-MSSL takes around 3 weeks per output year and produces around 1.5Tb (uncompressed) output. This is running flat-out on a 10-blade (160-core) linux cluster with 48gb of RAM and 1Tb local disk. The processing requires 100Tb of scratch-space to keep all input and output products online. An extensive Product User Manual is available from the website. Currently the production is expect to be completed for the Envisat time period by October 2012 with products being loaded after visual inspection of the browse products and validation using extensive tower-based data and similar EO datasets, including METEOSAT. In the next phase, a variety of different users will assess the impact of the product, and the use of the estimated uncertainties on their particular application.
4. REFERENCES CITED
[1] D. Potts, S. Mackin, J-P. Muller, N. Fox (2012). Satellite Sensor Intercalibration over Dome C: Application of QA4EO principles to the ESA GlobAlbedo Project. IGARSS 2012 (this conference)
[2] GlobAlbedo_ATBD_V3.0 (2011). GlobAlbedo: Algorithm Theoretical Basis Document. Authors: P. Lewis, C. Brockmann, O. Danne, J. Fischer, L. Guanter, A. Heckel, O. Krueger, G. López, J-P. Muller, P. North, D. Potts, R. Preusker. Available from http://www.GlobAlbedo.org/
[3] Pinty, B., Jung, M., Kaminski, T., Lavergne, T., Mund, M., Plummer, S., Thomas, E., Widlowski, J.L., 2011. Evaluation of the JRC-TIP 0.01° products over a mid-latitude deciduous forest site. Remote Sens. Environ. 115, 3567-3581.
[4] Muller, J.-P., Lopez, G., Shane, N.S., Danne, O., Brockmann, C., Krämer, U., Zühlke, M., Heckel, A., North, P.R., Domench, C., Guanter, L., Fischer, J., Wang, Z., Schaapman-Strub, G., Cescatti, A., 2012. GlobAlbedo Test Product Validation Report, available from http://www.globalbedo.org/docs/GlobAlbedo_TPVR_V2_2.pdf . UCL- MSSL, 92pp.
$£¥£$£££$££££$££$
THE SHOWN PAPER COULD NOT SHOW A VALUE FOR GLOBAL ALBEDO.
NOW GIVE ME AB ARTICLE WHICH PUBLISHES A VALUE FOR GLOBAL ALBEDO BASED ON REAL DATA, FUCKING IDIOT.
Globalbedo.org appears to list this data, and while I did not succeed in running the program they link to there to enable the data to be viewed, observational data for the global albedo are listed elsewhere. Try for example, Goode et al, GRL (2001): http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2000GL012580/abstract
Abstract only: I seem not to have the full pdf.
However, the data quoted in the abstract supports the "0.3" value.
bill, instead of writing utter bullshit (as always from you leper islander) try to help your ignoramus brother BBD to cite a paper with earth's global albedo based on real data, Try, you fucking idiot!
Much as I regret feeding the Socktroll, it's Lyme disease (after a town called Old Lyme in Connecticut, USA, where the disease was first described in the 1970's) - a tick-borne spirocheatosis with Borrelia bergdorferi, B. afzelius or B. geurinae. It does not occur in Australia, despite the active efforts of some Boris-level loons who are determine to prove that all of the extant science is wrong, and that they, alone, know the truth. Not surprisingly the same subset of idiots are usually both strident anti-vaxers and climate denialists, which is where I first encountered the tribe, when asked to counter one of their more egregious public squawks back in the late 80's. (BTW BBD, I'm an Infectious Diseases Physician not a Single Organ Doctor (SOD it!) though I did my PhD on modulation of host defence in cystic fibrosis). Curious that the Socktroll gibbers that particular malapropism on a climate thread. I suspect that it hears the same voices as Behring Breivik.
Just on a general point. Our resident psychopath demands and rages that we provide him with a reference supporting the standard value for Earth's albedo (0.3).
Why? Kai/Freddy/Boris/Berendwanker won't read it. KFBB couldn't understand it in a month of Sundays. KFBB has no idea why 0.3 is considered the best estimate, nor, until very, very recently did he even know that it was the best estimate.
So WTF is this charade all about? Well, obviously, this is KFBB's default tactic: demand some information - it hardly matters what - then accuse all here of ignorance, fraud etc whether we provide it or not.
This is a tedious, irritating noise that has gone on long enough now.
It is high fucking time this multi-sock, psychopathic troll was banned.
Just quietly you've posted about "leper islanders" on this thread using both Boris and Berendaneke socks. That's to say nothing about your fixation with human body waste and with upper case yelling, again through plural agencies.
If you're going to pretend to be multiple people try to nuance your personæ with at least some finesse. If you're not aware that you're doing this then consider talking to someone about the mælstrom in your mind.
And if the voices in your head start to whisper that you should kill yourself, think* about consulting a psychiatrist. The internet would definitely be a better place without you but someone would have to clean up the mess you left behind, and it might be someone who actually cares** about you.
If you’re going to pretend to be multiple people try to nuance your personæ with at least some finesse.
He can't Bernard. He's as thick as pigshit as well as totally insane. That's why this irruption of hydra-socked trolling is so tedious. There's not wit nor art to any of it. It's just noise. And I for one have heard enough of it.
My mental health is fine. I'm not the one pretending to be a girl, remember? Nor am I a pathological liar afflicted to the core with the worst case of DK-syndrome imaginable.
Find a mirror, Sunny, and look yourself in the eyes.
Nick @ 80.
Yes, I did type 2012, but of course meant 2010.
Otherwise, rather unfortunately, you seem to be displaying the same attitude that caused that licence anomaly to remain in place despite the fact that repeated warnings were given and had been getting increasingly strident from April 2010.
You also don't seem to understand that the whole system is interconnected. Just because Tumut didn't flood in the earlier flooding is not a good excuse to fill up Blowering when the 'bidgee and the Murray were already full and delivering all requirements downstream. That is not sensible management practice.
Filling Blowering and Hume anytime after October 2010 with that RAR Payback was asking for trouble and the EXTRA water associated with those paybacks should logically have remained in Eucumbene until it was needed.
That's why the system was designed that way in the first place.
We can quibble over the wastage figures forever but it doesn't change what the issue truly was.
But please, we may just have to agree to disagree as I only wanted to point out the above facts and also point out that Marohasy's involvement in any of this was minimal.
Unfortunately that licence anomaly still exists on the Murray side of the system and has only been partly resolved on the 'bidgee side.
I hope you don't think that's OK despite your dislike of Marohasy.
Frequently people with mental health issues don't realize, and blaming others for their own failings, also mixing up confusing the identities of people.....
What Lotharsson said, Sunny. I'm not blaming you for my failings, I am blaming you for yours. Nor am I confused about your identity - again, that problem is yours.
A new study finds “NASA satellites may have missed more than 50% of the phytoplankton in the Southern Ocean, making it far more difficult to estimate the carbon capture potential of this vast area of sea.” The paper adds to several other recent peer-reviewed publications demonstrating prior assumptions about the global carbon cycle may be highly erroneous, as well as the modelling derived from these assumptions.However, Trenberth’s imaginary heat from CO2 is still ‘missing’ from both the atmosphere and the deep oceans. The very sparse, deep-ocean temperature observations show only a 0.01C warming over 44 years, which is much, much less than the instrument uncertainty.
Deep ocean observations in green show only 0.01C warming over 44 years, much less than uncertainty and measurement error. The remaining lines are all from models, which, as usual, are all over the map showing equally warming or cooling. Source
In addition, if the “oceans ate the global warming,” steric sea level rise from thermal expansion should have accelerated sea level rise, but the data shows no evidence of acceleration.
Algorithm finds missing phytoplankton in Southern Ocean
I see that the Hockeyschtick liar shows a 2011 graph from Roy Spencer (PhD!) using "Levitus observations" 1955- 1999. Completely obsolete and only 0 - 700m depth too. Deliberate graph trickery - again.
Using up to date observations and the full 0 - 2000m depth from Levitus et al. (2012):
We provide updated estimates of the change of ocean heat content and the thermosteric component of sea level change of the 0–700 and 0–2000 m layers of the World Ocean for 1955–2010. Our estimates are based on historical data not previously available, additional modern data, and bathythermograph data corrected for instrumental biases. We have also used Argo data corrected by the Argo DAC if available and used uncorrected Argo data if no corrections were available at the time we downloaded the Argo data. The heat content of the World Ocean for the 0–2000 m layer increased by 24.0 ± 1.9 × 1022 J (±2S.E.) corresponding to a rate of 0.39 W m−2 (per unit area of the World Ocean) and a volume mean warming of 0.09°C. This warming corresponds to a rate of 0.27 W m−2 per unit area of earth's surface. The heat content of the World Ocean for the 0–700 m layer increased by 16.7 ± 1.6 × 1022 J corresponding to a rate of 0.27 W m−2(per unit area of the World Ocean) and a volume mean warming of 0.18°C. The World Ocean accounts for approximately 93% of the warming of the earth system that has occurred since 1955. The 700–2000 m ocean layer accounted for approximately one-third of the warming of the 0–2000 m layer of the World Ocean. The thermosteric component of sea level trend was 0.54 ± .05 mm yr−1 for the 0–2000 m layer and 0.41 ± .04 mm yr−1 for the 0–700 m layer of the World Ocean for 1955–2010.
Almost a magnitude out, Sunny!
As I said, it's all lies. You are just to ignorant to know it, so you are very easily fooled by the liars. What a colossal prat you are.
So you sit there for all your waking hours BBD, watching, waiting, like a spider sitting at the edge of it's web......... lol... you certainly ain't no athlete, you most likely have a vitamin D deficiency, maybe you are marooned there like a morbidly obese walrus eating where you shit because you cannot even move to the door let along fit through it, does your young son, if he is yours, ferry the home delivered pizza through the stinking quagmire to you ?
Get someone to widen the door so you can get out, sit outside on a Sunny day sweetie :)
"Focusing on the goals and strategies of climate change conversations, Wibeck zeroes in on how learners of climate science understand messages on climate change, the communicative contexts for education on climate change, and the barriers that can be found to public engagement. Of particular importance is how learners of climate science are being spoken to about climate change because this affects the ways they go on to conduct their own conversations about it."
But you are a contemptible liar and a denier and a terminal ignoramus, Sunny. You have been lying about climate change for years - and failing to understand it or learn about it for the same length of time.
You aren't who Wibeck is talking about. You are part of the problem. You aren't interested in strategic solutions *or* in the science. You are just pushing denier lies. Nobody needs people like you, and in due course, when the climate shit hits the economic fan, this will be remembered. Vermin like you will escape behind your anonymity, but the ringleaders won't. It's going to be ugly for them.
No, Sunspot. Whatever gives you that idea? You seem to have problems with honesty, identity, research, topic knowledge and good faith. Bit of a fucking mess, aren't you?
Did you find a mirror and look at your miserable excuse for a self yet, Sunny? What have you become, eh?
"The alarmists refuse to budge on global warming. Despite widespread head-scratching regarding the cause of the current 15-plus year pause or slowdown in warming (and the obvious failings of climate models to predict it) the alarmists don’t ever want to give an inch.
Over the years, they have painted themselves into a corner – any admission of uncertainty or doubt would now be regarded as weakness, at least in their minds.
So they plough on with the wilful blindness, misrepresentation and name-calling.
The image shows how Skeptical Science used to
..................."
‘Missing’ phytoplankton found, but Trenberth’s imaginary heat remains ‘missing’
By: Marc Morano – Climate DepotSeptember 24, 2013 11:55 PM
Marc Morono pretends to know nothing about the reality of Trenberth's statement which was aimed at the 'travesty' of not having enough measuring points to track the known transfer through ocean layers. The fact that sea levels have risen is a marker for expansion due to heat up-take. Note the large volume of water vis a vis atmosphere.
Now instead of continuing to be an irritating ignoramus why don't you go back and follow my suggestion here.
Flippant, inveterate lol-lers should be banned unless they turn their behaviour around.
And on you go, thrashing away at the blatant misrepresentations of the state of scientific knowledge wrt the slowdown in tropospheric warming and the true nature of the models which were never designed to predict it. Spin, rhetoric, misrepresentation and lies. But you cannot stop reality, Sunny. It will eat you whole, along with the rest of the denier sheep.
And deep down inside, you are afraid.
* * *
As a measure of how revoltingly dishonest you are, you cannot even lie consistently. Here's you, utterly fucked by your idiocy about thermal capacity and desperately trying to escape the godawful mess:
My monthly data has just run out! sheeezzzz, snails pace till Saturday!
I know you all will miss me………….xoxoxoxoxo.. till then
But as soon as you'd wriggled out of that for a few hours - back you were again, trolling as frantically as ever. And here you still are, still thrashing away...
This is why Tim Lambert confined you to your own thread, Sunspot.
" ‘Missing’ phytoplankton found, but Trenberth’s imaginary heat remains ‘missing’
By: Marc Morano – Climate DepotSeptember 24, 2013 11:55 PM"
The headline's worth a chortle in itself, thanks for this Lionel. The ClimateDepot article continues -
"A new study finds “NASA satellites may have missed more than 50% of the phytoplankton in the Southern Ocean, making it far more difficult to estimate the carbon capture potential of this vast area of sea.” The paper adds to several other recent peer-reviewed publications demonstrating prior assumptions about the global carbon cycle may be highly erroneous, as well as the modelling derived from these assumptions.However, Trenberth’s imaginary heat from CO2 is still ‘missing’ from both the atmosphere and the deep oceans. The very sparse, deep-ocean temperature observations show only a 0.01C warming over 44 years, which is much, much less than the instrument uncertainty."
;)
"In introducing their paper of quite some time ago, Wilson et al. (1979) wrote that one of their main objectives in conducting the study it described was to compare the temperature record from New Zealand - which they emphasized is "in the Southern Hemisphere and a region meteorologically unrelated to Europe" - with the climate record of England, where the MWP had already made its mark on that country's and the surrounding region's climatic history. Their contribution to this endeavor was to decipher the 18O/16O profile from the core to the surface of a stalagmite obtained from a cave in New Zealand, which was dated by the 14C method. And in doing so, they found that the proxy temperature record provided by the stalagmite was broadly similar to the climate record of England, exhibiting a period in the early part of the past millennium that was about 0.75°C warmer than it was in the mid-20th-century. And based on that finding they made the broader conclusion that "such climatic fluctuations as the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age are not just a local European phenomenon."
One; we've seen it. Two; Mark Freakin' Morano?! Puhleese! Well, I suppose it's the best an arseclown can manage...
And speaking of arseclowns, it's MWP time with a 1979 paper that many might just possibly suspect might have been, you know, superseded, you know, like a bit, by now. Oh, it has!
Wattsy really is getting desperate, ain't he? He's nearly as sad as his readership!
So we've got old news and even more old news. What a pair of hapless duds.
You know, it's a good thing time travel ain't ever going to be possible, because if you could go back to the cradle of life and explain to some callow, optimistic slime-mould just starting out on the evolutionary path that all its efforts were only going to end up back at SunSpam perhaps we all wouldn't be here...
The models are correct. There has been an upward trend in surface temperatures - briefly suppressed by the recent and transient increase in ocean heat uptake.
What the fuck are you all going to do when the surface warming resumes full tilt, eh? As it must, because of the laws of physics. Get your head around it, Sunny: it's not if, it's when. And it won't be long now, I suspect. Then the open season on fake sceptics begins in real earnest. A deeply suppressed part of you knows this is true. And it is afraid.
* * *
The predictive skill of models is not derived from "extrapolation" from past observations. That is just you thrashing around in a mudhole of wrong. As per.
@ Fuckwit who didn't read the thread before posting #25
NASA satellites may have missed more than 50% of the phytoplankton in the Southern Ocean, making it far more difficult to estimate the carbon capture potential of this vast area of sea.
It's not doing a very good job is it?
The Keeling Curve is rather... steeply ascending, no? Or are you too stupid to understand why this makes sushi out of the latest Hockeyschtick rubbish?
Probably. I don't know why the fuck I bother sometimes. The plankton are right here.
"The models are correct. There has been an upward trend in surface temperatures – briefly suppressed by the recent and transient increase in ocean heat uptake. "
Did you also tell that to your shrink?
If you lived in Australia I would swear that you have been eating goldtops..........
"A quarter of a century later, Williams et al. (2004) wrote that their new paper on the subject revises and builds on results that were derived by Williams et al. (1999) from stable isotope stratigraphy found in caves at Waitomo, which is located at 38.3°S latitude about 35 km from the west coast of the central North Island of New Zealand. More specifically, they enhanced three existing speleothem (stalactite, stalagmite or flowstone cave deposit) records "by adding another chronology, increasing the subsample resolution of existing records, and by much improving the temporal control of all chronologies by basing it entirely on uranium series TIMS dating." And with these improvements, Williams et al.'s speleothem master chronologies revealed a warmer-than-present late-Holocene warm peak located between 0.9 and 0.6 ka BP that they equated with the Medieval Warm Period of Europe, further noting that this period "coincided with a period of Polynesian settlement (McGlone and Wilmshurst, 1999)." Thereafter, they further reported that temperatures "cooled rapidly to a trough about 325 years ago," which they said corresponded to "the culmination of the 'Little Ice Age' in Europe."
"In clear contradiction of the claims of climate alarmists, these findings are but another example of the unending stream of studies from all around the world that continue to document the global presence of a warmer-than-present Medieval Warm Period; and they are becoming ever more difficult to deny, because they demonstrate that the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the Modern Warm Period, even though the air's CO2 concentration of that earlier period was about 115 ppm less than it is currently. This being the case, there is absolutely no reason to attribute the planet's current level of warmth to its current elevated atmospheric CO2 content, as there is an historical precedent (the MWP) for even higher temperatures than those of the present with much lower-than-current atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
A short four-year hiatus later, Lorrey et al. (2008) developed two master speleothem δ18O records for New Zealand's eastern North Island (ENI) and western South Island (WSI) for the period 2000 BC to about AD 1660 and 1825, respectively. The WSI record was a composite chronology composed of data derived from four speleothems from Aurora, Calcite, Doubtful Xanadu and Waiau caves, while the ENI record was a composite history derived from three speleothems from Disbelief and Te Reinga caves. This work revealed that for both the ENI and WSI δ18O master speleothem histories, their warmest periods fell within the AD 900-1100 time interval, which is also where the peak warmth of a large portion of the temperature records"
SunSpam cannot explain what it means. SunSpam will never explain what it means. SunSpam will never explain anything because SunSpam does not comprehend anything. Most bright 12 year olds have a better grasp of the physics than SunSpam does. That's not even hyperbole. When you are so fucking stupid you have to neurally-outsource from the likes of Watts and Morano there's not even a down to go to anymore.
"you have to neurally-outsource from the likes of Watts and Morano "
Nup, no points for Bileeee... lol
"Not wanting to acknowledge that the earth of a thousand or so years ago was likely as warm as, or even warmer than, it is currently - when the atmosphere's CO2 concentration was much lower than it is today (285 vs. 400 ppm) - the world's climate alarmists have been loath to admit there was an MWP anywhere other than in countries surrounding the North Atlantic Ocean. And so it is that the results of the several studies described above are of great importance to the ongoing global warming debate, as they greatly advance the thesis that the MWP was indeed a global phenomenon, wherein temperatures throughout the world were significantly warmer than they have been anytime subsequently, and that there is thus nothing unusual or unprecedented about earth's current level of warmth, with the obvious implication that the maximum temperatures of the present simply cannot be attributed to the historical increase in the air's CO2 content.
References
Lorrey, A., Williams, P., Salinger, J., Martin, T., Palmer, J., Fowler, A., Zhao, J.-X. and Neil, H. 2008. Speleothem stable isotope records interpreted within a multi-proxy framework and implications for New Zealand palaeoclimate reconstruction. Quaternary International 187: 52-75.
McGlone, M.S. and Wilmshurst, J.M. 1999. Dating initial Maori environmental impact in New Zealand. Quaternary International 59: 5-16.
Williams, P.W., King, D.N.T., Zhao, J.-X. and Collerson, K.D. 2004. Speleothem master chronologies: combined Holocene 18O and 13C records from the North Island of New Zealand and their palaeo-environmental interpretation. The Holocene 14: 194-208."
Let's get it straight: the whole MWP and its significance is overblown b*. The ONLY reason the deniers started on about it is because of Mann et al.'s 1998 Nature paper and the hockey stick. Until then the deniers had made no inroads into the field of climate science and were stuck on the "It is a doomsday myth" meme. Suddenly that paper is published and it gives something for the deniers to relentlessly pursue and voila! The MWP becomes one of their mantras.
The fact that Karen is so utterly, demonstrably dense and has to resurrect this crap again shows exactly what her level of understanding of science is. It should be obvious to anyone with half a brain by now that the deniers do exactly what the creationists do: try and counter the huge amount of empirical evidence against their arguments by countering examples with their own stitched together wafer-thin ' evidence'. Climate scientists publish something in a good journal, and the deniers counter it with something on exactly the same topic but with different conclusions in a crappy journal.
That Karen is stupid enough to go along with this means that she deserves to be sent packing from here. Her arguments - if one can call them that - were shredded eons ago, and yet she is still here twisting, deceiving and distorting. Given that 99% of those contributing here know this, why does she persist? What does she hope to gain? She's like a football team (American that is) losing 49-0 with 35 seconds left in regulation time and still expecting a 'victory'. Karen, you've been blown out of the park. Its over.
I'll guess where, Sunny. Lies by the fossil-fuel funded fucking Idsos from the hilariously misnomered "CO2 Science". Science my arse.
You *cannot* demonstrate a global, synchronous MWP as warm as or warmer than the present from the currently available data. I challenge you to do so knowing for certain that you will fail.
Quoting lying energy industry shills' deliberate and systematic misrepresentations of others' work simply doesn't count.
“The models are correct. There has been an upward trend in surface temperatures – briefly suppressed by the recent and transient increase in ocean heat uptake. ”
you are obviously not aware of how primitive your poem sounds
"Altogether now: it’s always projection"
Imagining the glorious leper islanders CAGW chorus from full heart most probably in wrong pitch "Altogether now: it’s always projection" makes one really laugh, so ridiculously insane is this. The Doltoid chorus singing, full of low-talented singers, an utterly primitive text from poet Lotharsson!!!!
rhwombat, you assert you are a medical doctor. If so, why are you talking so loudly about something you have no background at all, ie meteorology, apart from listening to tv meteo forecasts, you blatherskite and ignorant. Are you so deeply convinced about your climate belief that your conviction replaces any knowledge which you totally lack.
Show that you are a doctor and explain what the gyrus cinguli is, fuckwit on leper island!
@Jeff, a new conspiration from the weak character group of CAGW Doltoids and Lotharsson poem chorus on leper island, which are so proud of their low intellectual level and climate ignorance???? WHAT A THREAT!!!!!
rwhombat. how would you judge from a medical doctor's point of view what BBD said to me that I should kill myself. Are are accepting this, do you say the same to me? Is this unethical, even torally unacceptable that one human asks another human to kill himself? What is your opinion on the degusting behavior of BBD?????
And we keep telling them so, but they keep coming back with the same tediously *wrong* bollocks. I don't think most of them even understand the point. I don't think they can see past the stupid argument that "it was hotter and CO2 was lower so AGW is falsified". They don't seem to appreciate that nobody ever claimed that CO2 was the only major driver of climate.
It's all so stupid and confused and wrong. And no matter how many times the stupid is explained, it just gets thrown back at you again, and again, and again.
Which is why we resort to terms like "fuckwit" in the end.
It's likely because they've been sold denialism by expert PR on the subconscious level.
If you ask the target audience (SpamKan, PantieZ, Boris are good enough examples) flat out plainly do they think driving car W, smoking Brand X (one for the jazz fusionistas there!), or washing their shirts in Y or drinking Brew Z really makes their dicks feel bigger, they'll deny it. But subconsciously they've bought it and the post-campaign sales analyses show they did.
Hence the parade of lo-rent lab rats we see through here daily with nothing but the most superficial backing for their fervently held belief that CO2 scam-nazi-commies are out to take all their piddling worldly possessions by taxing them to the bone(r). Boris/Freddy/Olaf/Kai has fully invested in this multi-level myth and insists on torturing himself with it and worse, inflicting his imaginary looney-toon ravings on us.
So Boris/Freddy/Olaf/Kai , I propose you be more entertaining for us by dancing like a chicken, and because this is an Australian blog, I further propose that whilst doing so you fart the tune 'Waltzing Matilda'.
I further hope that the image of a dancing, Waltzing Matilda farting chicken is now so firmly embedded that it will be the first thought that springs to mind whenever your uniquely styled text is encountered regardless of whatever handle you're using at the time.
I've never understood the rational behind the tax fears...don't they realise that if a government wants to raise taxes it doesn't have to invent a new one and create a world wide conspiracy to back it up. Just sticking another % or two on income, sales or whatever existing tax would do the trick.
Don't quote me TB, but I suspect it's along the lines of 'higher taxes' don't register. Another (i.e. more) tax does. Remember, it's not aimed at rational thinking.
Yup. The Climate Council pretty quickly got to over 10000 members/ friends and almost half a million dollars in the bank. For all I know those numbers should be bigger. It's racing so fast I'm probably horribly out of date already.
Doesn't matter one whit. From here on out, all governments are stupid and lying EXCEPT for the Australian government, and the Climate Council is an evil Greenpeace lobbying organization. Don't bet against this, you know I'm right.
“you have to neurally-outsource from the likes of Watts and Morano ”
Nup, no points for Bileeee… lol
What does the word 'references' mean, muppet?
It proceeds to neurally-outsource from an Idso CO2 "Science" (*cough*) piece recycled from 2008. Perhaps you'd like to outline his 'qualifications' in this debate for us? I.e. we're talking exactly 'the likes' of Watts and Morano.
The science of 'ocean heat' laid out in a nice, concise package - incomprehensible to the terminally dense and dishonest (SunSpam), but of interest to thinking people and those acting in good faith.
Nutters are welcome to take up their 'case' over there - in fact, please tell us, we'll take popcorn - but they'll almost-certainly end up in The Borehole pretty-well immediately. Narcissistic semi-educated dingbats will then wail about 'censorship'; adults will hold that brats constantly scrawling 'fuck' on the walls in crayon hardly constitutes 'freedom of expression' and poisons the atmosphere for everyone else.
I'm not a psychiatrist, but I doubt that the Socktroll's narcissistic personality disorder is very susceptible to pharmacotherapy. NPD's don't have the insight to take themselves out of a descending loop, so they don't suicide either. The only way to deal with them is to withdraw and avoid - in this case ignore him.
Socktroll's question about the cingulate gyrus is a giveaway, since both the crude volumetric studies and the more detailed functional MRI studies focus on that region of the brain as a correlate of antisocial behaviour - like voting for Toady Rabbott or being the sort of tribal denier that obsessively flaunts their ignorance on this blog- like the socktroll or SunSpam.
Here in Oz, contributing to the funding of the nascent Climate Council is the single most effective way of pissing these sociopaths off - at least until the economic effects of climate change bite their puppet masters on the bum hard enough to jerk their funding chains.
do you think that neurosurgical removal of the socktroll's gyrus cinguli (you havn't learned Latin you pseudo-doctor?) might improve his asocial behavior and make him maybe a faithful member of the AGW church???
why did you avoid to comment BBD's proposal that the socktroll should kill himself? Is this in accordance with Oz medical ethical standards? Should BBD be banned here and juridically be prosecuted for his monstrous thinking?
What chek said! Still guffawing. Funniest comment on the thread by far (#78).
If you aren't going to lock yourself in your study and do the honourable thing, then you will have to answer some questions. Questions you have blanked no less than three times now.
"finding a rate <2000 ths of a degree C per decade.
(ref increase in 0.09C in 55 years) is that really measurable?
ie one ARGO buoy per how many thousand cubic kilometres of ocean. (and we've only had ARGO, for a decade, or less at depth)"
"[Response: Changing a unit to have a small sounding number doesn't actually change anything; neither the significance nor the accuracy. But if you want to play rhetorical games, go right ahead - though perhaps not here. - gavin]"
Well, I am still waiting on the answer to 'how this incredibly small' and 'almost unmeasurable' amount of 'heat' can magnify or intensify to a higher temperature that will fry the planet.
Does 2 buckets of 15 C water when mixed together magically become 30 C water?
Will the deeper cooler water rise and make the shallower water hotter?
"Beam me up Scotty! There is no intelligent life on this planet." .......... lol
gavinI hasn't a friggen a clue, which is why I mistakenly think people who do have a clue...don't
FIFY. To illustrate the fixed version:
I am still waiting on the answer to 'how this incredibly small' and 'almost unmeasurable' amount of 'heat' can magnify or intensify to a higher temperature...
You have been told over and over again, and you still haven't a friggen clue. The failure is not on our side, it is because you are incompetent to or unwilling to understand early high school science.
(FWIW, you can't even get basic facts right. It's an incredibly large amount of heat in the oceans if much of it were to be transferred to the atmosphere, and it's actual heat energy, not scare quoted 'heat'. And while we're at it, heat is not the same as temperature, as we've been trying to drum through your thick skull for weeks now.)
Furthermore, the mechanism that was described to you had nothing to do with mixing two lots of water together and magically increasing the total amount of heat energy in the total amount of water. It doesn't have anything to do with magically increasing total amounts of heat energy at all. It is (in the first approximation) about changing the distribution of the existing heat energy. You really are utterly and enthusiastically clueless, aren't you?
What is most amazing is that you still haven't twigged as to how clueless you are. And you even pretend that the rest of us haven't twigged that your purpose here is to disseminate lies.
And in still other news, I have three tonnes of mulch and a garden.
Since the mass of mulch isn't the same as the area occupied by the mulch, the mass has nothing to do with how much area it will cover if spread out. And it especially has nothing to do with the difference in area covered if I spread it thickly or really thinly...
