Conservative groups at the forefront of global warming denialism are doubling down on trying to discredit the new report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In recent weeks, they've been cranking out a stream of op-eds, blogs and reports to sow doubt in the public's mind before the report is published, with no end in sight, Chek Climate News has learned.
"The goal is to inform the public, scientific community and media that the upcoming IPCC report doesn't have all the science to make informed judgments," said Jim B'Ozo, a spokesman for the Clownshoe Institute, a libertarian think tank based in Chicago that has been spearheading the efforts.
Clownshoe gained notoriety last year after running a billboard campaign comparing climate change believers to "Tunabomber" Jed Kyrgyzsta (pronounced ‘kyrgyzsta’), which caused several corporate donors and ichthusophiles worldwide to withdraw support for the group.
The 5th assessment report by the IPCC, the world's leading scientific advisory body on global warming, concludes with at least 95% certainty that human activities have caused most of earth's temperature rise since 1950, and will continue to do so in the future. That's up from a confidence level of 90%in 2007, the year the last assessment came out. The IPCC, which consists of thousands of scientists and reviewers from more than 100 countries, shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Almost-President Al Gore. Governments are supposed to use its periodic reviews of climate risks to set targets for reducing carbon emissions and other policies. Because the IPCC's conclusions are produced by a consensus process, they are inherently conservative.
Environmentalists told ChekClimateNews they believe skeptics' attempts to sway public and media opinion will fail to resonate with people. They say the spate of costly and deadly weather events over the last year has turned climate change into something tangible for many people.
In addition, scientists have become more proactive when it comes to squashing scientific inaccuracies pushed by skeptic groups. Dozens of prominent scientists involved with drafting IPCC reports formed a Climate Science Rapid Response Team that punches back against misleading claims about climate research.
Kevin Trenberth is part of that team as well as a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and an author and editor on the forthcoming IPCC report. He explained that nearly every time there is a scientific paper linking man-made carbon dioxide emissions to climate change, the "denial-sphere" immediately responds with accusations that the research is wrong.
"The scientists get nasty emails. Certain websites comment. ... So a bunch of us formed this rapid response team to deflate these arguments." The group has been very busy since the IPCC released a 20-page summary of its report for policymakers on Sept. 27, as well as Working Group I's assessment, which examines the science behind climate change.
To try to shape coverage of the findings, the Clownshoe Institute released a 1,200-page report on Wednesday by the provocatively titled Not-a-governmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). The 10-year-old coalition of nongovernment “scientists” and “scholars" disputes the reality of man-made climate change.
Their new report, "Climate Change Re-interpreted Again", uses layman's language to present solid evidence that today's climate changes are well within the bounds of natural variability," according to Bob Clownshoe, a former marine geologist at Australia's James Cook University and a consultant to clownshoe groups. "Real world observations tell us that the IPCC's speculative computer models do not work, ice is not melting at an enhanced rate, sea-level rise is not accelerating, the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events is not increasing, the sky is not really blue, water is not really wet and dangerous global warming is not really occurring," he said in a news release.
The report rests its argument largely on the uncertainty surrounding climate sensitivity, a measure used by scientists to determine how global temperatures will change in response to carbon dioxide emissions. In short, it says the IPCC exaggerates the warming effect of CO2.
The report is the latest in the Clownshoe Institute's "Climate Change Re-interpreted" franchise and the cornerstone of its campaign against the IPCC's fifth assessmentt. Clownshoe is aggressively pushing its own report (Craig Clownshoe was pushing to call it "Climate Change Re-interpreted Again, Bitch!" according to insider Dr. Nils Driveshaft-Clownshoe) in op-eds, blogs and in articles in conservative newspapers and news stations. Among others, it has received coverage in the Australian newspaper The Daily Clownshoe, The Washington Clownshoe and the UK's Clownshoe Mail, in articles that all had to be "significantly" changed due to "errors".
Other groups participating in the report include the Science & Clownshoe Policy Project, a research and advocacy group founded by climate skeptic Fred Clownshoe —who is also the director of Clownshoe 's Science and Environmental Clownshoe Project—and the Center for the Study of Clownshoes, an Arizona-based climate clownshoe group partly funded by ExxonMobil and Shoelace World.
Over the next few weeks, authors of the report will hold speaking events in New York City, Boston, Florida and St. Louis. A Washington, D.C. event will be co-sponsored with the Clownshoe Foundation, a conservative think tank. In early October, Clownshoe and Clownshoe will give talks in England, Germany and the Netherlands. The Clownshoe Institute will also release videos and podcasts on its website using content from the events. Clownshoe isn't alone in taking pre-emptive swipes against the IPCC.
For months, Cato’s Clownshoe, a libertarian think tank in Washington, D.C. co-founded by billionaire Charles Clownshoe, has been publishing a series of blog posts and op-eds by Patrick Clownshoe, the organization's director for the Center for the Study of Clownshoes, challenging the new IPCC report. In recent weeks, this activity has increased significantly. He has written an op-ed for The Wall Street Clownshoe and been a source for media outlets like Greedygorbs, publishers of the famous Rich Lists among other titles.
Clownshoe said his dream outcome would be for the IPCC to acknowledge the scientific errors revealed by the clownshoe community. "That's what a responsible organization would do, but for obvious reasons it would also mean the end of the IPCC," Clownshoe said. "So it is understandable that they wouldn't commit professional suicide."
The website Clownshoes With That? has also picked apart leaked drafts of the report and is publishing multiple stories per hour chronicling how the new IPCC report is filled with "dodgy statistics" and "serious frauds." Furthermore, leading skeptic Lord Christopher Clownshoe loudly accused the IPCC of unlawfully dumping reports into the blogosphere without a permit or so much as a by-your-leave.
While in the past, IPCC scientists have seemed ill prepared for clownshoe campaigns, they say they are more ready for dealing with the criticism this time around. Created in 2010, the Climate Science Rapid Response Team now has 135 climate researchers on standby for media outlets and policymakers to interview and ask questions. Journalists and others contact the group through its website and organizers track down the best scientist to call or meet the inquiring party.
Dr.Trenberth said that the website has made it easier to respond to scientific inaccuracies, but that the constant attacks on his and his colleagues' work by clownshoe groups "is tiresome." "We've heard these arguments before. We've debunked them before. Why are we debating the same things over and over? We need to move forward."
For clownshoes, keeping the debate alive is exactly the point.
Conservative groups known for attacking global warming science like the Clownshoe Institute, Cato’s Clownshoe and the Global Clownshoe Policy Foundation have received many millions of dollars from energy companies and sympathetic interests to cast doubt on the science of climate change and the need for policies to curb emissions.
James Clownshoe, a senior environmental fellow with the Clownshoe Institute suggested "Climate change is a major political topic again," ever since President Obama made climate action a priority for this second term, said Taylor. "People are looking for a more centralist view. We're trying to give it to them. For instance Professor Richard Clownshoe’s sphincter theory suggests that were the climate ever to warm it would immediately be evacuated into outer space. The IPCC doesn’t tell them that”.
