September 2013 Open Thread

The thread, there is more.

More like this

Lenoil#95

You do seem to hang around some crank websites loinel

"You do seem to hang around some crank websites loinel"

Look who's talking. Given the crap you read, Rednose, its a wonder that you have thee audacity to make such a flippant remark. Bishops Hill? Hockey Schtick? WUWT? Unadulterated bilge.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 30 Sep 2013 #permalink

RedNoise:

Why not go over and get stuck in. Put her right.

One does not go wrestling with a pig, even if it does wear lipstick.

'Language'?

What language? What is that statement supposed to mean?

That Joe Nova has poor grasp of English as well as Science, in that case I agree.

As for 'crank' sites, so you don't grok Russell Seitz's humour. That is your problem not mine or his.

And now, just like earlier, there are signs of interrupted service here, not a Nova minion on the warpath perchance?

Third attempt with many drops changing page.

Great post over at Jo Novas

Oxymoron.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 30 Sep 2013 #permalink

Kerrist! Still at the OHC denial stage?

FFS evolve, trolls!

We've been through this now and the moving finger, having writ, moves on!

And yes, you have been weighed in the balance and found to be absolute fuckwits!

Find something else you can't understand and deny that instead. Come on, lazy-arses! You are getting insufferably boring, which is a crime worse than mere dishonesty, stupidity and denial.

Is Joanna Nova a denialist or rather an ignorant?

A few posts ago I mentioned Richard Lindzen in the same breath as Curry (Curry of the Tikka-Masala variant - a Western fabrication with no authenticity), and Pat Micahels, and sure enough in another egregious article by the ever 'confused' David Rose archived by Sou and have no food or drink in mouth before linking, we find, after more spice from Curry, Lindzen quoted:

Prof Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said the IPCC had ‘truly sunk to a level of hilarious incoherence. They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase.’

It is a sad world when you have burned your bridges too, isn't that right Dick.

Of course Michaels left any reputation in tatters decades ago by cavorting with Western Fuels and Greening Earth but here we see Lindzen and Curry becoming fully signed up members.

Note that it was this trio who were the GOPS selected invited representatives at the House Science and Technology Committee held a “Rational Discussion of Climate Change.

One striking thing about these three witnesses was that their spoken testimony diverted significantly from their pre-submitted written testimonies. They have been in melt down ever since, having to resort to advocacy aimed at lay audiences and then with limited opportunity for their gish-gallops to be challenged.

Oh! And of course Rose has to slip in Lomborg, now Rose is not being confused but providing a platform for more BS.

One striking thing about these three witnesses was that their spoken testimony diverted significantly from their pre-submitted written testimonies.

Interestingly, that echoes the divergence between what Lindzen publishes in the peer reviewed literature and what he says to non-scientific audiences. I suspect the same holds for Curry these days too.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 30 Sep 2013 #permalink

Rednose. Are you congenitally unable to admit that you are wrong and/or promoted something wrong? I cannot believe you are actually trying to defend Nova. To wit:

Temperature is not heat.

Agreed, its probably a typo and should have read:
“but the Climate-change Industry always report ocean heat content in joules”

So you're saying that she wasn't making an idiotic category error, just displaying an idiotic ignorance of SI units?

Your "correction" makes the statement even dumber, Rednose. What unit would you propose we express ocean heat content in? Calories? eV? Btu? MMBtu? mol? Do tell, precious.

I've given you plenty of opportunities to refute my assessment of you, and you've only made things worse. This last one officially makes you a medical miracle in being able to be this fucking dumb yet able to breathe.

Answer this question or admit you are a moron, Rednose. What unit do you propose we express ocean heat content as?

Looked at the astonishingly error-riddled Nova crap. Where to start? There is no surface cooling trend (she lied about that!), OHC increase is 0.09C not 0.06C, it's Levitus not Levitis, she excludes OHC data for the 700 - 2000m layer so misses the downward mixing that accounts for the recent reduction in the rate of increase in OHC 0 - 700m layer and on and on and on.

The really egregious error though is that she confuses *peak* TOA imbalance with time averaged TOA imbalance. The latter slowly increases from the chosen start point to a peak value at the end point year. She grabs the peak value and tries to pretend that Levitus 12 is at odds with the standard position but it isn't.. Either through stupidity or dishonesty, Nova has fucked up.

Not a trustworthy source... I know we're all shocked to the core.

BBD, why bother? Putting down "the Climate-change Industry always report ocean heat content in joules" as an actual argument should pretty much seal the deal, right?

Oh, wait. I left this thread for a few hours. Now I remember. We have clowns on this thread ACTUALLY DEFENDING THAT SHIT.

Sigh.

"We have clowns on this thread ACTUALLY DEFENDING THAT SHIT."

To be accurate, they're only making a pretence of defending it. They have no idea what it means either literally or to a climatologist.

You know, that's what really infuriates me the most. The way the buffoons throw shit at the wall - any shit at all - relentlessly, day in, day out, but without understanding a fucking word of any of it.

The pathology here goes way beyond people being mistaken in their conceptions. They haven't even tried to grasp the concepts in the first place. It's just fling, fling, fling. Deny, deny, deny. There is absolutely zero intellectual curiosity. No interest in learning anything. It's the most contemptible, shit-headed attitude I have ever come across.

"Fucking muppets" is far, far too kind.

Aargh! /a not a/ required.

Reading at SkS, note to the peanut gallery it is good for you too, in this post by John Mason I decided to try to find his comment at the Guardian. A little difficult at first as the article concerned was dated 27th and not 28th as implied, I think, must be this one with the comment by John directed too. I hope that last works, strange copy URL mechanism over there.

Read it and think RedNoise et. al.

Stu-pid#8

Well some pages ago I suggested ergs, so we could multiply
the OHC in joules by 10 to power 7. This would make the amount look even more frightening.

What's your take on the claim to be able to measure a temperature rise of 0.06C over 50 years at 2000m.

Are you alleging a scientific conspiracy to mislead the world, Rednoise?

Because that's what it sounds like to me.

If you bother to read the literature (eg the endlessly linked Levitus paper) you will end up with a better understanding of the robustness of the estimated change in OHC. Just standing on the sidelines implying that the data are crap and by extension that "alarmist" scientists are conspiring to fool the people is an exercise in nothing.

If you want to challenge the accuracy of the OHC reconstructions, you need to critique the methodology and advance an alternative reconstruction based on your improved methodology. Then you need to get this past peer review and into a serious journal. Anything less is just some denier on a blog bullshitting. You need to improve your game by an astonishing degree or fuck right off.

And where does this 0.06C figure come from? A denier blog perhaps?

Can somebody reference it?

The published figure (Levitus 12) is 0.09C arising from an increase in OHC 0 - 2000m of ~25 x 10^22 Joules.

Well some pages ago I suggested ergs, so we could multiply the OHC in joules by 10 to power 7.

That's not the point, you abject, utter, pathetic moron. You quoted a post over at the denialist Jo Nova's shill den, saying "Great post over at Jo Novas.".

This post contained the utterly idiotic

but the Climate-change Industry always report ocean temperatures in Joules.

Which she (and by extension, you) were called on repeatedly. You then had the unmitigated balls assuming people are as stupid as you are, and threw in

Agreed, its probably a typo and should have read: “but the Climate-change Industry always report ocean heat content in joules”

I do take back what I said earlier -- there's really no deciding which is dumber: the earlier "I don't know what heat is", or your attempt at correction "I don't know what a Joule is".

If you had any dignity, you would apologize and never, ever, ever post anything on climate ever again.

As a random analogy... you're the guy that goes in to get his car checked, and upon hearing "you need a new air filter" says "but I read on the interwebs that it could be my middle wheel, or that my solar sprocket is out of alignment -- and until you prove to me that it isn't either of those things, I won't allow you to do anything".

That's you. A delusional, selfish moron.

The IPCC admitted:

"The net global mean CRE of approximately –20 W m–2 implies a net cooling effect of clouds on the current climate"

The IPCC admitted:

“The net global mean CRE of approximately –20 W m–2 implies a net cooling effect of clouds on the current climate”

@Stu#18 "If you had any dignity"

Do you have any dignity?

“you need a new air filter”

Alternatively I might ask to inspect the old one to see what condition it was in. Make sure it was not a conspiracy by the mechanic to overcharge. So trusting of you.

Still no comment on the amazing claimed precision of being able to measure 0.06/0.09C increase over 54 years down to 2000m
Thats 0.0011/0.0017C per year.
I know you have difficulty with sums.

Alternatively I might ask to inspect the old one to see what condition it was in. Make sure it was not a conspiracy by the mechanic to overcharge. So trusting of you.

At which point you'd go - duh, it's a metal thingy with corrugated cardboard inside it.. I have no criteria to judge.

Yet in Codling's case you've been plainly shown she's full of shit, but you cling to your fantasy.

#21

I commented. You dodged. Here's the repeat, lying shit:

Are you alleging a scientific conspiracy to mislead the world, Rednoise?

Because that’s what it sounds like to me.

If you bother to read the literature (eg the endlessly linked Levitus paper) you will end up with a better understanding of the robustness of the estimated change in OHC. Just standing on the sidelines implying that the data are crap and by extension that “alarmist” scientists are conspiring to fool the people is an exercise in nothing.

If you want to challenge the accuracy of the OHC reconstructions, you need to critique the methodology and advance an alternative reconstruction based on your improved methodology. Then you need to get this past peer review and into a serious journal. Anything less is just some denier on a blog bullshitting. You need to improve your game by an astonishing degree or fuck right off.

but you cling to your fantasy.</blockquote.

Well her photograph is quite flattering, and she is not as gobby as some.LoL

Where does the 0.06 figure come from Rednoise? You keep fucking using it and I want a fucking source.

Come on.

Are you a conspiracy theorist, Rednoise? Because it very much sounds as though you are. Or is it just denial without the paranoid conspiracist ideation?

Denial is mental illness, Rednoise, even on its own. I'm concerned about your mental health, Rednoise.

#19 The IPCC "admitted" nothing. The IPCC reports. Joey admitted to using tabloid framing and decontextualising.

Well her photograph is quite flattering

Yes, it's already been established you're a post-pensional impotent old wanker, but you still understand the meaning of words, don't you? And your post-menopausal MILF lies to you.

Joe has no idea how the climate system works and no knowledge of paleoclimate behaviour to aid him in his comprehension. He has therefore misunderstood the import of the sentence he quotes above.

Here's the thing, Joe - if cloud feedback really did net negative and if it is strong enough to dominate the climate system, then cloud would have always acted to negate the effects of forcing change. As a direct consequence, Earth's climate history would be flat and uneventful.

But it wasn't. Not at all. Paleoclimate is a record of tremendous variability, often in response to relatively small changes in forcing. This demonstrates that the climate system is dominated by positive feedbacks. It also demonstrates that clouds aren't going to somehow stop AGW.

All this is perfectly obvious if you simply bother to think about it, even briefly. Although admittedly some basic knowledge of climate dynamics and paleoclimate are necessary.

Still no comment on the amazing claimed precision of being able to measure 0.06/0.09C increase over 54 years down to 2000m Thats 0.0011/0.0017C per year.

Yes, when being caught in something idiotic, why not double down and say something even dumber?

Do you seriously think this was based on one measurement 54 years ago, and one yesterday?

Sweet tapdancing Jebus you're a moron, Rednose.

you’re a post-pensional impotent old wanker,

Lol

Could it be? Has Tim moderated Karen and Boris out of our existence? We can only hope.... my fear is that Boris has now morphed into Joe...

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 01 Oct 2013 #permalink

@ Rednoise

Why are you being so evasive? Please answer the question:

Are you alleging a scientific conspiracy to mislead the world, Rednoise?

Because that’s what it sounds like to me.

Insinuating that the data are crap is by extension insinuating that “alarmist” scientists are conspiring to fool the people. That is conspiracist ideation.

* * *

If you are seriously challenging the accuracy of the OHC reconstructions, you will need to critique the methodology and advance an alternative reconstruction based on your improved methodology. Then you need to get this past peer review and into a serious journal.

Do you have a paper in progress? In review? In press?

Well, do you?

Because if you don't you are obviously a conspiracy theorist. I would like to clear this matter up now.

Please answer the questions in bold above.