Well, I am still waiting on the answer to 'how this incredibly small' and 'almost unmeasurable' amount of 'heat' can magnify or intensify to a higher temperature
And you will wait 'til the Call to Judgement, you sad little poster child for Dunning-Kruger, you, because you are stupid and simply cannot understand what everyone else here, with the likely exception of some of the dimmer of your fellow-travelers, grasped years ago.
I repeat - SunSpam, you are stupid. Pole-axingly, deadeningly, numbingly, screechingly, vacuously, complacently, smugly, arrogantly, imperturbably, condescendingly, depauperately, insouciantly, Pollyannaishly, prissily, shrilly, and above all overwhelminglystupid.
You are stupid when you wake up in the morning, stupid late at night, stupid in your stupid dreams.
Not a little bit, not slightly, not just-a-tad, not occasionally, not debatably, not cryptically; no, none of these! You are full-on, totally, 100% died-in the wool stupid, you stupid, stupid, stupid little noisome stupid smear in the gusset of humanity, you!
That's why you're a Denier.
But most of all, you're stupid. If you hadn't had AGW Denial to be stupid about, and feel great because you're able to be stupid along with a whole bunch of other stupid people, you'd just be stupid about something else, and doubtlessly are.
Praise the Lord.
We have been saved from thermageddon.
All those 10^29 little ergs beamed to the ocean depths to prevent a 30 odd degree rise in temperature of the atmosphere.
Its a miracle.
Bow down and keep The Faith,
LoL
Hey Bileee, I'm with you, I hope it does get hot honey, otherwise I will have wasted my money on a really big air conditioner. :)
lol....... no gwowbull worming at my house......hehe...
Now Bileee, are you a bit thick? or syintificaly challenged? or just a loud mouth old prick with onset dementia?
I ask this because you appear to be toooo stupid to answer a simple question.
I cannot understand that expressing the accumulation of energy in correct units – ~25 x 10^22 Joules since 1955 – is *not* a trick.
Now you will freak SunKrank out talking in Joules.
That is why when asking her/he/it about the comparison of heat energy required to melt one gram of ice to the heat energy required to raise one gram of fresh water through one degree Celsius I indicated that calories would do.
BTW WRT Cronin on Page 19 under the sub-head 'Sea Surface Temperatures and Ocean Circulation in the last few lines we read:
....greater land and sea ice, reduced albedo, and so on (see chapters 5 – 7 in this volume).
What do you make of that statement?
It reminds me of the confusion Boorish is in over albedo.
That same paragraph could be used to test SunKrank's understanding of feedbacks WRT the difference between negative and positive feedbacks. I suspect that she would think increasing sea ice, thus with increased albedo causing further cooling was a negative feedback.
Now if I put it to Boorish that albedo of something was 1.25, what would he make of that?
The "asinine" Boris seems to have led you lot by the nose for the last few pages/threads.
Are you sure its not Tim winding you up to maintain the blog stats?
Are you sure its not Tim winding you up to maintain the blog stats?
Ah, a lovely little bit of conspiratorial ideation.
I reckon if Tim wanted to "maintain the blog stats" he'd churn out another article - there's plenty of material - that would see the deniers frantically trying to defend it...
Nick #18. Shukman again! I daresn't watch. He has already dismayed me to much this week by allowing Bishop Shill on the News, 'News' now there is a joke.
Hey all you muppets in the peanut gallery, we knew about the use of clams for climate research. Guess what, scientists have also had lots of holes drilled in mud, coral, ice to discover how and why climate has changed.
Give me strength, and now RedNoise has returned with his inane and childish sham humour.
RedNoise is like those bottom dwelling worms that appear in the sediment record from time to time (here today - stir - gone tomorrow), stirring the sediment, which helps scientists differentiate between layers of churned and not churned - thus providing, like dendrochronology and clams - sectional differences which aid dating.
But Kai, you are a lying, sock-puppeting nutter! You aren’t a fucking scientist – you aren’t even a complete human being! You don’t have any basis for sneering at others here. We all know hugely more than you do, and none of us are clinically insane.
Well, I am still waiting on the answer to 'how this incredibly small' and 'almost unmeasurable' amount of 'heat' can magnify or intensify to a higher temperature that will fry the planet.
Oh my giddy aunt!
I tried, I really tried. It's like trying to teach table manners to toddlers - but without all the fun to offset the frustrations.
Not only is SunSpam terminally stupid, but RedNoise is so stupid that he can't see how stupid SunSpam is!
Of course, there's always the possibility that Rednoise is just an arrogant, uppity conflict-entrepreneur who's too dishonest and manipulative to care how paralyzingly stupid his allies are... But I'm betting the former. You're too stupid to see how stupid SunSpam is, right, Rednoise?
Did you know that a fly turd is about 20 times greater in width than the distance traveled by the mercury in a thermometer if it was placed in the ocean at a depth of 300 mtrs for 55 years.......lol
Poor stupid Spamkan, still not able to understand the difference between heat and temperature, despite all the assistance and having parroted the definitions.
Karen tries to ridicule something she doesn't understand by typing something about the width of fly excrement on a computer based on electronic features that are tens of nanometres in width.
Bill#28
This "stupid" theme is a bit boring Bill. Cant you liven it up a bit, give me something to work with.
And you do seem to have a bit of a cob on lately, if you dont mind me saying. Its only an election, your side can try again in another 4 or 5 years.
>blockquote>Climate scientists wrangle over crucial projections on likely effects of global warming just hours before report's deadline Fraught negotiations over a landmark review of the world's knowledge of climate change were making slow progress on Thursday with just hours to go before early Friday's deadline .
Funny how the alarmist wankers use that millions of nuclear bombs energy going into the ocean as a sick sort of analogy .........lol.....which is just so ridiculous by the way.
Meanwhile Fukashima spews it radioactive guts into the Pacific ocean and the greenies in here don't give a shit....................?
no doubt the PR companies will charge a fortune to spin this one
Please elaborate. Which PR companies have "spinned" climate change on behalf of the IPCC or any government before, and which ones do you anticipate being used for the AR5?
Pay attention at the back there and start your science courses.
Science is never settled, completely, it is just that enough is known to be able to talk about established science WRT climate. All you have to do is study at the sources cited here and ignore everything from the woo scientists of the denial-o-sphere.
Andrew Montford, Matt Ridley etc are not reliable sources far from it tools of the GWPF for one thing. Their kind of wrong-headedness was typified by that UKIP goon Farage in a recent address to the Euro-state representatives when he held up spurious images of Arctic ice and talked a load of BS. It would seem that UKIP ridding themselves of Monckton has done little for their science knowledge.
If there are fraught negotiations then it is likely due to the vacillation and cowardice of policy makers beholden to the vested interests with empires to preserve. In other words a repeat of previous IPCC negotiations reported on by Joe Romm, Naomi Oreskes and others.
That you so flippantly remark on this demonstrates that not only are you ignorant of the true state of knowledge on climate change but also of the history of denial.
Else, you could of course be complicit in the actions that are trying to undermine urgent policy decisions for short term profit against almost for sure the end of civilisation as we know it. Are you ready for that latter. The choices are stark, what is it about the increasing magnitude and frequency of the signals coming from the natural world that you cannot grasp the import of?
Oh for fuck's sake Rednose. Let me count the ways.
1) It wasn't directed at you.
2) Calling Karen/Mack/Sunspot a moron is not an ad hominem, it is a statement of fact. He is a complete and utter moron, as demonstrated on this and many previous threads. As a random recent example, he has no concept of the difference between heat and temperature (and in true D-K fashion refuses to listen and/or look it up).
3) Even if Karen/Mack/Sunspot weren't a moron, "what would you prefer, moron" is STILL not an ad hominem attack, it is an insult.
Let me (AGAIN) try to explain the difference.
Insult: "you're wrong because of X, moron".
Ad hominem: "you're wrong because you are a moron"
Is there some sort of code of honor amongst denialists that you have to be wrong about EVERY SINGLE FUCKING THING you address?
You, Rednose, are a moron. And that is a statement of fact.
Lionel, didn't you see "Karen"s "I have a big AC"? Don't you hear the implicit "I'm fine, screw those ni-CLANG" after it?
The entire premise is that no, they won't make choices, because they don't have to. Africa starving? Bangladesh flooding? What the hell do they care? They damned well know what is about to happen, but they figure it doesn't affect them and they'll be DAMNED if gas or electricity prices have to go up to protect some darkies halfway across the globe.
Meanwhile Fukashima spews it radioactive guts into the Pacific ocean and the greenies in here don’t give a shit...
You really are a non-comprehending (about anything) numpty aren't you SunKrank. The analogy using atom bombs is to do with heat energy not radiation.
No wonder you don't 'get' science.
And I see that Rednoise is now in your lol-ling class.
You're the twins ting-a-ling
You're the twins ting-a-ling
You're the brothers ******** and we know where you're from
As you walk along the Prom, prom, prom
The brass band plays tiddly om pom pom
They say as you pass there goes two feats of arse
You and your brother...
"PR companies will charge a fortune to spin this one"
Amongst all of Karen's vacuously ignorant musings, this one has to take the cake. The biggest PR companies have been working on behalf of the oil, coal, natural gas, automobile, logging, pesticide, GMO, mining, development et. al. corporate lobby for years. To suggest that PR companies work on behalf of the scientific community or environmental NGOs has to be one of the most hilariously incorrect and stupid remarks I have heard in a long, long time.
Karen, may I suggest you check out the client list of Burson-Marstellar, Edelman, Porter-Novelli, Hill-Knowlton, Ketcham et al. et al. et al. Get back here when you know even remotely what you are talking about.
Jeff, Lionel, don't do that. I tried to leave it as an open question to show the clown can't answer it. Now "Karen" is going to put all of those firm names into Google, find a 1972 $2,000 contract one of them did for Greenpeace and go "LOLOLOL" again.
For fuck's sake Rednose. You are too stupid to properly use, assess or imbue logical fallacies. You simply don't understand what they mean.
Not argumentum ad populum: "Rednose, everyone here knows you're dumber than a sack of hammers. Anyone in doubt can review your commenting history here."
Argumentum ad populum: "There's totes more blogs that don't agree with AGW than there are that do agree LOLOLOL, and they are totes more popular too so there LOLOLOL". (Actual argument from these here open threads).
Allow me to restate the fact: you, Rednose, are a fucking moron.
No, you conflate popularity with a consensus arrived at by analysing the data and reaching similar conclusions. A consensus based on evidence is not remotely similarto a popular vote.
Unfortunately for you, the evidence based consensus, the evidence having mounted for some months now, is that you're a drive-by moron link-spammer no different to SpamKan.
Stupid, pointless question. Avoidance tactic. The point about OHC increase is that it demonstrates - unequivocally - that CO2-forced warming of the climate system continues as expected. Of course deniers are desperate to deny this fact, but the fact is, it is undeniable. You and I have been over this in detail. You were corrected again and again, yet here you are, being a tit about OHC once more. It is annoyingly dishonest, which is why you get called a moron etc. What do you expect? You deserve it. Try behaving in an intellectually honest manner for a change.
Don't be fucking cheeky, Rednoise. Your miserable behaviour in previous "discussions" with me here disbar you from making remarks like that. You are an ignorant bullshitter, nothing more. And you know it as well as I do.
You are just trolling, Rednoise. And you aren't very good at it. Why bother? Go and play in some denier mudhole of wrong. You will be happier and so will we. Win-win.
I note that up thread the loons have now shifted the basket ball hoop 2 mtrs lower.
eg. OHC is not dangerous anymore, it is now just some sort of invisible ninja validation that co2 is warming the ocean even though it has stopped cooking Gaia and no one has worked out a fiendish scenario for it..... lol
So, RedNoise is defending this vacuous freak, showing that he has as much of a clue as the vacuous freak does. (Those are statements of fact, by the way.)
Who else? C'mon Deniers, 'fess up and show us that this is your collective dullard revenge on all those clever kids who paid attention and 'got' things!
So, instead of referring to NASA, BoM, CSIRO, or any other actual science organisations for his knowledge of climate change, Rednose prefers to use a crank site called "BishopHill".
And Karen just linked to Motl, a crank who has made no contribution to climate science.
What you guyz are actually saying, under your stinking breath, is that the OHC graph is only being used as a theatrical prop to fool alarmist greenies.
Therrmageddon is upon us... Woooooo Woooooo says the co2 boogie man..... lol
What you guyz are I am actually saying, under your my (it's always projection) stinking breath, is that the implications of the OHC graph is only being used as a theatrical prop to fool alarmist greenies are way above my intellectual pay grade and I couldn't accept even if I understood, so I fall back onto primary school level ridicule.
Mouthbreather incredulity gets old very quickly. There'd be little remaining in modern science if the credibility standard was your infantile notion of the plausible.
When it comes to accusations of cultism it is, indeed, always projection.
And, speaking of cultists, 'Boris' can't even comprehend written text. Are you attacking us through Google translate or something, Kai?
What you're apparently saying, Karen, is that perhaps because (as you have acknowledged) you are unable to comprehend basic high school science, you simply give up and pretend science is "religion" instead (when it suits you to do so).
I guess that makes a twisted kind of sense. The scientists talking about heat energy and its relation to temperature might indeed sound like religious gobbledegook if you can only hear it as gobbledegook because you simply aren't equipped to understand it.
What ? BBD, you have no peer reviewed papers that model or project/predict a planet that spontaneously combusts because the ocean is 0.06 C warmer now that 55 yrs ago..... lol
Is AR5 the new prayer book of revelations for the co2 cult?
No, it's a slightly out of date summary of the state of scientific knowledge about AGW.
Faith-based assertion is what deniers do, Sunny. Science operates by falsification and any emergent scientific consensus arises from scientific evidence and is always provisional.
Science is not a faith nor a cult nor is it opinion. What deniers do is faith-based and cultish and entirely based on scientifically unsupported opinion.
The pseudo-sceptic discourse on sensitivity is a perfect example. The vast majority of the evidence points to a value for ECS/2xCO2 of around 3C. The lowball results so adamantly endorsed by "sceptics" are in fact rather problematic.
These so-called observationally-derived estimates (eg Otto et al. 2013) are based on short time-series subject to large uncertainties and include significant assumptions about aerosol negative forcing which have a major influence on their results. If you listen to what actual climate scientists are saying, you quickly grasp that these results are not considered robust. If you listen to "sceptics", ECS is below 1.5C.
SunSpam, you can rabbit on in Denial of your own incomprehension all you like, but the fact is, petal; you're a fuckwit. A shit-for-brains. You have no place in an adult conversation regarding AGW, or any other scientific issues.
Deep down you know it, which is why you hate us all. But your pointless resentment won't change anything - you're thick, and your views are inconsequential.
Well, they would be, but what we are struggling against is a whole bunch of inadequate sad-acts like yourself, who've allowed themselves to be herded around by a bunch of tobacco scientists, venal old billionaires and libertard zealots so that you can gum up the works on their behalf, and stop the actual bright and competent people from doing what needs to be done.
I sincerely hope you're as obnoxious and objectionable in real-life as you are online, SpamKan, because if and when the shit really hits the fan you really don't deserve to come out of this without penalty.
I've said all I'm going to say about OHC and the relative thermal capacity of water vs the atmosphere, Sunny. You now have pages of people upthread trying to help you beat your confusion on this topic. At this point, you can STFU and learn, or just STFU. We are all past caring. You need to find a new topic to mangle and misunderstand.
You are upset because your pathetic insults bounce off me, Bileee if you can't handle a bit of jovial tit for tat then pull your big ugly head in.
The OHC debacle has been quite trying for you all, never mind, AR5 might spin something that will cheer you all up and get the temperature moving up again. :)
Is AR5 the new prayer book of revelations for the co2 cult?
Far from it. The most interesting thing for me when the full WG1 report is out will be just how much new information and analysis has been published since the close off date for submissions. The science as presented will be a good snapshot, but in some areas it will look a bit dated.
It'll also be fascinating to see what they make of the previous disparity between modelling and loss of Arctic sea ice and whether they finish up in the same position as the last report. Publish a heap of graphs and projections, following melt seasons make it look ridiculously understated. http://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f03a1e37970b017744cf5360970d-pi
SunSpam, I'm not some obeast sad-act whose only pleasure in life is attempting to torment the bright people you resent and despise.
(And pretending to be a woman is, I suspect, the closest you'll ever manage to get to one.)
You pathetic, inadequate, futile fool.
'Jovial'?! Phhhhttt! My arse. If this is how you carry on in real life, petal - assuming you ever leave Mommy's basement - and if things go pear-shaped out there I wouldn't waste my time trying that defence if I were you. I remind you that you have come here, where you are palpably not welcome, to goad as your sole purpose; you could scarcely hope to have accumulated more resentment against you, little troll, but every day you keep on playing at being SunSpam it'll grow just a little more...
So how is progress on the quiz question. This exercise in basic Physics and arithmetic seems to be taking an awfully long time for all you learned types.
No reply yet from the great Stu-pid, you know the one who likes to brag about their alleged debunking of the work of Spencer, Christy, Lindzen etc.
You can fone a friend if you like.
I made it easier by pointing you in the right direction but if you dont like the info on Motls site use NASA, Wiki whatever.
.
Here it is again, in case you have forgotten.
What is the ratio of OHC estimated increase for the last 40 odd years to the total OHC.
Just an order of magnitude calculation is required to get a general idea of the ratio of the two amounts.
"who likes to brag about their alleged debunking of the work of Spencer, Christy, Lindzen etc"
Debunking their garbage isn't hard, Rednose. It should also be telling that the denial industry has depended on the opinions of the same old scientists for years. Why are there not a huge number of young, new climate scientists joining the ranks of the deniers who are primarily made up of a veritable bunch of semi-retired old farts?
You and Karen also rely on climate denial blogs run by embittered non-climate scientists for much of your 'information' if one can call it that. Anybody with half a brain wouldn't touch these sites with a ten foot barge pole, but you consistently do.
Note how Karen has shied away from her/its/his PR comment. That alone was a howler of gigantic proportions, and could only be made by someone who is utterly clueless about the way in which the world works.
I stopped buying those years ago. On this kind of forum the mean time to failure is on the order of a couple of minutes. Even buying in bulk it was far too expensive.
Speaking of lie detectors failing, note how we get a new page and Karen repeats a lie that has been pointed out to her over and over, complete with several graphs (some showing even her cherry-pick of the surface temperature doesn't support her claim).
When 97 per cent of climate scientists agree with 95 per cent certainty that climate change is caused by humans, you can be damn sure it is.
Quite.
Those concerned for their stock of irony meters beware:
In a statement, Environment Minister Greg Hunt welcomed the report and reaffirmed the Government's commitment to meeting Australia's 2020 emissions reduction target.
#15
Following on with the theme that the OHC increase is due to a very small 0.065C increase in temperature, I wondered whether any here had the wit and numeracy to use basic information to compare the OHC increase with Total OHC, to get some idea of the orders of magnitude involved and put them into some sort of context, something Physicists do every day.l
Apparently not. Does this reflect the lack of expertise of the defenders of the faith on this blog.
I work the answer to be approximately:
OHC increases are 2x10^-4 of total OHC
Or the OHC increases are 2/10000 of total OHC
Pity there seems to be no one else here capable of doing a similar calculation to check these figures.
Oh FFS Rednoise. Explain the ~25 x 10^22 J increase since 1955. What caused it? We know. GHG forcing caused it. That is the relevant issue here. Once again, you are desperately trying to distract from what is important - the ongoing accumulation of energy in the climate system as a result of TOA radiative imbalance arising from increasing GHG forcing.
What you are doing is a crude exercise in intellectual dishonesty.
SunSpam, I've found things in my socks after a long day in the field that were smarter than you.
And then there's the similar level of retardation exhibited by your little Friend With Benefits, RedNoisome. Haven't I heard this lack-of-argument before? Ah, yes, 'let's all plot the temperature increases against absolute zero - see, there's nothing happening!'
Equilibrium / disequilibrium, petal. I know it's hard.
The incredulity of the genetically lobotomised. Now, there's an argument...
I have a quiz question for David Duff. Now, some of our more recent arrivals won't recognise that name, but I'm pretty sure Rednose is just another sock puppet, so (as with Karen-Sunspot and Boris-WhothefuckknowshesgotmorepersonasthanSybil) I really should call him by his right name.
So David, given you have never displayed any good faith engagement here, why the hell would you think anyone would give a toss what you claim to want to know?
Supplementary notes:
Home viewers will note that David (probably on the strength of Jeff Id's latest post at WTFIUWWAW), thinks he is so cleverly baiting a trap for the unwary. Will David show good faith by simply stating his case? The smart money says no, but now is David's opportunity to prove me wrong.
Good faith hint, David: Jeff's maths may or may not be right (I haven't checked), but his conclusions are barse-ackward either way. If you decide to show good faith for once, and state your case, you might want to think about that.
#17,#19 , tiny fractions mean tiny effects in tiny minds, especially when earth system knowledge is tiny and the intention of improving it is vanishingly small. We already knew what you'd attempt Redfarce,and,incredibly,we already knew that the Karen the village idiot emeritus would drool along.
Ahh, Mr Duff added another while I was typing. So:
Does this reflect the lack of expertise of the defenders of the faith on this blog.
Non sequitur and Petitio principii in the one sentence. Good job, laughing boy.
Pity there seems to be no one else here capable of doing a similar calculation to check these figures.
Non sequitur. Nobody was prepared to indulge your pathetic bad faith.
I'd already done them. But here is the question for you, David.
So what? How much increase would be required, in your opinion, before we should be concerned? State your case. Or fuck off. I couldn't really care either way...
OHC 0 - 2000m increased by ~25 x 10^22J since 1955. Why do you think it will take 5ka to double? I think you may have a problem with your arithmetic there.
And if it turns out you are yet another fucking sock puppetter, then fuck you for your dishonesty.
Frank D
Without a link, your first post is confusing, though you seem to be confused yourself.
I am not Mr Duff, though i do find his interjections amusing.
I’d already done them.
Easy to say.
Still laughing
Had no dealing with you previously but as you appear to be rather rude.
Fuck off yourself
.HC 0 – 2000m increased by ~25 x 10^22J since 1955. Why do you think it will take 5ka to double? I think you may have a problem with your arithmetic there.
If you agree this amount represents 0.0002 of the total, then...
On reflection BBD, there is a problem with my arithmetic. As this change took place over 50 years not 1, it should be nearer 250,000 years not 5,000. Mea Culpa
I have more but that would break the single post link limit.
[1] I have this book on my shelf and have been reading it, slowly,for the second time having romped through it the first time. The book is quickly recognised by the title being 'concitant' on the cover.
I have read Lisa Randall's book 'Knocking on Heaven's Door' on the LHC, as well as a number by Roger Penrose on this area of theoretical physics, but found her style repetitive and lacklustre. She, clever no doubt, could take stylistic lessons from Richard Dawkins whose books, all read more than once, grace my shelves. I am on about my fifth copy of 'The Selfish Gene' , no bad thing in itself as the latest has had many additions and a few revision, the others having been borrowed by my children and passed on to their friends with who has what forgotten.
As this change took place over 50 years not 1, it should be nearer 250,000 years not 5,000. Mea Culpa
Still thrashing around in a puddle of irrelevance and intellectual dishonesty I see.
What you ignore - or rather what you are ignorant of - is paleoclimate behaviour. You need to consider the major changes in OHC in the past that coincided with hyperthermals (the PETM being the best known, but by no means the only one). Look up ocean anoxic events. Interestingly, the hyperthermals and OAEs seem to be associated with elevated levels of CO2 and/or CH4.
On reflection BBD, there is a problem with my arithmetic. As this change took place over 50 years not 1, it should be nearer 250,000 years not 5,000. Mea Culpa
Don't be a fucking tool. Under increasing forcing relative to the 1955 - 2012 period, OHC 0 - 2000m will rise by more than 25 x 10^22J in less than 57 years.
Whilst the angle of recent BBC reporting ahead of the new IPCC report may puzzle some, and certainly annoy others, maybe there is a clue in this old report by Roger Harrabin, David Shukman's colleague, Climate sceptics rally to expose 'myth' following a visit to a Heartland Institute shindig. Now we know where the 'contamination' came from.
Last evenings report by Shukman Man-made climate change causes 'even more certain' which includes several attempts at emphasising 'uncertainties' and even brought up that old chestnut about the last IPCC report's error with a date for melting glaciers - without describing what that error was and how it was a mere typo. That, in a word, is dishonest. It also ignores the fact that total loss of some such glaciers within the foreseeable future is going to be catastrophic, not least for those living downstream of the run off who rely upon this for their very living.
In short the BBC is still being dishonest and cavalier about the future of civilisation. Not quite in the same ball park as those rags that RedNoise appears to feed from The Daily Fail, Torygraph, etc.
SunKrank with your #19, you are sick, ask Boorish about his med's, you need some too.
Assuming without question the benefit of having, say, Innamincka undergo something in the way of a botanical boom, and, utilising your patented technique of expressing no skepticism whatsoever over the result of any single paper whose conclusions you feel you can bend to advantage – whereas thousands of papers saying much the same thing is a travesty of science, apparently, and calls forth the most passionate of principled denunciations – please enlighten as as to: one, how eternal this situation may or may not be; two, how geographically confined; three, how we can know with confidence that the associated ongoing rise in temperatures – and perhaps declines in rainfall – cannot overwhelm any benefit, and; three, since I assume, opportunistic mealy-mouthed hand-wringing notwithstanding, you don’t give a shit about the welfare of the Eyrean Grass-wren, whether the negative implications of temperature rise for humanity as a whole may be safely assumed to have been completely overwhelmed by it?
It would seem that Josh and Montford have excelled themselves again, no I refuse to link to the Cardinal's Puff piece, suffice to say that Curry has pickled herself again and quotes some hack at the BBC and...and...and.... - all the sound of desperation from these shills, Curry is really 'out' now, no doubt about it.
If you really wish to link to Bishop Shill then see the Hank_ (familiar to we who have been to Desmog) reply here:
Rednoise, I have a feeling you are profoundly confused about something. Rather than waste further time on this, here is what I am thinking of when quoting the ~25 x 10^22J figure above:
Levitus et al. (2012):
We provide updated estimates of the change of ocean heat content and the thermosteric component of sea level change of the 0–700 and 0–2000 m layers of the World Ocean for 1955–2010. Our estimates are based on historical data not previously available, additional modern data, and bathythermograph data corrected for instrumental biases. We have also used Argo data corrected by the Argo DAC if available and used uncorrected Argo data if no corrections were available at the time we downloaded the Argo data. The heat content of the World Ocean for the 0–2000 m layer increased by 24.0 ± 1.9 × 10^22 J (±2S.E.) corresponding to a rate of 0.39 W m−2 (per unit area of the World Ocean) and a volume mean warming of 0.09°C. This warming corresponds to a rate of 0.27 W m−2 per unit area of earth's surface. The heat content of the World Ocean for the 0–700 m layer increased by 16.7 ± 1.6 × 10^22 J corresponding to a rate of 0.27 W m−2 (per unit area of the World Ocean) and a volume mean warming of 0.18°C. The World Ocean accounts for approximately 93% of the warming of the earth system that has occurred since 1955. The 700–2000 m ocean layer accounted for approximately one-third of the warming of the 0–2000 m layer of the World Ocean. The thermosteric component of sea level trend was 0.54 ± .05 mm yr−1 for the 0–2000 m layer and 0.41 ± .04 mm yr−1 for the 0–700 m layer of the World Ocean for 1955–2010.
Your increase in OHC over 57 years is 0.0002 of the total OHC.
So Skippy, you work out at that rate warming how long it would take to double total OHC. Can you manage that.
Give it a go.
Wake me up when you have done it, or its happened, whichever comes first.
Since Rednoise apparently thinks that the doubling of ocean heat content is somehow necessary before it raises concern, perhaps he could calculate what a doubling of heat content of the atmosphere would mean for surface temperatures. No need for a full atmospheric profile, just a very rough and simple model will do.
The rate of ocean heat uptake is modulating the rate of tropospheric (and so surface) temperature warming. A very slight increase in the rate of OHU has resulted in a brief slowdown in the rate of tropospheric/surface warming.
Given that the atmospheric fraction of CO2 is increasing and given that the concomitant radiative forcing is increasing then for the so-called hiatus to continue, ocean heat uptake will have to increase continuously from now on.
Exactly nobody thinks that can happen, so at some point fairly soon, OHU is going to fall slightly again and the strong surface warming trend will resume.
And then there is El Nino, steadily winding up to deliver massive amounts of energy back to the atmosphere in pulses. Remember 1998? A super EN that caused step change upward in GAT. Why won't that keep on happening as the century progresses? With a warmer ocean to tap for energy?
This is how physical climatology works, Rednoise. You live in a world of denial and evasion enabled and underpinned by pig-ignorance of the basics.
And so, as we few, we brave few, gather together here today on this auspicious occasion celebrating the publication of the master work of the renowned, nay, revered, railway engineer, Mr. Rajendra Pachauri. let us all form a circle, er, or a triangle as there's only three of us, and holding hands let us chant - AS LOUD AS WE CAN in order to drown out the snorts and sniggers of the unbelievers - our famous mantra:
Sigh. Once it's over the page it's as if it never was... So as the deniers repeat their projections, we have to repeat the facts:
Faith-based assertion is what deniers do, David. Science operates by hypothesis testing and falsification and any emergent scientific consensus arises only from scientific evidence and is *always* provisional.
Science is not a faith nor a cult, nor is it opinion. In very stark contrast, what deniers do is faith-based and cultish and entirely based on scientifically unsupported opinion.
The pseudo-sceptic discourse on sensitivity is a perfect example. The vast majority of the evidence points to a value for ECS/2xCO2 of around 3C. The lowball results so adamantly endorsed by “sceptics” are in fact rather problematic.