Environmentalists and several scientists said they're not as worried as they might have been just a few years ago. Cindy Baxter, a longtime climate campaigner, said she thinks climate clownshoes "are getting more shrill, but getting less notice," because people are more convinced that global warming is real.
But Patrick Clownshoe of Cato’s Clownshoe said he isn't convinced his messages are falling on deaf ears, especially among IPCC scientists. "Do I think the IPCC is very sensitive to these critiques?" he said. "Do I think they keep an eye on what me and my apparently few clownshoes are saying? You bet I do, if only for the entertainment value."
Wombat makes enthusiastic sea lion noises of approbation for CCR @#1 - in lieu of the unfortunate fact that the normal method for wombats to show sincere appreciation is to leave at least two cubic droppings on a prominent landmark.
chek, what is your opinion on my subsequent 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.
"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"
B*. The MWP wasn't deleted - it was never included because it was a virtual non-event that was a construct largely of the denial industry. The MWP was only 'generated' after Mann et als. 1998 paper in Nature. You see, Joe you simple fool, the deniers are incapable of producing their own science independently. Instead, IMO they make things up when studies are published that they don't like. In other words, like creationists, their job is simply to try and poke holes in the empirical literature to promote their own agenda. The MWP is a case in point.
Actually Joe, rh and ianam's responses are valid. That is because your arguments are so utterly ridiculous that they don't deserve a polite response. You make Karen's nonsense look good - and believe me that is saying a lot.
The former is false, the latter is true but irrelevant. Neither I nor anyone else has any obligation to argue a claim; the claim does not gain any legitimacy by a failure to argue against it. If your argument is cogent, you should be happy that no one has offered a rebuttal. But that is not what you're about ... your intention is to troll, to be disruptive, to get a rise out of people. I'll give you one: you're a stupid fucking piece of dishonest shit and I hope you die a horrible death, soon.
#12 was not ad hominem. Read it again you fool: the MWP is an artificial construct of the denial industry. It was never considered until after Mann started publishing his proxies. The denial industry in not proactive; it is reactive. It waits until studies show some causal factor with GW linked to human activities. It then attempts to downplay or counter these studies by producing results(usually not published in reputable sources) suggesting alternate non-anthropogenic explanations.
That isn't science; its dishonest chicanery. The creationists do it. Climate change deniers do it. Anti-environmentalists do it. It is often referred to it as "directed conclusions"; in other words, generating results with a pre-determined view.
If the best you can do is the crap you've put up her so far, then you're lucky anybody responds to you.
Oh give me a break. Kai-troll running a "Joe" sock and still pasting the same shite from WTFUWT and expecting to be taken seriously?
Troll, you know absolutely nothing. Here's some actual science for you, which has been referenced here dozens of times, so wake the fuck up and pay attention: there was not global and synchronous MWP. It is as Jeff says, simply a denier meme used to try and discredit IPCC TAR. You are a silly mug, a gull, a dupe, a rube, a mark, a fuckwit, a fool.
The latest and most extensive millennial reconstructions fully support the reconstructions in MBH98/99. They fully support AR5.
See the findings of the PAGES 2k Consortium (2013)Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia
Past global climate changes had strong regional expression. To elucidate their spatio-temporal pattern, we reconstructed past temperatures for seven continental-scale regions during the past one to two millennia. The most coherent feature in nearly all of the regional temperature reconstructions is a long-term cooling trend, which ended late in the nineteenth century. At multi-decadal to centennial scales, temperature variability shows distinctly different regional patterns, with more similarity within each hemisphere than between them. There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age, but all reconstructions show generally cold conditions between ad 1580 and 1880, punctuated in some regions by warm decades during the eighteenth century. The transition to these colder conditions occurred earlier in the Arctic, Europe and Asia than in North America or the Southern Hemisphere regions. Recent warming reversed the long-term cooling; during the period ad 1971–2000, the area-weighted average reconstructed temperature was higher than any other time in nearly 1,400 years.
This is the state of knowledge. It has nothing to do with Mann, Bradley and Hughes, nor with the IPCC. Get your infantile head around the facts and update yourself. Stop simply being a repeater for other people's lies. Show some vestige of intellectual pride FFS.
For, Dear Jackass, I put it to you plain - you are a Jackass; you bray like a Jackass, have Jackass thoughts, lead a Jackass life, and have sad little Jackass dreams.
And, most of all, you're a slavish partisan of the tribe of Jackasses, a veritable terrier under the Jackass Flag, hence your execrable, Jackass, efforts here.
Why the phony affront: is anyone here offering mealy-mouthed pretense that they regard you as anything other than the most blithering of idiots? Hardly.
I repeat: you are a Jackass. Decry it all you like; this is a statement of fact.
Well, I couldn't find the right smiley for sticking out one's tongue so I would have warned you to hold your nose when you read it but that would have been insole-nt.
Thanks all, I was hoping it would provide some mild amusement and hopefully insight.
And love the running clownshoe gag!
I'll have to give that one a stamp of approval. On a slightly more serious note, the motif did seem to highlight the small, enclosed, incestuous world of denialism as it developed. A lot of noise originates from comparatively few entities. For example, the George C. Clownshoe ... oooh, no stop missus etc. that's quite enough of that.
Joethetroll, it's a work of semi-fiction. Any resemblance to actual persons, is either accidental or entirely their own fault. You may well find Inside Climate News is what you're looking for on the net.
And finally, apologies to Katherine Bagley whose original article was mangled adapted.
Ouch, were you in-tendon to be that callus? I bet it fell flat with BBD. I'm thinking he's a bit more strait-laced when it comes to pun-ditry than he gives himself credit for.
OK, back to business.
Mike Mann's put this video out to support the Democrat candidate for Governor, Terry McAuliffe against Ken Clownsh Cuccinelli in the upcoming Virginia election.
With sea level rise there already over 14 inches since 1930, and North Carolina next door shutting its eyes and putting its fingers in its ears as its officially adopted solution together with the shutdown currently making the Republican brand toxic, I'll wish him well too.,
OK, back to business.
Mike Mann's put this video out to support the Democrat candidate for Governor, Terry McAuliffe against Ken Clownsh Cuccinelli in the upcoming Virginia election.
With sea level rise there already over 14 inches since 1930, and North Carolina next door shutting its eyes and putting its fingers in its ears as its officially adopted solution together with the shutdown currently making the Republican brand toxic, I'll wish him well too.
It's Williwatts that needs the experience of a trans-polar trek, Lionel.
I had a quick look, but can't find the details at the moment, but I do recall him making great hilarity of a similar expedition a few years ago, from his lair in sunny Califormia.
One fundamental question to all of the climate alarmists on Deltoid:
Since it is quit obvious that you alarmists would vote for Democrats in the US or for green lefty parties in Oz, are you convinced that people who vote Democratic in the US or green-leftist in Oz are *better* humans compared to climate deniers (or "crank fuckwits" etc. how you use to denounce them) who vote Republican in the US or Abbott in Oz?