BBD#33
I thought Peter Lilley posted a comment which covers it

Unfortunately, when doomsday forecasts fail, cult supporters don't immediately give up. A US social scientist infiltrated a cult whose leader predicted the apocalypse would arrive on 21 December, as would a flying saucer to save her followers. When neither came on the appointed day, most of her followers, far from abandoning the cult, accepted their leader's message that doom had been postponed and became even more fanatical. - See more at: http://www.cityam.com/article/1380507150/global-warming-alarmism-no-lon…

And McIntyre also has something to say
http://climateaudit.org/2013/09/30/ipcc-disappears-the-discrepancy/

Do you seriously think this was based on one measurement 54 years ago, and one yesterday?

Well how many measurements were made at 2000m, yesterday and 54 years ago?
And to what precision were those measurements made 54 years ago?

#34 is not an answer to the two questions at #33.

Stop being evasive and answer the questions in bold at #33.

#35

Answer your own questions about the methodology behind the OHC reconstruction by reading the reference. Go on. Stop being so insufferably bloody lazy.

Levitus et al. (2012).

1/ Are you alleging a scientific conspiracy to mislead the world, Rednoise?

Yes/No?

If you are seriously challenging the accuracy of the OHC reconstructions, you will need to critique the methodology and advance an alternative reconstruction based on your improved methodology. Then you need to get this past peer review and into a serious journal.

2/ Do you have a paper in progress? In review? In press?

Yes/No?

Why not go over and get stuck in. Put her right.

Here we go again. How many times has this been answered now?

Why not go and "put her right"? Because I've been there, done that, and she continues to repeat the falsehoods even when it's something as simply verified as what the IPCC said in a particular report, which is simply refuted by quoting them.

Hence, I have demonstrated to my satisfaction that Jo Nova's purpose is to disseminate falsehoods. There's no point trying to play in her moderated sandpit when she's fundamentally dishonest about the subject.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 01 Oct 2013 #permalink

#34, a link to an uninformed rant in a right wing rag, and Macintyre playing dumb. Wow. The usual suspects -a Tory MP who chairs an oil company, and a mining speculator- have objections. Wow.

Still waiting, Rednoise.

Here's another one for you:

3/

(a) From your reading of Levitus et al., explain the methodology used to reconstruct OHC 1955 - present.

(b) Demonstrate lack of robustness with specific examples.

(c) Show at least one instance where you are able to improve the OHC reconstruction presented in L12.

BBD, are you a climatologist? In case yes, in which subdiscipline?

Peter Lilley? How much deeper does the barrel of b* the deniers scrape go? Rednoise just links to more musings from a right wingnut.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 01 Oct 2013 #permalink

RedNoise,

Peter Lilley was one of the sophist regressives (along with right on fruitcake Piers Corbyn and Monkytoons) at the presentation given by Richard Lindzen in London early in 2012, reading there will help fill you in. You may not like it because it presents an alternative view to that presented by your 'regressive (aka Tory) party press' such as the Mail and Telegraph.

Note that Lindzen by being cited by David Rose, along with Curry and Lomborg in a recent Mail article (see above posts) and that really tells you all you need to know about these obfuscating illusionist. For that is what they have become 'illusionists', not scientists.

If that wasn't enough Lindzen is now colluding with Morano at Climate Desperate.

More on Lindzen's London Capers here> and and here too.

Lindzen has made a career out of being wrong thus Lilley has drawn from a polluted information stream one doubtlessly assisted in this case by the GWPF - Lawson's bunch of repeatedly debunked opinion peace writers who know as much about climate as Melanie Phillips, another fruitcake who likes to pronounce above her wit and knowledge.

And McIntyre - don't get me started with that piece of work. All you have to do is look around here, at Deltoid, to see what a devious operator he is.

As I remarked above, not only are you ignorant of climate science but also of the methods used to keep you that way.

# 42

No, and I think you are probably Boris/Kai/Freddy/Berendwanker.

This is a risk I know, but I have a feeling.

@#32 Jeff Harvey

Hmmm. Starts off (#19) wittering about clouds - that's "Boris"-like.

Says: "In case yes" - that's Mitteleuropeanish.

I think you might be correct.

All note how Rednoise has vanished when asked a few direct questions.

He will be asked again, if he reappears.

Typically most Argo floats in our present database reach a maximum observed depth of 1970 m. Thus, theseprofiles only extend down to the 1750 m standard depth level of our analyses. Our temperature anomaly fields could be considered to be more representative of the
0–1750 m layer of the

To answer my own question earlier on the number of readings at 2000m:
Yesterday, very few apparently.
54 years ago even less.

As to the precision of each reading 54 years ago:

In the 1960s, more ships were out at sea: from Fisheries Laboratories, U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey (now NOAA), and research institutions at Scripps (La Jolla, Calif.), Woods Hole (Massachusetts), Miami, and Texas A&M (in the Gulf of Mexico). The British sailed the new Discovery, the Germans the new Meteor, and there were small ships sailing from Denmark, Japan, and France. Many cruises were dedicated to the geophysics of the sea floor, where deep-ocean casts for water and temperatures were few and far between.

Surface water samples were taken routinely, however, with buckets from the deck and the ship’s engine-water intake valve. Most of the thermometers were calibrated into 1/4-degrees Fahrenheit. They came from the U.S. Navy. Galvanized iron buckets were preferred, mainly because they lasted longer than the wood and canvas. But, they had the disadvantage of cooling quickly in the winds, so that the temperature readings needed to be taken quickly. I would guess that any bucket-temperature measurement that was closer to the actual temperature by better than 0.5° was an accident, or a good guess. But then, no one ever knew whether or not it was good or bad. Everyone always considered whatever reading was made to be precise, and they still do today. The archived data used by Levitus, and a plethora of other oceanographers, were taken by me, and a whole cadre of students, post-docs, and seagoing technicians around the world. Those of us who obtained the data, are not going to be snowed by the claims of the great precision of “historical data found stored in some musty archives.”

Quoted by Dr R Stevenson in 2000

Robert E. Stevenson, an oceanography consultant based in Hawaii, trains the NASA astronauts in oceanography and marine meteorology. He was Secretary General of the International Association for the Physical Science of the Oceans from 1987 to 1995, and worked as an oceanographer for the U.S. Office of Naval Research for 20 years. A member of the scientific advisory board of 21st Century, he is the author of more than 100 articles and several books, including the most widely used textbook on the natural sciences.

So the estimate is -/+ 0.5C from someone who witnessed the early measurements being taken

-/+ 0.5C estimated error on the early infrequent readings used to determine a temperature rise of 0.09C

Isn't modern statistics wonderful.

Jeff@#32 & BBD@#46: I concur. I suspect he's desperately trying to control his NPD, but it will slip. I'm not as sure about the mitteleuropean bit: from the Olaf sock that he pulled over his smelly digits at RC, I'm wondering if he's a fully fledged (downed?) member of the Scandinavian Troll Collective (Breivik Brigade). Still, whack-a-troll passes the time, even if pushing doddering old Tory meme merchants like Rednoise off their commode chairs of crap probably contravenes several animal cruelty bylaws. Isn't a Spam free thread pleasant?

Neliol
So you agree with the latest re presentation misrepresentation of the IPCC between their models and observations as shown by McIntyre

If you cannot hit the barn door, make it bigger.

#50
How long did you have to pose on those jugs for your mate to take the picture?

Redarse @ #48

Isn’t Aren't modern statistics wonderful?.

The interesting thing is that even - as the widely disseminated on denier blogs but with no original source quotes from Dr Stevenson would have us believe - if the pre-Argo data are discarded, the trend slope remains essentially the same.

So the answer to your rhetorical question is 'yes, they are'.

#48

You have still not answered the three questions asked above.

Will you stop fucking me around and do so, please.

1/ Are you alleging a scientific conspiracy to mislead the world, Rednoise?

Yes/No?

2/ Do you have a paper critiquing the L12 OHC reconstruction in progress? In review? In press?

Yes/No?

3/

(a) From your reading of Levitus et al., explain the methodology used to reconstruct OHC 1955 – present.

(b) Demonstrate lack of robustness with specific examples.

(c) Show at least one instance where you are able to improve the OHC reconstruction presented in L12.

You are scratching around desperately. It really makes no odds whether the depth profile is 1750m or 2000m.

If it makes you happier, we can start in 1970. Here are the data with error bars. Please note that the decadal trend is larger than the margin of uncertainty for every decade in the series.

You really are on a hiding to nothing here. Read Levitus and answer question (3). You cannot critique that which you do not understand and know *nothing* about. That's just denialism and intellectual dishonesty. Get a fucking grip, please.

And not one single more quote without a link to the source. Strikeout will follow if you do that again.

Up your game. Stop being evasive. Answer the questions.

1/ ?

2/ ?

3/ ?

#49 RHW

He could indeed be Scandi - or even Dutch. The only two things I am sure of is that English ain't his mother tongue and that he's barking mad. And I wholeheartedly agree - with sincere thanks to Tim Lambert here - a lunacy-free thread is a huge improvement. Whack-a-troll is one thing; having excrement flung at you by escapees from the locked ward is quite another...

Shrek#52

if the pre-Argo data are discarded

,

Then we have just 10 years of data and about 1/5th the claimed OHC rise corresponding to a temperature change of about 0.001-0.002C.

Should your claimed trend slope be increasing noticeably to account for all the swallowing up of the global warming for this time
And this has been repeated so often on this blog, 10 years is too short a time to show a trend.:-)

# 55

Stop fucking about, Rednoise.

#53

1/ ?

2/ ?

3/ ?

And this has been repeated so often on this blog, 10 years is too short a time to show a trend.:-)

Enough, you fucking dishonest trolling sack of shit. Read the fucking words at #53 before spewing out more lies. We can readily take the trend from 1970 and it makes no difference. Everything you are doing here is intellectually dishonest, right up to ignoring/skipping me every time I point out that you are being intellectually dishonest.

I'm getting mighty fed up with your antics, scum, and not for the first time.

1/ Are you alleging a scientific conspiracy to mislead the world, Rednoise?

Yes/No?

2/ Do you have a paper critiquing the L12 OHC reconstruction in progress? In review? In press?

Yes/No?

3/

(a) From your reading of Levitus et al., explain the methodology used to reconstruct OHC 1955 – present.

(b) Demonstrate lack of robustness with specific examples.

(c) Show at least one instance where you are able to improve the OHC reconstruction presented in L12.

1. Read #34
2. What papers do you have in preparation
3 Read #48
4. Piss off with your demands.

spewing out more lies

Has this been repeated on this blog or
is 10 years long enough to show a trend?

We can readily take the trend from 1970 and it makes no difference

But the ocean is suddenly swallowing up the global warming to account for the "HIATUS" in surface temperatures.

Yet your trend is flattening just as the hiatus starts.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/NODC_2000.png

Anyway, lovely chatting but gotogo.

You can't answer me you fucking worm. So best go, and best stay away. If you come back, we will start again.

But the ocean is suddenly swallowing up the global warming to account for the “HIATUS” in surface temperatures.

We know that's the case from the collapse of the Arctic sea ice hitting two historic lows in 2007 and 2012, the same for the West Antarctic Peninsula and the ten warmest years on record are all .since 1998 - and all after your fake denier 'hiatus'.

Ho! Hum! That Jabberwocky (aka RedNoise) creature speaks again:

...and the slithy tove
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe

Down the Rabbit hole we go with,

To answer my own question earlier on the number of readings at 2000m..

You missed this bit Duffer:

...however we have compared the
OHC1750 and OHC2000 and find no difference between
them. We hope to acquire additional deep ocean data from
research cruises so we have opted to present results for the
0–2000 m layer.

Now what do you think OHC2000 is about?

Now for that Stevenson quote, come on citation please - other than from one of the denier blog's where it may be found although not at the Nova link I followed to a Global Warming disproved post.

Somebody with selective quoting again, that is all we get from such as you.

I noted how Craig Thomas was treated there too. Dismissed out of hand, for being late to the thread. If it is still open for comments WTF? I guess she recognised him as somebody dangerous to her Daily Prophet style of propaganda.

BTW I thought that you said Nova was attractive. Hum! That photo' in the masthead reminded me of that house elf that befriended Harry Potter, but then I guess when she works for The Ministry of Magic Climate what can one expect.

And no I don't agree with McIntyre whatever garbage he produced for he has not engaged in climate science - doing a bit of munging around with stat's alone is not climate science. Drop over to Tamino's if you don't believe me, one who happens to be a true scientist with credible papers to his name.