These so-called observationally-derived estimates (eg Otto et al. 2013) are based on short time-series subject to large uncertainties and include significant assumptions about aerosol negative forcing which have a major influence on their results. If you listen to what actual climate scientists are saying, you quickly grasp that these results are not considered robust. If you listen to “sceptics”, ECS *is* below 1.5C. Fact. End of.
Yes, that was most interesting. It would be nice if the various sock puppeteers here abandoned their dishonesty and simply posted under a single screen name. As the rest of us do.
Since Rednoise apparently thinks that the doubling of ocean heat content is somehow necessary before it raises concern, perhaps he could calculate what a doubling of heat content of the atmosphere would mean for surface temperatures.
Exactly the point I anticipated Redsock missing in my #23 above. The mouthbreathers wibbling about this are all talking about it through the frame of how many degrees of atmospheric warming a given amount of ocean warming would defray. The issue is exactly the opposite. Anyone here surprised the deniers now have to look through the wrong end of the telescope to avoid seeing the problem?
Just to clarify in case Redarse goes all literal on #52
5 x 10^22J in 1998 to 10.5 x 10^22J in 2012 (0-700m OHC)
and
5 x 10^22J in 1998 to 16 x 10^22J in 2012 (0-2000m OHC)
As a random aside, let me pre-empt any of the resident clowns claiming that wind and solar are not viable and are too expensive. Sorry, that's right in my wheelhouse, and you're wrongity-fucking-wrong. I see reference buildout projections every working day, and let me tell you -- the people that actually have a financial stake in this (i.e. energy companies) know which way the wind is blowing (double pun intended). Expect massive increases. The only thing that needs to happen is grid upgrades. Now if only this were a time in the world economy where a massive government investment in infrastructure would be a good idea...
I would be curious if rednose has calculated what temperature the oceans would be if total OHC were doubled. My guesstimate is they would scarce exist as liquid water as total OHC is energy required to raise sea water from 0K to approx. 277K.
Heh, luminous beauty asks the question for the ocean that I ask for the atmosphere. (On the atmosphere I'd settle for total energy required to raise each gaseous component from its lowest temperature in gaseous state to current temperature, in order to simplify the problem a bit. And then double that amount of energy and calculate the new temperature.)
Bet rednose doesn't touch either question with a bargepole. The answers are going to make him look ridiculous.
luminous beauty, what do you think would happen if OHC would quadrupled? Would sea level decrease or airborne CO2 fraction increase above 2000ppm??? Would this also have any influence on methane concentration???
Too late with the explanations and quips now LB. That little game is over. where were you when the great debunker Stu-pid needed a friend No one here at the time could provide the calculation.
,/i>I took a look at Motl's calculations. He isn't calculating total Ocean Heat Content at all. He is only calculating the energy to raise the average ocean temperature by 1K, i.e., Ocean Heat capacity. Doubling of which would, by definition, raise the average ocean temperature by 2K.
My calculations indicate that, were the energy required to raise the world's oceans by 1K added, instead, to the world's atmosphere it would raise the average temperature of the atmosphere by something on the order of a thousand degrees Kelvin.
Oh dear me, perusing the page above indicates that you all now realize that the piddly, minute, infinitesimal, microscopical and diminutive amount of temperature rise in the ocean have will do nothing.
Nickie, it looks like the new ipcc report is just a cover up of the failure for the co2 meme to manifest...
"The Global Warming Policy Foundation is criticising the IPCC for its deliberate attempt to obscure the reality of an ongoing temperature standstill and its failure to come clean about the failure of its models.
The IPCC has decided to discount the global warming standstill since 1997 as irrelevant and has deleted from its final document its original acknowledgement (in its 7 June draft) that climate models have failed to ’reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10-15 years.’
Not only has the IPCC failed to predict the ongoing temperature standstill, its climate models actually predicted accelerated warming due to the increase of CO2 emissions."
#79 "failure of the CO2 meme to manifest"....a nonsense construct, and a false claim.....yawn
The final draft indeed deletes that line and goes for nuance, observing that some models may over-estimate response to increased GHGs and other anthro forcings. The IPCC has not discounted, implicitly or explicitly, the 'global warming standstill' as 'irrelevant'....GW'PF' fantasy. Models in 2007 predicted accelerated warming over coming decades:as that period has not run, the GW'PF' will just have to hold its powder LOL. Fake assessment from a fake 'policy foundation, as a matter of course.
Frustration and despair notwithstanding, the result of a discussion with Karen could be a more polished game for his wranglers; and my understanding of AGW certainly benefits from the forthright clarity and measured responses of most contributors here. But that individual seems to be by turns deceitful, petty and intellectually gutless; without an ability for sincere human expression outside the mental constraint of his political, anger/fear shell. Can a sly old fart evolve into a gracious opponent? And isn't it a pity Tim is no longer able to set and moderate the agenda here?
From 1996-02I sat on UNCTAD UNFCCC helping set up IPCC)the goal/action then was to lower CO2e,restart the carbon cycle by replicating Nature by mass planting of that 2-6% of vegetation that sequesters CO2e (equivalent, such vegetation sequestration far more than CO2. E g Clover extracts r nitrogen from such sequestration along with a host of other elements! Albedo effect over the past 300years is the prime atmospheric heat build-up. Yes Industry has added serious gas emissions (de facto volcanoes) and yes they can capture these gases (some up 20,000 times of CO2. No report covers a well planned protocol to restart the carbon cycle back to deserts to grow soil and vegetation to not only capture CO2e but to grow food fodder and in time forestry (trees rice cotton most grains vegetables and grasses are a 100% source of CO2e and not a sink)
So Smithsonian can under its charter lead teach and actual the lowering CO2e. The sad fact is the revolving doors of government’s attending a UN assembly is the problem cause effect and the simple solution are not applied. Under UNFCCC 98 carbon trading will fund those nation capable of lowering CO2e.Should you have time view Robert Vincin Google and wwwemissiontraders.com.au to study how we are implementing CO2e sinks growing soil food fodder into deserts and retarding albedo. God help the historians of tomorrow if we don’t all jointly restore the baseline assets of man and all living mater. The assets soil-water-vegetation-atmosphere, all else (all) are but commodities.
Australia stands to be the CO2e sink for the develope world nation especially EU who have no way to lower CO2e. UNFCCC is a high cash flow "industry addressing every issues the government "promised to fix" jobs restore the land and create 1 million jobs. With just a fraction of lateral thinking Australia can be the global sink funded by CO2e trading and become the most famed leader of the millennium
If you are keen to spend a short time to learn and lead in r estoring the baseline assets and your government supports climate change BAU until we have clean energy setion of lateral and me a message! Robert Vincin.
Not very con Vincin, but it is interesting that you post your spam in here, these bums in here have not done anything to cut their co2 emissions, so why would they start now?
"Not very con Vincin, but it is interesting that you post your spam in here"
Its SPAM to Karen because she's intellectually and academically illiterate and has not got a clue about the emerging field of ecological economics. You see Vincin, Karen is the kind of person who makes up the ranks of the anti-environmental 'denier' amongst the general public. Essentially, most of them have no relevant educational background in anything remotely scientific, and instead base their views on their libertarian political beliefs. What is even more embarrassing is the ritual humiliation they endure when they espouse their beliefs,. only they are so patently stupid they cannot see it. Karen's comment on the PR industry and her quip about ecosystem services being proxies for 'farming' are cases in point. Both comments are so patently ignorant that it is actually difficult to counter them. I would have to denigrate myself by going into a sub-benthic level of discourse. In other words, both comments reveal a completely blank slate in Karens' brain. Hence why she is completely incapable of seeing how profoundly vacuous she is.
Actually, Vincin's post captures the idea of internalizing the costs of burning fossil fuels in terms of costs to the natural and material economies. As I have said many times, and most Deltoid commentators understand it perfectly well (Boris, Karen, Luke et al. notwithstanding), the ecological costs of extracting, refining, transporting and using fossil fuels are externalized. Hence they are borne on the public who have little choice but to accept them. As we already know, as a result of a range of anthropogenic processes, humans are simpifying natural systems and in turn these are rebouding on the material economy whose productivity and efficiency is underpinned by the material economy, Vincin's approach and that of steady-state economists - Daly, Viedermann, Gowdy, Heal and many others - is feasible and at least addresses this important point. Most importantly, it acknowledges the utter dependence of human society on ecological services.
The IPCC reunion took place in the Brewery of Stockholm, Torkelstreet (translated to English: where ethanol addicts live) and Thomas Stocker admitted that there are still many climatology questions open and that global temperature did not rise since 15 years.
BBD, you should learn that the results of paleoclimatology are extremely uncertain with huge error margins and extremely limited data (a few trees in Russia e.g., very few ice cores, some sediments from the US east coast).
Oh and Boris, just while you're charging up those chicken farts, be aware that half a dozen lines on a blog by an anonymous though certified loony does not dismiss an entire field of science.
Funnily enough the IPCC report says that surface temperature has risen over the last 15 years... Due to natural variability,
trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in
general reflect long-term climate trends. As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to +0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade)5
.
That 5 refers to a footnote... Trends for 15-year periods starting in 1995, 1996, and 1997 are 0.13 [0.02 to 0.24], 0.14 [0.03 to 0.24], 0.07 [–0.02 to 0.18] °C per decade, respectively.
The 1997-98 El Nino had two peaks: August/Sept.1997 and Feb/March 1998 which clearly have had an effect on the 15 year trends starting in those years. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/
It really shouldn't come as any surprise what they'll sink to given the disinfo campaign in play at the moment, but I've seen one anonymous commenter on The Guardian comments claim the 'hiatus' was "admitted" in the June draft of AR5 but deleted from the official release. Bit like the MWP all over again.
"Diagnosis: paradigm paralysis, caused by motivated reasoning, oversimplification, and consensus seeking; worsened and made permanent by a vicious positive feedback effect at the climate science-policy interface."
"Motivated reasoning, oversimplification and consensus seeking" pretty much sums up Curry's little sandpit of smugness, the current party line at her boardinghouse is a consensual 'we don't know enough/post-normal science/is broken/ paranoic aggression and mutual pleasuring.. Dr.Curry is a minor curiosity who has added not a skerrick to 'the debate'.
"The diagnosis of paradigm paralysis seems fatal in the case of the IPCC, given the widespread nature of the infection and intrinsic motivated reasoning. We need to put down the IPCC as soon as possible – not to protect the patient who seems to be thriving in its own little cocoon, but for the sake of the rest of us whom it is trying to infect with its disease. Fortunately much of the population seems to be immune, but some governments seem highly susceptible to the disease. However, the precautionary principle demands that we not take any risks here, and hence the IPCC should be put down."
I see the usual suspects beginning to try and dominate Deltoid again with their farcical musings.
Curry? IMHO she is an embittered, egotistical old woman who thinks that she and she alone possesses some magical wisdom that has mysteriously eluded the rank-and-file of the climate science community. Now that she has become the pin-up girl for the deniers, she craves the attention being heaped on her and is soaking it up, big time. Some of her posts are indeed vile - like putting up cartoons from Josh smearing Michael Mann. And to think she allegedly set up her blog under the guise of 'bridging dialogue between scientists on both sides of the climate science debate' a few years ago. That was never the intention, clearly. It was instead all about promoting 'me, myself and I'. Now her ego has swelled with the adulation heaped upon her, she's metaphorically come out of the closet.
Her nauseating quote exhibits clear signs of a pathological condition I allude to above. Indeed, the disease, if she could get it through he ego-soaked brain, is that humans have not evolved to respond to what we perceive as gradual threats to our well-being and survival. Instead, we can respond to instantaneous threats, such as the effects of weather-related calamities, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and, for our evolutionary progenitors, a bear at the mouth of a cave or a hungry saber toothed cat prowling the grasslands. But we are not evolutionarily programmed to respond to what, in geological terms, is rapid but within the context of a human life time is very slow or gradual. We know that biodiversity was unable to track past changes in climate regimes that were a fraction of what has been observed since the 1980s. And that was when the planet's ecosystems were more-or-less intact, and had not been slashed-and-burned, clear-cut, and otherwise simplified in a myriad of other ways by one of its evolved inhabitants.
If Curry could get it through her thick head, the real disease is the scale of the human enterprise and how this is reducing the planet's ability to sustain mankind. Climate change is one of the major symptoms of this disease. Reading her latest drivel makes me realize just how deep in the hole we currently are. Speaking as a fellow scientist with professional credentials every bit as good as hers, I can say honestly say that I am relived that she is an outlier. Still, that being said, the outliers are being given veritable megaphones by vested interests to spread their gospels of disinformation. Behind Curry there are few qualified scientists who would dare write such utter garbage as she does and who support here. But these few are promoted endlessly by think tanks, public relations industries and lobbyists on the corporate payroll. The infinitely larger group of scientists on the other side are virtually invisible, with the exception of a few prominent names.
Epic! The self-proclaimed Grand high poohbah of all things scientific doesn't know the difference between...no wait, asserts there is no difference between... heat and temperature.
“The diagnosis of paradigm paralysis seems fatal in the case of the IPCC, given the widespread nature of the infection and intrinsic motivated reasoning.
Aha yes. Judith Curry?
Gulp, with every passing post she coulkd be one of those considered here:
Visit the Postmodernism Generator. It is a literally infinite source of randomly generated syntactically correct nonsense, distinguishable from the real thing only in being more fun to read. You could generate thousands of papers per day, each one unique and ready for publication, complete with numbered endnotes. Manuscripts should be submitted to the 'Editorial Collective' of Social Text, double-spaced and in triplicate.
You should read in its entirety 'The Devil's Chaplin' collection of essays by prominent scientists and thinkers with introductory material by RD. If you did then you would be equipped with more BS filters whilst reading such trite nonsense as is being increasingly pushed by aunt Judy & Co..
However, the precautionary principle demands that we not take any risks here, and hence the IPCC should be put down.”
Trust Curry to twist even a simple concept like the precautionary principle. She really is an intellectual lightweight.
Given that we have only one planet and that we are causing major changes in its biosphere with centuries more future changes already loaded, the principle dictates that we stop adding to those changes immediately.
Curry's solution is that we should not hear any more about the problems we're busily manufacturing. The only risk that concerns her is to Business As Usual.
NO TEMPERATURE INCREASE IS NO WARMING, FUCKWITS!!!!
Wrong-o! You need to think about physical climatology as energy fluxes entering, moving around within and leaving the climate system or you will remain hopelessly wrong and hopelessly confused!
Sort out your basic definitions and concepts before further comments on this topic!
David Duff/Rednoise continues to engage in data denial I see. Well, when the data contradicts your politics, that's all you can do!
Deny! Deny! Deny!
Can we stop the stupid fucking nonsense about temperature vs heat content now please? Those of us who understand the amount of energy involved in raising the 0 - 2000m ocean layer by 0.09 (not 0.06C) are really, really fed up with the childish fucking around with units to make it seem a small matter.
Those of you who still don't understand the trick here can now fuck off. The rest of you are just lying with numbers and you know that we know what you are doing, so you can fuck off too.
Let's move on. Make an effort, you lazy, tedious bastards. Please find something new to lie about.
Historically, there are several scientific approaches to the explanation of temperature: the classical thermodynamic description based on macroscopic empirical variables that can be measured in a laboratory; the kinetic theory of gases which relates the macroscopic description to the probability distribution of the energy of motion of gas particles; and a microscopic explanation based on statistical physics and quantum mechanics. In addition, rigorous and purely mathematical treatments have provided an axiomatic approach to classical thermodynamics and temperature.[55] Statistical physics provides a deeper understanding by describing the atomic behavior of matter, and derives macroscopic properties from statistical averages of microscopic states, including both classical and quantum states. In the fundamental physical description, using natural units, temperature may be measured directly in units of energy. However, in the practical systems of measurement for science, technology, and commerce, such as the modern metric system of units, the macroscopic and the microscopic descriptions are interrelated by the Boltzmann constant, a proportionality factor that scales temperature to the microscopic mean kinetic energy.
The microscopic description in statistical mechanics is based on a model that analyzes a system into its fundamental particles of matter or into a set of classical or quantum-mechanical oscillators and considers the system as a statistical ensemble of microstates. As a collection of classical material particles, temperature is a measure of the mean energy of motion, called kinetic energy, of the particles, whether in solids, liquids, gases, or plasmas. The kinetic energy, a concept of classical mechanics, is half the mass of a particle times its speed squared. In this mechanical interpretation of thermal motion, the kinetic energies of material particles may reside in the velocity of the particles of their translational or vibrational motion or in the inertia of their rotational modes. In monoatomic perfect gases and, approximately, in most gases, temperature is a measure of the mean particle kinetic energy. It also determines the probability distribution function of the energy. In condensed matter, and particularly in solids, this purely mechanical description is often less useful and the oscillator model provides a better description to account for quantum mechanical phenomena. Temperature determines the statistical occupation of the microstates of the ensemble. The microscopic definition of temperature is only meaningful in the thermodynamic limit, meaning for large ensembles of states or particles, to fulfill the requirements of the statistical model.
In the context of thermodynamics, the kinetic energy is also referred to as thermal energy. The thermal energy may be partitioned into independent components attributed to the degrees of freedom of the particles or to the modes of oscillators in a thermodynamic system. In general, the number of these degrees of freedom that are available for the equipartitioning of energy depend on the temperature, i.e. the energy region of the interactions under consideration. For solids, the thermal energy is associated primarily with the vibrations of its atoms or molecules about their equilibrium position. In an ideal monatomic gas, the kinetic energy is found exclusively in the purely translational motions of the particles. In other systems, vibrational and rotational motions also contribute degrees of freedom.
Let's begin your education in physical climatology.
Climate basic #1:
The troposphere ≠ the climate system.
Your obsession with surface/tropospheric temperature is misplaced. It accounts for only a small fraction of the climate system as a whole. Your "analysis" is rubbish and your conclusions are wrong.
And what chek said. We have waited too long for the chicken dance and farted arrangement of Waltzing Matilda. Even Mrs BBD has expressed an interest in seeing this, so get on down and, ahem, blow us all away!
maybe Curry will also be the recipient of a Nobel prize pin, made of gold recovered from a physics experiment, by some Emeritus Professor of Physics at some university.
Boorish, all that C&P verbiage at #28 and are you still any the wiser as to how temperature alone dose not quantify how much heat there is in a system?
Explain in your own words.
Then answer the question re satellite temperature measurement.
I know, you CAGW leper islanders HATE thermometers, especially those which measure temperatures 2m above the surface (READ the IPCC Reports: you Doltoid idiots). because these temperature measurement devies don't show what the insane catastrophists WANT to see.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! They hate thermometers, the CAGW fuckwits here
Those of us who understand the amount of energy involved in raising the 0 – 2000m ocean layer OHC by 0.02% are really, really fed up with the chicken little fucking around with units to make it seem a large matter in order to raise alarm
No, Rednoise, you are one of the fuckwitted buffoons who doesn't understand the basic physics. In spite of repeated explanations you have failed to grasp the topic, which is why it is now time for you to fuck off. Your continued, loud advertisement of your own essential stupidity is both redundant and tedious.
Notice how the farting chicken completely blanked #30?
Because #30 is the end of the line for the dishonest "no warming since..." claim. It's the end of the line for those who's understanding of the climate system is too limited to discuss the effects of a sustained radiative balance, let alone comprehend the way they manifest within the climate system as a whole.
In summary, #30 is the end of the line for clueless, posturing, denier buffoons.
Redarse, did you notice the NOAA figures shown previously for the energy in the oceans in the year of the super atmospheric warming phase of ENSO in1998 and the current energy stored
What do you make of that for when the next warming phase arrives - or hasn't Montford told you what to think yet?
von Storch much admired by some in the 'peanut gallery' here has been pronouncing outside of the box and in that latest RC IPCC thread there are two very good rebuttals of Storch.
The first comment is by one similar to those who are represented by one late departed from here, Cool Hand though he was:
von Storch’s contention is highly problematic because he doesn’t bother to even give enough data that his study could be replicated or even enough that his probabilistic reasoning could be tested.
Do you see, von Storch is working outside of the box.
It would be instructive for most of our peanut gallery to read through more articles, and comments, at RC for then, if their brains aren't too far gone, they will get a feeling for how ridiculous their little circle-jerks are.
Very good, you are making it easy for them. All they need now is to find out the mass of the atmosphere and of the water in the oceans. There are also limnic (spell doesn't like that one) systems and a few other complications but a ball-park figure would give them a clues as to why SinKrank is toast.
von Storch’s contention is highly problematic because he doesn’t bother to even give enough data that his study could be replicated or even enough that his probabilistic reasoning could be tested. There are many ways in which one could phrase the problem that would yield dramatically different answers:
1)What is the probability that a 15 year interval yields no significant rise? The probability here might in fact be low.
2)What is that probability that some 15 year interval selected within a 50 year window would yield no significant rise? The probability here would be substantially higher.
3)What is the probability of a 15 year interval beginning with a huge-assed El Nino and ending with two good-sized La Ninas would yield an insignificant rise? The probability here would be damn near close to 1.
The significance of the event which the denialists trumpet as their one solid piece of evidence is really only evidence of their delusion.
I would especially like to draw certain commenters attention to Ray Ladbury's (3):
<blockquote<3)What is the probability of a 15 year interval beginning with a huge-assed El Nino and ending with two good-sized La Ninas would yield an insignificant rise? The probability here would be damn near close to 1.
Meanwhile, energy continues to accumulate in the climate system as expected. See #30 #40 and #41 above.
3)What is the probability of a 15 year interval beginning with a huge-assed El Nino and ending with two good-sized La Ninas would yield an insignificant rise? The probability here would be damn near close to 1.
That comment by Moose made me think of Bill O'Rielly immediately but I drew back from making such an obvious comparison and now somebody has done it for me.
The muppets here just don't realise how aware of the denial machine and those engaged in such we are, and have been aware for so long. The muppets show a remarkable aptitude (sarc') for knowing both climates science and the history of its denial. Good at self awareness too (more sarc').
I think that the FreddyKai puppeteer is a Poe. A sick one, and perhaps an unintentional one, but a Poe nonethless.
At A Few Things Ill-considered he apparates as a creationist on the evolution threads; when the subject is climate he focuses on that. I've tried a few times to lure out the Creationsit here but he seems uncharacteristically uninterested - his game seems to be to play to the audience and not actually to his "beliefs".
I think that this sicko simply needs the attention, the response. He may or may not believe the tripe he pushes (although it would be disturbing if someone really was that stupid) but the important thing for him is to get the replies.
"GSW, I believe Curry is a good candidate for a Nobel Price, in climate or peace"
Now there's a comical slip up from dumb ol' Olaus if ever there was one. A Nobel PRICE. Sure, I'll bet Curry would charge the think tanks a high price for her services as a 'qualified' shill. On this basis she'd sure merit a Nobel 'Price'.
Here is the full AR5 on September 30, as announced by the IPCC:
€$£££$£¥¥$££££
Technical Summary
Introduction
Observations: Atmosphere and Surface
Observations: Ocean
Observations: Cryosphere
Information from Paleoclimate Archives
Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles
Clouds and Aerosols
Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing
Evaluation of Climate Models
Detection and Attribution of Climate Change: from Global to Regional
Near-term Climate Change: Projections and Predictability
Long-term Climate Change: Projections, Commitments and Irreversibility
Sea Level Change
Climate Phenomena and their Relevance for Future Regional Climate Change
Annex I: Atlas of Global and Regional Climate Projections
Annex II: Glossary
Annex III: Acronyms and Regional Abbreviations
Annex IV: List of Authors
Annex V: List of Reviewers
£$£¥£$£¥¥$£¥£££
Just a list of headlines without any further information.
YOU ARE A NASTY TWERP, FULL OF COMLEXES OF MINORITY AND INCREDIBLE HATRED TO DECENT SCIENTISTS.
“GSW, I believe Curry is a good candidate for a Nobel Price, in climate or peace”
Now there’s a comical slip up from dumb ol’ Olaus if ever there was one. A Nobel PRICE. Sure, I’ll bet Curry would charge the think tanks a high price for her services as a ‘qualified’ shill. On this basis she’d sure merit a Nobel ‘Price’.
In addition, twerp BBD is unable to grasp that THE ONLY measure that counts regarding post-normal "climatology" IS:
MEAN GLOBAL TEMPERATURE 2 METERS ABOVE THE SURFACE!!
Without a mean global temperature the moron bollocks about "climate change", "sustainability", 'biodiversity" and all the other shitty crap from mentally disabled eco fundamentalists would not exist in public awareness and be completely irrelevant.
BUT, BBD IS BY FAR TOO STUPID TO CATCH THIS WITH HIS SPOILED GREEN COMMUNIST BRAIN WHICH HATES THE ECONOMY AND GENEREL WELFARE
Bernard:
You are absolutely on the money. The Socktroll is a not-very-bright-but-IT-literate basement-dweller with what used to be called narcissistic personality disorder, but has now been recoded. Neither psychotropic medication nor psychotherapy are of much use, and most "treatment" is involuntary, consisting of banging them up in penal systems and forensic institutions after their actions cross to many lines (eg Breivik).
These people are usually too stupid and/or detectible to end up in positions where the truly psychopathic narcissists wreak their havoc (mainly large corporations, religions/cults & the odd nation state), so the lesser NPDs tend to ply their pathology on blogs such as WTFUWT & Bishop Shill - or here. In the absence of a moderator, the only thing to do is ignore them completely and wait for their internal emptiness to look elsewhere for new victims.
rehombat, are you sure about your "psychiatric" diagnosis about the barcusstuc derangements of the CAGW leper islanders here, as you have admitted to be only a venereal disease "doctor". Therefore you are maybe a specialist for syphilis or gonorrhea but not for other shit. Therefore you are a degusting pre-clinical shit twerp full of left eco ideology crap.
Spam, on the other hand, doesn't have the mental equipment necessary for a personality disorder, let alone a narcissistic one. It's just a cheap & nasty pseudo bot for Randroid propaganda, which aspires to be mistaken for a real pre-pubescent Vally Girl (a la the Blessed Francisco Zappa & the Mothers). Best to ignore, 'cause it's as useful as a roomful of Toady Rabbott's ministers/Murdoch Hacks.
The global warming ‘pause’ has now lasted for almost 17 years and shows no sign of ending – despite the unexplained failure of climate scientists’ computer models to predict it.
In 2009, Professor Phil Jones, head of the East Anglia University Climatic Research Unit, said in a leaked ‘Climategate’ email: ‘Bottom line: the no upward trend has to continue for a total of 15 years before our lies are disproven.’
Heck, that's a laugh coming form you, Karen, you nitwit. Talk about pot, kettle, black. You've been confabulating weather and climate ever since you arrived here, as evidenced by many of your posts. And you still don't remotely understand the relationship between scale in terms of a geology and a human lifetime.
I think most of us here on this blog have had it up to here with your willful ignorance and Boris' psychopathic outbursts. Its time that you were both banned from here.
The global warming ‘pause’ has now lasted for almost 17 years and shows no sign of ending...
...says Karen after posting a graph showing a slight cooling trend since 2001.
Arithmetic. How the fuck does it work?
(And never mind the graphs that showed Karen it has been warming over the last 17 years. Karen will simply pretend they don't exist and Karen definitely didn't see them, because Karen's purpose here is to disseminate lies.)
you are a spendid example of a typical CAGW scientology church member with a rather weird and pervert sense of "humour"!
It is really very revealing of the totally fanatic and low-intellect mental state of the warming lunatics that they lack completely any sense of humour and wit. These poor fuckwit sausages are just stubbornly fanatic, completely devoid of any relevant knowledge and of a disgustingly primitive, mouth-foul language which is a shame for civilized citizens.
Lotharsson, please allow me to politely tell you that are an absolutely terribly stinking super asshole among your green eco fundamentalist warming twerps.
All now: It's always Lotharsson's farts which smell worst ....
Now, poor Lotharsson, you as somebody devoid of any significant skills and physical attractiveness (it's always masturbation) you can piss off and try to lead a decent life, you fuckwitting twerp
All now: It's always Lotharsson's farts which smell worst ....
All now: It's always Lotharsson's farts which smell worst ....
All now: It's always Lotharsson's farts which smell worst ....
Your rank obnoxiousness on Deltoid will not be lasting much longer. Enjoy being the slimeball that you are while time lasts. I have no idea from under which rock you crawled but let us hope you can be put back under there - indefinitely. Congratulations for being the most vile, disgusting idiotic person I have yet encountered on the internet. Its people like you that make me realize what a sorry predicament our species is in. If you are an example of hominid evolution representing a metaphoric 'pinnacle', then no wonder humanity probably won't survive more than a century or two more. Thankfully, in my scientific career you are found in the primordial ooze of intellectual discourse. In other words, you are the bottom feeder among bottom feeders.
you secondhand car dealer and vacuum cleaner seller,
I have never met in my entire life such a disgustinglyvstinking over-arrogant fuckng arselick who you are who erroneously thinks that he is something special on the one hand and is at the same time such an ugly loser and underperformer.
All now: Also Harvey is a stinking arselick !
All now: Also Harvey is a stinking arselick !
All now: Also Harvey is a stinking arselick !
I am sure you fuckwit will soon be banned as you are a shame even for your leper island brothers, you fuckn asshole
All again now: Also Harvey is a stinking arselick ! All again and again now: Also Harvey is a stinking arselick !
2. The oceans are supposedly 0.06 C warmer than 50 years ago (but we can’t really measure the global ocean temperature to a hundreth of a degree).
The first point of deception is that temperature is measured in degrees, but the Climate-change Industry always report ocean temperatures in Joules. This hides the obvious problem — we just can’t measure the global ocean temperature that accurately.