One fundamental question to all of the climate alarmists on Deltoid:
Since it is quit obvious that you alarmists would vote for Democrats in the US or for green lefty parties in Oz, are you convinced that people who vote Democratic in the US or green-leftist in Oz are *better* humans compared to climate deniers (or “crank fuckwits” etc. how you use to denounce them) who vote Republican in the US or Abbott in Oz?
What Guiseppe here doesn't grasp, amongst a multitude of other things, is that we recognise that a left-right political continuum is a feature of what poses as democracy is a totally so last century way of thinking.
Natural systems don't give a flying fuckig for politics although because of human impact on the planet natural systems, of which humanity is a part and not overlords, will respond to aspects brought out by the socio-political enterprise depending upon how the different factions manage resources whilst safeguarding eco-systems, the later being in a state of near collapse.
Climate change is one of the big threats to ecosystems, along with resource depletion (including fresh water and even the air we breath) and pollution. These latter two are both results of overconsumption by a few, with consumption being in an inverse relationship with numbers of a particular social class, at the expense of many. In other words the consumption, carbon and pollution footprints of the top one percent are much larger per capita than other social classes below.
What none of us expect is a communist system but would like to see a more equitable sharing of the planets resources with an overall, and large, reduction in all of those adverse factors indicated above.
If this does not happen and soon, the planet is going to turn into one big Syria as ecosystems and our ability to feed ourselves unravel like the threads of old worn out knitwear.
Even in so called First World countries, there are growing pockets of the disadvantaged breading grounds for big trouble.
But of course shallow thinkers and blinkered readers such as Guiseppe, who use narrow streams of information acquisition would never have thought through all this.
I would suggest, for one aspect, that Guiseppe takes up the challenge presented by BBD (and Bill IIRC) of reading Professor Callum Roberts on the oceans and seas:
'The Unnatural History of the Sea: The Past and Future of Humanity and Fishing'
'Ocean of Life'
Reading these reminds me again of how close Bill Ruddiman has been with his pushing back the date of the start of the Anthropocene.
It may surprise the Joetroll that many senior US climatologists Hansen and Emanuel for example (and indeed many academics across the world) are registered Republicans and old-school conservatives. It is possible to be both a small 'c' conservative and a relatively decent human being.
However they tend not be the "free-market" uber alles , jihadist, neoliberal, tea partyist privatising fanatics (and in some cases are actual ex-Trotskyite permanent revolutionaries) that have hi-jacked many Republican/Conservative parties globally. But an ideology that both chooses and promotes ignorance and crassness in pursuit of its ends has no future. Anyone in opposition to those (absence of) values is a de facto "better person" imho.
Indeed former "monsters" of the old Right such as Nixon in the US and Heath in the UK seem like lefty dreamers in comparison.
"Since it is quit obvious that you alarmists would vote for Democrats in the US"
Joe, you are such an ignorant dork. Do you actually think the Democrats are a left wing Party? They are part of the corporate-political establishment through and through. As the late Gore Vidal said, there is one party in the US: the Property Party, with two right wings: Republican and Democrat. The great US writer Sheldon Wolin has referred to the American political system as a form of "Inverted totalitarianism". A corporate state.
He is also a sockpuppet hydra and abusive troll who has been banned from commenting here by Tim, so the reasons for ignoring him multiply apace. Just strike out his comments like this (eg bill #47 - that's the spirit!) and try and ignore the horrible stink. It will eventually dissipate.
And - whaddaya know - the DOS attacks have started up again. As they do every time the screws get tightened on Kai - Freddy - Boris - Berendwanker.
Coincidence? Perhaps. But this fucking nutter fits the bill of social-inadequate script-kiddie very well indeed, so it's hard not to be rather suspicious. Especially what with the timing of the problems here. Not to mention his own claims of mad skillz etc, and his completely fake-sounding "complaints" and "test comments" when the interruptions were at their worst a few weeks back. I thought it might be him then, and I think it might be him now.
As it's a bit quiet I wondered if a random if related musing might provide some reflection away from the textbooks and referenced papers I know many of us take time to read if not fully understand.
Having recently seen the (not-at-all-the-reported turkey, imho given the limitations of blockbuster format and the requirements of getting an image in front of a mass audience) and subsequently re-read the book of same name, subtitled "An Oral History of the Zombie War". (Yes Virginia it's a fictional SF-style fantasy, which is to say that much use is made of a series of allegories which may or may not be pertinent to the reader).
Now I isn't no scholar. as should be plainly obvious since well before this, and I hate to seem pretentious - Who, Moi? But for a series of concisely drawn character studies of reaction in the face of an existential threat (here's hoping the relevance is peeking through at this point) that imho again, rivals Dickens it's a great read.
I'm not saying reading it will make you a better person, or more popular, or more attractive to women or more in touch with the ol' zeitgeist, but then again, ya never know.
In any case, the three acts of the movie are achieved very well if it's understood the book is its inspiration.
Lets add some substance to the discussion and lety people draw their own conclusions. Deniers will always win if the 'discussion' is performed in words or data and that is because any contrary argument no matter how false halves the value of the truth simply due to the doubt factor. So lets leave the words out of it. Numerical data suffers as it requires interpretation and that automatically opens the field for intereter doubt.
The first one is the history of the Atmospheric CO2 measurtements and at the end there is a list of all of the institutions that have contributed to the data and who add their credibility to information's validity
The conclusions are inescapable: rising atmospheric CO2 levels equal proportional Arctic Ice loss; overshoot is inevitable to a very hot global environment.
So each person can accept the undeniable evidence, or not. But be aware that in not accepting the "in plane sight" evidence ones IQ automatically slumps 30 points.
Simply put, I do my best to keep errors of fact off the letters page; when one does run, a correction is published. Saying "there's no sign humans have caused climate change" is not stating an opinion, it's asserting a factual inaccuracy.
I haven't seen the film yet but like you, I thought Brooks' book surprisingly good. And not just because so little in the genre lives up to the early brilliance of Romero's Night/Dawn/Day trilogy with its (ahem) biting socio-political satire. In fact despite the occasionally shaky acting in the first 20 minutes, the long version of Dawn is an enduring classic, a real fairground mirror - welcome to the moronic inferno.
* * *
I'm delighted to see that the letters editor of the LA Times is doing his job properly. The deniers are treated with far too much generosity by most of the media and this is desperately overdue for reversal. Arguments from false assertion should not be rebroadcast in the letters page or anywhere else. Editors need to edit, not pander to liars and facilitate false balance.
Good links, but I disagree with the substance of your argument. Data are valuable. Data quantify. Data underpin the strongest arguments.
Deniers deny everything with equal ease. Showing them video evidence instead of numbers and graphs won't even give them pause. You will get exactly the same rubbish in response: it's natural variability; the ice is recovering; we're heading for an ice age; CO2 isn't ever going to make much difference (fundamental physics denial); Murray Salby woz repressed etc.
I've been forced to conclude that deniers are qualitatively different. They are fundamentally incapable of processing information like rational beings. Denial may be the cause or it may be an emergent property of their brain chemistry, but it is *deep*. It lies beyond the reach of reasoned argument. It is exactly what they are constantly accusing everybody else of with trademark projection: it is a manifestation of blind faith.