That is the problem for your sources - credibility which is for your pundits in a spiral of decline - self triggered at that.

Yet your trend is flattening just as the hiatus starts.

Of course the scum is lying. Desperately now.

So desperately that he links to data that directly contradict his lies. Perhaps he thinks we won't notice! But we already know. We *know* that the full NODC 0 - 2000m data show no flattening trend.

Perhaps the desperation is augmented by sheer bloody incompetence. As we have seen before, several times, Rednoise cannot read graphs.

Anyway, lovely chatting but gotogo.

As ever, the 'roach comes in here, stirs the pot and then foxtrot oscars when it gets sticky! Back before long with more drive by drivel and evasion.

Something of the cad about him,

as someone once remarked about Admiral Sir David Beatty.

Yep. BBD I looked at that graph too and thought WTF?

And WTF was he on about with jugs and pictures @ #51

I thought thought this one a right 'roach fart:

'Piss off with your demands.'

Translation:

'I haven't a clue how to answer your questions so how dare you ask! I am now preparing to bugger off and sulk.'

Definite break in that blue line thingy, about 2003. Look harder.
Repeated questions to you.
1. Is 10 years to short to show a trend
2. Has this been repeated on this blog

As to that Stephenson quote i thought that was well known and there was no need for a link

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/ocean.html

As to that Stephenson quote i thought that was well known and there was no need for a link

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/ocean.html

Not one for consistency are you, Stephenson or Stevenson?

Whatever, I did note that url in a google return and passed it over as being from a disinfo site.

So. How old is that Stevenson article?
In what journal was it peer reviewed?
To which Levitus paper is Stevenson referring?
What relevance is the mention of Prof. Hubert H. Lamb?

I decided to go for the Nova at the bottom of that page, thinking that was your likely source, of google hits and was promptly sickened by the sycophantic nature of many of the comments.

Now be a good chap and read Levitus and pay attention to earlier papers by Levitus and to those cited in Levitus 2012.

As for break in blue line at 2003 - you must have a fault with your screen, no such break seen here.

Wait, you're asking questions now? Have you figured out the difference between temperature and heat yet?

Definite break in that blue line thingy, about 2003

Wait, slowdown in growth is now a "break"? No wonder you keep braying about a "hiatus"... you're too fucking stupid to read a graph. And here I thought they were just kidding about that...

It's no surprise to learn that 21st Century Sci and Tech magazine is a larouchie mag of denial from the more far-flung reaches of crackpottery..

It's no surprise that Stevenson's sea surface temperature collecting anecdotes has been twisted to apply to all the data including the deeper Nansen bottles and bathythermograph data. Which is to be expected of course, deniers being the inveterate liars they are.

Stevenson's conclusion:"For the past two decades [which would be 1980 - 2000] at least, and possibly for the past seven decades, the Earth’s true surface air temperature has likely experienced no net change;" - is so ludicrously and well known to be wrong I'm not even linking to the graph that even denier's dogs must know by now.

I did a search to see if Levitus et al had responded, but I guess they don't read (or get their 'information') from crank sources, no matter how 'well known' Redarse supposes they are.

Yack, yack, yack, Rednoise.

But in amongst all the noise, there are no answers. What the fuck are you doing back here without answering the necessary questions?

1/ Are you alleging a scientific conspiracy to mislead the world, Rednoise?

Yes/No?

2/ Do you have a paper critiquing the L12 OHC reconstruction in progress? In review? In press?

Yes/No?

3/

(a) From your reading of Levitus et al., explain the methodology used to reconstruct OHC 1955 – present.

(b) Demonstrate lack of robustness with specific examples.

(c) Show at least one instance where you are able to improve the OHC reconstruction presented in L12.

Definite break in that blue line thingy, about 2003. Look harder.

What are you on about, you buffoon? The blue line is the pentadental average (clue - READ LEVITUS YOU ARSE). The line you should be looking at is the three month running mean IN RED. That is the informative representation of the most recent TREND.

It's exactly like I said: you cannot understand and read graphs.

So what in the name of Beelzebub are you doing commenting on a climate blog? Eh? Seriously? WTF do you think you are playing at, you fucking clown?

* * *

Stop wriggling with your evasion about 10 year trends. I am pointing you directly at data extending back to 1970, where we see a decadal slope that exceeds the margins of uncertainty for every decade since.

Do you even understand what this means? I don't think you do, actually. That's why "discussing" climate data with you is like talking to the fucking cat.

chek & Lionel A

Thank you for debunking the Stevenson crap. LaRouche. Well, well, well.

That's another 15 minutes of life I owe you. We will have to establish an exchange rate, eg 250ml of warm shandy per 15 minutes of existence lost to hunting down denialist bollocks.

OMG, now Rednose is citing articles in the LaRouche rag!!!! Do these idiots have no shame? 21st Century S & T has to be about the most wretched source of information there is. Heck, it makes Nova's blog and WUWT look good - and that's saying a helluva lot.

Its time to get Rednose booted out of here as well. He's flunked with honors.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 01 Oct 2013 #permalink

Let's hold Rednoise down to one question. Arguably the only one that really matters as it establishes a line between the nutters and the rest of us:

1/ Are you alleging a scientific conspiracy to mislead the world, Rednoise?

Yes/No?

Now watch the dishonest little shit wriggle...

The imbecile Tristrams screw it up again. A pattern is emerging.

Mind you, you don't have to be a seasoned player of Games to understand what's going on.

Here is the Environment Secretary providing a brightly polished window into right-wing thinking on climate change here in the UK:

Speaking on the fringes of the Tory party conference, Mr Paterson said that a major UN report into climate change published on Friday suggested the threat of global warming had been overstated and indicated his confidence that humans would be able to adapt to its consequences. “People get very emotional about this subject and I think we should just accept that the climate has been changing for centuries,” he said.

“Remember that for humans, the biggest cause of death is cold in winter, far bigger than heat in summer. It would also lead to longer growing seasons and you could extend growing a little further north into some of the colder areas. I think the relief of this latest report is that it shows a really quite modest increase [in temperatures], half of which has already happened. They are talking one to two-and-a-half degrees.”

Mr Paterson, who is in charge of “adaptation” – the process of preparing Britain for the effects of climate change, added: “I see this report as something we need to take seriously but I am relieved that it is not as catastrophic in its forecast as we had been led to believe early on. What it is saying is that it is something we can adapt to over time, and we are very good as a race at adapting.”

And this is the Environment Secretary FFS. Looks like the GWPF has plenty of friends in high places.

Dr. Robert E. Stevenson, 80, of Princeville, Kauai, died at Wilcox Memorial Hospital in Hawaii on Sunday, Aug. 12, of cancer. He was born in Fullerton, Calif., on Jan. 15, 1921. He was a resident of Del Mar, Calif., from 1970-1999.

Stevenson was a retired oceanographer and had served as the director of the branch Office of Naval Research (ONR) at Scripps Institution of Oceanography (SIO) in La Jolla, Calif., from 1970 to 1988. He received numerous awards during his career, including the Meritorious Civilian Service Award from the Department of the Navy, "for consistently maintaining a high level of scientific achievement while serving as Scientific Liaison Officer, ONR, SIO.”

Stevenson was a World War II veteran, serving in the United States Army Air Corps. He was navigator of a B-17 and completed 29 missions in the European theatre. His unit, the 306th bomb group, flew first over Germany and flew two missions on D-Day. During the Korean War, he worked in Alaska on classified photo reconnaissance as a squadron commander.

Stevenson received a Ph.D. degree in oceanography from the University of Southern California in 1954.

Career Highlights:

1953-59 Director of Inshore Research, Hancock Foundation, USC

1959 Special Research Oceanographer, U.S. Office of Naval Research, London, England

1961-63 Research Scientist in the Dept. of Oceanography and Director of the Marine Lab, Texas A&M University

1963-65 Research Scientist, Oceanographic Institute, and Associate Professor, Depts. of Geology and Meteorology, Florida State University

1965-70 Assistant Laboratory Director and Acting Laboratory Director, Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, Biological Laboratory, Galveston, Tex.

1970-85 Scientific Liaison Officer, Office of Naval Research, SIO, La Jolla

1985-88 Scientific Liaison Officer and Deputy Director, Space Oceanography, ONR, SIO, La Jolla

From his NASA-Gemini days in the 1960s to the present time, Stevenson served as an oceanographer consultant to many astronauts.

Dr. Paul Scully-Power, director of Space Exploration for Australia, said, "Bob Stevenson was the Father of Space Oceanography. He instructed each and every one of them [the astronauts] in the greatest of all endeavours looking at Mother Earth and understanding what they saw, and recording that which was new. In this sense, he is singularly responsible for one of the greatest treasure troves of knowledge that we have today of the Earth."

In 1987 Stevenson was appointed the Secretary General of the International Association for the Physical Sciences of the Oceans (IAPSO) and served an eight-year term. In this position, he brought oceanographers from around the world together to share knowledge in support of oceanographic research. He organized and conducted two major International Scientific Oceanographic Assemblies as part of the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics, in Vienna in 1991, and in Honolulu in 1995. In addition to working as Secretary General for IAPSO, Stevenson continued to work as a consultant to NASA instructing astronauts on earth observation from space.

At the time of his death, he was writing an instructional CD-ROM on space oceanography for astronauts, co-authored with Scully-Power.

Stevenson is survived by his wife, Jeani Stevenson of Princeville; and two sons, Robert K. Stevenson of Fullerton, Calif., and Michael G. Stevenson and his wife, Mary, of Alexandria, Va.; a granddaughter, Caprice; and numerous cousins.

Deniers simply dominate because they are closer to the truth than alarmists. That's logical.

#84

He was an old man stuck in denial. Remember, he wrote that article in 2000, years into retirement. Here is his explicit rejection of the science:

By their desire to enhance their lives, human beings were increasing, untenably, the CO2 content of the Earth’s “greenhouse.” I was frankly surprised by this claim, and believed it not one whit.

Who gives a stuff what he "believed"? Radiative transfer determines the surface warming. Surface warming modulates the thermal gradient across the ocean skin layer. That modulates the rate of ocean cooling.

Here, he demonstrates that he is simply unaware of the primary mechanism driving vertical transport of warm water to depth (emphasis as original):

So, it is not surprising that those modellers who “need” to get warm surface waters to move into the depths of the oceans, and remain sequestered there for long periods of time, would turn to the physical mechanism of this vertical circulation system. Their hope (claim) is that there can be occasions when salinity, rather than temperature, is the prime determining factor in the density of the surface waters. Then, warm water, made dense by an increase in the sea’s salt content, would sink.

It does not happen!

The increase in subtropical wind speed spins up the subtropical gyres and drives huge volumes of warm surface water down below the 700m layer. Hence the enhanced mixing at depth over the recent period.

He was out of touch. So there's exactly zero point in quoting him.

See above, "Joe". You are grossly delusional.

The increase in subtropical wind speed

Link please

Now who should I believe about the oceans and their heat circulation....A man who has spent almost his entire life as an oceanographer studying this, or this pommie commie AGW brainwashed fuckwit BBD whose sole purpose in life is to sit on a blogsite and just abuse the crap out of everybody. It's a toughie..

You should fucking find out yourself, you moronic pissant.

Are we seeing deniers trying on the old argument from authority schtick?

In which case I'll see your retired and dead right wing crank and raise you by AR5 with hundreds of currently working world-leading scientists.

Sightly different to your one-dimensional framing, eh Mackspot?

#89

You need to answer a question before you go asking any:

1/ Are you alleging a scientific conspiracy to mislead the world, Rednoise?

Yes/No?

* * *

Link please

For a literature review see AR5 WG1 Ch 3 3.6 Changes in ocean circulation

Mack

Now who should I believe about the oceans and their heat circulation….A man who has spent almost his entire life as an oceanographer studying this

He was wrong and out of date and in denial. I don't give a fuck who you believe, but the *facts* are set out above.

Presumably the "Karen" sock has finally been banned, so Sunspot now manifests as "Mack".