Before 2003 there is only sparse irregular measurements with everything from buckets off boats to thermometers fired into the water and usually without pressure sensors (we estimated how deep they were from how long they’d been falling…not much room for precision there). Much of the ocean wasn’t covered, and there were almost no readings below 700m (the average depth of oceans is 4km).
We’ve only had decent measurements of the ocean since mid-2003 when the ARGO system started. But even these measurements are considerably less certain than often claimed, and they didn’t find the missing energy anyway (see point 4).
FrankD I should have know better than clink that 'song' link at #80. That one started doing the rounds at the back end of 1970 as we were exiting the Med' on our way home after many exercises in that sea and the Arctic before that. Those in charge of 'light entertainment' on the carrier, that is as a rest from deck prangs and other excitements such as colliding with the Russian navy, were playing that with monotonous regularity. Having got ashore on Majorca we thought we had escaped - fat chance, the first 'watering hole' we visited were playing it end over end'. Aaaaargh!
Here is freddy/Boris/Kai/BrokenNeck's other song. Kai eh! Not a Kai A??????? by any chance? I used to know one of those who was clever with bits and bytes but who went rogue about everything else in life. Teletext MODE mean anything to you?
RedNoise, you really need to brush up on a few physics things for then reading this:
The first point of deception is that temperature is measured in degrees, but the Climate-change Industry always report ocean temperatures in Joules.
you would understand that Jo Nova is another idjit who does not understand that TEMPERATURE is not HEAT!
Sheesh, you plonker, you only have to follow this thread from early on to have realised that and also that SunKrank still doesn't despite many attempts at enlightenment.
Now that one cockup by Nova should tell you all you need to know, she is about on the same level as Joe Bastardi and he adopted loony tunes long ago.
Agreed, its probably a typo and should have read:
"but the Climate-change Industry always report ocean heat content in joules"
More scary.
There are a few spelling mistakes as well, unless you Aussies are developing your own languge like the Yanks.
But the heat is still missing and there is lots to explain.
Why not go over and get stuck in. Put her right.
Murdoch's Australian operations lose $350 million;
These are trying times for bonafide journalism, too, which is bad news for us all, but 'bad news' sums up News Corp, and the sinking of the Murdochracy is impossible to lament (and notably Fairfax, a real news organization, suffered a significantly smaller decline!)
Just catching up on Q&A with David Suzuki.
The first questioner claims something like there was no warming since 1998, and then when asked where he got his data claimed that all four major (temperature) data sets showed "a 17 year flat trend", despite the fact that 1998 is ~15 years ago rather than 17.
All four show a 17 year flat trend? What do you think?
Tony Jones then repeats the "1998" claim. Shame he knows this is a common claim but hasn't even done the basic homework to fact check it. Also a shame that David wasn't better prepared to point out that it's false and also fallacious even if it wasn't false - but then, as he points out, he's not a climatologist so why are they trying to dispute it with him?
The second guy is a professor of environmental science or some such (possibly the same Prof. Stewart Franks who is sometimes quoted in the media as a contrarian of sorts), and he deliberately conflates "scientists" with "climatologists" even after being called on it. And then he reveals that he doesn't understand how to evaluate climate models - comparing observations over periods too short for climatic signals to be observed, and incorrectly expecting models to match the realised noise in the signal.
And then he tries to argue that the only question is whether CO2 will have a catastrophic effect or not (a black and white fallacy, but at least admitting that CO2 is a greenhouse gas), and then falsely implies that the answer to this question is based purely on models which he's tried to discredit on mistaken grounds.
Quite a dishonest start for the skeptics.
Lotharsson,
No more dishonest than the display put on by the GOP talking heads described as The Five Craziest Arguments At Wednesday’s Climate Hearing where McKinley made this astonishing statement, amongst others:
These Karenski level arguments can be viewed here if you have the stomach.
More on that hearing here:
Moniz, McCarthy Fight Off Climate Change Deniers At House Hearing
Why did this blog so degenerate over time that non-scientists like Lotharsson, BBD, Adelady, Lionel, Bernard, Harvey, Marco etc. are allowed to excrement their ideological asshole bullshit?
Strewth, the BBC are really beginning to annoy with their 'balanced' (???) climate with the latest on the 1800 (six o'clock) News this evening 23.8.2013 coverage where they go through the reasons why 'warming has paused' only to bail it on telling how scientists do know that the oceans are warming and that it is understood why surface temperatures have not risen as fast (no pause in reality) as some suggested.
David Shukman did the business in slaloming around evidence, continuing with a warming has stalled and nobody really know why and splicing is a brief statement from, yes you have guessed it Professor Myles Allen, which was probably one small part of what the Professor said just to make sure. The baton was then passed on to none other than Andrew 'Bishop Hill' Montford aka Cardinal Puff and GWPF tool, to provide the take home point.
I am unable to link to this story, their web page is very coy about this news item but here is an earlier one from today
How can such an inoffensive looking little man like Montford be such a danger to society? Because he has not been exposed for what he is, yet, George, Dana and John Abraham.
So another round and your license is safe from the Tory axe BBC.
Where did I write that I was a non-scientists? Did you not catch the bit about an 'interesting' i.e. varied life.
As for the others well I know for a fact that Jeff is a working scientists and the others show definite signs of having more than a nodding acquaintance with the fields.
Now you, Boorish, OTOH well whenever you try it, it comes back at you. Are you not getting sick of the taste?
Gee, Boris, you really are a fruitcake. I did my PhD at Liverpool University in 1995, have worked at a research institute in Holland since 2000 and recently was appointed Visiting Endowed Professor in Amsterdam. I have 135 publications on the Web of Science and 3,200 citations of my work there (h factor of 32). If that doesn't make me a scientist, then please tell me your definition. And while you are at it, I'd love to know your day job. That must be amusing!
#1
But Kai, you are a lying, sock-puppeting nutter! You aren't a fucking scientist - you aren't even a complete human being! You don't have any basis for sneering at others here. We all know hugely more than you do, and none of us are clinically insane.
So off you go and kill yourself!
OK some more BBC today but with more nuance:
Human role in warming 'more certain' - UN climate chief
and
Five key questions about climate facing the IPCC .
Have not found the Shukman at 18:00 as yet.
Rajendra Pachauri, a railway engineer from India who governs the climate scientology church, admitted recently:
"There’s definitely an increase in our belief that climate change is taking place and that human beings are responsible,”
AHA AHA, AN INCREASE IN THEIR BELIEF!!!!!
IS THERE A MEASURE OF THE BELIEF INCREASE?????
PACHAURI MOST EVIDENTLY ADMITS THAT THERE IS A BELIEF THAT CLIMATE CHANGE TAKES PLACE, AND THAT THE BELIEF IS INCREASING!!!!! VERY INTERESTING STATEMENT!!!!!!!
A belief based on a consensus of the evidence, you fuckwit.
Do you talk to Jesus by the way? Are there voices in your head telling you things? Do you have visions?
Do you ever imagine harming people?
#6 Lionel A
I am glad I missed the segment with Montford. What goes through the minds of the Tristrams who organise this offal? Really, what?
Who decided to grub up the Sticky Bishop? Who thought it would be a good idea to invite comment from a devious, lying, unqualified shill for the denial machine? Which unspeakable, cretinous little turd did that? Sometimes the smug fucking stupidity of these morons makes me see red.
To better understand CAGW alarmists wishi washi
here some useful infos:
£$£¥¥$£¥¥££¥£
The language of climate
The IPCC has evolved a complicated way of communicating scientific certainty and confidence in a finding:
very unlikely - 0-10%
unlikely - 10-33%
likely as not - 33-66%
likely - 66-100%
very likely - 90-100%
Extremely likely - 95-100%
Virtually certain - 99-100%
Confidence is also expressed as very low, low, medium, high and very high.
Evidence can can be limited, medium or robust.
And levels of agreement can be low, medium or high
£$££¥£$£¥¥
I am virtually certain that my belief that climate change is robustly non-existent is true.
BBD shut up you criminal, you dared above to incite somebody to kill himself. How far are you asshole willing to go in your hatred and will for physical harm to your superior opponents? You are a monster and human crap!
BBD fuckwit
Rajendra from India did NOT SAY: "A belief based on a consensus of the evidence, you fuckwit."
THIS IS YOUR EXAGGERATED INVENTION. ADMIT FUCKWIT
You are too stupid to understand what Pachauri is talking about. You are a moron. Belief in the sense he used it, meaning "confidence in scientific knowledge" arises from scientific evidence. This has never been stronger.
* * *
Do you talk to Jesus? Are there voices in your head telling you things? Do you have visions?
Do you ever imagine harming people? Do you?
Are you a racist as well as a lunatic and a fuckwit?
It sounds very much to me as though you have a problem with Pachauri's ethnicity. I think you are a racist scumbag, Kai.
Tell me about *your* beliefs, Kai. Tell me about Jesus, and brown people, and Hell, and damnation.
Do you have fantasies about hurting people, Kai?
Boris, stop playing at being insane.
Put that .38 in your mouth and just do it.
Show some fucking commitment for once in your pathetic life.
What town are you living in Boris?
I need to check the news reports for the One Less Fuckwit In The World party I intend to organise once the good news of your demise breaks.
They say those .38's are mighty tasty especially right after discharging a shell.
Btw, BBD is on the moderate wing of Denier Fuckwits and What To Do With Them tendency. My tendency is somewhat more fundamental.
From the sounds of the "progress" report Bernard gave about Suzuki's Q&A appearance, I'm glad I took a good book to bed early last night.
Looks like that which is known as 'Boris/Kai/Freddy etc. here has morphed into >a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/04/the-answer-is-blo…">Olaf at Real Climate
The frothometer never lies.
Ho hum
Looks like that which is known as ‘Boris/Kai/Freddy etc. here has morphed into Olaf at Real Climate
The fruitcake frothometer never lies.
Here's a challenge for you. Go back one, two, three four and five years and show how "http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/09/08/september-2013-open-thread/c…" were less able back then to post, and in just what way Deltoid has degenerated.
I'll give you a clue to deranged fool, it's degenerated in the opposite way to that which you appear to believe.
Tim,
The piece you and Quiggin did for Prospect on Rachel Carson -- is it available in the longer version anywhere on the net?
Thanks.
Oh great. How many more troll flashbacks are we going to get here?
@chek: Olaf, Boris, Olaus, it all gets laughable. The true Heartland shills mostly know better than to actually engage, so I truly am picturing Alex Jones, Lord Monckton and three schizophrenics in their basements doing all the frothing.
Does anybody of the uninformed Doltoids here (BBD, chek etc.) know why the fuck the holy AGW church asserts (therefore = logical fallacy according to climate fuckwit BBD) that earths's albedo is 0.3??
Why should it be 0.3 and how is this value justified based on measurements in reality?? Answer required, fuckwits
Bernard, Boris AKA Freddy and Berendaneke, will soon be booted off of Deltoid. Watch this space. He'll then try and come back as another sock puppet, and that person will be dealt with as well and so on and so forth. The aim is to drive this foul nutcase away for good.
I hope so - this pathetic loon needs institutionalising before he hurts himself and/or others. I've written to request it, and the permanent sequestration of SpamKan, too.
Oh, thank you Willie :) OH my own thread :) :) :)
I promise to add all the counter arguments and peer reviewed literature in an easy to find format for people that use google :)
You must really love me Billie :-*
NOW STOP CARRYING ON LIKE A SOOKY BABY WITH A WET NAPPY !
Dishonest scum should be moderated. Sock puppeteers should be moderated. Previously moderated dishonest scum running a sock really should be moderated.
This means you, Sunspot.
Well, since there's virtually no peer-reviewed literature among the counter arguments you won't be pressed beyond your epsilon capacity, will you?
You're not likely to be missed. You're a tedious attention-seeking sad act who has demonstrated all too clearly that you don't even have a bright primary-school student's grasp of science.
You're perfectly representative of your tribe.
- There is no "holy AGW church", only scientific evidence and the scientific consensus arising from that evidence. Your first false claim.
- Since there is no "holy church" it cannot assert anything. Your second false claim.
- Science does not argue by assertion, but from evidence, therefore any claim that science "asserts" a value for albedo is false - and an argument by assertion.
- If you want to know more about the calculation of Earth's albedo, fuck off and find out. You do not come here and demand answers. You lunatic scum.
* * *
You have been very quiet about Jesus, your visions, the voices in your head, your racist bigotry, Hell & damnation and the age of the Earth.
Share your views.
#29 BBD, you know that I am not Mr Spot, this is only a pathetic and childish attempt to smear me. It won't work, Timmy would have checked my IP and investigated this lie long before you arrived on the scene, barnturd pushed Timmie privately about it long ago to no avail.
AND I know that you are absolutely shitting yourself about this http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/09/08/september-2013-open-thread/c…
tch tch tch
On the contrary, Sunny, I am virtually certain that you *are* Sunspot. I have some skill with textual analysis and the eponymous thread to play with. Your bad luck to run into me, I'm afraid.
IP is a very weak argument. I could spoof a dozen in the next ten minutes if I really had to. Or you might simply have moved, or changed ISP...
* * *
Re your failure to grasp basic physics, no, I'm not remotely troubled. It was hardly a surprise, after all. Adelady, myself and everybody else tried to explain the topic, but you were too stupid to understand.
" I am virtually certain that you *are* Sunspot."
I am 100% certain that you have doubts about the effects of co2, the evidence and the scientific consensus.......
Say what you like, Sunny, but you are nailed.
It is going to be a tough gig for the IPCC to convince policy makers and the population of the planet that the heat has been going into the ocean, when by all accounts the warming has stopped.....and the SST has been at a standstill...........
Quote of the Week:
A difficult question for the climate science community is, how is it that this broad community of researchers — full of bright and thoughtful people — allowed intolerant activists who make false claims to certainty to become the public face of the field? – Roger Pielke, Jr.
lol
#36 Sunspot
SSTs are not an indicator of OHC, especially not OHC at depth. A basic, but huge failure of comprehension.
#37
RPJr is arguing from assertion. There is no evidence whatsoever supporting his mischaracterisation of scientists as "activists" making "false claims". It is the crudest and most obvious framing.
In fact the only activist making false claims in this picture is RPJr.
Your fundamental problem (apart from an absolute inability to act in good faith) is that your comprehension is abysmal. Not only are you incapable of understanding the physical underpinnings of climate system processes, you cannot parse. You simply cannot understand what is written. This is yet another example: you don't see the fundamental inversion in RPJr's polemic. It all sails miles over your head.
I thought the maroon had run off because its service provider had shaped its access?
Clearly, it had actually merely run away until we'd all forgotten it's most recent self-soiling, and how stupid it is. That's not going to happen.
Sunspot.
You gave yourself away a long time ago with your peculiar punctuation spacings, your ellipsis manglings, your focus on the same issues in the guise of your separate socks, and your general usage of language. There were also the odd conversations between your socks at various coincident times, and the fact that you both have the same hit and run approach with no ability to synthesise information from primary sources.
Another peculiarity was that you continued to post at WTFUWT and other cesspits and reference conversations at Deltoid, but 'Karen' was the only sock active here at the time.
As for IP addresses, they are to some extent meaningless - they can be changed by anyone with a clue.
And for what it's worth, I note that you are still unable to answer with any substance my question from a few days ago:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/09/08/september-2013-open-thread/c…
Is the truth really such a big scary spider for you?
FIFY.
I guess you have trouble comprehending the graphs I've showed you time and time again, including one just last night. You know, where the trend line rises as you move from left (earlier years) to right (later years). Competent year 8 students call that "ongoing warming". But as you've recently demonstrated year 8 science is too much for you.
For anyone looking to compare Karen and Sunspot, the eponymous thread is easy to find, and there are some significant tells on:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/02/01/february-2012-open-thread/
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/03/01/march-2012-open-thread/
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/06/01/june-2012-open-thread/
As I mentioned upthread, perhaps we should cease to collude in the deception and refer to Sunspot as Sunspot or Sunny etc?
Why be passively complicit in this matter?
And it will annoy Sunny!
;-)
I support agriculture by advocting for a climate that is at least sometimes anmenable to seasons of production. Climate change is going to be a big game-changer in the coming decades, and in many parts of Australia (and the world) not for the better. Given that future generations of farmers will be working without cheap (and one day, even available) oil, the last thing that primary producers need is for the fundmental milieu of their production environment to be FUBARed.
BBD. No argument about identity or stupidity, but I still think Spam fits it perfectly:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=anwy2MPT5RE
I hope we've all seen this incidentally - Media Watch from Monday Night.
'Science' by circle-jerk!
Bloody vikings!
Spamspot?
Sunspam?
We can work together on this, I am certain.
:-)
So Sunspot (aka Karen) the tedious is still fuck-arsing around:
Having not yet discovered the import of the statement:
'TEMPERATURE IS NOT HEAT'
tch, tch, tch indeed you boring fart.
#45 bill
(With apologies to all who have heard the Daily Mail Song before. But if you haven't, click on the link or Tim will pop out of retirement and ban you for ever and ever and ever...).
...talking about heat?
Bill @ #45 and WRT the blizzard of garbage we can expect from 'the usual suspect' you know the type that does not know the difference between temperature and heat, then following a link on Capital Climate I was reminded of the Background Readings in Advance of Release of the IPCC AR5 Reports put out by Yale.
So, suspects, you are on notice not to come up with your normal level of asinine drivel over the IPCC and its reports or the science covered thereby. Note that phrase, 'the science covered thereby' which does not mean 'the science carried out by'. But maybe the distinction will remain too subtle for your mall-formed brains and you will pitch in regardless like the zombies you are.
Warming has paused or their is a hiatus in warming, what bullshit!.
The discussion is not about change being the norm in complex adaptive systems. Of course it is (even though there isn evidence that stability also drives adaptive radiation as evidenced in the riotous species and genetic diversity in tropical biomes`). What is of great concern is the rate at which humans are transforming the chemical composition of the atmosphere and both the structure and biogeochemistry of terrestrial, freshwater and marine ecosystems. This rate far exceeds anything the biosphere has experienced in many millions of years, and against the background humans are reducing both species diversity and genetic diversity, the latter a vital pre-requisite that enables species to respond to the suite of stressors humans are inflicting. A 1998 paper by Hughes et al. in PNAS argued that, at that time, human activities were probably driving as many as 30,000 genetically distinct populations to extinction on a daily basis. Now, if this is indeed true it is profoundly worrying. Underlying this is the combined assault our species is inflicting on nature, with climate warming perhaps being the biggest factor of all.
For those thermodynamic illiterates, who don't know the difference between heat(energy) or temperature, I present thislgem from Zeke:
"Warming has paused or their is a hiatus in warming"
Agreed :)
Link to above:
http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2013/09/examining-the-recent-slow-…
"As the UK’s Met Office points out, if the same amount of energy had gone into the lower atmosphere it would of caused about 36 C (nearly 65 degrees F)"
I did, or how else how did it get to the ocean? Ninja past it eh..lol
umm..........that is........ It did
and Lionel........that would be there, not their :)
SpamKan, if you don't know the barest, most basic of the science, then all your objections are invalid.
Whatever you think you're doing here is invalidated by your level of moronosity. Spamming denier blog lies that you don't understand and nobody here is buying is a complete waste of your time and hours.
#56 Sunny
Nope. Utterly wrong, as usual. Energy is delivered to the upper ocean layer as shortwave solar radiation, aka "sunlight". This passes through the atmosphere, which is substantially transparent to it, but stops in the upper 100m of water, where an energetic transfer occurs and ocean heat content increases.
The long-term warming of the troposphere by GHG forcing heats the air directly above the ocean skin layer. Molecular forces dominate in this thin (sub-1mm) layer of water so the only way energy can cross it is by conduction. The warming air at the surface reduces the thermal gradient across the skin layer. This reduces the efficiency of conduction across it, and slows the rate at which the ocean cools. Over time, OHC increases as a consequence.
So fuck your ignorance and your stupid lols, eh?
SpotKaren.
Seeing as you evidently know very little about heat transfer to the oceans then I link here to a 1979 'Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment aka the Charney Report.
This contains a useful backgrounder, for such as you, on a number of things including mechanisms for heat transfer between ocean layers, climate sensitivity and carbon reservoirs. This work was recently, 2010, published in 'The Warming Papers: The Scientific Foundation For Climate Change Forecast' which is a collection of milestone scientific papers on matters pertaining to climate change starting back with Joseph Fourier, John Tyndall and Svante Arrhenius, the collection being edited by inclusion of supporting material by David Archer and Raymond Pierrehumbert.
You would do well to find a copy of this book and start studying.
Now that Charney report acknowledges a number of others for their helpful comments, amongst them being none other than Richard S Lindzen. Note the date 1979 so enough was known about climate sensitivity back then to realise that it was not negligible or less than unity.
So if Richard S Lindzen claims today that climate sensitivity is low, less than unity or even 1.5 then I leave it as an exercise for the reader as to what Lindzen is engaged in. But there is more:
Since then (1979), scientific study has shown that climate sensitivity can depend upon the starting state of the climate at any period under study and also the magnitude and rate of forcing. In other words it is variable (Thomas M Cronin and James Hansen amongst others). The rate of forcing from GHGs and land use changes is such as to increase climate sensitivity.
Demonstrate that you wish to be taken seriously by not dismissing this information with a flippant remark and lol-ing around.
For Karen: hot light from Sun passes through sky, gets taken by surface. Surface gives heat to sky. (but not all).
If hot light taken by sky, then you not feel heat when you stand in hot light from sun.
Lionel
I see Cronin has hit the doormat! I hope you are pleased - I would feel responsible to an extent if not...
Turbo wins the thread. That is hilarious.
Hit the doormat, damned well nearly went through it! [1]
Cronin looks good, naturally have some of the info' duplicated in other publications but that is rarely a bad thing because the accent on topics is different so fresh perspectives are always a good idea.
One can never read too much, valid material, on this topic.
What do you say Karenspot?
[1] Reminds me of a scene at Yeovilton when a local Somerset farmer drove his pick-up in through the main gate and dumped some tangled metalwork on the quarterdeck with the words, 'nigh on 'it me cow!' No respect for ceremony there..
The quarterdeck being a smartly turned out area with polished canon, canon balls, white painted fences and chains where the flag-pole carrying the White Ensign lived).
The bent metal were a pair of lower fuselage doors, fuel-bay, from a Sea Vixen which had fallen off in flight. The attachment of these doors was rather awkward being designed for quick access for running turn-rounds and the turn-buckled hanging supports needed careful adjustment, these also weakened with age.
:-) I'm surprised the poor man wasn't lashed to a grating and flogged by a spare bosun's mate.
Thanks Stu that's very kind of you. Finally realised that the other explanations were going over Karen's head. If this didn't do it, I don't think there's any hope.
Would you consider doing a guest post at Williwatts pitched at a similar level TB?
It might just do the trick
Sorry can't go that low.
Why the fuck is none of the CAGW Doltoid ignorami able to reference a publication about MEASUREMENT (not calculation, the fuckwit BBD) of earth albedo? Why the fuck is the level of information among degenerated Doltoid fuckwits so low?
Short answer to the troll - (who is still refusing to put that gun in his mouth and put himself out of his misery. Just fucking do it Boris and do us all a favour) - dynamic systems being measured by instruments that require time to complete a full scan by necessity require calculation of the results by that apparatus.
Now fuck off and blow your useless brains out fuckwit.
Well Boris how about trying Google... let us know how you get on.
Why the fuck can't you get off your lazy arse and look, Kai?
From the website of the ESA GlobAlbedo Project:
* * *
Now do as chek suggests, and don't botch it. Hold the weapon upside-down and shoot up through the palate into the cranium. I'd hate for you to be maimed instead of killed outright.
If he missed the synapse he wouldn't be mained. He'd carry on as usual, with no detectable difference in mental acuity, and with only one more entry wound and a few extra grams of lead in his head.
...maimed...
So the new Education minister Christopher Pyne is putting quotas on the number of uni students, removing initiatives to put disadvantaged students into uni, and removing the ammenities charge for students.
The Coalition government really hates the 'lower' classes lifting themselves up, and it really hates the regional institutions competing with the inner city unis to which the rich send their privileged offspring.
And ironically it's a significant portion of 'lower' class that elected this elitist government. The kids of these voters will have to thank their parents for this astute electoral insight...
Nick@#20 previous page
Yes this is getting boring.
I am now back home and I have the SHL figs in front of me.
Because this is a public site I am not going to put them on this blog as even though this was several years ago they were 'commercial in confidence' at the time.
However very simply.
I have no reason to hand wave or make anything up. Unlike Marohasy, I was involved in these events and I did try to politely correct your original comments and warn you that you had been misinformed about the real issues surrounding those SHL RAR releases and the level of Marohasy's influence.
You have used the information from the inquiry which had very tight 'terms of reference' and only looked at the releases in that short period in December when the flooding was critical.
That inquiry correctly found that the rules were followed. You seem to be refusing to understand that it was actually the rules that were the problem. Your figures regarding what SHL and the downstream storages gained in the short Dec timeframe is completely irrelevant to the larger problem that was created by the inflexible rules re RAR payback.
No later than October 2010, SHL was indeed tipping that payback water into an overfull system that was unable to manage it. Therefore, significant amounts of water, which did indeed total over 2000GL was wasted for no good outcomes for anyone, including SHL. There is a cumulative effect that you don't seem to understand. Because all the downstream storages were already full, there was not even the capacity to mitigate the minor flooding events that occurred prior to and after the major event in Dec 2012.
Also, if Marohasy had defamed or unduly embarrassed SHL and NOW and/or unduly panicked people as you originally claimed, then they would have gladly sued her for defamation or at least forced her to print a retraction. They probably like her even less than you do. You might perhaps ask yourself why they didn't do that?
Perhaps Nick, there was indeed substance to her claims that water was being wasted and exacerbating a system that was already in minor flooding well before the December floods?
Anyway, as you say this is getting boring. I was just not prepared to allow the misrepresentation of events re water management in the Murray and Murrumbidgee Valley stand unchallenged on a site that I once liked and respected.
Stu 2's TL,DR: .
Stu2, pretty much all your claims are crap. If you are not going to read or understand what I have put forward, and refuse to use NOW data to check your assertions, I see little point in continuing an exchange with you while you cling to a 2000GL figure that you cannot back, and accuse me of misrepresentation.
You write: " Because all the downstream storages were already full, there was not even the capacity to mitigate the minor flooding events that occurred prior to and after the major event in Dec 2012"
Firstly, "all the downstream storages" is misleading: there is only one downstream storage on the Tumut, and that is Blowering. This is the only dam on that river with a prime storage and buffering brief. It went from 30% to full over the last few months of 2010. Whatever spilled, the 70% gain was 'banked'. A lot of that was RAR.
Secondly, Blowering was managed to mitigate all the floods on the Tumut. It did have the capacity to do that. In the first two events [flooding at Tumut ] no [none, zip] water from the SH process,or from catchment runoff above Blowering was released below the dam. Flooding at Tumut and downstream came entirely from the Goobarragandra, Gilmore Creek and other tributaries that enter the river downstream of the dam. In the biggest flood, spill from Blowering was a factor, but the top half of the peak at Tumut was again from the Goobarragandra, and Blowering's spill contributed to a second and considerably lower peak. Also, this flood at Tumut had no effect on the peak at Gundagai and Wagga,which was generated from the whole Murrumbidgee catchment and peaked days before the Tumut flood water reached those towns.
These facts were available to be reconstructed, as I did, from real time data as they happened. They can still be reconstructed, if you have knowledge of the dates. The subsequent inquiry handed down the following year confirmed my recon. BOM special reporting of the late 2010 rain events is also useful background.
Thirdly the floods at issue were in 2010, not 2012.
In context, the rains [record breaking] brought to an end a record breaking drought. Blowering and Burrinjuck went from low to spill, ditto Hume Dam. Snowy Hydro's system also gained considerably despite being to the east of the most intense falls. For SH to have been meaningfully able to add to its already considerable storage gains would have meant many weeks of foregone power generation...and this would have had vanishingly small influence on the Murrumbidgee flood peak heights. In the end there was not enough storage space for the massive amount of water dropped on the Murrumbidgee,and flood mitigation capacity was exhausted. Nobody's fault.
This site is what you make it. If you wish to 'like and respect' it bring data and facts. I have not misrepresented the event. You have.
BBD, why the fuck are you so terribly stupid to think that anything you copied from globalbedo.org has anything to do with answering my fucking question.
YOU IDIOT SHOULD HAVE GIVEN A REFERENCE TO A PUBLICATION WHICH PUBLISHED A VALUE FOR GLOBAL ALBEDO BASED ON REAL DATA.
I GIVE YOU IDIOT AN EXAMPLE WHAT A "ORIGINAL PUBLICATION" IS, YOU FUCKNG ASSHOLE
$£¥£$££¥£$$££¥£$£¥£$££$£
THE ESA GLOBALBEDO PROJECT FOR MAPPING THE EARTH'S LAND SURFACE ALBEDO FOR 15 YEARS FROM EUROPEAN SENSORS.
Jan-Peter Muller, Gerardo López, Gill Watson, Neville Shane, Tom Kennedy, Peter Yuen (1)
P. Lewis (2), Jürgen Fischer, Luis Guanter, Carlos Domench, Réné Preusker (3) Peter North, Andreas Heckel (4); Olaf Danne, Uwe Krämer, Marco Zühlke, Carsten Brockmann (5), Simon Pinnock (6)
(1) Mullard Space Science Laboratory, Dept. of Space & Climate Physics; (2) Dept. of Geography, University College London, UK
(3) Institut für Weltraumwissenschaften, Freie Universität Berlin, Germany (4) Department of Geography, Swansea University, UK
(5) Brockmann Consult, Geesthacht, Germany
(6) ESA-ESRIN, Frascati, Italy
1. GLOBALBEDO PROCESSING AND SAMPLES
A land surface broadband albedo map of the entire Earth’s land surface (snow and snow-free) is required for use in Global Climate Model initialisation and verification. A group of 10 users have been selected to work with the GlobAlbedo* Implementation team to define requirements and drive the project towards practical applications of the product. These requirements defined the need to generate a final product on 8-daily at spatial resolutions of 1km in sinusoidal projection using the MODIS 10o x 10o tiling scheme and 0.05o and 0.5o on monthly time-steps.