The videos are for the casually interest but persuadable public. A video is a powerful credibility gap bridge, so spread them around liberally because the MSM is certainly not going to.
Ah. I think I've misunderstood exactly what you meant in your first paragraph at #58. I read "people" and "deniers" as equivalent, but clearly they are not. In which case what you say is reasonable, although certain data presentations are vivid and instantaneous - no need for a video!
The underlying problem is that the public isn't paying attention. The public may even be inclining towards mild-form denial, although this seems to evaporate in the face of local reactions to extreme weather events. The public isn't here in droves trying to improve its understanding. We are mostly talking either to deniers or to each other.
For Sydneysiders, the study finds this "timing of climate departure" comes around four years earlier, in 2038. People in Canberra and Melbourne get 2045 as the year when their climate "shifts beyond historical analogues". Adelaide catches up in 2049.
For the entire globe, the year 2047 is the point when annual average temperatures move permanently outside modern day boundaries, according to the study.
"The videos are for the casually interest but persuadable public."
Most of the public IS persuaded and know that AGW is going on. However, they're powerless, know they're powerless and know that there's absolutely no direction from their "leaders" and hence do what they can to get through the days.
But they know there's a problem and do something about it:see the public collective investment divesting itself of fossil fuel stocks. Despite the public whining by the extremely vocal extremist fringe, CFLs sold well enough to make a mint on razor thin margins. Smaller and more efficient cars are selling better to the general public than the idiot cars that RWNs insist they're going to buy two of "just to enjoy a bit nicer weather, so haha to you!".
None of the parties do anything about it, but on the promise of doing something about it, the Tories won, despite the "MAGGIE THATCHER!!!!" scare tactics.
And every time the tories show they were talking bollocks about being green, their ratings drop.
The public HAVE BEEN persuaded.
Those in power use the fake roots denialist industry to make out that they're "listening to the public" and "waiting until we're sure, and everyone agrees that we must do something about it".
Gee, 'Mack' dropped by to show us his new bumper sticker!
Tell us, 'Mack', how many other independent reconstructions have arrived at the same Hockey Stick shape? Oh, you don't know? You mean they don't tell you that at Jo Nova's? Golly!...
I sincerely hope Cuccinelli is about to be creamed - certainly he's not polling well, but there's still more than 3 weeks to go...
Caption: Green dots show the 30-year average of the new PAGES 2k reconstruction. The red curve shows the global mean temperature, according HadCRUT4 data from 1850 onwards. In blue is the original hockey stick of Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1999 ) with its uncertainty range (light blue). Graph by Klaus Bitterman.
There you go, cretin. Your ridiculous lie skewered by the latest, most comprehensive, independent research by dozens of authors worldwide. Mann was right, and you and your stupid denier chums were wrong all along.
Past global climate changes had strong regional expression. To elucidate their spatio-temporal pattern, we reconstructed past temperatures for seven continental-scale regions during the past one to two millennia. The most coherent feature in nearly all of the regional temperature reconstructions is a long-term cooling trend, which ended late in the nineteenth century. At multi-decadal to centennial scales, temperature variability shows distinctly different regional patterns, with more similarity within each hemisphere than between them. There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age, but all reconstructions show generally cold conditions between ad 1580 and 1880, punctuated in some regions by warm decades during the eighteenth century. The transition to these colder conditions occurred earlier in the Arctic, Europe and Asia than in North America or the Southern Hemisphere regions. Recent warming reversed the long-term cooling; during the period ad 1971–2000, the area-weighted average reconstructed temperature was higher than any other time in nearly 1,400 years.
Having looked at the Real Climate post 'The evolution of radiative forcing bar-charts' (I have quite a few of those versions here in various documents and books) earlier, see above, as the result of a new post at Eli's , I had to call in again to look see what Joe had written.
Well the chart presented therein is well worth a look. It just about sums up the level of argument of the crack-heads around here - including our Joe sock. Crack as in broken and not out out their heads on dangerous materials, although it can be difficult to tell the difference at times, with our Joe in particular.
Is their an emoticon for a crack-head in that latter sense?
I saw that at the time but couldn't really believe "our" sock posted it. A sense of humour and a grasp of the scientific context are both required, which on the face of it would disqualify him.
I have no idea about which Joe you are talking about...
Well you wouldn't would you dork because you cannot read. If you could it would be blindingly obvious. But of course not being able to read, not the same as being able to see words as reading implies understanding, you don't have any idea about anything, except maybe fence post array errors.
Hilarious doings over at WWOTW - one Winged Monkey's had its poo thrown back at it by a Winkie, which infuruated it. Then all the other Winged Monkeys and Winkies joined in a giant faeces-slinging stoush and it is so on!
Read all about it at Sou's place. Like a good birdseye chilli, the irony burns, but is so delicious...
Amongst his credentials is a California Massage Certificate, Aames School of Massage.
Well, well. One cannot get much higher than that in science now can one.
I note Lubos Motl has chimed in at WUWT with this bit of cheer-leading:
Willis, I am a supporter of yours. In this exchange, I found myself in the middle between you and Roy but when the dust settled, it’s clear that I agree with you much more than with Roy.
Phew, that was a close thing for ol' Roy there. His relief must be palpable.
It's also hard to believe that a hard working, regularly publishing scientist like Willis has no relevant qualifications, which are after all only pieces of paper.
However, such details are easily addressed.
Clownshoe School of Climate Science for Citizen Scientists more commonly known as the ClownShoe³ awards, each one hand tooled then finished harnessing the incredible power of laser technology and printed onto carefully selected card stock, can be in the mail to you within days of payment clearance. Established many years. Many satisfied customers. "Better than an industrial compressor for pumping up your CV" Mr. John O'S (UK) "Mine says I'm the first ever Climate Scientist!" Mr. Tim B. (Canada) I also have mine on a T-shirt! (Dr. Judith C, USA)
And you'll be smiling on the other side of your face when the temperature drops next year by 2 degrees (?? or whatever it was supposed to do last year).
Joe, If a vote into Deltoid, pretty well everybody would boot you off, simply because you are an ignorant, moronic idiot as your kindergarten-level comments show.
I am sure all of your sock puppets have been banned. But if that is not the case, that can be remedied. Watch this space. Your time is running out here.
Sunny, you are banned from posting except to your own thread, so please fuck off.
But you can take this with you!
PAGES-2K verifies MBH99
Caption: Green dots show the 30-year average of the new PAGES 2k reconstruction. The red curve shows the global mean temperature, according HadCRUT4 data from 1850 onwards. In blue is the original hockey stick of Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1999 ) with its uncertainty range (light blue). Graph by Klaus Bitterman.
There you go, cretin. Your ridiculous lie skewered by the latest, most comprehensive, independent research by dozens of authors worldwide. Mann was right, and you and your stupid denier chums were wrong all along.
It’s o-ver, fuckwits.
Read all about it!