Not sure where the evidence showing "increases in subtropical wind speeds" is in that lot but came across this, which reinforces my question earlier concerning
"How many temperature measurements made at 2000m in the 60s and 70s.
Answer: Not a lot.
remember this IPCC 5

Early measurements of temperature were made using reversing thermometers and Nansen bottles that were
lowered from ships on station (not moving). Starting in the 1960s conductivity-temperature-depth (CTD)
instruments with Niskin bottles gradually gained dominance for high-quality data and deep data collected on
station during oceanographic cruises. From at least 1950 through circa 1970, most subsurface measurements
of ocean temperature were made with mechanical bathythermographs, an advance because these instruments
could be deployed from a moving ship, albeit a slowly moving one, but these casts were generally limited to
depths shallower than 250 m. Expendable bathythermographs (XBTs) that could be deployed from a rapidly
moving ship and sampled to 400 m came into widespread use in the late 1960s, and those that sampled to
700 m became predominant in the 1990s, greatly expanding oceanographic sampling,

Kinda reinforces what old delushioned Stevenson was muttering on about earlier.

Mack #90

Alfred Wegener, a much admired, and rightly so, geophysicist proposed a theory of continental drift which was fundamentally flawed. However, out of that and later in the 20th Century, the science of plate tectonics which is now recognised as more closely encompassing all know data became the accepted theory, theory in the scientific and not populist sense.

The message is, things move on, the science of climate change being no different. Case in point is the research and papers of HH Lamb, a justifiably renowned climatologist but who's research remit encompassed a limited data set applicable to the mooted MWP in England only. This is why he is cited so often by those who cannot, or will not, grasp the bigger picture. Possibly because of contaminated information feed from the Idsos, Sallie Baliunas and also Willie Wei-Hock Soon.

Much of what Stevenson wrote has a grain of truth but in hindsight it is rather like the 'curate's egg'.

Should be "delusioned" Lol

Kinda reinforces what old delushioned Stevenson was muttering on about earlier.

It kinda reinforces that you have no argument even more.

Craig @ #81

Aaargh! As if recent BBC TV News bulletins were not bad enough leading up to the release of AR5. I had detected a pattern there with the GWPF right in the frame and this latest nonsense confirms it.

Peter Lilley I marked the cards of in my #44 on this page above. Lilley is a disgrace and so is Patterson, Osborne and Cameron with their head in the sand (or full of sand) promotion of fracking.

On the Monday Evening 6 o'clock News (18:00 BST) we were treated to a load of propaganda BS from a British gas field worker in the US explaining how fracked gas was going to be a GHG effect beater. I had to put down my tea and grit my teeth. My wife gets uppity when I start shouting at the box. I could not find that particular segment, indeed the BBC were rather coy about access to that whole report.

Trouble is, as recognised, the BBC have been cowed into submission to government whims by various exposures of wrong doing (scandals in the idiom). I have a feeling that there were some sitting on these to roll out when best used.

The indecent haste, and sneaky introduction just before the Summer Recess, of 'The Transparency of Lobbying, non-Party Campaigning, and Trade Union Administration Bill is but one more element for an administration that has moved from Conservative to Regressive and now threatens to become The Repressive party.

Rednoise.

There are more ways of judging temperature of the oceans than measuring with thermometers. Sea level is one indicator. Ecological developments are another and you may want to check out SOFAR.

Whatever, it is know that the oceans must be warming because, cryosphere changes aside, there is a huge missing heat addition component from Earth's budget. Ocean heat is the recognised major term in total heat build up of the Earth.

The trouble is that you don't understand the methodologies employed by scientists so you dismiss out of hand. It isn't simple sums.

"Deniers simply dominate because they are closer to the truth than alarmists. That’s logical"

You forgot to say "That's logical in an insane asylum".

And perchance, where exactly do 'deniers dominate'? Aside from in your fantasies that is? Certainly not in academia, where they are few and far between. And certainly not in terms of scientific pedigree, since most of them have lousy publication and citation records. So where exactly?

Joe's heading for the penalty box soon for a game misconduct, that is clear.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 02 Oct 2013 #permalink

Rednoise

FFS will you answer a simple question?

1/ Are you alleging a scientific conspiracy to mislead the world, Rednoise?

Yes/No?

Answer it!

Note how Rednose, Mack (Karen's moved on to another old 'handle' since apparently being moderated out as well) and Joe try feebly to legitimize Stevenson, in Joe's case by pasting up a summary of his career.

That doesn't mean diddly squat when Stevenson decides - or more likely is forced - to publish his garbage in a source as utterly appalling as 21st C S & T. That it ended up there says everything about its credibility (meaning it has NONE). Why didn't he target a scientific audience by submitting it to any number of excellent journals in the field? But of course, it would have gone through an exhaustive peer-review process and been bounced. So Stevenson ends up getting it published in the scientific equivalent of Mad Magazine.

All that's left is for deniers like KarenMackSunspotand and Joe to suggest that Stevenson's arguments are valid wherever they are published. And for Rednose to link the article. It is not worth debating the contents of an article published in a venue that is so utterly wretched.

Really guys, you are so easy to debunk. Is this the limit of your debating skills? I'd find more of a challenge in a first grade elementary school class.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 02 Oct 2013 #permalink

See Rednoise dodge!

Hop! Skip! Jump!

Watch the dishonest little shit refuse to answer the question now repeated eight times!

Still waiting for the evidence, try and be a little more specific, that subtropical windspeeds are increasing.
After all, your excuse that the ocean ate my global warming depends on it.

And Jeff, I also quoted from AR5, perhaps you ought to read some of it instead of spouting off the usual crap.
Readings at 2000 metres in the 50s and 60s. Very few.

Ah the "missing heat". Still looking by all accounts
If I was bookish, like what like Leloin is, I could quote something apt from the Scarlet Pimpernel.

RedNoise,

And Jeff, I also quoted from AR5,...

Maybe you did, maybe you didn't. As is usual for your type you are coy about precise citations. I wonder? Selective quoting without understanding context. Once again another marker for the devious.

Now I could not find that quote in the officially released Summary for Policy Makers nor in the DRAFT 'Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis
Technical Summary
'.

Now maybe it is in one of the other sections which I have yet to download, but then I prefer to wait for the official release. Not much value in speculation over something that bears this warning:

'Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute'

So unless the status has changed since I last looked yesterday, and IIRC 2014 was a scheduled release date, then you have been a very naughty boy.

I think that Joe is another Spotty sock. He doesn't have much to say unless it's copy-paste, and it's rather coincidental that Mack suddenly reappears to support him just when the 'karen' sock has been put into the hamper.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 02 Oct 2013 #permalink

Props to the thousands of people who have donated over $960,000 in the space of a couple of days to support the reconstituted Australian Climate Council following its scrapping by the criminally short-sighted new Federal Government (talk about regulatory capture).

For those interested in an accessible (read layperson-friendly) summary of the IPCC's 5th Assessment Report, the Climate Council's report can be found here.

Why are you talking about heat, Rednose? You have no idea what it is.

Hint: it's not temperature.

Stu#10

Why are you talking about heat,

Thought I was mainly talking about the crap coverage of measurements in the 50s and 60s at 2000m,
Hint, Thats temperature measurements.

#7
Try appendix 3 of the link from BBD on previous page

#9
A fool and his money!

#6 3.6.2

Read the fucking words, conspiracy theorist nutter.

Your refusal to answer the question is taken as a "yes". You cannot complain because you have dodged and ducked and weaved quite astonishingly hard in an attempt to avoid answering a simple YES/NO.

So you get to be written off as a paranoid nutter. A tinfoil case. What's the fucking point even talking to you?

- You cannot read a reference even when directed to the specific sub-heading

- You cannot read a graph

- You don't understand basic physics

- You know nothing about physical climatology and reject instruction

- You know nothing about paleoclimate behaviour and reject instruction

- You reject correction for your constant, often appalling errors

- You repeat your errors ad nauseam, despite correction ad nauseam

Seriously, what is the point engaging with an ignorant, dishonest fuckwit who is consumed by paranoid fantasies?

You tell me, because at this stage in the game, I am fucked if I know.

A fool and his money!

As the Coalition voters will discover when the Abbott government starts to hand over tax-payer dollars to Big Industry for carbon reduction 'actions' that will do less than nothing to reduce carbon emissions, rather than letting proven market mechanisms put the impost direcltly onto the polluters.

If a small business proprietor pulled this type of swiftie they'd do jail time.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 02 Oct 2013 #permalink

Selective quoting without understanding context. Once again another marker for the devious.

Oh my fucking sides. You utter, stinking hypocrite.

Rednonsense, You also posted an article up here from 21 C Sci and Tech. That disqualifies you.

Furthermore, I'd like to know how an utter layman like you can interpret conclusions of the IPCC documents better than the scientists who wrote them. Sounds like a bad case of Dunning-Kruger to me. But, then again, you aren't the only scientific illiterate who does it. The other deniers I have encountered on Deltoid do it all the time. And not one of them has any formal training in climate science or any related field.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 02 Oct 2013 #permalink

Selective quoting without understanding context. Once again another marker for the devious.

Oops! It was I that wrote that. Well I think I did therefore I am.

Dr. Stevenson has explained, as a prime expert:

Some Basics of Marine Climatology

I wrote my first paper on the ocean’s influence on climate in 1958. The next year I was in England, working for the Navy to learn whether or not “micro- climates,” as we called them, along shores of the North Sea were determined by the adjacent coastal ocean. During the year, I visited all of the marine laboratories and research centers in western Europe.

It was in Germany, at the Seewetteramt (Marine Branch of the German Meteorological Office), where I met and began to work with two outstanding marine climatologists, Martin Rodewald, and Hans Markgraf, and the director, Dr. Hans U. Roll, the premier marine meteorologist of the time. They were looking at much larger areas than I—namely, the North Atlantic and the polar seas—and how they influenced the climate and weather over northwest Europe. It was a great education for me. I learned the processes by which the ocean and atmosphere work together.

The basics of these interactions start where oceans and atmosphere meet. More than 70 percent of the Earth’s surface is covered by oceans, seas, and lakes, and another 5 percent is covered by glaciers and ice caps. Just more than two thirds of this water area is in the Southern Hemisphere, and the oceans are 4 to 5 kilometers deep.

The atmosphere cannot warm until the underlying surface warms first. The lower atmosphere is transparent to direct solar radiation, preventing it from being significantly warmed by sunlight alone. The surface atmosphere thus gets its warmth in three ways: from direct contact with the oceans; from infrared radiation off the ocean surface; and, from the removal of latent heat from the ocean by evaporation. Consequently, the temperature of the lower atmosphere is largely determined by the temperature of the ocean.
Inland locations are less restrained by the oceans, so the surface air experiences a wider temperature range than it does over the oceans. Land cannot store heat for long, which is why hot days are quickly followed by cold nights in desert regions. For most of the Earth, however, the more dominant ocean temperatures fix the air temperature.

This happens through several means:

(1) The oceans transport heat around the globe via massive currents which sweep grandly through the various ocean basins. As a result, the tropics are cooler than they would be otherwise, and the lands of the high latitudes are warmer. The global circulation of heat in the oceans moderates the air temperatures around the whole world.

(2) Because of the high density/specific heat of sea water, the entire heat in the overlying atmosphere can be contained in the top two meters of the oceans. This enormous storage capacity enables the oceans to “buffer” any major deviations in temperature, moderating both heat and cold waves alike.

(3) Evaporation is constantly taking place at the surface of the seas. It is greatest in the tropics and weakest near the polar regions. The effect of evaporation is to cool the oceans and, thereby, the surface atmosphere.

How the Oceans Get Warm

Warming the ocean is not a simple matter, not like heating a small glass of water. The first thing to remember is that the ocean is not warmed by the overlying air.

Let’s begin with radiant energy from two sources: sunlight, and infrared radiation, the latter emitted from the “greenhouse” gases (water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and various others) in the lower atmosphere. Sunlight penetrates the water surface readily, and directly heats the ocean up to a certain depth. Around 3 percent of the radiation from the Sun reaches a depth of about 100 meters.

The top layer of the ocean to that depth warms up easily under sunlight. Below 100 meters, however, little radiant energy remains. The ocean becomes progressively darker and colder as the depth increases. (It is typical for the ocean temperature in Hawaii to be 26°C (78°F) at the surface, and 15°C (59°F) at a depth of 150 meters.

The infrared radiation penetrates but a few millimeters into the ocean. This means that the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere affects only the top
few millimeters of the ocean. Water just a few centimeters deep receives none of the direct effect of the infrared thermal energy from the atmosphere! Further, it is in those top few millimeters in which evaporation takes places. So whatever infrared energy may reach the ocean as a result of the greenhouse effect is soon dissipated.