To generate such a global map by temporal compositing requires both sufficient directional looks and the very precise correction of top-of-atmosphere radiances to “at surface” directional reflectances (SDRs). In addition, such a map requires precise radiometric calibration and inter-calibration of different sensors [1] and the computation of radiative transfer coefficients to derive broadband SDRs from different input narrowband SDRs and given sufficient angular sampling from all the directional looks within a given temporal window, derive a suitable BRDF. This BRDF can be integrated to produce DHR (Direct Hemispherical Reflectance known as “black-sky”) and BHR (BiHemispherical Reflectance, known as “white-sky”) [2]. The final albedo product has been integrated in three spectral broadband ranges, namely the solar spectrum shortwave (400-3000nm), the visible PAR region (400-700nm) and the near- and shortwave-infrared (700-3000nm). In addition, maps of normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) and the fraction of absorbed photosynthetically active radiation (fAPAR) will be generated consistent with the albedo product to complement the Globalbedo data set for analysis of vegetation-related processes [3].
To achieve the aim of deriving independent estimates using European only assets, GlobAlbedo set out to create a 15 year time series by employing SPOT4-VEGETATION and SPOT5-VEGETATION2 as well as MERIS. Legacy algorithms for deriving SDRs using an optimal estimation approach are outlined [2] as well as a novel system for gap-filling using ten year mean estimates derived from equivalent BRDFs from MODIS [2]. Each and every output pixel albedo value has an estimated uncertainty associated with it and the corresponding BRDF a full uncertainty matrix for each pixel. Separate BRDFs are computed for snow and snow-free pixels and combined together to yield a gap-free dataset. An example of a sample output product browse in Figure 1 shows the BHR and the coefficient of variation derived from the uncertainty divided by the expectation value (loc.cit.)
Animations of 8-daily and monthly browse products including the full-resolution 1km tiles are available on the website for the products available to date (2005, 2009, 2010 and the first 6 months of 2011). An OGC-compliant server based on OpenLayers also allows display of global data and inter-comparison by flickering from one date with another. Global data at 0.05o and 0.5o, as well as individual tiles at 1km, can be downloaded using wget and scripts can be easily written by the user to harvest the data they require. A novel facility is the ability to extract a single pixel or a group of 3 x 3 or 5 x 5 pixels in CSV format through time for immediate plotting locally.
2. GLOBALBEDO VALIDATION
Extensive validation has been performed on final GlobAlbedo product for each and every year that correlative data is available. Shown here from [4], in Figure 2 is an example of a time series plot of Blue-Sky albedo from GlobAlbedo, MODIS priors, MODIS Collection 5 and MISR measurements. Uncertainties calculated from within the product [2] are shown for GlobAlbedo and MISR. For a desert bare rock site (upper panel), the GlobAlbedo product shows reasonable agreement with the other EO datasets and with the tower measurements. The differences shown at the year start may be related to spatial variability of the site (loc.cit.). The Toravere site like most BSRN sites is not chosen for its spatial homogeneity but rather it’s location close to a suitable laboratory. It has a high degree of spatial variability and almost all BSRN are in this category. In addition, unlike the SURFRAD tower albedometer at 30m with a 100m footprint, Toravere albedometers are at 5m above the surface with a 5m footprint so rendering them unhelpful for the purpose of validating spaceborne-derived land surface albedo. The time series shown for Travere shows a common phenomenon for the more than 80 sites worldwide which have been employed to date, related to the effect of snow in winter. Due to very different fields of view of the local albedometer and the 1km EO-derived equivalent values, snow albedo values from EO are typically 50% of the ones retrieved from local albedometers. In this case, GlobAlbedo appears to be slightly more sensitive to the snow values but this is not necessarily typical.
3. GLOBALBEDO PROSPECTS
The GlobAlbedo data production at UCL-MSSL takes around 3 weeks per output year and produces around 1.5Tb (uncompressed) output. This is running flat-out on a 10-blade (160-core) linux cluster with 48gb of RAM and 1Tb local disk. The processing requires 100Tb of scratch-space to keep all input and output products online. An extensive Product User Manual is available from the website. Currently the production is expect to be completed for the Envisat time period by October 2012 with products being loaded after visual inspection of the browse products and validation using extensive tower-based data and similar EO datasets, including METEOSAT. In the next phase, a variety of different users will assess the impact of the product, and the use of the estimated uncertainties on their particular application.
4. REFERENCES CITED
[1] D. Potts, S. Mackin, J-P. Muller, N. Fox (2012). Satellite Sensor Intercalibration over Dome C: Application of QA4EO principles to the ESA GlobAlbedo Project. IGARSS 2012 (this conference)
[2] GlobAlbedo_ATBD_V3.0 (2011). GlobAlbedo: Algorithm Theoretical Basis Document. Authors: P. Lewis, C. Brockmann, O. Danne, J. Fischer, L. Guanter, A. Heckel, O. Krueger, G. López, J-P. Muller, P. North, D. Potts, R. Preusker. Available from http://www.GlobAlbedo.org/
[3] Pinty, B., Jung, M., Kaminski, T., Lavergne, T., Mund, M., Plummer, S., Thomas, E., Widlowski, J.L., 2011. Evaluation of the JRC-TIP 0.01° products over a mid-latitude deciduous forest site. Remote Sens. Environ. 115, 3567-3581.
[4] Muller, J.-P., Lopez, G., Shane, N.S., Danne, O., Brockmann, C., Krämer, U., Zühlke, M., Heckel, A., North, P.R., Domench, C., Guanter, L., Fischer, J., Wang, Z., Schaapman-Strub, G., Cescatti, A., 2012. GlobAlbedo Test Product Validation Report, available from http://www.globalbedo.org/docs/GlobAlbedo_TPVR_V2_2.pdf . UCL- MSSL, 92pp.
$£¥£$£££$££££$££$
THE SHOWN PAPER COULD NOT SHOW A VALUE FOR GLOBAL ALBEDO.
NOW GIVE ME AB ARTICLE WHICH PUBLISHES A VALUE FOR GLOBAL ALBEDO BASED ON REAL DATA, FUCKING IDIOT.
*cuckoo!* *cuckoo!*
"*cuckoo!* *cuckoo!*"
Terminal mental degeneration of Bill? Maybe Lime's disease?
That's the one you catch from citrus, right?
Run along now, Boris; isn't that baby Jesus calling you?
#81: Enough of the disrespectful tone.
Globalbedo.org appears to list this data, and while I did not succeed in running the program they link to there to enable the data to be viewed, observational data for the global albedo are listed elsewhere. Try for example, Goode et al, GRL (2001): http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2000GL012580/abstract
Abstract only: I seem not to have the full pdf.
However, the data quoted in the abstract supports the "0.3" value.
bill, instead of writing utter bullshit (as always from you leper islander) try to help your ignoramus brother BBD to cite a paper with earth's global albedo based on real data, Try, you fucking idiot!
peterd, thank you for your constructive comment and please give me some time to read the referenced article.
Much as I regret feeding the Socktroll, it's Lyme disease (after a town called Old Lyme in Connecticut, USA, where the disease was first described in the 1970's) - a tick-borne spirocheatosis with Borrelia bergdorferi, B. afzelius or B. geurinae. It does not occur in Australia, despite the active efforts of some Boris-level loons who are determine to prove that all of the extant science is wrong, and that they, alone, know the truth. Not surprisingly the same subset of idiots are usually both strident anti-vaxers and climate denialists, which is where I first encountered the tribe, when asked to counter one of their more egregious public squawks back in the late 80's. (BTW BBD, I'm an Infectious Diseases Physician not a Single Organ Doctor (SOD it!) though I did my PhD on modulation of host defence in cystic fibrosis). Curious that the Socktroll gibbers that particular malapropism on a climate thread. I suspect that it hears the same voices as Behring Breivik.
There is a David Suzuki article on WUWT.
What a fucking prat you are, Kai. Pull the trigger.
Just on a general point. Our resident psychopath demands and rages that we provide him with a reference supporting the standard value for Earth's albedo (0.3).
Why? Kai/Freddy/Boris/Berendwanker won't read it. KFBB couldn't understand it in a month of Sundays. KFBB has no idea why 0.3 is considered the best estimate, nor, until very, very recently did he even know that it was the best estimate.
So WTF is this charade all about? Well, obviously, this is KFBB's default tactic: demand some information - it hardly matters what - then accuse all here of ignorance, fraud etc whether we provide it or not.
This is a tedious, irritating noise that has gone on long enough now.
It is high fucking time this multi-sock, psychopathic troll was banned.
FreddyKaiBorisBerendaneke.
Just quietly you've posted about "leper islanders" on this thread using both Boris and Berendaneke socks. That's to say nothing about your fixation with human body waste and with upper case yelling, again through plural agencies.
If you're going to pretend to be multiple people try to nuance your personæ with at least some finesse. If you're not aware that you're doing this then consider talking to someone about the mælstrom in your mind.
And if the voices in your head start to whisper that you should kill yourself, think* about consulting a psychiatrist. The internet would definitely be a better place without you but someone would have to clean up the mess you left behind, and it might be someone who actually cares** about you.
[*I use the term advisedly.
**Stranger things have happened.]
OK, I might have stretched credulity with the "Stranger things have happened" comment...
Mea culpa.
He can't Bernard. He's as thick as pigshit as well as totally insane. That's why this irruption of hydra-socked trolling is so tedious. There's not wit nor art to any of it. It's just noise. And I for one have heard enough of it.
"And I for one have heard enough of it."
Off you go then..........
Tantrums and hissy fits are a good indication that your mental health is further deteriorating...
Try posting back at dotearth for a while.
That's not how it works, Sunny. As you will see, soon enough.
My mental health is fine. I'm not the one pretending to be a girl, remember? Nor am I a pathological liar afflicted to the core with the worst case of DK-syndrome imaginable.
Find a mirror, Sunny, and look yourself in the eyes.
Nick @ 80.
Yes, I did type 2012, but of course meant 2010.
Otherwise, rather unfortunately, you seem to be displaying the same attitude that caused that licence anomaly to remain in place despite the fact that repeated warnings were given and had been getting increasingly strident from April 2010.
You also don't seem to understand that the whole system is interconnected. Just because Tumut didn't flood in the earlier flooding is not a good excuse to fill up Blowering when the 'bidgee and the Murray were already full and delivering all requirements downstream. That is not sensible management practice.
Filling Blowering and Hume anytime after October 2010 with that RAR Payback was asking for trouble and the EXTRA water associated with those paybacks should logically have remained in Eucumbene until it was needed.
That's why the system was designed that way in the first place.
We can quibble over the wastage figures forever but it doesn't change what the issue truly was.
But please, we may just have to agree to disagree as I only wanted to point out the above facts and also point out that Marohasy's involvement in any of this was minimal.
Unfortunately that licence anomaly still exists on the Murray side of the system and has only been partly resolved on the 'bidgee side.
I hope you don't think that's OK despite your dislike of Marohasy.
Frequently people with mental health issues don't realize, and blaming others for their own failings, also mixing up confusing the identities of people.....
You do have a few telling idiosyncrasies there...
Frack, there goes another irony meter.
It's the freakin' coal mine calling the kettle black!
And that's a 'deep hole', isn't it, sleazebag?
What Lotharsson said, Sunny. I'm not blaming you for my failings, I am blaming you for yours. Nor am I confused about your identity - again, that problem is yours.
End of the road, for you, troll.
lol
No Sunny. Not funny.
‘Missing’ phytoplankton found, but Trenberth’s imaginary heat remains ‘missing’
By: Marc Morano - Climate DepotSeptember 24, 2013 11:55 PM
‘Missing’ phytoplankton found, but Trenberth’s imaginary heat remains ‘missing’
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/09/missing-phytoplankton-found-b…
A new study finds “NASA satellites may have missed more than 50% of the phytoplankton in the Southern Ocean, making it far more difficult to estimate the carbon capture potential of this vast area of sea.” The paper adds to several other recent peer-reviewed publications demonstrating prior assumptions about the global carbon cycle may be highly erroneous, as well as the modelling derived from these assumptions.However, Trenberth’s imaginary heat from CO2 is still ‘missing’ from both the atmosphere and the deep oceans. The very sparse, deep-ocean temperature observations show only a 0.01C warming over 44 years, which is much, much less than the instrument uncertainty.
Deep ocean observations in green show only 0.01C warming over 44 years, much less than uncertainty and measurement error. The remaining lines are all from models, which, as usual, are all over the map showing equally warming or cooling. Source
In addition, if the “oceans ate the global warming,” steric sea level rise from thermal expansion should have accelerated sea level rise, but the data shows no evidence of acceleration.
Algorithm finds missing phytoplankton in Southern Ocean
lol
More spammed rubbish.
The stuff about OHC is a lie. Just wrong. Go and check. As usual, Morano is lying.
The phytoplankton stuff is also wrong. Here's proof:
Keeling curve.
I see that the Hockeyschtick liar shows a 2011 graph from Roy Spencer (PhD!) using "Levitus observations" 1955- 1999. Completely obsolete and only 0 - 700m depth too. Deliberate graph trickery - again.
Using up to date observations and the full 0 - 2000m depth from Levitus et al. (2012):
Almost a magnitude out, Sunny!
As I said, it's all lies. You are just to ignorant to know it, so you are very easily fooled by the liars. What a colossal prat you are.
Full chorus: Karen's purpose here is to disseminate lies.
So you sit there for all your waking hours BBD, watching, waiting, like a spider sitting at the edge of it's web......... lol... you certainly ain't no athlete, you most likely have a vitamin D deficiency, maybe you are marooned there like a morbidly obese walrus eating where you shit because you cannot even move to the door let along fit through it, does your young son, if he is yours, ferry the home delivered pizza through the stinking quagmire to you ?
Get someone to widen the door so you can get out, sit outside on a Sunny day sweetie :)
#10, well, that bizarre little spew is Kaz' way of saying 'dang, I've been fooled again'...nearest you'll get to a thank you ,BBD
Kaz, remember you're supposed to be a skeptic LOL
This is a goodie Nickie :)
"Focusing on the goals and strategies of climate change conversations, Wibeck zeroes in on how learners of climate science understand messages on climate change, the communicative contexts for education on climate change, and the barriers that can be found to public engagement. Of particular importance is how learners of climate science are being spoken to about climate change because this affects the ways they go on to conduct their own conversations about it."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130924103046.htm?utm_sourc…
rofl
Projecting again, Sunny!
I've just got back from my morning run.
You got fucked again for rebroadcasting lies. You stupid little prat. Let's remember who is losing the game, shall we.
"I’ve just got back from my morning run. "
hahaha, on the back of a tilt tray...............
#12
But you are a contemptible liar and a denier and a terminal ignoramus, Sunny. You have been lying about climate change for years - and failing to understand it or learn about it for the same length of time.
You aren't who Wibeck is talking about. You are part of the problem. You aren't interested in strategic solutions *or* in the science. You are just pushing denier lies. Nobody needs people like you, and in due course, when the climate shit hits the economic fan, this will be remembered. Vermin like you will escape behind your anonymity, but the ringleaders won't. It's going to be ugly for them.
#14 Keep projecting, Sunny. It gets more obviously pathetic with every single iteration.
Also try to remember that I am in the UK. Timezones and all that.
Fuck but you are stupid, Sunny.
So now you think you are Nickie?
No, Sunspot. Whatever gives you that idea? You seem to have problems with honesty, identity, research, topic knowledge and good faith. Bit of a fucking mess, aren't you?
Did you find a mirror and look at your miserable excuse for a self yet, Sunny? What have you become, eh?
"The alarmists refuse to budge on global warming. Despite widespread head-scratching regarding the cause of the current 15-plus year pause or slowdown in warming (and the obvious failings of climate models to predict it) the alarmists don’t ever want to give an inch.
Over the years, they have painted themselves into a corner – any admission of uncertainty or doubt would now be regarded as weakness, at least in their minds.
So they plough on with the wilful blindness, misrepresentation and name-calling.
The image shows how Skeptical Science used to
..................."
http://australianclimatemadness.com/2013/09/23/alarmists-zeal-causes-mo…
SunKrank:
Marc Morono pretends to know nothing about the reality of Trenberth's statement which was aimed at the 'travesty' of not having enough measuring points to track the known transfer through ocean layers. The fact that sea levels have risen is a marker for expansion due to heat up-take. Note the large volume of water vis a vis atmosphere.
Now instead of continuing to be an irritating ignoramus why don't you go back and follow my suggestion here.
Flippant, inveterate lol-lers should be banned unless they turn their behaviour around.
And on you go, thrashing away at the blatant misrepresentations of the state of scientific knowledge wrt the slowdown in tropospheric warming and the true nature of the models which were never designed to predict it. Spin, rhetoric, misrepresentation and lies. But you cannot stop reality, Sunny. It will eat you whole, along with the rest of the denier sheep.
And deep down inside, you are afraid.
* * *
As a measure of how revoltingly dishonest you are, you cannot even lie consistently. Here's you, utterly fucked by your idiocy about thermal capacity and desperately trying to escape the godawful mess:
But as soon as you'd wriggled out of that for a few hours - back you were again, trolling as frantically as ever. And here you still are, still thrashing away...
This is why Tim Lambert confined you to your own thread, Sunspot.
"why don’t you go back and follow my suggestion here."
I will Lionel, :) Saturday I will get my download speed back, currently it takes 2 mins just to refresh a page!
BBD, your conspiratorial thoughts are amusing :)
BBD might have taken the hint and has gone for a waddle?
@Lionel
" ‘Missing’ phytoplankton found, but Trenberth’s imaginary heat remains ‘missing’
By: Marc Morano – Climate DepotSeptember 24, 2013 11:55 PM"
The headline's worth a chortle in itself, thanks for this Lionel. The ClimateDepot article continues -
"A new study finds “NASA satellites may have missed more than 50% of the phytoplankton in the Southern Ocean, making it far more difficult to estimate the carbon capture potential of this vast area of sea.” The paper adds to several other recent peer-reviewed publications demonstrating prior assumptions about the global carbon cycle may be highly erroneous, as well as the modelling derived from these assumptions.However, Trenberth’s imaginary heat from CO2 is still ‘missing’ from both the atmosphere and the deep oceans. The very sparse, deep-ocean temperature observations show only a 0.01C warming over 44 years, which is much, much less than the instrument uncertainty."
;)
"In introducing their paper of quite some time ago, Wilson et al. (1979) wrote that one of their main objectives in conducting the study it described was to compare the temperature record from New Zealand - which they emphasized is "in the Southern Hemisphere and a region meteorologically unrelated to Europe" - with the climate record of England, where the MWP had already made its mark on that country's and the surrounding region's climatic history. Their contribution to this endeavor was to decipher the 18O/16O profile from the core to the surface of a stalagmite obtained from a cave in New Zealand, which was dated by the 14C method. And in doing so, they found that the proxy temperature record provided by the stalagmite was broadly similar to the climate record of England, exhibiting a period in the early part of the past millennium that was about 0.75°C warmer than it was in the mid-20th-century. And based on that finding they made the broader conclusion that "such climatic fluctuations as the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age are not just a local European phenomenon."
www.guesswhere.comm
GooseSezWh'ain't getting any brighter, is he?
One; we've seen it. Two; Mark Freakin' Morano?! Puhleese! Well, I suppose it's the best an arseclown can manage...
And speaking of arseclowns, it's MWP time with a 1979 paper that many might just possibly suspect might have been, you know, superseded, you know, like a bit, by now. Oh, it has!
Wattsy really is getting desperate, ain't he? He's nearly as sad as his readership!
So we've got old news and even more old news. What a pair of hapless duds.
You know, it's a good thing time travel ain't ever going to be possible, because if you could go back to the cradle of life and explain to some callow, optimistic slime-mould just starting out on the evolutionary path that all its efforts were only going to end up back at SunSpam perhaps we all wouldn't be here...
GSW @#25 I didn't drop that turd.
Note that it was from Marc Morono via another moron SunKrank.
But then attention deficit disorder, cognitive dissonance and simple plain ignorance is the hallmark of you and your kind.
#21 bbd "and the true nature of the models which were never designed to predict it. Spin, rhetoric, misrepresentation and lies."
"Climate models use quantitative methods to simulate the interactions of the atmosphere, oceans, land surface, and ice."
"They are used for a variety of purposes from study of the dynamics of the weather and climate system to projections of future climate."
"These models predict an upward trend in the surface temperature record, as well as a more rapid increase in temperature at higher altitudes."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/c/climate_model.htm
hmm.... Dict. projection.........A 'prediction' made by extrapolating from past observations
#30 Sunspot
The models are correct. There has been an upward trend in surface temperatures - briefly suppressed by the recent and transient increase in ocean heat uptake.
What the fuck are you all going to do when the surface warming resumes full tilt, eh? As it must, because of the laws of physics. Get your head around it, Sunny: it's not if, it's when. And it won't be long now, I suspect. Then the open season on fake sceptics begins in real earnest. A deeply suppressed part of you knows this is true. And it is afraid.
* * *
The predictive skill of models is not derived from "extrapolation" from past observations. That is just you thrashing around in a mudhole of wrong. As per.
@ Fuckwit who didn't read the thread before posting #25
It's not doing a very good job is it?
The Keeling Curve is rather... steeply ascending, no? Or are you too stupid to understand why this makes sushi out of the latest Hockeyschtick rubbish?
Probably. I don't know why the fuck I bother sometimes. The plankton are right here.
Altogether now: it's always projection.
"The models are correct. There has been an upward trend in surface temperatures – briefly suppressed by the recent and transient increase in ocean heat uptake. "
Did you also tell that to your shrink?
If you lived in Australia I would swear that you have been eating goldtops..........
It's not an article, it's about, not by Suzuki, it's a predictable smear job, it's full of lies, and most of all... so what, liar?
"What the fuck are you all going to do when the surface warming resumes full tilt, eh?"
Well I did but a larger air conditioner already, a large 3 ph reverse cycle refrigerated jobby :)
That's called hedging your bet ......lol
Says the pathological liar with multiple personality disorder...
All together now, it's always...
I don't have or need one, Sunspot. I'm not a pathological liar pretending to be a woman and suffering the extremes of denial.
* * *
If I lived in Australia, I would have just experience the hottest 12 months since records began.
LOL... a few billion people dying doesn't bother Mack none... LOLOLOL.
What an awful human being you are.
We crossed, Stu. But it can't be said too often...
#39 Stu pid,
so you think my air conditioner is going to kill billions of people?
lol, do you have the padded room adjacent to bbd?
"A quarter of a century later, Williams et al. (2004) wrote that their new paper on the subject revises and builds on results that were derived by Williams et al. (1999) from stable isotope stratigraphy found in caves at Waitomo, which is located at 38.3°S latitude about 35 km from the west coast of the central North Island of New Zealand. More specifically, they enhanced three existing speleothem (stalactite, stalagmite or flowstone cave deposit) records "by adding another chronology, increasing the subsample resolution of existing records, and by much improving the temporal control of all chronologies by basing it entirely on uranium series TIMS dating." And with these improvements, Williams et al.'s speleothem master chronologies revealed a warmer-than-present late-Holocene warm peak located between 0.9 and 0.6 ka BP that they equated with the Medieval Warm Period of Europe, further noting that this period "coincided with a period of Polynesian settlement (McGlone and Wilmshurst, 1999)." Thereafter, they further reported that temperatures "cooled rapidly to a trough about 325 years ago," which they said corresponded to "the culmination of the 'Little Ice Age' in Europe."
http://www.guesswhere.comm
Is there a trophy for being the dumbest denier you're competing with Freddy for?
well stu pid, do you have the padded room adjacent to bbd?
Now explain, in your own words, what your latest spam means, Sunspot.
"In clear contradiction of the claims of climate alarmists, these findings are but another example of the unending stream of studies from all around the world that continue to document the global presence of a warmer-than-present Medieval Warm Period; and they are becoming ever more difficult to deny, because they demonstrate that the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the Modern Warm Period, even though the air's CO2 concentration of that earlier period was about 115 ppm less than it is currently. This being the case, there is absolutely no reason to attribute the planet's current level of warmth to its current elevated atmospheric CO2 content, as there is an historical precedent (the MWP) for even higher temperatures than those of the present with much lower-than-current atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
A short four-year hiatus later, Lorrey et al. (2008) developed two master speleothem δ18O records for New Zealand's eastern North Island (ENI) and western South Island (WSI) for the period 2000 BC to about AD 1660 and 1825, respectively. The WSI record was a composite chronology composed of data derived from four speleothems from Aurora, Calcite, Doubtful Xanadu and Waiau caves, while the ENI record was a composite history derived from three speleothems from Disbelief and Te Reinga caves. This work revealed that for both the ENI and WSI δ18O master speleothem histories, their warmest periods fell within the AD 900-1100 time interval, which is also where the peak warmth of a large portion of the temperature records"
http://www.guesswhere.comm
SunSpam cannot explain what it means. SunSpam will never explain what it means. SunSpam will never explain anything because SunSpam does not comprehend anything. Most bright 12 year olds have a better grasp of the physics than SunSpam does. That's not even hyperbole. When you are so fucking stupid you have to neurally-outsource from the likes of Watts and Morano there's not even a down to go to anymore.
"you have to neurally-outsource from the likes of Watts and Morano "
Nup, no points for Bileeee... lol
"Not wanting to acknowledge that the earth of a thousand or so years ago was likely as warm as, or even warmer than, it is currently - when the atmosphere's CO2 concentration was much lower than it is today (285 vs. 400 ppm) - the world's climate alarmists have been loath to admit there was an MWP anywhere other than in countries surrounding the North Atlantic Ocean. And so it is that the results of the several studies described above are of great importance to the ongoing global warming debate, as they greatly advance the thesis that the MWP was indeed a global phenomenon, wherein temperatures throughout the world were significantly warmer than they have been anytime subsequently, and that there is thus nothing unusual or unprecedented about earth's current level of warmth, with the obvious implication that the maximum temperatures of the present simply cannot be attributed to the historical increase in the air's CO2 content.
References
Lorrey, A., Williams, P., Salinger, J., Martin, T., Palmer, J., Fowler, A., Zhao, J.-X. and Neil, H. 2008. Speleothem stable isotope records interpreted within a multi-proxy framework and implications for New Zealand palaeoclimate reconstruction. Quaternary International 187: 52-75.
McGlone, M.S. and Wilmshurst, J.M. 1999. Dating initial Maori environmental impact in New Zealand. Quaternary International 59: 5-16.
Williams, P.W., King, D.N.T., Zhao, J.-X. and Collerson, K.D. 2004. Speleothem master chronologies: combined Holocene 18O and 13C records from the North Island of New Zealand and their palaeo-environmental interpretation. The Holocene 14: 194-208."
http://www.guesswhere.comm
Remember, Karen's purpose here is to disseminate lies.
This piece goes into considerable detail as to why politically-motivated MWP misdirections make fools of the Karens....
Let's get it straight: the whole MWP and its significance is overblown b*. The ONLY reason the deniers started on about it is because of Mann et al.'s 1998 Nature paper and the hockey stick. Until then the deniers had made no inroads into the field of climate science and were stuck on the "It is a doomsday myth" meme. Suddenly that paper is published and it gives something for the deniers to relentlessly pursue and voila! The MWP becomes one of their mantras.
The fact that Karen is so utterly, demonstrably dense and has to resurrect this crap again shows exactly what her level of understanding of science is. It should be obvious to anyone with half a brain by now that the deniers do exactly what the creationists do: try and counter the huge amount of empirical evidence against their arguments by countering examples with their own stitched together wafer-thin ' evidence'. Climate scientists publish something in a good journal, and the deniers counter it with something on exactly the same topic but with different conclusions in a crappy journal.
That Karen is stupid enough to go along with this means that she deserves to be sent packing from here. Her arguments - if one can call them that - were shredded eons ago, and yet she is still here twisting, deceiving and distorting. Given that 99% of those contributing here know this, why does she persist? What does she hope to gain? She's like a football team (American that is) losing 49-0 with 35 seconds left in regulation time and still expecting a 'victory'. Karen, you've been blown out of the park. Its over.
I'll guess where, Sunny. Lies by the fossil-fuel funded fucking Idsos from the hilariously misnomered "CO2 Science". Science my arse.
You *cannot* demonstrate a global, synchronous MWP as warm as or warmer than the present from the currently available data. I challenge you to do so knowing for certain that you will fail.
Quoting lying energy industry shills' deliberate and systematic misrepresentations of others' work simply doesn't count.
SunKrank:
Don't you mean 'buy a larger'?
Touché
SunKrank, shrink yourself around this:
What ocean heating reveals about global warming and stop fuckarsing lol-ling around (another warning), where in the heck do you think you are, some Seraglio you pointless shit-for-brains?
Time for you to join Zebedee I suspect.
Lotharsson
you are obviously not aware of how primitive your poem sounds
"Altogether now: it’s always projection"
Imagining the glorious leper islanders CAGW chorus from full heart most probably in wrong pitch "Altogether now: it’s always projection" makes one really laugh, so ridiculously insane is this. The Doltoid chorus singing, full of low-talented singers, an utterly primitive text from poet Lotharsson!!!!
OH MY GOD, BEWARE OF LEPER ISLAND IDIOCY
It would seem that The BBC (vying with WUWT now) still did not the memo about where the heat flux is going.
#55 Just ignore.
@57
No, why? Because you are so ashamed, you primitive Lotharsson poem singer?