PAGES 2k Consortium (2013) Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia
Past global climate changes had strong regional expression. To elucidate their spatio-temporal pattern, we reconstructed past temperatures for seven continental-scale regions during the past one to two millennia. The most coherent feature in nearly all of the regional temperature reconstructions is a long-term cooling trend, which ended late in the nineteenth century. At multi-decadal to centennial scales, temperature variability shows distinctly different regional patterns, with more similarity within each hemisphere than between them. There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age, but all reconstructions show generally cold conditions between ad 1580 and 1880, punctuated in some regions by warm decades during the eighteenth century. The transition to these colder conditions occurred earlier in the Arctic, Europe and Asia than in North America or the Southern Hemisphere regions. Recent warming reversed the long-term cooling; during the period ad 1971–2000, the area-weighted average reconstructed temperature was higher than any other time in nearly 1,400 years.
“The videos are for the casually interest but persuadable public.”
Most of the public IS persuaded and know that AGW is going on. However, they’re powerless, know they’re powerless and know that there’s absolutely no direction from their “leaders” and hence do what they can to get through the days.
But they know there’s a problem and do something about it:see the public collective investment divesting itself of fossil fuel stocks. Despite the public whining by the extremely vocal extremist fringe, CFLs sold well enough to make a mint on razor thin margins. Smaller and more efficient cars are selling better to the general public than the idiot cars that RWNs insist they’re going to buy two of “just to enjoy a bit nicer weather, so haha to you!”.
None of the parties do anything about it, but on the promise of doing something about it, the Tories won, despite the “MAGGIE THATCHER!!!!” scare tactics.
And every time the tories show they were talking bollocks about being green, their ratings drop.
The public HAVE BEEN persuaded.
Those in power use the fake roots denialist industry to make out that they’re “listening to the public” and “waiting until we’re sure, and everyone agrees that we must do something about it”.
Joe, If a vote into Deltoid, pretty well everybody would boot you off, simply because you are an ignorant, moronic idiot as your kindergarten-level comments show.
I am sure all of your sock puppets have been banned. But if that is not the case, that can be remedied. Watch this space. Your time is running out here.
No Joe, you aren't following. Try harder.
Joe + clownshoe information + clownshoe experts + clownshoe websites = clownshoe.
The maths are quite irrefutable.
Joe is now displaying classic regression behavior to his old sock puppets. Lashing out with the usual childish smears. As I said Joe, I can get you booted off of this blog and its my intention t do so. Why do you think Karen, Luke, and your other socks disappeared suddenly? By magic?
We're asking you to bugger off on your own. But if you won't, then we'll get it done officially.
By the way, Joe/Kai/Boris etc., the paper I referred to was published in Nature. I used to be an editor there. How many peer-reviewed papers have you published in your illustrious career?
Simply ignore Joe, don't even bother with strikeout. In his case it's more effective than pointing out the problems with his comments because he's attention seeking, and any kind of attention will do.
I do not seek attention! At least your attention, as I don't like to talk to real idiots like you, BBD, bill, rhwombat and all the other overly narcisstic ignorants and wannabees without scientific background and substance. You blethers do only copy paste what your climate priests want you to ruminate over and over again: your utterly primitive message: it's maybe getting warner and maybe we must swim in 1000s of years from now. Never in the whole history of mankind was there a more idiotic "scientific" prophecy than "it's getting warmer"
hahahahahaha, what a terrible threat, some tenths of a degree Celsius more than now due to unproven factors like "greenhouse gases" or other rubbish.
Listen Lotharsson:
YOU ARE SEEKING ATTENTION,YOU CLIMATE ARSEHOLES, BECAUSE YOU WANT TO IMPOVERISH THE PEOPLE.
YOU SHOULD GET ARRESTED DUE TO HIGH TREASON, YOU UNSPEAKBLE ECO FUNDAMENTALIST STINKING ARSELICKS.
YOUR TIME IS OVER. THIS BLOG WILL BE STOPPED. AND YOU PISS OFF NOW, IDIOTIC TWERP LOTHARSSON
Yup, Joe is Berendaneke alright. He has resorted to form. Bernard is right - but we need nurses armed with straightjackets. I can get him booted out of here soon, no problem, but this guy is so utterly wacko that he will try and enter using another sock. Its true that he's ranting to everyone and no-one, but its truly scary to know such deranged people exist.
Guiseppe doesn't realise the irony of his claims that all we do is copy and paste. Where his irony meter fails is that it does not appreciate that unlike him we may copy and paste but with context.
Another thing his mangel-wurzel brain cannot grasp is the reason why we do what we do - because the field is so vast, has so many interlinked factors covered via a multitude of scientific disciplines with a multitude of papers an order of magnitude greater than that of the fields themselves. BTW mangel-wurzel brain, by fields I do not indicate places where one could park cows.
Thanks to DeSmogBlog I have been informed of a move by the Union of Concerned Scientists to facilitate informed public participation in the Hydraulic Fracturing, fracking, debate by the publication of a Full Report and an Executive Sunmmary Toward an Evidence-Based Fracking Debate.
Although this is designed for the US citizen in may well be of use to those in other lands where the fracking mania threatens to take hold. Indeed in the UK it may be of help in countering 'The Madness of King George' Osborne, the UK Chancellor of the Exchequer and all round member of the old boy network and an inside placeman for the socio-paths of banking, commerce and industry.
Although this is designed for the US citizen in may well be of use to those in other lands where the fracking mania threatens to take hold. Indeed in the UK it may be of help in countering 'The Madness of King George' Osborne, the UK Chancellor of the Exchequer and all round member of the old boy network and an inside placeman for the socio-paths of banking, commerce and industry.
Lionel A, you are not at all polyglot and don't speak swedish, therefore your akward trials to elicit the impression as if you would dispose of more than your camp's mean mainstream talents loooks just very ridiculous. You are unfortunately, like so many others in the warmist idicoy, of extremely limited talent in all dimensions. It' just embarassing when such a low-performer like you behaves as if he would be something special. You are only a tiny completely unimportant asshole, full of lies, hatred, and evil morality, completely devoid of decent ethical standards. You are a real asshole.
Harvey, you dirty arselick: YOU WILL BE BANNED SOON
Yup, Joe is Berendaneke alright. He has resorted to form. Bernard is right – but we need nurses armed with straightjackets. I can get him booted out of here soon, no problem, but this guy is so utterly wacko that he will try and enter using another sock. Its true that he’s ranting to everyone and no-one, but its truly scary to know such deranged people exist.
Following the link to Climate Desperate at the Rabett's place in The 97% Need To Strike Back I would like to borrow a bucket as I have filled all mine, and the bath-tub too.
I have never looked in there before, what an asylum it is where even language is sickened with e.g. this gem - new word (?) highlighted, one has to scroll down the below Lindzen in the right hand pane after linking through Climate Depot home :
CLIMATOLOGIST PATRICK J. MICHAELS & CHIP KNAPPENBERGER: ‘Had the IPCC been more interested in reflecting the actual science rather than in preserving a quickly crumbling consensus, its Fifth Assessment Report would have been a much kindler and gentler document’
Jerk, jerk and jerk. Anyone for Heartland Jerky?
Sorry if this is a repeat as the first vanished into a Service Unavailable.