The concept proposed in some predictive models is that any anomalous heat in the mixed layer of the ocean (the upper 100 meters) might be lost to the deep ocean. There have been a number of studies in which this process has been addressed (Nakamura 1997; Tanimoto 1993; Trenberth 1994; Watanabi 1994; and White 1998). It is clear that solar-related variations in mixed-layer temperatures penetrate to between 80 to 160 meters, the average depth of the main pycnocline (density discontinuity) in the global ocean. Below these depths, temperature fluctuations become uncorrelated with solar signals, deeper penetration being restrained by the stratified barrier of the pycnocline.
Consequently, anomalous heat associated with changing solar irradiance is stored in the upper 100 meters. The heat balance is maintained by heat loss to the atmosphere, not to the deep ocean.

What about Thermohaline Circulation?

The fact that the surface ocean can become denser than the underlying waters, thereby sinking to depths of “density equilibrium,” has been discussed since surveys of the physical ocean began in the second half of the 19th century. Certainly the concept was known before HMS Challenger sailed, in 1873, on its famous expedition. One of the multitude of suggestions made by members of the Royal Society at that time was to investigate the “over-turning of surface waters caused by density differences.”

Thermohaline circulation is responsible for the formation of the bottom-water masses in the world’s oceans: the North Atlantic Deep Water (NADW) originates basically in the region of the Labrador Sea; the Weddell Sea is the source of the deep-water in the circumpolar Southern Ocean; and the Pacific Deep Water originates in the Ross Sea. In many other places in the oceans, and seas, as well, surface waters are carried into the depths by thermohaline circulation.

So, it is not surprising that those modellers who “need” to get warm surface waters to move into the depths of the oceans, and remain sequestered there for long periods of time, would turn to the physical mechanism of this vertical circulation system. Their hope (claim) is that there can be occasions when salinity, rather than temperature, is the prime determining factor in the density of the surface waters. Then, warm water, made dense by an increase in the sea’s salt content, would sink.

It does not happen!

Readings at 2000 metres in the 50s and 60s. Very few.

And how would you - a know-nothing conspiracy- mag punting crank, let's remember - determine how many were 'enough'? With references please.

More RedNoise:

Thought I was mainly talking about the crap coverage of measurements in the 50s and 60s at 2000m...

And you have got as much sodding idea as the insane or mendacious Nigel Lawson. Who doesn't grok statistics. How the f*** did he become Chancellor of the Exchequer?

But then government is still populated by shills and/or idiots.

But of course Paterson has to suck up to his cabinet superior.

But we already knew that this government were backing away from carbon targets by whipping up a storm of media frenzy about running out of Gas in 2015 so that Cameron comes over as entirely reasonable with his fracking push.

... because at the moment Redarse you're just trying to whip up unqualified doubt with no basis.

Rednose @6: Ah the “missing heat”. Still looking by all accounts

Stu @10: Why are you talking about heat, Rednose? You have no idea what it is.

Rednose @11: Thought I was mainly talking about the crap coverage of measurements in the 50s and 60s at 2000m, Hint, Thats temperature measurements.

My God you're a moron, Rednose. I double-dog-dare you to explain -- in your own words -- the difference between temperature and heat.

#17

Can't you read? I dealt with Stevenson's being out of touch with developments in his field yesterday. He doesn't present the full picture. He doesn't *know* it. Or rather he didn't some time last century, when this was written and just before he died, aged 80.

Cutting and pasting vast screeds that you obviously have not understood is just tedious. Go back and read the thread again. You will see the final paragraph of your redundant mega-quote has been quoted already - by me. Read the words.

Joe, or is it Jo Nova hiding under the coverlet?

2) Because of the high density/specific heat of sea water, the entire heat in the overlying atmosphere can be contained in the top two meters of the oceans. This enormous storage capacity enables the oceans to “buffer” any major deviations in temperature, moderating both heat and cold waves alike

.

In that whole copy and paste have you actually read and taken on board what it all means? It isn't as if we don't know this stuff about ocean currents, after all some of us have studied oceanography and read Wally Broecker et. al.

And the Challenger voyage I am familiar with, not least by reading, listening to and chatting with Dr. Richard Corfield.

Now perhaps you can answer the questions I posed above at Page 25 #70"> and consider the implications of that part I have highlighted for us when the added heat to the oceans since pre-industrial times is released back into the atmosphere.

The heat capacity of water is ....?

The heat capacity of air is .....?

The difference in mass between the oceans and the atmosphere is.....?

Getting the picture yet?

Aargh! Blasted gouty fingers and html typos!

Now perhaps you can answer the questions I posed above at Page 25 #70 and consider the implications of that part I have highlighted for us when the added heat to the oceans since pre-industrial times is released back into the atmosphere.

The heat capacity of water is ....?

The heat capacity of air is .....?

The difference in mass between the oceans and the atmosphere is.....?

Getting the picture yet?

The tedious yammering about OHC measurements back in the 1950s and 1960s can stop as well because that was also dealt with days ago

You can start in 1970. It makes no odds. Here are the data, with error bars - repeated for at least the third time.

Some people need to STFU and pay attention. Although this could be regarded as a test screening out those who cannot read and understand graphs. Some have apparently failed already.

People that stupid have no business commenting on climate change anywhere, not even in the pub.

Rednoise

Think about it like this:

Ask yourself "how does ENSO work?"

Go and find out. Do some work.

Then ask "what is the dominant ENSO state when the easterlies are strong?"

Ask "what is the dominant ENSO state when the easterlies are weak?"

Then ask "what is the dominant ENSO state now?" And "is this a given reason for the cool East Pacific and the slowdown in tropospheric warming?"

Now join up the dots: ask "what does this tell us about the relative strength of the easterlies over the last decade or so?"

Finally, ask: "what effect does strengthening of the easterlies have on the subtropical gyres, especially the largest two - the N.Pacific and S. Pacific gyres?"

Now go and read AR5 WG1 3.6.2 and 3.6.6 *properly*.

Then read some sensible discussion of Balmaseda et al. (2013) - eg this one at SkS and this one at RC.

Lionel, this assumes one knows what "heat capacity" and "mass" are. Rednose does not.

Seeing as RedNoise found IPCC AR5 DRAFT Chapter 3 before me isn't it indicative that he ignores Box 3.1, Figure 1.

[blockquote]On the Monday Evening 6 o’clock News (18:00 BST) we were treated to a load of propaganda BS from a British gas field worker in the US explaining how fracked gas was going to be a GHG effect beater. [/blockquote]

Lionel, you should join Gen Z. and cease obtaining your information from TV. They have learnt that everything they need to see can be seen on the internet, or downloaded and watched at a time of their convenience. They are escaping the ability of the likes of Murdoch to dictate what they watch and when they watch it.
Generations Y and X are grasping technology and hopefully they will soon follow suit and cease using print media or TV for any purpose whatsoever.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 02 Oct 2013 #permalink

You know you've reached the outer margin of your limited imagination when the best handle you can come up with for your latest sock is 'Joe'.

Fuck off, SunSpam.

(I feel better everytime I say that!)

And, RedNoise, you embody the word 'hapless', but you're too stupid and arrogant to know it. C'mon, Buffoon, what's the difference between temperature and heat? Do any of you clowns know it?

Nice to go travelling for a few days and find the trolls on a hiding to nothing. Should I assume the idiot Kai has been bounced, too? Woohoo!

#32 Jeff Harvey

No doubt prepare to watch the deniers try and put some ridiculous spin on this.

Well they've certainly got form for that!

Walrus surges first Wattied in 2009.

And then Wattied again in 2010, although rather less enthusiastically.

But in 2011 (from the link you post above):

Incredibly, 10,000 walruses crammed onto a small beach is small potatoes compared with the scene in 2011. Then, scientists observed a staggering 30,000 walruses on the beach, according to the NOAA.

Oddly, I couldn't find a WTFUWT "It's not AGW" spoiler story for the 2011 walrus surge.

Let's see if we get one this year. Or Perhaps the deniers have lost their appetite for this particular story.

(WTFUWT links are "nofollowed").

BBD,

Thanks for the links. Its interesting how Watts - with absolutely and utterly no basic education in population ecology - suddenly enters the fray with his brand of 'wisdom'. But all of the deniers do it. They are instant experts on anything and everything, at least where climate change is concerned. No formal education required. If a scientist says something they don't like, and that doesn't fit in with their pre-determined views, they wade in with their opinions.

This is why so much blog 'science' is bullshit. CA, WUWT, Climate Depot, Bishop's Hill, Nova, etc. Its also why the internet has become the haven for the denial industry. They'd be booted out of academia, so they end up on blogs.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 03 Oct 2013 #permalink

@Harvey

To my knowledge population ecology is not a respected and generally accepted discipline of science, it is rather a hobby of green activists.

Boris/Kai/Freddy/Berendwanker/Joe

Waaall, thaaars yer problem "Joe" - your "knowledge".

Funded chairs (and nature editorships) are available for eminent scientists in population ecology, like Jeff Harvey (BTW that's Professor Jeff Harvey to illiterate scum like you). Blog "scientists" of the Denialati (like Watts, Codling, McIntyre & Monckton) their PR prostitutes (like Morano & the Idsos and all the denialist economists) and their tenured, paid & perjuring (and sometimes dead) beards (like Singer, Lindzen, Curry & Pielke Snr (P Jnr is a Political "Scientist") - and your precious Stevenson) are "respected or generally accepted" by precisely no academic institution or scientific organisation anywhere on the planet - and there are statements to that effect from all such organisations.

From his parsing (and the obsession with green activists), I think that "Joe" is the Kai/Freddy/Eurofascist/NPD Socktroll, not one of SunSpam's rancid socks, and we all know what the Socktroll's credibility on things scientific is ("I'm a senior, published climate scientist").

Rednoise is thicker than both the Socktroll & SunSpam, and shows such a dog-like devotion to the Daily Fail/Thatcher Tory bullshit that he cannot but be from the UK. Now that Betty Birch has fallen off his twig, and Fluke has fucked off, I suspect the sum total of Denier trolls here is no more than three (the Eurofascist, the Tory Git and the creepy local moron SunSpam. Perhaps we can play troll bingo.

Craig,

Lionel, you should join Gen Z. and cease obtaining your information from TV.

Any information I may get from TV is filtered via my cognitive framework built over many decades by the study of credible sources across a number of scientific and other fields (socio-political through lenses such as Pilger). The sources are text books and journal articles, many used in conjunction with structured courses up to and including university level in Maths and Science and also Humanities, technology (including computer architecture and programming) and a smattering of the arts. Then there was the great university of life which included a long spell in aviation engineering in the RN FAA.

However I do like to know what the others are up to, know thine enemy and all that, which helps in the push back against them.

Joe jerks again:

@Harvey

To my knowledge population ecology is not a respected

That says more about your knowledge (non-existent) than the validity of population ecology which I suspect you think is about only humans.

Yep, 'to my knowledge' was the key...

Ah, the Ignorati!

#37,well your knowledge sucks,Joe...and you cannot be told,either! It's a dead-end for you unless you can learn. What you gonna do?

I do not answer comments written in arrogant hostility and total ignorance of facts. Everybody of you who behaves and expresses himself as if he would be something better or know more than others does not deserve my attention.

Joe, see rhowmbats comment above (thanks rh!).

Your pitiful and pathetic comment sums up many in denier ranks: mindless trolls who think they can separate real science from the fictional kind.

And then Joe has the audacity to argue that he doesn't answer comments written in 'arrogant hostility'after he writes an arrogantly hostile and stupid remark (that population ecology is not a well respected and generally accepted discipline of science et al ad nauseum).

So Joe, who told you that? Or is it simply another made-up-on-the-spot view of a sad moron like you?

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 03 Oct 2013 #permalink

Ah, right, it's Kai, not the other idiot. Who want to write to Tim to get this sock blocked?

Incidentally, Kai, a lot of people now come to Deltoid to see Ignorati mouthbreathers - such as yourself, SunSpam, RedRump etc. - get the shit kicked out of them, because so many honest, intelligent people are sooooooo heartily fucking sick of Denier morons and the endless stream of ordure that torrents forth from you all.