Hahaha, you primitive non-scientific pack of leper islanders. Your group feeling does not make you strong because each of you is soooo weak.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/09/cost-of-the-variability-of-renew…
And Freddy? Fuck off and take your meds.
Stu, savings from "renewables" (what an utterly stupid non-scientific idiotic term from greenpisser and eco fundamentalist adherents)???????
Hahahahahahahaha
THERE ARE NO SAVINGS FROM "RENEWABLES", you moron? Everything becomed more expensive and blackouts certain, you terrible idiot. Take your meds!!!!
Fuck off and take your meds.
rhwombat, you assert you are a medical doctor. If so, why are you talking so loudly about something you have no background at all, ie meteorology, apart from listening to tv meteo forecasts, you blatherskite and ignorant. Are you so deeply convinced about your climate belief that your conviction replaces any knowledge which you totally lack.
Show that you are a doctor and explain what the gyrus cinguli is, fuckwit on leper island!
Stu, last warning: piss off, fuckwit
Boris, your time on Deltoid is numbered. You are going to need another sock puppet.
@Jeff, a new conspiration from the weak character group of CAGW Doltoids and Lotharsson poem chorus on leper island, which are so proud of their low intellectual level and climate ignorance???? WHAT A THREAT!!!!!
Go home with your eco-system services, farmer
Jeff, poor English, how can time be "numbered", idiot
Jeff, can you also eat time, or smell time, or even digest time. Explain, fuckwit!!!!
rwhombat. how would you judge from a medical doctor's point of view what BBD said to me that I should kill myself. Are are accepting this, do you say the same to me? Is this unethical, even torally unacceptable that one human asks another human to kill himself? What is your opinion on the degusting behavior of BBD?????
Fuck off and take your meds, Freddy.
Just pull the trigger, Kai. We're sick of you diseased mind and the noise you make. Give us all a fucking break, eh?
Of course RHW can't encourage you to top yourself you mutt. He'd be in an ethical bind and then some! RHW would urge you to take your meds!
This has been suggested many times before, to zero effect, hence my/chek's constructive upgrade to live ammunition.
I don't know why the deniers are so keen on a MWP: it implies high climate sensitivity.
Turboblocke
And we keep telling them so, but they keep coming back with the same tediously *wrong* bollocks. I don't think most of them even understand the point. I don't think they can see past the stupid argument that "it was hotter and CO2 was lower so AGW is falsified". They don't seem to appreciate that nobody ever claimed that CO2 was the only major driver of climate.
It's all so stupid and confused and wrong. And no matter how many times the stupid is explained, it just gets thrown back at you again, and again, and again.
Which is why we resort to terms like "fuckwit" in the end.
It's likely because they've been sold denialism by expert PR on the subconscious level.
If you ask the target audience (SpamKan, PantieZ, Boris are good enough examples) flat out plainly do they think driving car W, smoking Brand X (one for the jazz fusionistas there!), or washing their shirts in Y or drinking Brew Z really makes their dicks feel bigger, they'll deny it. But subconsciously they've bought it and the post-campaign sales analyses show they did.
Hence the parade of lo-rent lab rats we see through here daily with nothing but the most superficial backing for their fervently held belief that CO2 scam-nazi-commies are out to take all their piddling worldly possessions by taxing them to the bone(r). Boris/Freddy/Olaf/Kai has fully invested in this multi-level myth and insists on torturing himself with it and worse, inflicting his imaginary looney-toon ravings on us.
So Boris/Freddy/Olaf/Kai , I propose you be more entertaining for us by dancing like a chicken, and because this is an Australian blog, I further propose that whilst doing so you fart the tune 'Waltzing Matilda'.
I further hope that the image of a dancing, Waltzing Matilda farting chicken is now so firmly embedded that it will be the first thought that springs to mind whenever your uniquely styled text is encountered regardless of whatever handle you're using at the time.
Or just pull the trigger. Your choice.
I've never understood the rational behind the tax fears...don't they realise that if a government wants to raise taxes it doesn't have to invent a new one and create a world wide conspiracy to back it up. Just sticking another % or two on income, sales or whatever existing tax would do the trick.
Don't quote me TB, but I suspect it's along the lines of 'higher taxes' don't register. Another (i.e. more) tax does. Remember, it's not aimed at rational thinking.
I'll explain, Boris/Freddy/Berendaneke/Kai etc. You will soon be banned from here. And about time, too. You are a complete ignoramus.
Perhaps the Australian public is already regretting the election... http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/23/climate-commission-r…
Yup. The Climate Council pretty quickly got to over 10000 members/ friends and almost half a million dollars in the bank. For all I know those numbers should be bigger. It's racing so fast I'm probably horribly out of date already.
Doesn't matter one whit. From here on out, all governments are stupid and lying EXCEPT for the Australian government, and the Climate Council is an evil Greenpeace lobbying organization. Don't bet against this, you know I'm right.
What does the word 'references' mean, muppet?
It proceeds to neurally-outsource from an Idso CO2 "Science" (*cough*) piece recycled from 2008. Perhaps you'd like to outline his 'qualifications' in this debate for us? I.e. we're talking exactly 'the likes' of Watts and Morano.
This is the only kind of recycling you reactionaries wholeheartedly embrace: endlessly churning the same tired arguments from the same old players. There's only a couple of dozen of these guys to choose from, after all.
Bill 1 / Muppet 0
Rahmstorf at RealClimate.
The science of 'ocean heat' laid out in a nice, concise package - incomprehensible to the terminally dense and dishonest (SunSpam), but of interest to thinking people and those acting in good faith.
Nutters are welcome to take up their 'case' over there - in fact, please tell us, we'll take popcorn - but they'll almost-certainly end up in The Borehole pretty-well immediately. Narcissistic semi-educated dingbats will then wail about 'censorship'; adults will hold that brats constantly scrawling 'fuck' on the walls in crayon hardly constitutes 'freedom of expression' and poisons the atmosphere for everyone else.
BBD@#75 et al.
I'm not a psychiatrist, but I doubt that the Socktroll's narcissistic personality disorder is very susceptible to pharmacotherapy. NPD's don't have the insight to take themselves out of a descending loop, so they don't suicide either. The only way to deal with them is to withdraw and avoid - in this case ignore him.
Socktroll's question about the cingulate gyrus is a giveaway, since both the crude volumetric studies and the more detailed functional MRI studies focus on that region of the brain as a correlate of antisocial behaviour - like voting for Toady Rabbott or being the sort of tribal denier that obsessively flaunts their ignorance on this blog- like the socktroll or SunSpam.
Here in Oz, contributing to the funding of the nascent Climate Council is the single most effective way of pissing these sociopaths off - at least until the economic effects of climate change bite their puppet masters on the bum hard enough to jerk their funding chains.
@rhwombat #87
I am always asking me - in an honest and humble way in contrast to the mental state of CAGW leper islanders - whether
...my medication is ever going to take effect, or whether I'm doomed to imagine myself to be Galactic Space Emperor Ming forever.
Dr. combat,
do you think that neurosurgical removal of the socktroll's gyrus cinguli (you havn't learned Latin you pseudo-doctor?) might improve his asocial behavior and make him maybe a faithful member of the AGW church???
Dr. combat,
why did you avoid to comment BBD's proposal that the socktroll should kill himself? Is this in accordance with Oz medical ethical standards? Should BBD be banned here and juridically be prosecuted for his monstrous thinking?
Hey Boris, do that chicken thing you do.
chek, no idea what you mean
be more explicit, moron
What chek said! Still guffawing. Funniest comment on the thread by far (#78).
If you aren't going to lock yourself in your study and do the honourable thing, then you will have to answer some questions. Questions you have blanked no less than three times now.
Let's start with how old is the Earth?
C'mon Boris, you know the tune - Bwaawk bwaaawk bwawk bwawk bwawk, bwaawk bwaaawk bwawk bwawk bwawk...
#86 Flaccid Old Bill
"finding a rate <2000 ths of a degree C per decade.
(ref increase in 0.09C in 55 years) is that really measurable?
ie one ARGO buoy per how many thousand cubic kilometres of ocean. (and we've only had ARGO, for a decade, or less at depth)"
"[Response: Changing a unit to have a small sounding number doesn't actually change anything; neither the significance nor the accuracy. But if you want to play rhetorical games, go right ahead - though perhaps not here. - gavin]"
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/what-ocean-heatin…
ha........gavin hasn't a friggen a clue either :)
Well, I am still waiting on the answer to 'how this incredibly small' and 'almost unmeasurable' amount of 'heat' can magnify or intensify to a higher temperature that will fry the planet.
Does 2 buckets of 15 C water when mixed together magically become 30 C water?
Will the deeper cooler water rise and make the shallower water hotter?
"Beam me up Scotty! There is no intelligent life on this planet." .......... lol
FIFY. To illustrate the fixed version:
You have been told over and over again, and you still haven't a friggen clue. The failure is not on our side, it is because you are incompetent to or unwilling to understand early high school science.
(FWIW, you can't even get basic facts right. It's an incredibly large amount of heat in the oceans if much of it were to be transferred to the atmosphere, and it's actual heat energy, not scare quoted 'heat'. And while we're at it, heat is not the same as temperature, as we've been trying to drum through your thick skull for weeks now.)
Furthermore, the mechanism that was described to you had nothing to do with mixing two lots of water together and magically increasing the total amount of heat energy in the total amount of water. It doesn't have anything to do with magically increasing total amounts of heat energy at all. It is (in the first approximation) about changing the distribution of the existing heat energy. You really are utterly and enthusiastically clueless, aren't you?
What is most amazing is that you still haven't twigged as to how clueless you are. And you even pretend that the rest of us haven't twigged that your purpose here is to disseminate lies.
"And while we’re at it, heat is not the same as temperature,"
If it has nothing to do with raising the temperature of the atmosphere then why do you alarmanize about it?
#99 captures the fundamental, absolute *cluelessness* of this idiot.
Oh my, oh my, you really are superbly clueless.
"Is not the same as" does not mean "has nothing to do with". Your average grade 7 kid could tell you that.
To summarise:
"I (Sunspot) cannot understand that the amount of energy needed to raise the upper 2000m of global ocean by 0.09C is absolutely mind-bogglingly vast.
I cannot understand that expressing this accumulation of energy as a small-sounding change in ocean temperature is a *trick*.
I cannot understand that expressing the accumulation of energy in correct units - ~25 x 10^22 Joules since 1955 - is *not* a trick.
I am clueless and I am in denial."
In other news, my salary is not the same as my net wealth. According to Karen this means my salary can have nothing to do with my net wealth.
Also, my dietary habits are not the same as my weight. According to Karen, that means my dietary habits can have no influence on my weight.
And in still other news, I have three tonnes of mulch and a garden.
Since the mass of mulch isn't the same as the area occupied by the mulch, the mass has nothing to do with how much area it will cover if spread out. And it especially has nothing to do with the difference in area covered if I spread it thickly or really thinly...
And you will wait 'til the Call to Judgement, you sad little poster child for Dunning-Kruger, you, because you are stupid and simply cannot understand what everyone else here, with the likely exception of some of the dimmer of your fellow-travelers, grasped years ago.
I repeat - SunSpam, you are stupid. Pole-axingly, deadeningly, numbingly, screechingly, vacuously, complacently, smugly, arrogantly, imperturbably, condescendingly, depauperately, insouciantly, Pollyannaishly, prissily, shrilly, and above all overwhelmingly stupid.
You are stupid when you wake up in the morning, stupid late at night, stupid in your stupid dreams.
Not a little bit, not slightly, not just-a-tad, not occasionally, not debatably, not cryptically; no, none of these! You are full-on, totally, 100% died-in the wool stupid, you stupid, stupid, stupid little noisome stupid smear in the gusset of humanity, you!
That's why you're a Denier.
But most of all, you're stupid. If you hadn't had AGW Denial to be stupid about, and feel great because you're able to be stupid along with a whole bunch of other stupid people, you'd just be stupid about something else, and doubtlessly are.
Because you're stupid.
Get it?
So ummm, what will this infinitesimal increase in ocean temperature do?
It appears that no one knows, the script is being written now in some decaying sanitarium no doubt.
QED
What, a cereal manufacturer, you dim-witted nonentity?
Praise the Lord.
We have been saved from thermageddon.
All those 10^29 little ergs beamed to the ocean depths to prevent a 30 odd degree rise in temperature of the atmosphere.
Its a miracle.
Bow down and keep The Faith,
LoL
Speaking of stupid, another smug, incredulous ignoramus appears...
I try to fit in with the surroundings Bill
Anyway. Whats the latest from walton mountain. You had an election or something. Have I missed much while away?
Hey Bileee, I'm with you, I hope it does get hot honey, otherwise I will have wasted my money on a really big air conditioner. :)
lol....... no gwowbull worming at my house......hehe...
Now Bileee, are you a bit thick? or syintificaly challenged? or just a loud mouth old prick with onset dementia?
I ask this because you appear to be toooo stupid to answer a simple question.
Hi Rednose :)
They have been a grump bunch in here since Prime Minister Abbott took their
co2 global warming away :)
Hi Karen
Afraid you left out "miserable" in that description.
If this lot were all against Abbott, then it was probably a good result.
It's a great big stupid love-in. Get a room, it's repulsive.
Don't you just love what is happening to the numbering around here.
My page 22 now #61 (was #57) was referring to an asinine Boris at #55 which is now a post by Jeff Harvey.
So to put the record straight I was not indicating to ignore Jeff, I never would.
Oh, a familiar shape...
BBD
Now you will freak SunKrank out talking in Joules.
That is why when asking her/he/it about the comparison of heat energy required to melt one gram of ice to the heat energy required to raise one gram of fresh water through one degree Celsius I indicated that calories would do.
BTW WRT Cronin on Page 19 under the sub-head 'Sea Surface Temperatures and Ocean Circulation in the last few lines we read:
What do you make of that statement?
It reminds me of the confusion Boorish is in over albedo.
That same paragraph could be used to test SunKrank's understanding of feedbacks WRT the difference between negative and positive feedbacks. I suspect that she would think increasing sea ice, thus with increased albedo causing further cooling was a negative feedback.
Now if I put it to Boorish that albedo of something was 1.25, what would he make of that?
The "asinine" Boris seems to have led you lot by the nose for the last few pages/threads.
Are you sure its not Tim winding you up to maintain the blog stats?
Ah, a lovely little bit of conspiratorial ideation.
I reckon if Tim wanted to "maintain the blog stats" he'd churn out another article - there's plenty of material - that would see the deniers frantically trying to defend it...
Nick #18. Shukman again! I daresn't watch. He has already dismayed me to much this week by allowing Bishop Shill on the News, 'News' now there is a joke.
Hey all you muppets in the peanut gallery, we knew about the use of clams for climate research. Guess what, scientists have also had lots of holes drilled in mud, coral, ice to discover how and why climate has changed.
Give me strength, and now RedNoise has returned with his inane and childish sham humour.
RedNoise is like those bottom dwelling worms that appear in the sediment record from time to time (here today - stir - gone tomorrow), stirring the sediment, which helps scientists differentiate between layers of churned and not churned - thus providing, like dendrochronology and clams - sectional differences which aid dating.
#22 Don't worry,Lionel, it's a simple tale that he hasn't managed to stuff up. It's mainly for the Karens.
Rednoise
Go back and read the thread again. You haven't understood the words at all.
Please try to remember that telling childishly obvious lies both pointless and stupid.
Page 21 #7
Looks to me you are being led.
Missed you too Lenoil
Oh my giddy aunt!
I tried, I really tried. It's like trying to teach table manners to toddlers - but without all the fun to offset the frustrations.
Not only is SunSpam terminally stupid, but RedNoise is so stupid that he can't see how stupid SunSpam is!
Of course, there's always the possibility that Rednoise is just an arrogant, uppity conflict-entrepreneur who's too dishonest and manipulative to care how paralyzingly stupid his allies are... But I'm betting the former. You're too stupid to see how stupid SunSpam is, right, Rednoise?
SunKrank and RedNoise are both too ignorant to appreciate how ignorant they are.
Now there is no shortage of articles refuting the 'warming has paused' BS (that the BBC seems so fond of lately along with other MM talking heads) with this one at CP joining this one at ClimateDenialCrockoftheWeek and this one from Stefan Rahmstorf at RC.
No more 'stupid' please peanuts, you can stop lol-ing around.
#25
Looks to me like you are either too stupid to understand written English or lying.
Did you know that a fly turd is about 20 times greater in width than the distance traveled by the mercury in a thermometer if it was placed in the ocean at a depth of 300 mtrs for 55 years.......lol
Poor stupid Spamkan, still not able to understand the difference between heat and temperature, despite all the assistance and having parroted the definitions.
Karen tries to ridicule something she doesn't understand by typing something about the width of fly excrement on a computer based on electronic features that are tens of nanometres in width.
Teh irony. It burns.
C'mon guyz, what will this pissy increase in ocean temperature do?
How will it convert the planet to Hades?
Bill#28
This "stupid" theme is a bit boring Bill. Cant you liven it up a bit, give me something to work with.
And you do seem to have a bit of a cob on lately, if you dont mind me saying. Its only an election, your side can try again in another 4 or 5 years.
Still here is something that might cheer you up, though I haven't seen any of these arguments used here on this blog.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2013/9/26/breaking-ipcc-responds…
Tomorrow is doomsday for leper islanders: AR5
chekie luvs sci fi,
star wars, battle star galactica, ipcc, the simpsons.......lol
AR5 might tell us how to put wires into the ocean to get the energy out.......
From the UK Guardian
>blockquote>Climate scientists wrangle over crucial projections on likely effects of global warming just hours before report's deadline
Fraught negotiations over a landmark review of the world's knowledge of climate change were making slow progress on Thursday with just hours to go before early Friday's deadline .
But, but... I thought the Science was settled.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/26/ipcc-climate-report-…
They are still trying to explain the missing heat, no doubt the PR companies will charge a fortune to spin this one..........
Why was there record cold temperature in the Arctic this summer?
Did the heat make the cold or did the cold make the missing heat?
I wish you guyz would make up your minds about this.
Funny how the alarmist wankers use that millions of nuclear bombs energy going into the ocean as a sick sort of analogy .........lol.....which is just so ridiculous by the way.
Meanwhile Fukashima spews it radioactive guts into the Pacific ocean and the greenies in here don't give a shit....................?
What analogy would you prefer, moron?
Yep! What else can we expect from a 'flying fid' like SunKrank?
By the way,
Please elaborate. Which PR companies have "spinned" climate change on behalf of the IPCC or any government before, and which ones do you anticipate being used for the AR5?
#43
Correction to my comment earlier
This is obviously IPCC Answer 1 Argumentum ad hominem
Stu-pid
Lol
Nope you dope on a rope, the rope of pearls made of denier straw-men arguments and misdirections.
Now did you miss my my #29 on this page?
Pay attention at the back there and start your science courses.
Science is never settled, completely, it is just that enough is known to be able to talk about established science WRT climate. All you have to do is study at the sources cited here and ignore everything from the woo scientists of the denial-o-sphere.
Andrew Montford, Matt Ridley etc are not reliable sources far from it tools of the GWPF for one thing. Their kind of wrong-headedness was typified by that UKIP goon Farage in a recent address to the Euro-state representatives when he held up spurious images of Arctic ice and talked a load of BS. It would seem that UKIP ridding themselves of Monckton has done little for their science knowledge.
If there are fraught negotiations then it is likely due to the vacillation and cowardice of policy makers beholden to the vested interests with empires to preserve. In other words a repeat of previous IPCC negotiations reported on by Joe Romm, Naomi Oreskes and others.
That you so flippantly remark on this demonstrates that not only are you ignorant of the true state of knowledge on climate change but also of the history of denial.
Else, you could of course be complicit in the actions that are trying to undermine urgent policy decisions for short term profit against almost for sure the end of civilisation as we know it. Are you ready for that latter. The choices are stark, what is it about the increasing magnitude and frequency of the signals coming from the natural world that you cannot grasp the import of?
Oh for fuck's sake Rednose. Let me count the ways.
1) It wasn't directed at you.
2) Calling Karen/Mack/Sunspot a moron is not an ad hominem, it is a statement of fact. He is a complete and utter moron, as demonstrated on this and many previous threads. As a random recent example, he has no concept of the difference between heat and temperature (and in true D-K fashion refuses to listen and/or look it up).
3) Even if Karen/Mack/Sunspot weren't a moron, "what would you prefer, moron" is STILL not an ad hominem attack, it is an insult.
Let me (AGAIN) try to explain the difference.
Insult: "you're wrong because of X, moron".
Ad hominem: "you're wrong because you are a moron"
Is there some sort of code of honor amongst denialists that you have to be wrong about EVERY SINGLE FUCKING THING you address?
You, Rednose, are a moron. And that is a statement of fact.
Lionel, didn't you see "Karen"s "I have a big AC"? Don't you hear the implicit "I'm fine, screw those ni-CLANG" after it?
The entire premise is that no, they won't make choices, because they don't have to. Africa starving? Bangladesh flooding? What the hell do they care? They damned well know what is about to happen, but they figure it doesn't affect them and they'll be DAMNED if gas or electricity prices have to go up to protect some darkies halfway across the globe.
You really are a non-comprehending (about anything) numpty aren't you SunKrank. The analogy using atom bombs is to do with heat energy not radiation.
No wonder you don't 'get' science.
And I see that Rednoise is now in your lol-ling class.
You're the twins ting-a-ling
You're the twins ting-a-ling
You're the brothers ******** and we know where you're from
As you walk along the Prom, prom, prom
The brass band plays tiddly om pom pom
They say as you pass there goes two feats of arse
You and your brother...
Yup! I did.
Two words describes their frame of mind(lessness),
cognitive dissonance.
Along with a few other things besides lying to themselves and others.
The Guardian story that RedNoise has missed:
Leading climate change economist brands sceptics 'irrational'.
#42 Sunsock
Making shit up again, Sunny!
AKA lying!
;-)
Quiz for "Karen": the total energy consumption in the US is about 2 x 10^22J. What is the ratio of US energy consumption versus the OHC increase?
@BBD: oh, I missed that one. Strawmen, look out! "Karen" is a-comin'!
"PR companies will charge a fortune to spin this one"
Amongst all of Karen's vacuously ignorant musings, this one has to take the cake. The biggest PR companies have been working on behalf of the oil, coal, natural gas, automobile, logging, pesticide, GMO, mining, development et. al. corporate lobby for years. To suggest that PR companies work on behalf of the scientific community or environmental NGOs has to be one of the most hilariously incorrect and stupid remarks I have heard in a long, long time.
Karen, may I suggest you check out the client list of Burson-Marstellar, Edelman, Porter-Novelli, Hill-Knowlton, Ketcham et al. et al. et al. Get back here when you know even remotely what you are talking about.
Jeff, SunKrank could do worse than to start here:
The Legacy Tobacco Documents Library assisted also by this:
Golden Holocaust: Origins of the Cigarette Catastrophe and the Case for Abolition.
She-he-it has so much ground to make up whilst she-he-it continues to clown-shoe about.
Jeff, Lionel, don't do that. I tried to leave it as an open question to show the clown can't answer it. Now "Karen" is going to put all of those firm names into Google, find a 1972 $2,000 contract one of them did for Greenpeace and go "LOLOLOL" again.
Open-ended questions, people.
By the way, the site is busted again. Anyone else getting warnings from sitemeter?
Stu-pid#48
But now you have gone from the second worst to the worst type of argument, simple name calling.
Sort of fits in with your immature social outlook.
Imbecile
Quiz for Stu-pid
What is the ratio of OHC estimated increase for the last 40 odd years to the total OHC.
http://motls.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/ocean-heat-content-relentless-but.h…
You haven't got any 'argument' Redarse.
Calling you a moron is an observation widely noted.
Stu yes that popped up for me too.
I disabled Java as a precaution
Instead of reading twaddle from cranks like Motl, you could look directly at the data and follow that up with some expert evaluation.
But you won't because you're a moron.
Shrek#62
I would say you are using IPCC Answer Number 4 there claiming some sort of general agreement.
Argumentum ad Populum
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2013/9/26/breaking-ipcc-responds…
Rednose:
Now you've gone from being simply wrong to trying to distract by tone trolling.
You were wrong when you accused me of using an ad hominem, Admit this first, or you lose al pretense of trying to have a good-faith discussion.
Be a grown-up for once.
For fuck's sake Rednose. You are too stupid to properly use, assess or imbue logical fallacies. You simply don't understand what they mean.
Not argumentum ad populum: "Rednose, everyone here knows you're dumber than a sack of hammers. Anyone in doubt can review your commenting history here."
Argumentum ad populum: "There's totes more blogs that don't agree with AGW than there are that do agree LOLOLOL, and they are totes more popular too so there LOLOLOL". (Actual argument from these here open threads).
Allow me to restate the fact: you, Rednose, are a fucking moron.
No, you conflate popularity with a consensus arrived at by analysing the data and reaching similar conclusions. A consensus based on evidence is not remotely similarto a popular vote.
Unfortunately for you, the evidence based consensus, the evidence having mounted for some months now, is that you're a drive-by moron link-spammer no different to SpamKan.
How is progress on the quiz question?
Shrek#67
You weren't a sketch writer for Monty Python in a past life by any chance?
Stu-pid#66
Sorry, being dumb, not understand.
Stupid, pointless question. Avoidance tactic. The point about OHC increase is that it demonstrates - unequivocally - that CO2-forced warming of the climate system continues as expected. Of course deniers are desperate to deny this fact, but the fact is, it is undeniable. You and I have been over this in detail. You were corrected again and again, yet here you are, being a tit about OHC once more. It is annoyingly dishonest, which is why you get called a moron etc. What do you expect? You deserve it. Try behaving in an intellectually honest manner for a change.
I doubt you would recognize one if it slapped you in the face.
Don't be fucking cheeky, Rednoise. Your miserable behaviour in previous "discussions" with me here disbar you from making remarks like that. You are an ignorant bullshitter, nothing more. And you know it as well as I do.
Its as stupid and pointless as the question posed by Stu earlier.
You are just trolling, Rednoise. And you aren't very good at it. Why bother? Go and play in some denier mudhole of wrong. You will be happier and so will we. Win-win.
Certainly not, Biggus Roseus Arsus.
You've been shown where the NOAA data is.
Knock yourself out.
Btw, do you think crank string collector Motl bothered with values such as salinity/density/mass when he was doing his Mickey Mouse calculations?
It's OK the question is rhetorical.
Thank you for this link Rednose :)
http://motls.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/ocean-heat-content-relentless-but.h…
I note that up thread the loons have now shifted the basket ball hoop 2 mtrs lower.
eg. OHC is not dangerous anymore, it is now just some sort of invisible ninja validation that co2 is warming the ocean even though it has stopped cooking Gaia and no one has worked out a fiendish scenario for it..... lol
So, RedNoise is defending this vacuous freak, showing that he has as much of a clue as the vacuous freak does. (Those are statements of fact, by the way.)
Who else? C'mon Deniers, 'fess up and show us that this is your collective dullard revenge on all those clever kids who paid attention and 'got' things!
So, instead of referring to NASA, BoM, CSIRO, or any other actual science organisations for his knowledge of climate change, Rednose prefers to use a crank site called "BishopHill".
And Karen just linked to Motl, a crank who has made no contribution to climate science.
Oh, and you're stupid RedNoise. Really stupid.
What you guyz are actually saying, under your stinking breath, is that the OHC graph is only being used as a theatrical prop to fool alarmist greenies.
Therrmageddon is upon us... Woooooo Woooooo says the co2 boogie man..... lol
aaand, the big fat tub of lard that is fooled by it the most is BBD
FIFY.
Hi Lothie,
Are you guyz are expecting some sort of new esoteric premonition from the climate gods?
Is AR5 the new prayer book of revelations for the co2 cult?
Lotharsson, can you describe in own words what you mean by saying "its always infection"???? Is it an unconditional reflex when you close to vomiting?
Mouthbreather incredulity gets old very quickly. There'd be little remaining in modern science if the credibility standard was your infantile notion of the plausible.
When it comes to accusations of cultism it is, indeed, always projection.
And, speaking of cultists, 'Boris' can't even comprehend written text. Are you attacking us through Google translate or something, Kai?
愚か者
What you're apparently saying, Karen, is that perhaps because (as you have acknowledged) you are unable to comprehend basic high school science, you simply give up and pretend science is "religion" instead (when it suits you to do so).
I guess that makes a twisted kind of sense. The scientists talking about heat energy and its relation to temperature might indeed sound like religious gobbledegook if you can only hear it as gobbledegook because you simply aren't equipped to understand it.
Well folks, we now know that Sunny is obese and very unhappy about it!
Because (all together now) it's always projection!
:-)
What ? BBD, you have no peer reviewed papers that model or project/predict a planet that spontaneously combusts because the ocean is 0.06 C warmer now that 55 yrs ago..... lol
What about gray literature?
A newspaper clipping?
Sunny asks:
No, it's a slightly out of date summary of the state of scientific knowledge about AGW.
Faith-based assertion is what deniers do, Sunny. Science operates by falsification and any emergent scientific consensus arises from scientific evidence and is always provisional.
Science is not a faith nor a cult nor is it opinion. What deniers do is faith-based and cultish and entirely based on scientifically unsupported opinion.
The pseudo-sceptic discourse on sensitivity is a perfect example. The vast majority of the evidence points to a value for ECS/2xCO2 of around 3C. The lowball results so adamantly endorsed by "sceptics" are in fact rather problematic.
These so-called observationally-derived estimates (eg Otto et al. 2013) are based on short time-series subject to large uncertainties and include significant assumptions about aerosol negative forcing which have a major influence on their results. If you listen to what actual climate scientists are saying, you quickly grasp that these results are not considered robust. If you listen to "sceptics", ECS is below 1.5C.
That's faith, not science.