I recommend people check the Stoat's Burrow and look for "Freddy". There's some info there that may be of relevance to Tim. If Joe has the same IP (or same host), inquiring minds like to know that fact.
I recommend people check the Stoat’s Burrow and look for “Freddy”. There’s some info there that may be of relevance to Tim. If Joe has the same IP (or same host), inquiring minds like to know that fact.
You absolutely ignorant stinker arselick could not have shown better what an incredible full wooden post in IT you are, such an non-informed idiot you are, the same as in meteorology
you assholes try to speak swedish? How ridiculous, you untalented monolingual null performers.
Mouth wide open, performance nil. That’s typical of the alarmist twerps.
bill, your swedish is painstakingly akward. Please spare all of us from testimonies of your lacking talents, arsehole
Marco, are you an agent of the IPCC climate police or just a nasty shamus?
I recommend to Tim to investigate whether you and “Freddy” are sock puppets of an anonymous hysteric climate alarmist.
In any case Tim should ban you ignorant asshole.
BBD, oh my god:
“ip”, “proxy”, “host”, “script”, “dds” etc.
You absolutely ignorant stinker arselick could not have shown better what an incredible full wooden post in IT you are, such an non-informed idiot you are, the same as in meteorology
ClownSockTroll Hunting by Scat Analysis. (or how to spend Sunday when it was too bloody hot to climb in October).
Despite knowing that this will inflame the Narcissistic Personality Disordered (NPD) virtual pustule known as the ClownSockTroll (CST) to the point of bursting, it is interesting to do a Gogol-style google on the various manifestations of the CST.
The underlying NPD, distinctive 'style', repetitive errors, fascist perspective, vehemence, humourlessness, affectations, resentment and neediness permeates his posts (it is, of course, male) and makes them readily identifiable through a trail of socks & servers. From Kai to Freddy to Berendaneke to Boris to Joe, the CST has used a trail of nyms to plague Deltoid (and a few more stringently moderated blogs) with the sneering contempt of a prepubescent tagger.
Despite the similarities in attitude (and probably a shared pathology) the CST is not the "Olaf Koenders" who's stuffed head was left up for RC's regulars to mock. Olaf Koenders is a local dickhead (vide: http://ericpetersautos.com/2012/01/08/road-clovers/ ) who posts on WTFUWT & Coddling's Crap with similar world views but an obviously anglophone background, despite the name. English is not CST's preferred language.
Some of CST's previous responses on Deltoid provide some clues: He's not medical, but retains some awe of the title and familiarity with sub specialisation (including misidentification of "Lime" disease but familiarity with sexually transmitted spirochaetosis!). I suspect that he has worked on the IT side of medicine, possibly with a German cardiology MRI group -from one of whom he pinched his first pseudonym. Freddy, Boris and Joe are fairly obvious generic nyms that fit with his adolescent fantasy character of the fearless script kiddie afflicting the adults who don't know how important and dangerous he really is (that's called sarcasm, CST, don't get excited). Berendaneke is more interesting, since the nym does not occur (outside Deltoid) in any searchable form.
So: CST is a northern European male with NPD and anti-Socialist tendencies, some IT skills and a dogged devotion to trolling Deltoid. I don't think he's Anders Behring Breivik, but I could be wrong. Anyone else want to play?
you suffer from the same disease as all the other CAGW arseholes here: you think you are far more intelligent, skilled, knowledgeable, ethical, right etc. than you really are. YOU ARE A PRIMITIVE FOOL, AN OVER UTTERLY ARROGANT ASSHOLE. Look at yourself, you stinking shit: you are a subordinate, dependent employee without money, ambitious but not skilled and successful beyond small local horizons, outside your village nobody knows you twerp.
Here is an example of your stinking shit :
ClownSockTroll Hunting by Scat Analysis. (or how to spend Sunday when it was too bloody hot to climb in October).
Despite knowing that this will inflame the Narcissistic Personality Disordered (NPD) virtual pustule known as the ClownSockTroll (CST) to the point of bursting, it is interesting to do a Gogol-style google on the various manifestations of the CST.
The underlying NPD, distinctive ‘style’, repetitive errors, fascist perspective, vehemence, humourlessness, affectations, resentment and neediness permeates his posts (it is, of course, male) and makes them readily identifiable through a trail of socks & servers. From Kai to Freddy to Berendaneke to Boris to Joe, the CST has used a trail of nyms to plague Deltoid (and a few more stringently moderated blogs) with the sneering contempt of a prepubescent tagger.
Despite the similarities in attitude (and probably a shared pathology) the CST is not the “Olaf Koenders” who’s stuffed head was left up for RC’s regulars to mock. Olaf Koenders is a local dickhead (vide: http://ericpetersautos.com/2012/01/08/road-clovers/ ) who posts on WTFUWT & Coddling’s Crap with similar world views but an obviously anglophone background, despite the name. English is not CST’s preferred language.
Some of CST’s previous responses on Deltoid provide some clues: He’s not medical, but retains some awe of the title and familiarity with sub specialisation (including misidentification of “Lime” disease but familiarity with sexually transmitted spirochaetosis!). I suspect that he has worked on the IT side of medicine, possibly with a German cardiology MRI group -from one of whom he pinched his first pseudonym. Freddy, Boris and Joe are fairly obvious generic nyms that fit with his adolescent fantasy character of the fearless script kiddie afflicting the adults who don’t know how important and dangerous he really is (that’s called sarcasm, CST, don’t get excited). Berendaneke is more interesting, since the nym does not occur (outside Deltoid) in any searchable form.
So: CST is a northern European male with NPD and anti-Socialist tendencies, some IT skills and a dogged devotion to trolling Deltoid. I don’t think he’s Anders Behring Breivik, but I could be wrong. Anyone else want to play?
Regarding what tie AR5 SPM said, it is almost comical. I gather you have read Ross McKitricks summary:
“SPM in a nutshell: Since we started in 1990 we were right about the Arctic, wrong about the Antarctic, wrong about the tropical troposphere, wrong about the surface, wrong about hurricanes, wrong about the Himalayas, wrong about sensitivity, clueless on clouds and useless on regional trends. And on that basis we’re 95% confident we’re right.”
Pretty much sums it up, wouldn’t you say? Not even overstated …
The effect of clouds on Earth’s present-day top-of-atmosphere (TOA) radiation budget, or cloud radiative effect (CRE), can be inferred from satellite data by comparing upwelling radiation in cloudy and non-cloudy conditions (Ramanathan et al., 1989). By enhancing the planetary albedo, cloudy conditions exert a global and annual shortwave cloud radiative effect (SWCRE) of approximately –50 W m–2 and, by contributing to the greenhouse effect, exert a mean longwave effect (LWCRE) of approximately +30 W m–2, with a range of 10% or less between published satellite estimates (Loeb et al., 2009). Some of the apparent LWCRE comes from the enhanced water vapour coinciding with the natural cloud fluctuations used to measure the effect, so the true cloud LWCRE is about 10% smaller (Sohn et al., 2010). The net global mean CRE of approximately –20 W m–2 implies a net cooling effect of clouds on the current climate. Due to the large magnitudes of the SWCRE and LWCRE, clouds have the potential to cause significant climate feedback (Section 7.2.5). The sign of this feedback on climate change cannot be determined from the sign of CRE in the current climate, but depends instead on how climate-sensitive the properties are that govern the LWCRE and SWCRE.