It's a kind of cruel Roman spectacle where the muppets are on a hiding to nothing - being both naturally, if not preternaturally, stupid, and having nurtured this innate disposition to a species of obtuse perfection - and where the educated who bother to actually read the reports and the papers aren't tied to being tediously polite to the half-witted, such constraint being, when you think about it, a type of the very political correctness you lot are so passionately opposed to when you think anyone else stands to benefit from it.

(Except not imaginary, as is so usually the case when you decry unearned privilege. Being as you all are mean-spirited shits, as well as dull ones.)

So, in a way, and despite your best efforts, you're actually performing a kind of community service here... rest easy, though; it'll be the only one you ever do.

#44

Fuck off and die!

;-)

Still reckon that it's Sunspot!

;-)

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 03 Oct 2013 #permalink

Bernard, no, it's definitely another from Kai's TARDIS-like sock drawer.

expresses himself as if he would be something better

From memory, the Boris sock was on the hand when it used this exact, and quite distinctive, phrasing some months back. From memory again (sorry, but I'm soooo not wasting the time to ferret it out) I think it was in wibbling about him being the Grand Poobah of all things scientific and BBD not being worthy to pass a retort*.

I remember it because it was such an obvious tell that I went off looking for mittel/eastern Eurolanguages that used such distinctive subjunctives. Sunspot couldn't fake this - even if he were in the mood** to, he still wouldn't be able to pick a subjunctive, regardless of the imperative***

*see what I did there?
** oh, snap!
*** my work here is done... :)

I am embarassed about the foul language adopted of the "commenters" here.

#51

I'm embarrassed that you should think you could get your sockpuppetry past our noses, Kai.

Now fuck off and die!

:-)

#49 Bernard J

I'm sure FrankD is correct and it's Kai/Freddy/Boris/Berendwanker - although it was Jeff H's super-sensitive antennae (appropriately enough) that twitched first!

Just smell the phraseology.

;-)

There's a sausage on the barbecue!

:-) :-) :-)

Why are you guyz so nervouz. Listen to more intelligent people than you:

“The determinant of weather is mainly water in all its forms,” said Dr. Herzberg, “as vapor in the atmosphere, in its heat transport by evaporation and condensation, as the enormous circulating mass of liquid ocean whose heat capacity and mass/energy transport dominate the motions of our atmosphere and the precipitation from it, and finally as cloud, snow, and ice cover which influence the radiative balance between the Sun, the Earth, and free Space.”

Seriously -- fuck off and take your meds, Freddy.

OK Joe, what other special qualities has water got that make it 'Familiar, Abundant and Odd'?

A free virtual lollipop if you can tell me where that description comes from.

Joe,

Note, 'qualities', plural.

Besides many substances are fluid, including rock and glass. So fluid was not an answer I was looking for.

Freddy, you really, really need to read Lacis et al. (2010). Your conception of the way the climate system actually works is such a mess.

There's a good discussion of the paper here for the curious.

You've got the natural order of things muddled up. Non-condensing GHGs (mainly CO2) set up the atmospheric "temperature framework" which determines the atmospheric fraction of water vapour.

Good luck with those links in #60 with the US Govmint shutdown. Those Repuglicans strike again. The whole lot should be booted out. Some are even bragging about shutting down the EPA. They are shameless.

Joe (Sunspot) is embarassed about the stupidity of his comments here...

... as well he should be. Bill's correct; one of us has to get him booted off, although its inevitable that he will don another sock puppet and return...

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 03 Oct 2013 #permalink

#61 Oh FFS. Of course. Stupid of me. Funnily enough, I was only thinking the same thing yesterday about the more fundamentalist Republicans - the American public needs to get rid of them before their lunatic ideology wrecks the country.

Here is another pointer to the way things are moving Private Firefighter Crews Save Wealthy Homes From Wildfires As It Becomes Harder To Save The Poor’s.

This at a time when there are moves afoot in the UK to use private contract firemen. Already there are private firm run ambulances causing issues in some authorities (local councils to others abroad maybe) and plans to use private security firms for some Police assignments like guarding crime scenes. G4S in the frame for some of these latter so I heard - they did us proud with the Olympics didn't they - NOT!

Navy, Army and Air Force before long too.

Another era of the society of Garrow's Law arrives. The well off can have their Duck Houses but the rest will have to earn a crust if they are lucky.

We are a bit short of lands for penal colonies now though.

Ah, good old Crassus times.

For a few sesterces more!

Many Army roles have been taken over by mercenary organisations and the Americans know much about that too, think Blackwater - who were the faces behind many an atrocity in Iraq, actions which also got more regular US grunts killed and maimed.

Just dropped in to see what was happening in Deltoid for October and whether there might be a new post that was being discussed.
Apparently it's still September here?

'Strewth and fair dinkum on the calendar update mate, but isn't your prime area of interest on whether Marohasy's knickers are overflowing or not, at least until such time as she dries up?

Don't remember too much about anything else from you. Did yer get a squint at AR5 at all while boiling your billy over at the sheepdip, mate?

If some lunatic went on a rampage in Ohio tomorrow and machine-gunned every frickin' child in an elementary school the chances of getting anything done about gun control - i.e. bring the US on par with the rest of the civilized world - would actually lessen, precisely because these freakin' lunatics are prepared to sacrifice anything and anyone to their ideology.

GOP / Tea Party wreckers close down gubmint, science, rationality and the future itself, and fall about congratulating themselves in the process. The disease has infected angry white men across the globe. These are the idiots we're confronting.

Reasoning with them is not working, because they have no commitment to reason. (And as we know from this site they have limited capacity to reason in the first place!)

They are committed only to winning. We cannot let them, and we've been pussy-footing around with them for too long.

Check @#69.
What a remarkably strange and unnecessarily rude response.
Concern about Marohasy?
Hardly mate.
I tried to point out to Nick that he was giving her way too much kudos which she did not deserve.
Your comments about billies and sheep dips are most peculiar. Do you think that everyone who lives out in the MDB is some type of country yokel and or uneducated redneck who suffers from a lack of knowledge?
Seemingly Check, old mate, we at least recognise that this September thread is days out of date and has apparently been abandoned by its owner.

Sorry Lotharsson.
There is nothing wrong with my memory. I actually noticed that Tim must have found other places to spend his time.
It becomes very noticeable when one returns to see if there is something new and interesting happening at Deltoid at the start of a new month.
There isn't and there hasn't been for many months.
Sad but true and very easy to observe by a quick perusal of the blog.
I am aware you answered a similar question in early September when this blog was still operating under an August thread.

Oops, forgot to blockquote the first paragraph of my previous comment.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 03 Oct 2013 #permalink

@61 "Good luck with those links in #60 with the US Govmint shutdown. Those Repuglicans strike again. The whole lot should be booted out. Some are even bragging about shutting down the EPA. They are shameless."

Why don't you accept democratic decisions by the elected majority?

Closing the EPA is not shameless but reasonable!

#75 "Closing the EPA is....reasonable". Then show us your reasoning, 'Joe'. Will it be built on your Blithering Ignorance Model, the one you applied to population ecology back at #37?

Joe writes, "Why don’t you accept democratic decisions by the elected majority?"

This guy gets dumber by the minute. The electorate in the US don't matter to those and power and never has. The public in general is miles to the left of its government but that is irrelevant. The US is a plutocracy pure and simple - top down rule and aimed at ensuring the interests of the privileged few are the priority. The two main parties represent the same vested corporate interests.

Plugging the leaks on Deltoid in terms of discussion on climate and other issues is virtually impossible. Just when idiots like Karen, Berendaneke-Freddy, Luke and Sunspot get booted out in comes Joe. The procession of morons never ends. As I pointed out earlier, if this is the general intellectual level of those on the 'other side', then no wonder our species is in such deep, deep trouble.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 04 Oct 2013 #permalink

Agreed wrt the US being a plutocracy. Everywhere is, really. The sickening thing is how many lackeys there are. We see some here. The ironic thing is that the lackeys actually think *they* are the independent-minded types. Which is enough to make a cat laugh.

* * *

BTW "Joe" is Kai/Freddy/Boris/Berendwanker etc. Trust me on this.

#78 My cat isn't laughing. She says the combination of aggression, pride and stupidity makes these Teabaggers very unlikely to shift to realistic world views.

Bingo! "Stu2" has completed my card. BTW, I think chek's University of Wooloomaloo comment on Marohasy wins the thread.

Joe is indeed Kai. The stilted language alone is sufficient proof. Both are idiots.

The idea that the Republicans have a 'democratic mandate' to close the US Government down is laughable. But this is precisely the kind of Radical Reaction that appeals to Deniers, what with their being the kind of Radical Reactionaries that imagine themselves to be Libertarians and all.

The Liberty they seek is purely their own, of course, but like good lickspittles everywhere they also want to see rich men freed from the chains of Tyrannical and Oppressive Regulation that bind the poor loves, in the hope that the great men may yet toss them a few bits of silver when next they tug a grateful forelock in the presence of such magnificent opulence.

" The disease has infected angry white men across the globe. "

Not really.

It's only the idiots in the USA who hate the "uppity nigger" in the whitehouse.

Who knew "Blazing Saddles" was based on a future real life scenario...

Wow

I take your point, but there are stupid white men in the UK and Australia who - though not in the exact Republican mould - nonetheless fit the general pattern.

Just while you are here, have you noticed that Tim has been in and house-cleaned? Various of the more flagrant sock-trolls have been removed.

@Bill

any idea why the POTUS is not willing to cooperate with the democratically elected majority in Congress??

The POTUS can quickly resolve his impairment if he wants. But he is too stubborn.

Cheers RHW!
Although I fear Python references may be gradually disappearing into the mists of the past.

The following honorable and distinguished US personalities, mostly scientists, are strictly against the IPCC global warming hoaxes and lies:

Earl M. Aagaard, PhD,
Charles W. Aami,
Roger L. Aamodt, PhD,
Wilbur A. Aanes,
M. Robert Aaron,
Ralph F. Abate,
Hamed K. Abbas, PhD,
Wyatt E. Abbitt II,
Bernaard J. Abbott, PhD,
David J. Abbott, MD,
David M. Abbott Jr.,
Donald W. Abbott,
Douglas R. Abbott,
Eugene Abbott,
Frank D. Abbott,
Paul Abbott,
Ursula K. Abbott, PhD,
Refaat A. Abdel-Malek, PhD,
Albert S. Abdullah, DVM,
Alan E. Abel, MD,
Jason Abel,
Janis I. Abele

"Just while you are here, have you noticed that Tim has been in and house-cleaned?"

No, though it's a good sign.

Something is needed to reset conversation, though. Ethan did an excellent one that, though not perfect, has worked better than my cynical soul had considered, if only because Ethan actually used it to continue to clean up, after which several permatrolls fucked off for (very nearly) good.

The link to Ethan's post is here:

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/09/23/weekend-diversion-yo…

(PS I look over in disgust every week or two. You lucked out in catching me on a decent work day. On a normal or bad day, the extra display of human shitheads is just too bloody depressing and annoying and my customers don't need the fallout from that)

"any idea why the POTUS is not willing to cooperate with the democratically elected majority in Congress??"

Because the elected majority in Congress are not willing to accept the will of the people who democratically voted, nor the house of the senate, nor the duly elected and reaffirmed president of the united states.

Kai

The Republicans aren't acting as representatives of the American electorate. They are engaging in the worst kind of party politics at the expense of the American electorate, who will, I suspect, not thank them for it when all is said and done.

* * *

Please stop copy/pasting lists of non-climate scientists who don't understand what they are denying. It serves no purpose at all, so you might as well type original content into the little box above the "submit" button.

Try

Barbecue sausage fuck!

Or something like that. At least try to be amusing. It's the least you can do while we wait for Tim to gets around to blocking your latest sock.

Wow

you need to found your assertion "are not willing to accept the will of the people" on facts.

From where do you know what the "will of the people" is? The "will of the people" is democratically expressed by the elected representatives of the people. This is democracy. You should try to learn this.

Wow

As you've been away for a bit, a little background. You may well have come across something called "Kai" elsewhere, but here Kai has many, many names, the latest of which is "Joe".

He is Freddy.

He is Boris.

He is Berendanke (aka Berendwanker).

Tim has been playing whack-a-sock with Kai, but Kai is a very persistent troll indeed.

BBD

you appear to suffer from paranoia. Stick to factz and not to superztition or suspicion. This is highly incivil and dishonest.