SunSpam, you can rabbit on in Denial of your own incomprehension all you like, but the fact is, petal; you're a fuckwit. A shit-for-brains. You have no place in an adult conversation regarding AGW, or any other scientific issues.
Deep down you know it, which is why you hate us all. But your pointless resentment won't change anything - you're thick, and your views are inconsequential.
Well, they would be, but what we are struggling against is a whole bunch of inadequate sad-acts like yourself, who've allowed themselves to be herded around by a bunch of tobacco scientists, venal old billionaires and libertard zealots so that you can gum up the works on their behalf, and stop the actual bright and competent people from doing what needs to be done.
I sincerely hope you're as obnoxious and objectionable in real-life as you are online, SpamKan, because if and when the shit really hits the fan you really don't deserve to come out of this without penalty.
None of you do.
#89
I've said all I'm going to say about OHC and the relative thermal capacity of water vs the atmosphere, Sunny. You now have pages of people upthread trying to help you beat your confusion on this topic. At this point, you can STFU and learn, or just STFU. We are all past caring. You need to find a new topic to mangle and misunderstand.
Bill puts it so much better than I do, but we crossed.
"which is why you hate us all" hahahahaha
I don't hate you all Bileeee, only barnturd.. lol
You are upset because your pathetic insults bounce off me, Bileee if you can't handle a bit of jovial tit for tat then pull your big ugly head in.
The OHC debacle has been quite trying for you all, never mind, AR5 might spin something that will cheer you all up and get the temperature moving up again. :)
"I’ve said all I’m going to say about OHC and the relative thermal capacity of water vs the atmosphere, "
You didn't say anything of any significance, in fact you ran away from the subject, you are pathetic !
You are still hiding from the truth, and you should be ashamed of yourself for continually flogging that misleading OHC graph.
tch tch tch tch
Far from it. The most interesting thing for me when the full WG1 report is out will be just how much new information and analysis has been published since the close off date for submissions. The science as presented will be a good snapshot, but in some areas it will look a bit dated.
It'll also be fascinating to see what they make of the previous disparity between modelling and loss of Arctic sea ice and whether they finish up in the same position as the last report. Publish a heap of graphs and projections, following melt seasons make it look ridiculously understated. http://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f03a1e37970b017744cf5360970d-pi
One of the irony meters in my reserve that hasn't even been unpacked and plugged in yet just went "sproing!"
#97
Are you sure it was an irony meter? I just lost a whole bank of lie detectors.
SunSpam, I'm not some obeast sad-act whose only pleasure in life is attempting to torment the bright people you resent and despise.
(And pretending to be a woman is, I suspect, the closest you'll ever manage to get to one.)
You pathetic, inadequate, futile fool.
'Jovial'?! Phhhhttt! My arse. If this is how you carry on in real life, petal - assuming you ever leave Mommy's basement - and if things go pear-shaped out there I wouldn't waste my time trying that defence if I were you. I remind you that you have come here, where you are palpably not welcome, to goad as your sole purpose; you could scarcely hope to have accumulated more resentment against you, little troll, but every day you keep on playing at being SunSpam it'll grow just a little more...
#90...
And it's taken a decade for them to "allow" even that, miserable dead weights that they are. As for rejectionists like Kaz....
So, Bileeee, OHC means nothing, surface temps have been flat or declining for 15/17 yrs and ECS is below 1.5C
:)
So how is progress on the quiz question. This exercise in basic Physics and arithmetic seems to be taking an awfully long time for all you learned types.
No reply yet from the great Stu-pid, you know the one who likes to brag about their alleged debunking of the work of Spencer, Christy, Lindzen etc.
You can fone a friend if you like.
I made it easier by pointing you in the right direction but if you dont like the info on Motls site use NASA, Wiki whatever.
.
Here it is again, in case you have forgotten.
Just an order of magnitude calculation is required to get a general idea of the ratio of the two amounts.
"who likes to brag about their alleged debunking of the work of Spencer, Christy, Lindzen etc"
Debunking their garbage isn't hard, Rednose. It should also be telling that the denial industry has depended on the opinions of the same old scientists for years. Why are there not a huge number of young, new climate scientists joining the ranks of the deniers who are primarily made up of a veritable bunch of semi-retired old farts?
You and Karen also rely on climate denial blogs run by embittered non-climate scientists for much of your 'information' if one can call it that. Anybody with half a brain wouldn't touch these sites with a ten foot barge pole, but you consistently do.
Gigs up Rednose. Take your stupidity elsewhere.
Note how Karen has shied away from her/its/his PR comment. That alone was a howler of gigantic proportions, and could only be made by someone who is utterly clueless about the way in which the world works.
#2,...why I recognise that call! It's the droning sound of the mounting of an argument from incredulity...
I stopped buying those years ago. On this kind of forum the mean time to failure is on the order of a couple of minutes. Even buying in bulk it was far too expensive.
Speaking of lie detectors failing, note how we get a new page and Karen repeats a lie that has been pointed out to her over and over, complete with several graphs (some showing even her cherry-pick of the surface temperature doesn't support her claim).
Karen's purpose here is to disseminate lies.
Well how about you Jeff? You willing to give the question a go?
Should be no trouble for someone who has had all these science papers published.
As a retired old fart myself, its interesting to see how basic standards in Physics and numeracy are faring present day.
Not too well it seems.
#2 Rednoise
Stop asking silly diversionary questions and look at the data.
Anything strike you about the relationship between total net forcing and OHC?
OHC 0 - 700m vs total net forcing
Live coverage of the IPCC report release from the Guardian.
Now that is bizarre. Give me a minute with the firewall.
Let's see if that helps:
OHC vs total net forcing
Nope, can't get it to work. Which is irritating.
#8 So what's your point? "Sceptics" asking stupid questions are tedious. Develop your argument.
Now 95% confidence.
Analysis at the ABC includes Mann and Nuccitelli.
Quite.
Those concerned for their stock of irony meters beware:
#15
Following on with the theme that the OHC increase is due to a very small 0.065C increase in temperature, I wondered whether any here had the wit and numeracy to use basic information to compare the OHC increase with Total OHC, to get some idea of the orders of magnitude involved and put them into some sort of context, something Physicists do every day.l
Apparently not. Does this reflect the lack of expertise of the defenders of the faith on this blog.
I work the answer to be approximately:
OHC increases are 2x10^-4 of total OHC
Or the OHC increases are 2/10000 of total OHC
Pity there seems to be no one else here capable of doing a similar calculation to check these figures.
#17...yep, there is the dumbfuck argument from incredulity. Close the door on your way out.
"Or the OHC increases are 2/10000 of total OHC"
You can't say that! Billions of people will die!
Aaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrr sookie sookie cry cry .............lol
Oh FFS Rednoise. Explain the ~25 x 10^22 J increase since 1955. What caused it? We know. GHG forcing caused it. That is the relevant issue here. Once again, you are desperately trying to distract from what is important - the ongoing accumulation of energy in the climate system as a result of TOA radiative imbalance arising from increasing GHG forcing.
What you are doing is a crude exercise in intellectual dishonesty.
Fuck off Sunny!
You stupid, pointless little bore!
SunSpam, I've found things in my socks after a long day in the field that were smarter than you.
And then there's the similar level of retardation exhibited by your little Friend With Benefits, RedNoisome. Haven't I heard this lack-of-argument before? Ah, yes, 'let's all plot the temperature increases against absolute zero - see, there's nothing happening!'
Equilibrium / disequilibrium, petal. I know it's hard.
The incredulity of the genetically lobotomised. Now, there's an argument...
I have a quiz question for David Duff. Now, some of our more recent arrivals won't recognise that name, but I'm pretty sure Rednose is just another sock puppet, so (as with Karen-Sunspot and Boris-WhothefuckknowshesgotmorepersonasthanSybil) I really should call him by his right name.
So David, given you have never displayed any good faith engagement here, why the hell would you think anyone would give a toss what you claim to want to know?
Supplementary notes:
Home viewers will note that David (probably on the strength of Jeff Id's latest post at WTFIUWWAW), thinks he is so cleverly baiting a trap for the unwary. Will David show good faith by simply stating his case? The smart money says no, but now is David's opportunity to prove me wrong.
Good faith hint, David: Jeff's maths may or may not be right (I haven't checked), but his conclusions are barse-ackward either way. If you decide to show good faith for once, and state your case, you might want to think about that.
Hardly worth the effort BBD
let me know when it doubles or something in about 5000 years.
Ignoramus, ignoramus, ignoramus.
Complacent, addled, dumb. And arrogant to boot. If you sympathize with him, you're just the freakin' same.
To think these fools have already done irreversible harm, and will only go out of their way to cause more.
#17,#19 , tiny fractions mean tiny effects in tiny minds, especially when earth system knowledge is tiny and the intention of improving it is vanishingly small. We already knew what you'd attempt Redfarce,and,incredibly,we already knew that the Karen the village idiot emeritus would drool along.
Ahh, Mr Duff added another while I was typing. So:
Non sequitur and Petitio principii in the one sentence. Good job, laughing boy.
Non sequitur. Nobody was prepared to indulge your pathetic bad faith.
I'd already done them. But here is the question for you, David.
So what? How much increase would be required, in your opinion, before we should be concerned? State your case. Or fuck off. I couldn't really care either way...
#24 Don't know, don't care know-nothings are always right. And are absolutely useless.
#24
OHC 0 - 2000m increased by ~25 x 10^22J since 1955. Why do you think it will take 5ka to double? I think you may have a problem with your arithmetic there.
And if it turns out you are yet another fucking sock puppetter, then fuck you for your dishonesty.
Frank D
Without a link, your first post is confusing, though you seem to be confused yourself.
I am not Mr Duff, though i do find his interjections amusing.
Easy to say.
Still laughing
Had no dealing with you previously but as you appear to be rather rude.
Fuck off yourself
If you agree this amount represents 0.0002 of the total, then...
On reflection BBD, there is a problem with my arithmetic. As this change took place over 50 years not 1, it should be nearer 250,000 years not 5,000. Mea Culpa
Aha! All this noise about Luboš 'Reference Frame' Motl who's own internal reference frame, or cognitive framework, is somewhat distorted.
Motl's damage trail runs through Skeptical Science, Rabett Run and his own field of string theory to which this article concerning Lee Smolin's book 'The Trouble with Physics' [1] opens another door.
I have more but that would break the single post link limit.
[1] I have this book on my shelf and have been reading it, slowly,for the second time having romped through it the first time. The book is quickly recognised by the title being 'concitant' on the cover.
I have read Lisa Randall's book 'Knocking on Heaven's Door' on the LHC, as well as a number by Roger Penrose on this area of theoretical physics, but found her style repetitive and lacklustre. She, clever no doubt, could take stylistic lessons from Richard Dawkins whose books, all read more than once, grace my shelves. I am on about my fifth copy of 'The Selfish Gene' , no bad thing in itself as the latest has had many additions and a few revision, the others having been borrowed by my children and passed on to their friends with who has what forgotten.
Still thrashing around in a puddle of irrelevance and intellectual dishonesty I see.
What you ignore - or rather what you are ignorant of - is paleoclimate behaviour. You need to consider the major changes in OHC in the past that coincided with hyperthermals (the PETM being the best known, but by no means the only one). Look up ocean anoxic events. Interestingly, the hyperthermals and OAEs seem to be associated with elevated levels of CO2 and/or CH4.
Don't be a fucking tool. Under increasing forcing relative to the 1955 - 2012 period, OHC 0 - 2000m will rise by more than 25 x 10^22J in less than 57 years.
#34
If you want the forcing increased by a factor 10, from 2.6 x10^22 to 25 x 10^22 then we are talking about 25,000 years.
Whatever
Whilst the angle of recent BBC reporting ahead of the new IPCC report may puzzle some, and certainly annoy others, maybe there is a clue in this old report by Roger Harrabin, David Shukman's colleague, Climate sceptics rally to expose 'myth' following a visit to a Heartland Institute shindig. Now we know where the 'contamination' came from.
Last evenings report by Shukman Man-made climate change causes 'even more certain' which includes several attempts at emphasising 'uncertainties' and even brought up that old chestnut about the last IPCC report's error with a date for melting glaciers - without describing what that error was and how it was a mere typo. That, in a word, is dishonest. It also ignores the fact that total loss of some such glaciers within the foreseeable future is going to be catastrophic, not least for those living downstream of the run off who rely upon this for their very living.
In short the BBC is still being dishonest and cavalier about the future of civilisation. Not quite in the same ball park as those rags that RedNoise appears to feed from The Daily Fail, Torygraph, etc.
SunKrank with your #19, you are sick, ask Boorish about his med's, you need some too.
#36 Lionel A,
BBD can help you out regarding the "melting glaciers" issue.
He was also confused.
SunKrank @ #37
Explain yourself.
Some more signal for RedNoise.
Assuming without question the benefit of having, say, Innamincka undergo something in the way of a botanical boom, and, utilising your patented technique of expressing no skepticism whatsoever over the result of any single paper whose conclusions you feel you can bend to advantage – whereas thousands of papers saying much the same thing is a travesty of science, apparently, and calls forth the most passionate of principled denunciations – please enlighten as as to: one, how eternal this situation may or may not be; two, how geographically confined; three, how we can know with confidence that the associated ongoing rise in temperatures – and perhaps declines in rainfall – cannot overwhelm any benefit, and; three, since I assume, opportunistic mealy-mouthed hand-wringing notwithstanding, you don’t give a shit about the welfare of the Eyrean Grass-wren, whether the negative implications of temperature rise for humanity as a whole may be safely assumed to have been completely overwhelmed by it?
It would seem that Josh and Montford have excelled themselves again, no I refuse to link to the Cardinal's Puff piece, suffice to say that Curry has pickled herself again and quotes some hack at the BBC and...and...and.... - all the sound of desperation from these shills, Curry is really 'out' now, no doubt about it.
If you really wish to link to Bishop Shill then see the Hank_ (familiar to we who have been to Desmog) reply here:
Understanding the pre-IPCC Anti-Climate Science Misinformation Blitz.
SunKaren and RedNoise are the spanner wielders that help the bombers get airborne. What else does that make them?
What the fuck are you on about?
And what about paleoclimate behavoir, Skippy?
#37
I say you are a fucking liar, Sunspot.
Disagree? Prove it by relevant quotation demonstrating exactly how I was confused, when, and were.
Get on with it, liar.
Rednoise, I have a feeling you are profoundly confused about something. Rather than waste further time on this, here is what I am thinking of when quoting the ~25 x 10^22J figure above:
Levitus et al. (2012):
#41
Your increase in OHC over 57 years is 0.0002 of the total OHC.
So Skippy, you work out at that rate warming how long it would take to double total OHC. Can you manage that.
Give it a go.
Wake me up when you have done it, or its happened, whichever comes first.
Since Rednoise apparently thinks that the doubling of ocean heat content is somehow necessary before it raises concern, perhaps he could calculate what a doubling of heat content of the atmosphere would mean for surface temperatures. No need for a full atmospheric profile, just a very rough and simple model will do.
I shall await his answer with bated breath...
So what? It's the upper ocean that counts for short-term climatological effects. You are desperately wriggling and it's not working.
And what about paleoclimate behaviour?
I still don't think Rednoise gets it.
The rate of ocean heat uptake is modulating the rate of tropospheric (and so surface) temperature warming. A very slight increase in the rate of OHU has resulted in a brief slowdown in the rate of tropospheric/surface warming.
Given that the atmospheric fraction of CO2 is increasing and given that the concomitant radiative forcing is increasing then for the so-called hiatus to continue, ocean heat uptake will have to increase continuously from now on.
Exactly nobody thinks that can happen, so at some point fairly soon, OHU is going to fall slightly again and the strong surface warming trend will resume.
And then there is El Nino, steadily winding up to deliver massive amounts of energy back to the atmosphere in pulses. Remember 1998? A super EN that caused step change upward in GAT. Why won't that keep on happening as the century progresses? With a warmer ocean to tap for energy?
This is how physical climatology works, Rednoise. You live in a world of denial and evasion enabled and underpinned by pig-ignorance of the basics.
And so, as we few, we brave few, gather together here today on this auspicious occasion celebrating the publication of the master work of the renowned, nay, revered, railway engineer, Mr. Rajendra Pachauri. let us all form a circle, er, or a triangle as there's only three of us, and holding hands let us chant - AS LOUD AS WE CAN in order to drown out the snorts and sniggers of the unbelievers - our famous mantra:
Weeeee Belieeeeeeeeeve!
Weeeee Belieeeeeeeeeve!
As David Duff so beautifully illustrates, it's always projection.
Sigh. Once it's over the page it's as if it never was... So as the deniers repeat their projections, we have to repeat the facts:
Faith-based assertion is what deniers do, David. Science operates by hypothesis testing and falsification and any emergent scientific consensus arises only from scientific evidence and is *always* provisional.
Science is not a faith nor a cult, nor is it opinion. In very stark contrast, what deniers do is faith-based and cultish and entirely based on scientifically unsupported opinion.
The pseudo-sceptic discourse on sensitivity is a perfect example. The vast majority of the evidence points to a value for ECS/2xCO2 of around 3C. The lowball results so adamantly endorsed by “sceptics” are in fact rather problematic.
These so-called observationally-derived estimates (eg Otto et al. 2013) are based on short time-series subject to large uncertainties and include significant assumptions about aerosol negative forcing which have a major influence on their results. If you listen to what actual climate scientists are saying, you quickly grasp that these results are not considered robust. If you listen to “sceptics”, ECS *is* below 1.5C. Fact. End of.
Now that’s faith, not science.
Remember 1998?
This is the whole problem for thick-as-shit deniers paddling about in areas they have no competence or concern in.
Redarse might like to consider that the OHC in the data I linked previously has doubled since 1998.
Which of course means nothing to his flatulent smugness, just as it all sails over Duffer's head with nary a ripple.
And just like magic, when invoked, the sockless Duffster appears right on cue.
Well, its like magic, but a naturalistic explanation is not far away. Occams razor and all that.
#53
Yes, that was most interesting. It would be nice if the various sock puppeteers here abandoned their dishonesty and simply posted under a single screen name. As the rest of us do.
Good faith, and all that.
Lotharsson @46:
Exactly the point I anticipated Redsock missing in my #23 above. The mouthbreathers wibbling about this are all talking about it through the frame of how many degrees of atmospheric warming a given amount of ocean warming would defray. The issue is exactly the opposite. Anyone here surprised the deniers now have to look through the wrong end of the telescope to avoid seeing the problem?
Just to clarify in case Redarse goes all literal on #52
5 x 10^22J in 1998 to 10.5 x 10^22J in 2012 (0-700m OHC)
and
5 x 10^22J in 1998 to 16 x 10^22J in 2012 (0-2000m OHC)
As a random aside, let me pre-empt any of the resident clowns claiming that wind and solar are not viable and are too expensive. Sorry, that's right in my wheelhouse, and you're wrongity-fucking-wrong. I see reference buildout projections every working day, and let me tell you -- the people that actually have a financial stake in this (i.e. energy companies) know which way the wind is blowing (double pun intended). Expect massive increases. The only thing that needs to happen is grid upgrades. Now if only this were a time in the world economy where a massive government investment in infrastructure would be a good idea...
I would be curious if rednose has calculated what temperature the oceans would be if total OHC were doubled. My guesstimate is they would scarce exist as liquid water as total OHC is energy required to raise sea water from 0K to approx. 277K.
DON'T BOTHER ME WITH YOUR "NUMBERS", LB!
Heh, luminous beauty asks the question for the ocean that I ask for the atmosphere. (On the atmosphere I'd settle for total energy required to raise each gaseous component from its lowest temperature in gaseous state to current temperature, in order to simplify the problem a bit. And then double that amount of energy and calculate the new temperature.)
Bet rednose doesn't touch either question with a bargepole. The answers are going to make him look ridiculous.
Everything he says makes him look ridiculous.
Note the blanking of the teeny issue of paleoclimate behaviour, specifically hyperthermals and OAEs.
luminous beauty, what do you think would happen if OHC would quadrupled? Would sea level decrease or airborne CO2 fraction increase above 2000ppm??? Would this also have any influence on methane concentration???
Too late with the explanations and quips now LB. That little game is over. where were you when the great debunker Stu-pid needed a friend No one here at the time could provide the calculation.
Still calculating BBD?
#64
Still not reading the thread, Rednoise?
Rednose: why not ask for the total heat content of the whole Earth? Then you can make the increase in OHC look even smaller.
TB#66
Well one could ask TB, but would anybody here be able to calculate it. Got to make the questions easier as it is.
The question is what do you think you can prove? I rather think Nick nailed it in #18
,/i>I took a look at Motl's calculations. He isn't calculating total Ocean Heat Content at all. He is only calculating the energy to raise the average ocean temperature by 1K, i.e., Ocean Heat capacity. Doubling of which would, by definition, raise the average ocean temperature by 2K.
My calculations indicate that, were the energy required to raise the world's oceans by 1K added, instead, to the world's atmosphere it would raise the average temperature of the atmosphere by something on the order of a thousand degrees Kelvin.
#68
Nothing. It was a little challenge which apparently no one was able to take up.
What units is OHC quantified in RedNoise?
"It was a little challenge which apparently no one was able to interested enough [due to my previous form here] to take up".
Corrected that for you Redarse.
Ho hum.
What about the boring old physical climatology? The OHC of the upper ocean determines decadal - millennial scale climate change.
Enough deep sea red herrings already.
See "paleoclimate: hyperthermals; ocean anoxic events".
And #69.
FFS
#47 " Your increase in OHC over 57 years is 0.0002 of the total OHC.
So what? It’s the upper ocean that counts for short-term climatological effects. You are desperately wriggling and it’s not working. "
this from wg1ar5
"It is about as likely as not that ocean heat content from 0–700 m increased more slowly during 2003–2010 than during 1993–2002"
"It is about as likely as not"................... lol....<5% confidence by the looks of it!
Oh dear me, perusing the page above indicates that you all now realize that the piddly, minute, infinitesimal, microscopical and diminutive amount of temperature rise in the ocean have will do nothing.
Nothing !
#75,so OHC content increased 1993-2010. Thanks for catching up!
#76...well,you haven't caught on on this point,though...baby steps. Do you need a nap?
Nickie, it looks like the new ipcc report is just a cover up of the failure for the co2 meme to manifest...
"The Global Warming Policy Foundation is criticising the IPCC for its deliberate attempt to obscure the reality of an ongoing temperature standstill and its failure to come clean about the failure of its models.
The IPCC has decided to discount the global warming standstill since 1997 as irrelevant and has deleted from its final document its original acknowledgement (in its 7 June draft) that climate models have failed to ’reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10-15 years.’
Not only has the IPCC failed to predict the ongoing temperature standstill, its climate models actually predicted accelerated warming due to the increase of CO2 emissions."
And the GWPF is what, exactly?
On what basis does it make this claim? How many credentialled climate scientists does it bring to the table?
FFS.
#79 "failure of the CO2 meme to manifest"....a nonsense construct, and a false claim.....yawn
The final draft indeed deletes that line and goes for nuance, observing that some models may over-estimate response to increased GHGs and other anthro forcings. The IPCC has not discounted, implicitly or explicitly, the 'global warming standstill' as 'irrelevant'....GW'PF' fantasy. Models in 2007 predicted accelerated warming over coming decades:as that period has not run, the GW'PF' will just have to hold its powder LOL. Fake assessment from a fake 'policy foundation, as a matter of course.
Of course you're upset ,Kaz. Nap?
the failure for the co2 meme to manifest…
Blimey, what subterranean wonk thought that one up?
Frustration and despair notwithstanding, the result of a discussion with Karen could be a more polished game for his wranglers; and my understanding of AGW certainly benefits from the forthright clarity and measured responses of most contributors here. But that individual seems to be by turns deceitful, petty and intellectually gutless; without an ability for sincere human expression outside the mental constraint of his political, anger/fear shell. Can a sly old fart evolve into a gracious opponent? And isn't it a pity Tim is no longer able to set and moderate the agenda here?
From 1996-02I sat on UNCTAD UNFCCC helping set up IPCC)the goal/action then was to lower CO2e,restart the carbon cycle by replicating Nature by mass planting of that 2-6% of vegetation that sequesters CO2e (equivalent, such vegetation sequestration far more than CO2. E g Clover extracts r nitrogen from such sequestration along with a host of other elements! Albedo effect over the past 300years is the prime atmospheric heat build-up. Yes Industry has added serious gas emissions (de facto volcanoes) and yes they can capture these gases (some up 20,000 times of CO2. No report covers a well planned protocol to restart the carbon cycle back to deserts to grow soil and vegetation to not only capture CO2e but to grow food fodder and in time forestry (trees rice cotton most grains vegetables and grasses are a 100% source of CO2e and not a sink)
So Smithsonian can under its charter lead teach and actual the lowering CO2e. The sad fact is the revolving doors of government’s attending a UN assembly is the problem cause effect and the simple solution are not applied. Under UNFCCC 98 carbon trading will fund those nation capable of lowering CO2e.Should you have time view Robert Vincin Google and wwwemissiontraders.com.au to study how we are implementing CO2e sinks growing soil food fodder into deserts and retarding albedo. God help the historians of tomorrow if we don’t all jointly restore the baseline assets of man and all living mater. The assets soil-water-vegetation-atmosphere, all else (all) are but commodities.
Australia stands to be the CO2e sink for the develope world nation especially EU who have no way to lower CO2e. UNFCCC is a high cash flow "industry addressing every issues the government "promised to fix" jobs restore the land and create 1 million jobs. With just a fraction of lateral thinking Australia can be the global sink funded by CO2e trading and become the most famed leader of the millennium
If you are keen to spend a short time to learn and lead in r estoring the baseline assets and your government supports climate change BAU until we have clean energy setion of lateral and me a message! Robert Vincin.
Hey Andie, thank you for the kind words, that really was so sweet :)
Here is a little something for you honey.
How climate models dismiss the role of the Sun in climate
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2013/09/how-climate-models-dismiss…
ps. Andie, not so much of the "old" thank you :)
#84 It's IPCC report time, so any old codswallop is recycled for your crusade, Kaz...
<a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/08/how-large-were-th…; This discusses the Shapiro et al paper cited by your source,and puts it into perspective. Perspective notably lacking at your source.
Sorry,sweetie, here it is
Remember, Karen's purpose here is to disseminate lies.
Just after Andrew appropriately describes Karen, she reinforces his description by linking to one of the most abhorrent climate denier blogs.
One thing you can say about deniers: they are patently STUPID.
... and a few posts above that she quotes one of the most egregiously anti-science organizations, the GWPF.
Grist for the mill.
#86
Not very con Vincin, but it is interesting that you post your spam in here, these bums in here have not done anything to cut their co2 emissions, so why would they start now?
They all lost interest when the carbon markets went down the gurgler and
took their spare cash with it.....
Remember, Karen's purpose here is to disseminate lies.
wot did you do Lothie?
"Not very con Vincin, but it is interesting that you post your spam in here"
Its SPAM to Karen because she's intellectually and academically illiterate and has not got a clue about the emerging field of ecological economics. You see Vincin, Karen is the kind of person who makes up the ranks of the anti-environmental 'denier' amongst the general public. Essentially, most of them have no relevant educational background in anything remotely scientific, and instead base their views on their libertarian political beliefs. What is even more embarrassing is the ritual humiliation they endure when they espouse their beliefs,. only they are so patently stupid they cannot see it. Karen's comment on the PR industry and her quip about ecosystem services being proxies for 'farming' are cases in point. Both comments are so patently ignorant that it is actually difficult to counter them. I would have to denigrate myself by going into a sub-benthic level of discourse. In other words, both comments reveal a completely blank slate in Karens' brain. Hence why she is completely incapable of seeing how profoundly vacuous she is.
Actually, Vincin's post captures the idea of internalizing the costs of burning fossil fuels in terms of costs to the natural and material economies. As I have said many times, and most Deltoid commentators understand it perfectly well (Boris, Karen, Luke et al. notwithstanding), the ecological costs of extracting, refining, transporting and using fossil fuels are externalized. Hence they are borne on the public who have little choice but to accept them. As we already know, as a result of a range of anthropogenic processes, humans are simpifying natural systems and in turn these are rebouding on the material economy whose productivity and efficiency is underpinned by the material economy, Vincin's approach and that of steady-state economists - Daly, Viedermann, Gowdy, Heal and many others - is feasible and at least addresses this important point. Most importantly, it acknowledges the utter dependence of human society on ecological services.
I should have said 'underpinned by the natural economy'. My apologies!
Lotharsson
you have some talent as phraseologist:
"…bla bla bla .... here is to disseminate lies"
"... bla bla bla .... it's always Lotharsson"
etc.
Why?
The IPCC reunion took place in the Brewery of Stockholm, Torkelstreet (translated to English: where ethanol addicts live) and Thomas Stocker admitted that there are still many climatology questions open and that global temperature did not rise since 15 years.
BBD, you should learn that the results of paleoclimatology are extremely uncertain with huge error margins and extremely limited data (a few trees in Russia e.g., very few ice cores, some sediments from the US east coast).
It's all way beyond you Boris.
Stick to your chicken dance routine.
That really works, every time.
Oh and Boris, just while you're charging up those chicken farts, be aware that half a dozen lines on a blog by an anonymous though certified loony does not dismiss an entire field of science.
Now get dancing, chicken!
Funnily enough the IPCC report says that surface temperature has risen over the last 15 years...
Due to natural variability,
trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in
general reflect long-term climate trends. As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to +0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade)5
.
That 5 refers to a footnote...
Trends for 15-year periods starting in 1995, 1996, and 1997 are 0.13 [0.02 to 0.24], 0.14 [0.03 to 0.24], 0.07 [–0.02 to 0.18] °C per decade, respectively.