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.
Deltoid ignorants, here some stuff, you must learn to understand:
THE ESA GLOBALBEDO PROJECT FOR MAPPING THE EARTH'S LAND SURFACE ALBEDO FOR 15 YEARS FROM EUROPEAN SENSORS.
Jan-Peter Muller, Gerardo López, Gill Watson, Neville Shane, Tom Kennedy, Peter Yuen (1)
P. Lewis (2), Jürgen Fischer, Luis Guanter, Carlos Domench, Réné Preusker (3) Peter North, Andreas Heckel (4); Olaf Danne, Uwe Krämer, Marco Zühlke, Carsten Brockmann (5), Simon Pinnock (6)
(1) Mullard Space Science Laboratory, Dept. of Space & Climate Physics; (2) Dept. of Geography, University College London, UK
(3) Institut für Weltraumwissenschaften, Freie Universität Berlin, Germany (4) Department of Geography, Swansea University, UK
(5) Brockmann Consult, Geesthacht, Germany
(6) ESA-ESRIN, Frascati, Italy
1. GLOBALBEDO PROCESSING AND SAMPLES
A land surface broadband albedo map of the entire Earth’s land surface (snow and snow-free) is required for use in Global Climate Model initialisation and verification. A group of 10 users have been selected to work with the GlobAlbedo* Implementation team to define requirements and drive the project towards practical applications of the product. These requirements defined the need to generate a final product on 8-daily at spatial resolutions of 1km in sinusoidal projection using the MODIS 10o x 10o tiling scheme and 0.05o and 0.5o on monthly time-steps.
To generate such a global map by temporal compositing requires both sufficient directional looks and the very precise correction of top-of-atmosphere radiances to “at surface” directional reflectances (SDRs). In addition, such a map requires precise radiometric calibration and inter-calibration of different sensors [1] and the computation of radiative transfer coefficients to derive broadband SDRs from different input narrowband SDRs and given sufficient angular sampling from all the directional looks within a given temporal window, derive a suitable BRDF. This BRDF can be integrated to produce DHR (Direct Hemispherical Reflectance known as “black-sky”) and BHR (BiHemispherical Reflectance, known as “white-sky”) [2]. The final albedo product has been integrated in three spectral broadband ranges, namely the solar spectrum shortwave (400-3000nm), the visible PAR region (400-700nm) and the near- and shortwave-infrared (700-3000nm). In addition, maps of normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) and the fraction of absorbed photosynthetically active radiation (fAPAR) will be generated consistent with the albedo product to complement the Globalbedo data set for analysis of vegetation-related processes [3].
To achieve the aim of deriving independent estimates using European only assets, GlobAlbedo set out to create a 15 year time series by employing SPOT4-VEGETATION and SPOT5-VEGETATION2 as well as MERIS. Legacy algorithms for deriving SDRs using an optimal estimation approach are outlined [2] as well as a novel system for gap-filling using ten year mean estimates derived from equivalent BRDFs from MODIS [2]. Each and every output pixel albedo value has an estimated uncertainty associated with it and the corresponding BRDF a full uncertainty matrix for each pixel. Separate BRDFs are computed for snow and snow-free pixels and combined together to yield a gap-free dataset. An example of a sample output product browse in Figure 1 shows the BHR and the coefficient of variation derived from the uncertainty divided by the expectation value (loc.cit.)
Animations of 8-daily and monthly browse products including the full-resolution 1km tiles are available on the website for the products available to date (2005, 2009, 2010 and the first 6 months of 2011). An OGC-compliant server based on OpenLayers also allows display of global data and inter-comparison by flickering from one date with another. Global data at 0.05o and 0.5o, as well as individual tiles at 1km, can be downloaded using wget and scripts can be easily written by the user to harvest the data they require. A novel facility is the ability to extract a single pixel or a group of 3 x 3 or 5 x 5 pixels in CSV format through time for immediate plotting locally.
2. GLOBALBEDO VALIDATION
Extensive validation has been performed on final GlobAlbedo product for each and every year that correlative data is available. Shown here from [4], in Figure 2 is an example of a time series plot of Blue-Sky albedo from GlobAlbedo, MODIS priors, MODIS Collection 5 and MISR measurements. Uncertainties calculated from within the product [2] are shown for GlobAlbedo and MISR. For a desert bare rock site (upper panel), the GlobAlbedo product shows reasonable agreement with the other EO datasets and with the tower measurements. The differences shown at the year start may be related to spatial variability of the site (loc.cit.). The Toravere site like most BSRN sites is not chosen for its spatial homogeneity but rather it’s location close to a suitable laboratory. It has a high degree of spatial variability and almost all BSRN are in this category. In addition, unlike the SURFRAD tower albedometer at 30m with a 100m footprint, Toravere albedometers are at 5m above the surface with a 5m footprint so rendering them unhelpful for the purpose of validating spaceborne-derived land surface albedo. The time series shown for Travere shows a common phenomenon for the more than 80 sites worldwide which have been employed to date, related to the effect of snow in winter. Due to very different fields of view of the local albedometer and the 1km EO-derived equivalent values, snow albedo values from EO are typically 50% of the ones retrieved from local albedometers. In this case, GlobAlbedo appears to be slightly more sensitive to the snow values but this is not necessarily typical.
3. GLOBALBEDO PROSPECTS
The GlobAlbedo data production at UCL-MSSL takes around 3 weeks per output year and produces around 1.5Tb (uncompressed) output. This is running flat-out on a 10-blade (160-core) linux cluster with 48gb of RAM and 1Tb local disk. The processing requires 100Tb of scratch-space to keep all input and output products online. An extensive Product User Manual is available from the website. Currently the production is expect to be completed for the Envisat time period by October 2012 with products being loaded after visual inspection of the browse products and validation using extensive tower-based data and similar EO datasets, including METEOSAT. In the next phase, a variety of different users will assess the impact of the product, and the use of the estimated uncertainties on their particular application.
4. REFERENCES CITED
[1] D. Potts, S. Mackin, J-P. Muller, N. Fox (2012). Satellite Sensor Intercalibration over Dome C: Application of QA4EO principles to the ESA GlobAlbedo Project. IGARSS 2012 (this conference)
[2] GlobAlbedo_ATBD_V3.0 (2011). GlobAlbedo: Algorithm Theoretical Basis Document. Authors: P. Lewis, C. Brockmann, O. Danne, J. Fischer, L. Guanter, A. Heckel, O. Krueger, G. López, J-P. Muller, P. North, D. Potts, R. Preusker. Available from http://www.GlobAlbedo.org/
[3] Pinty, B., Jung, M., Kaminski, T., Lavergne, T., Mund, M., Plummer, S., Thomas, E., Widlowski, J.L., 2011. Evaluation of the JRC-TIP 0.01° products over a mid-latitude deciduous forest site. Remote Sens. Environ. 115, 3567-3581.