Oh, sod off you tedious freak. Tim, if you're around, this clown just will not accept that he's not wanted.

bill, maybe YOU don't want me here, but I did not behave incivil, undecent, offending or directly violating like you, BBD or chek. I just want to express my personal opinion like anybody else and am disappointed to be treated as pariah among extremely authoritative people here, like you or BBD, who constantly appeal to authority.

My opinion on "global warming" is, that I am deeply convinced that the factual basis of the hypothesized anthropogenic warming is by far too small to draw the conclusions taken by the IPCC. This is not a political statement but a scientific one.

Why can't you live with the free expression of an opinion? Why?

#92

"Joe" we all know you are Kai, Freddy, Boris and Berendwanker. We know. Your silly pretence is unnecessary. Why not revert back to "Kai" and have done with it?

Obamas health bill was passed by Congress and tested in the Supreme Court, 'Joe' some time ago...now the minority teabag rump has decided to f**k with democracy by trying to defund it in exchange for passing vital funding bills. So much for your honesty and grasp of factz. Since you know squat about anything you turn your attention to, you can indeed sod off.

# 94

Ha ha.

Why can't you accept that you have been banned from this blog for abusive trolling and serial sock puppetry? Why?

;-)

Those in other lands may be unaware of how the latest stirring by the the Sunday Mail has blown up into a shit-storm, of their own making I must add.

It started with an article aimed at Ed Milliband, opposition leader, by accusing his father of 'hating Britain', on the flimsiest of evidence, well none as a matter of fact.

Now it isn't hard to work out the purpose of that little exercise in character blackening.

More on the developments here:

Mail on Sunday apologises to Miliband after reporter turns up at memorial, but they refuse to apologise for the original slight against Milliband's father and by extension Milliband himself.

I have just seen some Daily Mail editor, Alex Brummer, on BBC TV complaining that Ed Milliband has turned this into a political point scoring exercise against the Mail and that they the Mail are owed an apology by Milliband. One cannot make this stuff up:

Daily Mail exec demands apology over anti-semitism claims.

'The lady doth protest too much'

It has been noted that Paul Dacre current Daily Mail editor's father avoided the WW2 draft thus not serving alongside Ed Milliband's father in the Normandy landings, or serving in the Far East.

As that BBC article writes:

The row comes days before a crucial meeting of MPs next Wednesday on press regulation.

Clearly the Mail has not heard of the old saying, 'when in a hole stop digging'.

Maybe David Rose will soon need to find somewhere else to hang his hat, I doubt it will come to that, but if it did then I am sure The Telegraph would welcome him with open arms.

BBD, what an utterly arrogant behavior you show. You cannot "know": false assertion and symptom of paranoia. Deal with arguments instead of names. Is this all what you can?

I know, Kai. I can spot your style a mile off. I know. You are nailed and you know it as well as I do.

Just a reminder of where we are here:

Kai - Freddy - Boris - Berendanke has been banned by the blog owner for abusive trolling and serial sock puppetry.

Yet here he is again, now running a sock labelled "Joe".

Banned means banned, Joe - Kai - Freddy - Boris - Berendanke. As in not permitted to comment further. So fuck off and die!

What do we all feel about *strike-through* and no response to all further comments by this banned troll? Until Tim gets around to blocking the latest sock?

#98, one of the most depressing moments in a depressing era for the media in the UK. Absolutely astonishing hypocrisy and audacious failed rationalising from the professional shit Dacre and his lickspittles. You wouldn't line your kitty litter tray with that paper.

This is also computer trespass.

A criminal offence that has even led to extradition to face charges.

"From where do you know what the “will of the people” is?"

Reps campaigned on a leader saying they'll remove ACA, Dems campaigned on a leader saying they'll implement ACA.

1.7m more votes for the Dems than the Reps.
The president is the Dem.

What is not making any connection to your fevered ego, kai?

So, for those who don't believe that the oceans are becoming more acidic:

Researchers Find Historic Ocean Acidification Levels: ‘The Next Mass Extinction May Have Already Begun’.

And what was that cheer-leading for McIntyre (& Curry) up-thread all about Why Curry, McIntyre, and Co. are Still Wrong about IPCC Climate Model Accuracy, so note my appraisal of McIntyre being a petroleum geologist with a smattering of stat's knowledge and little climate science knowledge was about right. Also, Curry continues to dig here hole through her reputation.

Meanwhile I find this neat summary of 'the way things are, and could become if we don't change course and fast, Forget Climate Change.

Do I think the climate is changing?
Yup.

Do I think humans are responsible?
Pretty much. The physics is pretty simple.

And could the climate change rather quickly?
Very possibly. It's done so before.

Would this be so bad?
Sure would!! If climatic zones change and with them the wheat, rice and corn growing zones, we will have epic scale starvation*. Even more fun, when the Arctic ocean becomes ice free, it becomes a massive solar collector. Just watch Greenland melt in the year that the Arctic becomes ice free. Watch the subways of New York and London flood.

.

There is a hidden scenario behind rising sea levels partly revealed if one thinks carefully about the ramifications of that subway flooding.

As sea levels rise rivers and other sea-bound water courses will find it harder to reach that ocean and thus many estuaries will have massive changes in course and even further up stream there will be a knock on effect - miles inland.

I concede - 'Joe' is Kai.

It's the unadulterated stupidity that gives it away.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 04 Oct 2013 #permalink

You had me worried for a while there, Bernard.

:-)

Joe's fibs:

First: "I did not behave incivil" [sic]

Sure you did. Your snide remark about population ecologists not being real scientists was both arrogant and stupid.

Second: "...like you or BBD, who constantly appeal to authority"

Says the same clown who kept pasting up the CV of Stevenson in order to try and legitimize the contents of an appalling article he wrote in a nutty rag shortly before he died.

You're a hypocrite, Joe. Accept you lumps and leave here. Puh-lease.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 04 Oct 2013 #permalink

Jeff, this foaming nutter has spewed vile abuse - really vile - over you, me and everybody else (bar the other socks) over the last few weeks. I just had to laugh at that protestation. Some people - really...

Oh yes. And at times like this, I wish I could seek refuge in denial too. Although it's there - Callum Roberts' Ocean of Life is waiting on the shelf for me to summon up the courage to start reading it.

Oh yes. And at times like this, I wish I could seek refuge in denial too. Although it’s there – Callum Roberts’ Ocean of Life is waiting on the shelf for me to summon up the courage to start reading it.

BBD, coinicdentally I have a brand-new copy on my knee as I type, and acopy of The Unnatural History of the Sea for dessert.

It's the photos in OoL that bring home in a few moments the plight of our seas...

:-(

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 04 Oct 2013 #permalink

Oregon, Washington and Alaskan trees consume more carbon, annually, then is produced by the entire US economy. It’s in our interest to do more. Or we will die point our fingers at others.

Two questions to the IPCC…

1. Why don’t your models predict the ‘pause’?
2. What else have you gotten wrong?

Fact control:

The *real* science of *deniers* is being outspent by at least 1000 to 1 by the pseudo-science of the climate alarmist establishment. The oil industry pays incredible amounts of money to climate alarmism.

Fact control:

The *real* science of *deniers* is being outspent by at least 1000 to 1 by the pseudo-science of the climate alarmist establishment. The oil industry pays incredible amounts of money to climate alarmism.

Fact control:

The *real* science of *deniers* is being outspent by at least 1000 to 1 by the pseudo-science of the climate alarmist establishment. The oil industry pays incredible amounts of money to climate alarmism.

See a comparison of the final draft version of the SPM, as finalised by the IPCC just before the Stockholm Meeting in the last days of September 2013, with the SPM after modification by politicians in Stockholm in order to create more alarmism and reduce or hide scientific uncertainties as expressed by the IPCC scientists.

In Chapter B. Observed Changes in the Climate System

IPCC scientists say:

Since 1950, changes have been observed throughout the climate system: the atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the extent and volume of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen (see Figures SPM.1 and SPM.2). Many of these observed changes are unusual or unprecedented on time scales of decades to millennia.

Politics wants to read:

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased.

Please note that the small but important word "unusual" has been removed.

I see Joe is rambling on incoherently again. Some real nonsensical nuggets in there:

1. The *real* science of *deniers*
That doesn't exist. Note how Joe refers to the gibberish produced mostly on denier weblogs as 'real' without a shred of empirical evidence to support it. And there's no evidence presented that the ratio of money invested in what Joe flippantly refers to as 'climate alarmism' is 1,000 times greater than that paid to shills and their 'science'. I'd like to see some bonafide data supporting this. Joe has none. He;s made it up. And he has the audacity to refer to this as 'fact control'. What a dork.

He laso latches onto the illusory pause to denigrate the IPCC models. This is the latest desperate act of the sinking denial industry. We've been over this on Deltoid a million times before but to reiterate: 1998 was an exceptional year by any standards. The El Nino that year was the strongest every recorded, which on its own probably knocked up the global mean temperature by 2 tenths of a degree C. Take that year out of the equation, and the warming is unequivocal. 2010 was the warmest year on record anyway. Arctic ice extent reached an all-time low in 2012 and thickness - a more worrying trend - is lower now than ever. Importantly, there are a huge number of biotic proxies showing that warming continues unabated. Species are moving polewards and to higher elevations. Seasonal phenological shifts in plants and animals are being observed; many of these shifts are quite dramatic in scale.

Of course, let's bear in mind that Joe thins a scientist studying the population dynamics of several invertebrate and vertebrate species in an interlocking food web or the effects of plant secondary metabolites on the nutritional ecology of insect herbivores and their natural enemies is not a real scientist but just somebody working on behalf of the green lobby.

Tim, its time to boot this sock puppet out.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 04 Oct 2013 #permalink

Jeff et alia. The Socktroll's narcissistic personality disorder makes it completely immune to reality or logic. All it craves is the attention it lacks in real life. Tim can't stamp every cockroach in the draughty but occasionally interesting old pile that Deltoid has become, so vermin control becomes a personal responsibility. In the Socktroll's case, ignore rants is bliss. Let it dribble, unregarded - save to point and mock when it changes socks. I notice that Stu2 is the only other contrarian wibbler to peek over the parapet of late, if only to complain that a new thread hasn't erased his drubbing by both Lotharsson & Nick. Now that summer's here in Oz, we can expect a few more blowflies hatching from the rotten carcass of semi-professional denial.

Hilarious, the Joetroll refers to the removal of the word "unusual" and claims this indicates increased alarmism. Up is down and down is up in the world of the Joetrolls!

It's also just regurgitating from Watts. Yawn.

#15. Reference for this claim please,'Joe', and what exactly is being quantified?...oh, and are you talking about 'ecosystem services' here [chuckle]?

As far as sinking carbon is quantified, in 2011 US land-use management and forestry activity sequestered about 14% of total US emissions, according to the US EPA.

Well, what do you know!

I have just been appraised that the goon or dicombobulating obfuscater that the UK has as Secretary of state for environment, food and rural affairs is Matt Riddley's brother in law.

My hunch that these people, who could be confused with socio-paths, ae a part of the GWPF's pre and post push against the IPCC's latest report in the media, BBC etc., was about right. In itself not a difficult conclusion to reach if one know the recent history of UK denial/delayer activity.

I don't think the Mail were fooled, they are very much a part of the campaign.

Global warming sceptics using media campaign to discredit IPCC.

Lord Lawson's son, Dominic, also incorporated the GWPF "lines to take" into his column for the Sunday Times, and Peter Lilley, a regular contributor to the work of the GWPF who supplements his pay as an MP through his post as vice-chairman of Tethys Petroleum, completed the media blitz on the following day with an article in City AM, the London freesheet aimed at the financial sector.

The past seven days have shown clearly how Lord Lawson and a small clique of other climate change sceptics are able to use their political and media networks, as well as family ties, to distort so effectively the UK public debate.

So RedNoise, Peter Lilley is squeaky clean eh! Only to the deluded. If you have spent money on such rags you should ask for a refund and claim damages. Now there is an idea.

I see that the Mail today is giving away a £1M prize. Loose change to the owner Lord Rothermere.

Argh! Blockquoite fail.

Lord Lawson’s son, Dominic, also incorporated the GWPF “lines to take” into his column for the Sunday Times, and Peter Lilley, a regular contributor to the work of the GWPF who supplements his pay as an MP through his post as vice-chairman of Tethys Petroleum, completed the media blitz on the following day with an article in City AM, the London freesheet aimed at the financial sector.