The 1997-98 El Nino had two peaks: August/Sept.1997 and Feb/March 1998 which clearly have had an effect on the 15 year trends starting in those years. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/
#1 You can't make the PETM disappear by wittering about uncertainty. As for the rubbish about proxies, well, FFS.
Start with the ODP and work on up.
It really shouldn't come as any surprise what they'll sink to given the disinfo campaign in play at the moment, but I've seen one anonymous commenter on The Guardian comments claim the 'hiatus' was "admitted" in the June draft of AR5 but deleted from the official release. Bit like the MWP all over again.
chek, bbd
you are really poor idiots as their is no warming,
NO TEMPERATURE INCREASE IS NO WARMING, FUCKWITS!!!!
Turbobloke, forget your crap from your disabled brain.
Read the temperature data of the last ten years, asshole, and forget your fucking obsession with nino, nina, 1998'm trakaka.
THERE IS NO TEMPERATURE INCREASING SINCE 10 years: NORMAL PEOPLE CALL THIS
NO WARMING
FUCKING ASSHOLE
Look, Turboblock, to make it easier for such tiny intellect like yours:
image somebody who tells you:
My thermometer in my garden showed 10C at 7:00 AM today.
My thermometer in my garden showed 10C at 7:00 AM yesterday.
My thermometer in my garden showed 10C at 7:00 AM the day before yesterday.
My thermometer in my garden showed 10C at 7:00 AM three days ago.
My thermometer in my garden showed 10C at 7:00 AM four days ago.
My thermometer in my garden showed 10C at 7:00 AM five days ago.
My thermometer in my garden showed 10C at 7:00 AM six days ago.
Therefore: THERE WAS NO WARMING IN THE LAST SIX DAYS.
UNDERSTOOD, YOU FUCKN ASSHOKE
Leper islanders:
YOU MUST LEARN WHAT A THERMOMETER IS !!!!!
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Prof. Curry nails it:
"Diagnosis: paradigm paralysis, caused by motivated reasoning, oversimplification, and consensus seeking; worsened and made permanent by a vicious positive feedback effect at the climate science-policy interface."
http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/28/ipcc-diagnosis-permanent-paradigm-par…
"Motivated reasoning, oversimplification and consensus seeking" pretty much sums up Curry's little sandpit of smugness, the current party line at her boardinghouse is a consensual 'we don't know enough/post-normal science/is broken/ paranoic aggression and mutual pleasuring.. Dr.Curry is a minor curiosity who has added not a skerrick to 'the debate'.
#10, you have to learn what an argument is, Emoticon Kid.
@Olaus
A thoughtful piece from Curry. Her conclusion;
"The diagnosis of paradigm paralysis seems fatal in the case of the IPCC, given the widespread nature of the infection and intrinsic motivated reasoning. We need to put down the IPCC as soon as possible – not to protect the patient who seems to be thriving in its own little cocoon, but for the sake of the rest of us whom it is trying to infect with its disease. Fortunately much of the population seems to be immune, but some governments seem highly susceptible to the disease. However, the precautionary principle demands that we not take any risks here, and hence the IPCC should be put down."
Thanks for the link Olaus.
;)
#14 Curry talks your language, GSW...yep.
I see the usual suspects beginning to try and dominate Deltoid again with their farcical musings.
Curry? IMHO she is an embittered, egotistical old woman who thinks that she and she alone possesses some magical wisdom that has mysteriously eluded the rank-and-file of the climate science community. Now that she has become the pin-up girl for the deniers, she craves the attention being heaped on her and is soaking it up, big time. Some of her posts are indeed vile - like putting up cartoons from Josh smearing Michael Mann. And to think she allegedly set up her blog under the guise of 'bridging dialogue between scientists on both sides of the climate science debate' a few years ago. That was never the intention, clearly. It was instead all about promoting 'me, myself and I'. Now her ego has swelled with the adulation heaped upon her, she's metaphorically come out of the closet.
Her nauseating quote exhibits clear signs of a pathological condition I allude to above. Indeed, the disease, if she could get it through he ego-soaked brain, is that humans have not evolved to respond to what we perceive as gradual threats to our well-being and survival. Instead, we can respond to instantaneous threats, such as the effects of weather-related calamities, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and, for our evolutionary progenitors, a bear at the mouth of a cave or a hungry saber toothed cat prowling the grasslands. But we are not evolutionarily programmed to respond to what, in geological terms, is rapid but within the context of a human life time is very slow or gradual. We know that biodiversity was unable to track past changes in climate regimes that were a fraction of what has been observed since the 1980s. And that was when the planet's ecosystems were more-or-less intact, and had not been slashed-and-burned, clear-cut, and otherwise simplified in a myriad of other ways by one of its evolved inhabitants.
If Curry could get it through her thick head, the real disease is the scale of the human enterprise and how this is reducing the planet's ability to sustain mankind. Climate change is one of the major symptoms of this disease. Reading her latest drivel makes me realize just how deep in the hole we currently are. Speaking as a fellow scientist with professional credentials every bit as good as hers, I can say honestly say that I am relived that she is an outlier. Still, that being said, the outliers are being given veritable megaphones by vested interests to spread their gospels of disinformation. Behind Curry there are few qualified scientists who would dare write such utter garbage as she does and who support here. But these few are promoted endlessly by think tanks, public relations industries and lobbyists on the corporate payroll. The infinitely larger group of scientists on the other side are virtually invisible, with the exception of a few prominent names.
And that is part of the problem.
Freddie @ #7
Epic! The self-proclaimed Grand high poohbah of all things scientific doesn't know the difference between...no wait, asserts there is no difference between... heat and temperature.
You can't parody this stuff...
Well, FrankD, someone had to "teach" Karen. (Or was it the other way around?)
#17
But all that HEAT is calculated from an alleged TEMPERATURE increase of 0.06 K in 50 years
for the 0-2000m layer.
That is 0.0012 K per year.
Amazing the precision you can claim with a bucket and a mercury thermometer.
Boorish at #10
A thermometer is a device for using a proxy measure to inform on the change of vibrational energy of the elements of a molecular structure.
What else did you think Boorish.
BTW
How do satellites measure temperature changes?
By dangling thermometers like corks from their hats perchance?
Rednoise:
But all that HEAT is calculated from an alleged TEMPERATURE increase of 0.06 K in 50 years
A change in temperature alone tells one nothing about the change in heat content of a body.
What other factors should be considered?
Aha! David Duff strikes again with this argument from historical inaccuracy and absurdity.
Aha yes. Judith Curry?
Gulp, with every passing post she coulkd be one of those considered here:
Postmodernism Disrobed.
You should read in its entirety 'The Devil's Chaplin' collection of essays by prominent scientists and thinkers with introductory material by RD. If you did then you would be equipped with more BS filters whilst reading such trite nonsense as is being increasingly pushed by aunt Judy & Co..
To clarify further,
elements as in parts, entities, not specific elements such as Fe, Pb, Cl, etc.
such that atoms can be included in the system being measured as well as molecules per se.
Trust Curry to twist even a simple concept like the precautionary principle. She really is an intellectual lightweight.
Given that we have only one planet and that we are causing major changes in its biosphere with centuries more future changes already loaded, the principle dictates that we stop adding to those changes immediately.
Curry's solution is that we should not hear any more about the problems we're busily manufacturing. The only risk that concerns her is to Business As Usual.
Wrong-o! You need to think about physical climatology as energy fluxes entering, moving around within and leaving the climate system or you will remain hopelessly wrong and hopelessly confused!
Sort out your basic definitions and concepts before further comments on this topic!
Buffoon!
David Duff/Rednoise continues to engage in data denial I see. Well, when the data contradicts your politics, that's all you can do!
Deny! Deny! Deny!
Can we stop the stupid fucking nonsense about temperature vs heat content now please? Those of us who understand the amount of energy involved in raising the 0 - 2000m ocean layer by 0.09 (not 0.06C) are really, really fed up with the childish fucking around with units to make it seem a small matter.
Those of you who still don't understand the trick here can now fuck off. The rest of you are just lying with numbers and you know that we know what you are doing, so you can fuck off too.
Let's move on. Make an effort, you lazy, tedious bastards. Please find something new to lie about.
Thanks!
Perhaps that's where the Abbott government got its approach to inconvenient facts (1/2 ;-) )
Beginner pupil Lionel
Education for you on Temperature
Historically, there are several scientific approaches to the explanation of temperature: the classical thermodynamic description based on macroscopic empirical variables that can be measured in a laboratory; the kinetic theory of gases which relates the macroscopic description to the probability distribution of the energy of motion of gas particles; and a microscopic explanation based on statistical physics and quantum mechanics. In addition, rigorous and purely mathematical treatments have provided an axiomatic approach to classical thermodynamics and temperature.[55] Statistical physics provides a deeper understanding by describing the atomic behavior of matter, and derives macroscopic properties from statistical averages of microscopic states, including both classical and quantum states. In the fundamental physical description, using natural units, temperature may be measured directly in units of energy. However, in the practical systems of measurement for science, technology, and commerce, such as the modern metric system of units, the macroscopic and the microscopic descriptions are interrelated by the Boltzmann constant, a proportionality factor that scales temperature to the microscopic mean kinetic energy.
The microscopic description in statistical mechanics is based on a model that analyzes a system into its fundamental particles of matter or into a set of classical or quantum-mechanical oscillators and considers the system as a statistical ensemble of microstates. As a collection of classical material particles, temperature is a measure of the mean energy of motion, called kinetic energy, of the particles, whether in solids, liquids, gases, or plasmas. The kinetic energy, a concept of classical mechanics, is half the mass of a particle times its speed squared. In this mechanical interpretation of thermal motion, the kinetic energies of material particles may reside in the velocity of the particles of their translational or vibrational motion or in the inertia of their rotational modes. In monoatomic perfect gases and, approximately, in most gases, temperature is a measure of the mean particle kinetic energy. It also determines the probability distribution function of the energy. In condensed matter, and particularly in solids, this purely mechanical description is often less useful and the oscillator model provides a better description to account for quantum mechanical phenomena. Temperature determines the statistical occupation of the microstates of the ensemble. The microscopic definition of temperature is only meaningful in the thermodynamic limit, meaning for large ensembles of states or particles, to fulfill the requirements of the statistical model.
In the context of thermodynamics, the kinetic energy is also referred to as thermal energy. The thermal energy may be partitioned into independent components attributed to the degrees of freedom of the particles or to the modes of oscillators in a thermodynamic system. In general, the number of these degrees of freedom that are available for the equipartitioning of energy depend on the temperature, i.e. the energy region of the interactions under consideration. For solids, the thermal energy is associated primarily with the vibrations of its atoms or molecules about their equilibrium position. In an ideal monatomic gas, the kinetic energy is found exclusively in the purely translational motions of the particles. In other systems, vibrational and rotational motions also contribute degrees of freedom.
Boris, why waste time copying and pasting stuff you don't understand from Wiki when you could be doing that chicken thing you do?
Boris/Freddy/Kai/Berendwanker lunatic troll
Let's begin your education in physical climatology.
Climate basic #1:
Your obsession with surface/tropospheric temperature is misplaced. It accounts for only a small fraction of the climate system as a whole. Your "analysis" is rubbish and your conclusions are wrong.
And what chek said. We have waited too long for the chicken dance and farted arrangement of Waltzing Matilda. Even Mrs BBD has expressed an interest in seeing this, so get on down and, ahem, blow us all away!
:-)
GSW, I believe Curry is a good candidate for a Nobel Price, in climate or peace.
Or why not in medicine and physiology, for her excellent work stopping the global lobal warming disease? ;-)
Ha! You just gotta love these clown shoes,
maybe Curry will also be the recipient of a Nobel prize pin, made of gold recovered from a physics experiment, by some Emeritus Professor of Physics at some university.
Boorish, all that C&P verbiage at #28 and are you still any the wiser as to how temperature alone dose not quantify how much heat there is in a system?
Explain in your own words.
Then answer the question re satellite temperature measurement.
Waiting,
waiting...
check, who has asked you?
Nobody!
Hence, shut up with your insolence!!
@34
Easy, fuckwit: satellites don't measure temperatures.
ONLY you leper islanders believe that any satellite measures temperatures.
Temperatures are measured with THERMOMETERS!!
THERMOMETERS!!!!
THERMOMETERS!!!!
THERMOMETERS!!!!
THERMOMETERS!!!!
THERMOMETERS!!!!
You understand???????
THERMOMETERS!!!!
I know, you CAGW leper islanders HATE thermometers, especially those which measure temperatures 2m above the surface (READ the IPCC Reports: you Doltoid idiots). because these temperature measurement devies don't show what the insane catastrophists WANT to see.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! They hate thermometers, the CAGW fuckwits here
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
There. Fixed it.
Now that's the chicken dance we like to see Boris.
Totally looney-toon.
No, Rednoise, you are one of the fuckwitted buffoons who doesn't understand the basic physics. In spite of repeated explanations you have failed to grasp the topic, which is why it is now time for you to fuck off. Your continued, loud advertisement of your own essential stupidity is both redundant and tedious.
Time to move on.
Notice how the farting chicken completely blanked #30?
Because #30 is the end of the line for the dishonest "no warming since..." claim. It's the end of the line for those who's understanding of the climate system is too limited to discuss the effects of a sustained radiative balance, let alone comprehend the way they manifest within the climate system as a whole.
In summary, #30 is the end of the line for clueless, posturing, denier buffoons.
Here's a pretty picture for those having difficulty grasping that the troposphere is only a small part of the climate system.
Try to think of it like this. See the energy accumulate! See where it is accumulating! Think about the specific heat of water vs the atmosphere!
RTFL!
Think about the flux of energy into and out of the climate system as a whole! Think like a physical climatologist!
There. Easy!
;-)
Freddy needs a does of his med's.
Hint Boorish I gave you a gift and you missed it, got it now?
So how are temperatures measurements by satellites?
It ain't thermometers.
Redarse, did you notice the NOAA figures shown previously for the energy in the oceans in the year of the super atmospheric warming phase of ENSO in1998 and the current energy stored
What do you make of that for when the next warming phase arrives - or hasn't Montford told you what to think yet?
On that no warming thing here look at this you doubters:
http://imageshack.us/a/img69/9159/hpi.gif
source here.
Note to SunKrank, that is what you should do when dropping in a graph unannounced
Which will bring me onto old von Storch, who was made much of by others around here for some strange reason.
Boris
Do you know who put the thermometer in the sun to measure it's temperature?
#45
Splendid question for Kai/Freddy/Boris/Beredwanker lunatic troll!
May I play too?
Who put the thermometers in outer space and measured the fading glow of the Big Bang?
;-)
von Storch much admired by some in the 'peanut gallery' here has been pronouncing outside of the box and in that latest RC IPCC thread there are two very good rebuttals of Storch.
The first comment is by one similar to those who are represented by one late departed from here, Cool Hand though he was:
41 Adam Gallon 28 September 2013 at 2:31 PM pay attention to the reply in green,
then on the next page we see:
56 from (the ever sensible & informed) Ray Ladbury 29 Sep 2013 at 7:34 AM.
Do you see, von Storch is working outside of the box.
It would be instructive for most of our peanut gallery to read through more articles, and comments, at RC for then, if their brains aren't too far gone, they will get a feeling for how ridiculous their little circle-jerks are.
BBD #41
Very good, you are making it easy for them. All they need now is to find out the mass of the atmosphere and of the water in the oceans. There are also limnic (spell doesn't like that one) systems and a few other complications but a ball-park figure would give them a clues as to why SinKrank is toast.
#47 Lionel A
Ray Ladbury's comment at RC is well worth repeating here. I hope he won't mind my doing this:
I would especially like to draw certain commenters attention to Ray Ladbury's (3):
<blockquote<3)What is the probability of a 15 year interval beginning with a huge-assed El Nino and ending with two good-sized La Ninas would yield an insignificant rise? The probability here would be damn near close to 1.
Meanwhile, energy continues to accumulate in the climate system as expected. See #30 #40 and #41 above.
Oh FFS. Sodding html.
Cripes, did we invite one of our resident loons to go there to RC and comment at Page 2 #58.
That does look a bit like Boris/Freddy/Kai/Berendwanker lunatic troll!
I don't think he'll last long! The Borehole beckons! And then the standard-issue whine about "RC moderation isn't faaair!"
;-)
And, whadda you know?
That comment by Moose made me think of Bill O'Rielly immediately but I drew back from making such an obvious comparison and now somebody has done it for me.
The muppets here just don't realise how aware of the denial machine and those engaged in such we are, and have been aware for so long. The muppets show a remarkable aptitude (sarc') for knowing both climates science and the history of its denial. Good at self awareness too (more sarc').
I think that the FreddyKai puppeteer is a Poe. A sick one, and perhaps an unintentional one, but a Poe nonethless.
At A Few Things Ill-considered he apparates as a creationist on the evolution threads; when the subject is climate he focuses on that. I've tried a few times to lure out the Creationsit here but he seems uncharacteristically uninterested - his game seems to be to play to the audience and not actually to his "beliefs".
I think that this sicko simply needs the attention, the response. He may or may not believe the tripe he pushes (although it would be disturbing if someone really was that stupid) but the important thing for him is to get the replies.
"GSW, I believe Curry is a good candidate for a Nobel Price, in climate or peace"
Now there's a comical slip up from dumb ol' Olaus if ever there was one. A Nobel PRICE. Sure, I'll bet Curry would charge the think tanks a high price for her services as a 'qualified' shill. On this basis she'd sure merit a Nobel 'Price'.
Here is the full AR5 on September 30, as announced by the IPCC:
€$£££$£¥¥$££££
Technical Summary
Introduction
Observations: Atmosphere and Surface
Observations: Ocean
Observations: Cryosphere
Information from Paleoclimate Archives
Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles
Clouds and Aerosols
Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing
Evaluation of Climate Models
Detection and Attribution of Climate Change: from Global to Regional
Near-term Climate Change: Projections and Predictability
Long-term Climate Change: Projections, Commitments and Irreversibility
Sea Level Change
Climate Phenomena and their Relevance for Future Regional Climate Change
Annex I: Atlas of Global and Regional Climate Projections
Annex II: Glossary
Annex III: Acronyms and Regional Abbreviations
Annex IV: List of Authors
Annex V: List of Reviewers
£$£¥£$£¥¥$£¥£££
Just a list of headlines without any further information.
WHAT A MESS !!!
THEY HAVE LIED !!!!!!!
:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
@Harvey
YOU ARE A NASTY TWERP, FULL OF COMLEXES OF MINORITY AND INCREDIBLE HATRED TO DECENT SCIENTISTS.
“GSW, I believe Curry is a good candidate for a Nobel Price, in climate or peace”
Now there’s a comical slip up from dumb ol’ Olaus if ever there was one. A Nobel PRICE. Sure, I’ll bet Curry would charge the think tanks a high price for her services as a ‘qualified’ shill. On this basis she’d sure merit a Nobel ‘Price’.
The reality is that temperatures have been flat since 2001, which was a neutral ENSO year. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/to:2013/trend/plo…
RSS satellite data actually shows a drop in temperature since 1998, not the small (and statistically insignificant) amount shown by HADCRUT4.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1998/to:2013/trend/plot/rss/f…
The cooling trend is quite obvious http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1941/to:1979/trend/plo… it definitely seems as though co2 is an insignificant factor in temperature record.
Boris, JeFfErY is just a salesman for a company called Environmental Services and really has not a clue, he often confuses climate and weather.
I think he sold secondhand cars and vacuum cleaners previously :)
In addition, twerp BBD is unable to grasp that THE ONLY measure that counts regarding post-normal "climatology" IS:
MEAN GLOBAL TEMPERATURE 2 METERS ABOVE THE SURFACE!!
Without a mean global temperature the moron bollocks about "climate change", "sustainability", 'biodiversity" and all the other shitty crap from mentally disabled eco fundamentalists would not exist in public awareness and be completely irrelevant.
BUT, BBD IS BY FAR TOO STUPID TO CATCH THIS WITH HIS SPOILED GREEN COMMUNIST BRAIN WHICH HATES THE ECONOMY AND GENEREL WELFARE
BBD IS A FZVKNG ASSHOKE
Karen, YES
BBD's first contact with green groups was when he was sunbathing on the beach, at high tide they came and rolled him into the water... lol
Bernard:
You are absolutely on the money. The Socktroll is a not-very-bright-but-IT-literate basement-dweller with what used to be called narcissistic personality disorder, but has now been recoded. Neither psychotropic medication nor psychotherapy are of much use, and most "treatment" is involuntary, consisting of banging them up in penal systems and forensic institutions after their actions cross to many lines (eg Breivik).
These people are usually too stupid and/or detectible to end up in positions where the truly psychopathic narcissists wreak their havoc (mainly large corporations, religions/cults & the odd nation state), so the lesser NPDs tend to ply their pathology on blogs such as WTFUWT & Bishop Shill - or here. In the absence of a moderator, the only thing to do is ignore them completely and wait for their internal emptiness to look elsewhere for new victims.
I can easily visualize womby throwing a tamtrum in the lolly isle.
rehombat, are you sure about your "psychiatric" diagnosis about the barcusstuc derangements of the CAGW leper islanders here, as you have admitted to be only a venereal disease "doctor". Therefore you are maybe a specialist for syphilis or gonorrhea but not for other shit. Therefore you are a degusting pre-clinical shit twerp full of left eco ideology crap.
Piss-off, you bastard
Spam, on the other hand, doesn't have the mental equipment necessary for a personality disorder, let alone a narcissistic one. It's just a cheap & nasty pseudo bot for Randroid propaganda, which aspires to be mistaken for a real pre-pubescent Vally Girl (a la the Blessed Francisco Zappa & the Mothers). Best to ignore, 'cause it's as useful as a roomful of Toady Rabbott's ministers/Murdoch Hacks.
Doctor syphilis
can you explain, plse, the difference between measles and carbon dioxide, as all the CAGW leper islanders lack this knowledge?
:lol: :roll: :lol: :roll: :lol: :roll: :lol: :roll: :lol: :roll:
hahaha, you CAGW nutters
I CAN program easily a cms system much better than this weirdpress shit here, BUT YOU TWERPS CANNOT
hahahahaha, I am infinitely better than you, because YOU CANNOT, POOR UNTALENTED LEPER ISLANDERS
:lol: :roll: :lol: :roll: :lol: :roll: :lol: :roll: :lol: :roll:
The global warming ‘pause’ has now lasted for almost 17 years and shows no sign of ending – despite the unexplained failure of climate scientists’ computer models to predict it.
In 2009, Professor Phil Jones, head of the East Anglia University Climatic Research Unit, said in a leaked ‘Climategate’ email: ‘Bottom line: the no upward trend has to continue for a total of 15 years before our lies are disproven.’
..."he often confuses climate and weather"
Heck, that's a laugh coming form you, Karen, you nitwit. Talk about pot, kettle, black. You've been confabulating weather and climate ever since you arrived here, as evidenced by many of your posts. And you still don't remotely understand the relationship between scale in terms of a geology and a human lifetime.
I think most of us here on this blog have had it up to here with your willful ignorance and Boris' psychopathic outbursts. Its time that you were both banned from here.
#70 Jones did not say that. You really are an abysmally stupid liar, Kaz.
Just tapping the glass on the fish bowl Nickie :)
Did any of the little fishies work out how the oceans are going to fry the planet?
0.06 deg C in 55 yrs............. lol
#73, even your goldfish know you are a liar?
(Will not succumb. Will not succumb...Bugger, I just can't resist):
Spambot@#73...from the inside, I presume?
(Will not succumb. Will not succumb...Bugger, I just can't resist):
Spambot@#73...from the inside, I presume?
And the legal aids for Phil Jones may sit up and take notice of your liebel at #70 (yes I know, and not a typo) and not in a way that you would enjoy.
Karen/Sunspot @ 59.
You'll have to argue with Freddie/Kai about the RSS measurements, since he stated flatly that
As I'm sure you know RSS "data" is a model output. You hate models, don't you?
Nothing like deniers for consistency. Or more accurately, lack of consistency...lol.
Damn you Chek @ #38. Now whenever Freddie/Kai posts I hear this.
Which makes his posts more fun than they should be...
...says Karen after posting a graph showing a slight cooling trend since 2001.
Arithmetic. How the fuck does it work?
(And never mind the graphs that showed Karen it has been warming over the last 17 years. Karen will simply pretend they don't exist and Karen definitely didn't see them, because Karen's purpose here is to disseminate lies.)
FrankD
you are a spendid example of a typical CAGW scientology church member with a rather weird and pervert sense of "humour"!
It is really very revealing of the totally fanatic and low-intellect mental state of the warming lunatics that they lack completely any sense of humour and wit. These poor fuckwit sausages are just stubbornly fanatic, completely devoid of any relevant knowledge and of a disgustingly primitive, mouth-foul language which is a shame for civilized citizens.
Lotharsson, please allow me to politely tell you that are an absolutely terribly stinking super asshole among your green eco fundamentalist warming twerps.
All now: It's always Lotharsson's farts which smell worst ....
Now, poor Lotharsson, you as somebody devoid of any significant skills and physical attractiveness (it's always masturbation) you can piss off and try to lead a decent life, you fuckwitting twerp
All now: It's always Lotharsson's farts which smell worst ....
All now: It's always Lotharsson's farts which smell worst ....
All now: It's always Lotharsson's farts which smell worst ....
:lol: :roll: :lol: :roll: :lol: :roll: :lol: :roll: :lol: :roll:
All now: It's always Lotharsson's farts which smell worst ....
Boris/Kai/Berendaneke etc.
Your rank obnoxiousness on Deltoid will not be lasting much longer. Enjoy being the slimeball that you are while time lasts. I have no idea from under which rock you crawled but let us hope you can be put back under there - indefinitely. Congratulations for being the most vile, disgusting idiotic person I have yet encountered on the internet. Its people like you that make me realize what a sorry predicament our species is in. If you are an example of hominid evolution representing a metaphoric 'pinnacle', then no wonder humanity probably won't survive more than a century or two more. Thankfully, in my scientific career you are found in the primordial ooze of intellectual discourse. In other words, you are the bottom feeder among bottom feeders.
I am sure that makes you beam with pride.
@Harvey
you secondhand car dealer and vacuum cleaner seller,
I have never met in my entire life such a disgustinglyvstinking over-arrogant fuckng arselick who you are who erroneously thinks that he is something special on the one hand and is at the same time such an ugly loser and underperformer.
All now: Also Harvey is a stinking arselick !
All now: Also Harvey is a stinking arselick !
All now: Also Harvey is a stinking arselick !
I am sure you fuckwit will soon be banned as you are a shame even for your leper island brothers, you fuckn asshole
All again now: Also Harvey is a stinking arselick !
All again and again now: Also Harvey is a stinking arselick !
:lol: :roll: :lol: :roll: :lol: :roll: :lol: :roll: :lol: :roll:
Jezuz fucking christ, these denier trolls are fucking annoying.
What the hell do they do all day other than wank over being insulted on the internet?
Totally fifteen-year-olds "manning up" by aggroing the grown ups.
Tim, however, couldn't give a shit. This is their place now, and Tim has let them stay with open arms.
Wow, you pig
just shut up and piss of if you twerp can't anything of substance
All now: Wow clown, shut up and piss off!
All now: Wow clown, shut up and piss off!
All now: Wow clown, shut up and piss off!
Heard? Fuckwit, Wow?
All now: Wow clown, shut up and piss off!
All now: Wow clown, shut up and piss off!
All now: Wow clown, shut up and piss off!
:evil: :evil: :evil:
Karen, what do the large gaps in temperature between your selected break points mean?http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1941/to:1979/trend/plo…
Two lies in one sentence! Ah, Freddy, you never fail to disappoint.
Now fuck off and take your meds.
Jakerman! Long time no see!
Welcome back.
Great post over at Jo Novas.
BBD will love it.
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/09/ipcc-in-denial-just-so-excuses-use-mys…
You read it here first on Deltoid folks. LoL
Hi Bernard, thanks for the welcome :)
#91, Redface, so Nova is a foaming non-entity reduced to recycling arguments from incredulity, or misdirection? That's hardly news.
Argh!
FrankD I should have know better than clink that 'song' link at #80. That one started doing the rounds at the back end of 1970 as we were exiting the Med' on our way home after many exercises in that sea and the Arctic before that. Those in charge of 'light entertainment' on the carrier, that is as a rest from deck prangs and other excitements such as colliding with the Russian navy, were playing that with monotonous regularity. Having got ashore on Majorca we thought we had escaped - fat chance, the first 'watering hole' we visited were playing it end over end'. Aaaaargh!
Here is freddy/Boris/Kai/BrokenNeck's other song. Kai eh! Not a Kai A??????? by any chance? I used to know one of those who was clever with bits and bytes but who went rogue about everything else in life. Teletext MODE mean anything to you?
RedNoise, you really need to brush up on a few physics things for then reading this:
you would understand that Jo Nova is another idjit who does not understand that TEMPERATURE is not HEAT!
Sheesh, you plonker, you only have to follow this thread from early on to have realised that and also that SunKrank still doesn't despite many attempts at enlightenment.
Now that one cockup by Nova should tell you all you need to know, she is about on the same level as Joe Bastardi and he adopted loony tunes long ago.
Jakerman returns with more classic commentary :-)
;)
Sorry to pile on, but for fuck's sake, Rednose.
Temperature is not heat. Weight is not mass. MW is not MWh. She's a moronic shill; you are just a moron. And again, that is a statement of fact.
Also note totes professional MSPaint addition of "What switched the ocean on?" in the same post.
#98
Agreed, its probably a typo and should have read:
"but the Climate-change Industry always report ocean heat content in joules"
More scary.
There are a few spelling mistakes as well, unless you Aussies are developing your own languge like the Yanks.
But the heat is still missing and there is lots to explain.
Why not go over and get stuck in. Put her right.
thats language