The past seven days have shown clearly how Lord Lawson and a small clique of other climate change sceptics are able to use their political and media networks, as well as family ties, to distort so effectively the UK public debate.

#26,27 Lionel, the Daily Mail's Dacre and the GWPF have an agreement for the GWPF to provide 'science journalism' on AGW...it's a conspiracy in plain sight that is years old.
This arrangement is actually the story, but it is one utterly ignored by the wretched syndicators at News Ltd and anywhere else that cites the Daily Mail.

The Daily Mail is a model example of a failed newspaper. It is effectively an in-house policy sheet for the British fossil fuel industry association.

#28 It's a national and international disgrace. The injection of lies into the public consciousness - and thence the political sphere - by the GWPF via the DM/MoS is a blatant subversion of democracy. Lie to the electorate *first* then buy your politicians cheaply and easily because what you want to them to do will play well with the softened-up electorate.

Since David Rose's lies are now reprinted in the Australian and elsewhere, the lies really are getting around the world before the truth has put its trousers on.

There's lots more excellent DM/GWPF analysis at the Carbon Brief, which has become my go-to source for these two topics these days.

#16

Kai - Freddy - Boris - Berendwanker - "Joe"

See # 1

You are banned from commenting here, so why are you still doing so using yet another sock?

See a comparison of the final draft version of the SPM, as finalised by the IPCC just before the Stockholm Meeting in the last days of September 2013, with the SPM after modification by politicians in Stockholm in order to create more alarmism and reduce or hide scientific uncertainties as expressed by the IPCC scientists.

In Chapter B. Observed Changes in the Climate System

IPCC scientists say:

Since 1950, changes have been observed throughout the climate system: the atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the extent and volume of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen (see Figures SPM.1 and SPM.2). Many of these observed changes are unusual or unprecedented on time scales of decades to millennia.

Politics wants to read:

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased.

Please note that the small but important word “unusual” has been removed.

I had seen that article from the Carbon Brief before, probably via CP or something, but well done for reminding everybody.

For an interesting exercise enter this in Google:

The Mail gives 5 times more space to the Global Warming Policy Foundation than to any other source on climate

and see what turns up.

And lest any accuse me of being left wing, if that has any relevance in today's political climate let alone the social sphere here is a hit at Ed Miliband and his aim to freeze energy prices, which I took issue with as he spoke:

Climate change is happening, so don't shoot the messenger.

But that does not mean that fossil fuel companies, or any others, should be free to profiteer (earn to invest in alternatives yes) as they have been and market speculators are other flies in the ointment.

Maybe some in the denier-delayer camp are, mindful of the fate of Emperor Hu Hai, are now looking over their shoulders as they peddle like mad to discredit the IPCC and climate science in general. Cornered rats are dangerous and likely to encourage the setting of the security services on us. Dirty tricks such as identity theft and fraud in our names being likely tactics. Conspiracy ideation or rational concerns? That depends upon which side of the fence you are, perhaps.

Did you catch this one at Spinwatch:

Bill protects lobbyists while targeting civil society

The fact that this bill was introduced, quietly, the day before the Summer recess should have sounded warning bells as should the fact that there was a debate on Day two of the current parliament with the news full of events in Syria.

Oh yes. The war on democracy continues apace. And the plutocracy is winning. Which should have the lackeys around here rubbing their dirty hands together with glee. But I suspect the long game will play out rather badly for them in the end. When things start to get hairy the public will remember who lied (the science-denying right) and the public will be angry and frightened and looking for blood. Bye bye science-denying right. Forever.

ignore rants is bliss

:-)

Another deft turn of phrase from RHW! And of course correct.

See again a comparison of the final draft version of the SPM, as finalised by the IPCC just before the Stockholm Meeting in the last days of September 2013, with the SPM after modification by politicians in Stockholm in order to create more alarmism and reduce or hide scientific uncertainties as expressed by the IPCC scientists.

In Chapter B. Observed Changes in the Climate System

IPCC scientists say:

Since 1950, changes have been observed throughout the climate system: the atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the extent and volume of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen (see Figures SPM.1 and SPM.2). Many of these observed changes are unusual or unprecedented on time scales of decades to millennia.

Politics wants to read:

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased.

Please note that the small but important word "unusual" has been removed.

In Chapter B.1 Atmosphere

IPCC scientists say:

Each of the last three decades has been warmer than all preceding decades since 1850 and the first decade of the 21st century has been the warmest (see Figure SPM.1). Analyses of paleoclimate archives indicate that in the Northern Hemisphere, the period 1983–2012 was very likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 800 years (high confidence) and likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years (medium confidence).

Politics wants to read:

Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850 (see Figure SPM.1). In the Northern Hemisphere, 1983–2012 was likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years (medium confidence).

The mentioning of the MWP in the SPM was therefore deleted by politicians because they do not want too much disturbance of the intended alarmism.

IPCC scientists say:

Global mean surface temperature trends exhibit substantial decadal variability, despite the robust multi-decadal warming since 1901 (Figure SPM 1). The rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998−2012; 0.05 [−0.05 to +0.15] °C per decade) is smaller than the trend since 1951 (1951−2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade).

Politics wants to read:

In addition to robust multi-decadal warming, global mean surface temperature exhibits substantial decadal and interannual variability (see Figure SPM.1). 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).

Politicians are hence very eager to prevent people from thinking that the last 15 years of temperature stagnation have any significance.

See again a comparison of the final draft version of the SPM, as finalised by the IPCC just before the Stockholm Meeting in the last days of September 2013, with the SPM after modification by politicians in Stockholm in order to create more alarmism and reduce or hide scientific uncertainties as expressed by the IPCC scientists.

Guiseppe is wibbling again.

strike-trough boy, no other arguments in your childish head?

That FOI'd conversation between Lawson and Beddington needs to be more widely disseminated to reveal the absolute fuckwitted incompetence of deniers.

I presume Peiser supplied Lawson with the *ahem* "technical expertise" for his responses, in which case anything over a tenner all-in, ever, is overpaying the grifting cun*.

strike-trough (sic) boy, no other arguments in your childish head?

Copy'n'paste boy, likewise.
Oh listen.. isn't that yummy, tasty .38 calling out for you Fr...Joe?

#44 Lawson, in that transcript, did not even know what time period was covered by MBH 98 & 99!! So much for competence. Beddington missed the opportunity to point that out

Point and mock the smelly new sock time. Sucktroll@#43: that ringing in your (sows) ears would be BBD striking the denialist garbage trough from which you are fed the tidbits of bullshit that you regurgitate here. Now back to our scheduled programme of cruelly ignoring you.

Politicians are hence very eager to prevent people from thinking that the last 15 years of temperature stagnation have any significance.

Berendaneke made it abundantly clear some time ago that he no idea of the meaning of the term "statistical signficance". Stunningly, it turns out that putting a new sock on the same hand does not improve ones understanding of such concepts.

News at 11:00...

Oops, try that again.

Politicians are hence very eager to prevent people from thinking that the last 15 years of temperature stagnation have any significance.

Berendaneke made it abundantly clear some time ago that he no idea of the meaning of the term “statistical signficance”. Stunningly, it turns out that putting a new sock on the same hand does not improve ones understanding of such concepts.

News at 11:00…

FrankD

you appear to have problems to differentitate between the use of the term "significance" in a general way and the scientific terrm "statistical significance". Not always when somebody uses the word "significance" is automatically "statistical significance" being meant. Please learn this.

oops, correction

FrankD

you appear to have problems to differentitate between the use of the term “significance” in a general way and the scientific term “statistical significance”. Not always when somebody uses the word “significance” is automatically “statistical significance” being meant. Please learn this.

BBD, rhwombat

what exactly did elicit your disproportionate reaction to my sentences:

"See again a comparison of the final draft version of the SPM, as finalised by the IPCC just before the Stockholm Meeting in the last days of September 2013, with the SPM after modification by politicians in Stockholm in order to create more alarmism and reduce or hide scientific uncertainties as expressed by the IPCC scientists."

What I said is only the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. So WHERE is your problem?

sorry, correction:

BBD, rhwombat

what exactly did elicit your disproportionate reaction to my sentence:

“See again a comparison of the final draft version of the SPM, as finalised by the IPCC just before the Stockholm Meeting in the last days of September 2013, with the SPM after modification by politicians in Stockholm in order to create more alarmism and reduce or hide scientific uncertainties as expressed by the IPCC scientists.”

What I said is only the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. So WHERE is your problem?

sorry, correction again:

BBD, rhwombat

what exactly did elicit your disproportionate reaction to my sentence:

“See again a comparison of the final draft version of the SPM, as finalised by the IPCC just before the Stockholm Meeting in the last days of September 2013, with the SPM after modification by politicians in Stockholm in order to create more alarmism and reduce or hide scientific uncertainties as expressed by the IPCC scientists.”

What I said is only the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. So WHERE is your problem?

Note how sock puppet Joe is now posting multiple copies of his nauseatingly simple messages up here now. And at the same time he's trying to lecture others about statistical significance, something clearly way over his head.

He also tries to package his arrogance in apparently civilized tones - sure fire indication that he is some sort of clone of Kai/Boris etc.

The latest IPCC draft leaves no doubts as to the human fingerprint on the current warming or of the potentially serious consequences for natural and managed ecosystems if global temperatures rise more than 2 C in the coming century. Deceivers like Joe and his puppets can confabulate all they like, but the message is clear.

Tim, can you boot this guy out? He's even worse than many of his predecessors. And that is saying a lot...

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 06 Oct 2013 #permalink

Oh, sod off Kai, you tedious freak. Your relentless sociopathy is offensive. You've been banned and you know you've been banned, so stop being a creep and disappear.

Some times persistent idiots are useful so that onlookers can see how twisted they are. But when one starts posting in triplicate maybe it is time to say good-bye, they are no longer a useful idiot.

I guess the fact that this one keeps appearing in disguise here is because his village does not want him back.

rhwombat, bill, BBD, Lionel, Harvey

strangely enough, you behave as if you would be moderators here. To my knowledge only Tim Lambert is the moderator. Please leave it up to him who is allowed to post here or not. I will do my best to comply with the rules of participation as imposed by Tim, and not by you, who are also only guests. Therefore I ask you to behave according to your role and not the one nobody of you has. In addition more politeness on your side would be welcome.

Thank you!

"Joe" - Kai - Freddy - Boris - Berendwanker

You have been banned from commenting here by the blog owner.

Fuck off.

rhwombat, bill, BBD, Lionel, Harvey

strangely enough, you behave as if you would be moderators here. To my knowledge only Tim Lambert is the moderator. Please leave it up to him who is allowed to post here or not. I will do my best to comply with the rules of participation as imposed by Tim, and not by you, who are also only guests. Therefore I ask you to behave according to your role and not the one nobody of you has. In addition more politeness on your side would be welcome.

Thank you!

Bugger you. Sod off, creep.

Joe and his various sock puppets are bonkers.

Remember this is the same guy who in his latest 'guise' stated the population ecology is not 'real science' and that instead it was some facet of the green movement. A kindergarten level comment if ever there was one.

And then he complains when others denounce him.

Hypocrite. And yes Joe/Kai/Berendaneke et al., your time is almost up. How is it that your other sock puppets got banned, along with Karen and Luke? Think about it.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 06 Oct 2013 #permalink

Berendaneke was so busy showing his classic DK chops that he forgot to deny he is a sock of Freddie, Kai and Boris.

As Spotty Karen would have said lolololol :) :) :)

And yes, again: fuck off and take your meds, Freddy.

Can it really be? Dare one hope?

If it's true, thanks, Tim.

October thread is up, and blessedly quiet.

Well it was quiet Stu but then the fruitcake called back in the guise of Ersatz Jeff Harvey.

So and not to be beaten, I'll post the following in this thread too.

Meanwhile, in the world of sane mortals a number are taking down the efforts of science dis-informers (others would put a more serious note on this behaviour) to counter the IPCC VAR with their NIPCC concoction of fabrications.

Tamino has had a go, see link above, as has Sou at Hot Whopper.

I suspect that wee can expect the usual round of piffle and waffle from the usual suspects around here.

And on that so called 'Pause' that some keep bringing up then the antidote is here..

Consider, if you ease off the accelerator has the car stopped?