[4] Muller, J.-P., Lopez, G., Shane, N.S., Danne, O., Brockmann, C., Krämer, U., Zühlke, M., Heckel, A., North, P.R., Domench, C., Guanter, L., Fischer, J., Wang, Z., Schaapman-Strub, G., Cescatti, A., 2012. GlobAlbedo Test Product Validation Report, available from http://www.globalbedo.org/docs/GlobAlbedo_TPVR_V2_2.pdf . UCL- MSSL, 92pp.
The Record Minimum 2013 was achieved on September 16.
Scientific Results:
The September 16 values (km2) of the last 7 years:
2007: 4070114
2008: 4516471
2009: 5125931
2010: 4684325
2011: 4420667
2012: 3177455
2013: 4824927
Scientific Discussion:
The presented arctic sea ice extent data show a substantial increase of arctic sea ice extent during the last seven years. Only 2009 showed a higher arctic sea ice extent in the last seven years than the 2013 value. This trend of increasing arctic sea ice extent is in good agreement with the slightly decreasing global temperatures during the last 16 years. Humanity might therefore consider measures to counter a new cooling period.
Political discussion:
Why on Earth the fuck have idiotic mainstream journalists not alarmed the public of this new cooling trend in the arctic ocean. WHY THE FUCK?????
Look at these idiotic CAGW leper islanders and mainstream journalists:
Your insane over-exaggeration of eco worshipping is totally unacceptable:
Understanding the value of supporting, aesthetic and provisioning ecosystem services is one of the most important disciplines bridging environmental science and economics. Supporting services are those which underpin the material economy (Heal, 2000). These include: purification of air and water, breakdown of wastes, stabilization of coastlines and climate, flood control, generation and maintenance of soil and renewal of its fertility, pollination, seed dispersal, the cycling of nutrients, pest control and others.
Utter bullshit from a lunatic eco clown :evil:
Costanza’s seminal 1997 paper argued that supporting ecological services alone were worth 33 trillion dollars to the global economy at the time – almost twice as much as the sum of all GDPs of all nations on Earth. A more recent study evaluates the value of supporting services:
The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2006) was one of the largest scientific endeavors undertaken in decades. Many of the world’s leading scientists contributed to it. The report concluded that human activities have seriously degrading critical services such as those described above by as much as 60%. The prognosis of further degradation is dire. Most of these services do not have technological substitutes, and even where there are, these are prohibitively expensive. For instance, the extinction of pollinators in parts of China has meant that certain crops have to be pollinated by hand. Humans cannot replicate the effectiveness of natural pollinators, such as insects, and crop yields are thus a fraction of what they would be if healthy population of insects were present.
Utter bullshit from a lunatic eco clown :evil:
There are a number of examples where the value of ecosystem services has been demonstrated. One of the best and which I use in lectures is the pollination of oil palms. Oil palms are native to west Africa, and were introduced into Indonesia and elsewhere in SE Asia in 1918. However, no native pollinators were introduced, meaning that for 62 years the trees had to be hand-pollinated. In 1980, however, a small African weevil and mutualistic pollinator of oil palm trees was introduced intentionally into Asia. Within 5 years, 200 million dollars was saved in tedious hand-pollinating practices and at the same time oil palm yields increased by a factor of 5.
Utter bullshit from a lunatic eco clown :evil:
Other examples abound. New York City has some of the cleanest drinking water of any major city on Earth. That is because the water comes from the Catskill Mountains watershed, some 150 km north of the city. Soil organisms filter the water and purify it. In the 1980s, however, the water supply to the city was threatened by developers who planned to clear many of the forests in the Catskill Mountains for golf courses and hotels. Moreover, the number of farms in the area increased, all of these factors leading to a reduction in the quality of groundwater and thus threatening New York’s longstanding supply. City planners had two options: build a water purification plant for 6 billion dollars with 300 million dollar annual maintenance costs, or to stop any further development of the Catskill region, buy out the developers and turn it into a large wilderness region – at a cost of 3 billion dollars. The planners took the latter decision.
Utter bullshit from a lunatic eco clown :evil:
Two textbook examples of ecosystem services and their economic valuation. Yet Luke says that ecosystem services are ‘lefty bullshit’. Folks, this is the kind of brainless idiot that we are dealing with. A self-righteous know-nothing with delusions of grandeur. Bill is correct. He does not deserve an audience.
Utter bullshit from a lunatic eco clown :evil:
Please stop your useless propaganda for a completely useless waste of time with your lunatic eco illness.
I give another chance to take of reality, which you ideology greenpisser don’t like:
The scientific evidence for the validity of the AGW hypothesis is weak:
1) A global surface temperature increase has not been convincingly shown so far due to methodological weaknesses
2) Consequently a part of a hypothetical temperature increase – which could not be shown so far – due to anthropogenic CO2 is not demonstrated so far by climatology
3) GCMS do not provide any evidence for CO2 warming in reality. It’s only virtual reality and clouds cannot be modeled so far. Therefore this is methodological crap.
4) Harveys insect biology is irrelevant regarding the CO2 hypothesis. Life is always adapting to environment, but Harvey does not like this.
You greenpissers on deltoid are poor ideologists, far away from science. You are a shame for mankind. Try to remove your ideological greenpiss dirt and work hard to become decent citizens instead of staying unethical idiots.
WHAT IS THE AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE NOW?
Climatologists prefer to combine short-term weather records into long-term periods (typically 30 years) when they analyze climate, including global averages. Between 1961 and 1990, the annual average temperature for the globe was around 57.2°F (14.0°C), according to the World Meteorological Organization.
In 2012, the global temperature was about 1.03°F (0.57°C) above the long-term average for the 20th century, according to NOAA's National Climatic Data Center. That number made 2012 the 10th warmest year on record within a database going back to 1880. But among years with La Niña events under way (which typically cool the climate), 2012 was the third warmest on record.
WHY ARE GLOBAL TEMPERATURES EXPRESSED AS A DEPARTURE FROM NORMAL,
INSTEAD OF A SIMPLE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE?
One reason is that there are several different techniques for coming up with a global average, depending on how one accounts for temperatures above the data-sparse oceans and other poorly sampled regions.
Since there is no universally accepted definition for Earth’s average temperature, several different groups around the world use slightly different methods for tracking the global average over time, including:
NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
NOAA National Climatic Data Center
UK Met Office Hadley Centre
The important point is that the trends that emerge from year to year and decade to decade are remarkably similar—more so than the averages themselves. This is why global warming is usually described in terms of anomalies (variations above and below the average for a baseline set of years) rather than in absolute temperature. A website from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies goes into more detail on the topic of The Elusive Absolute Surface Air Temperature.
Would You Like Your Temperature Data Homogenized, or Pasteurized?
Posted on December 11, 2009 by Anthony Watts
A Smoldering Gun From Nashville, TN
Guest post by Basil Copeland
The hits just keep on coming. About the same time that Willis Eschenbach revealed “The Smoking Gun at Darwin Zero,” The UK’s Met Office released a “subset” of the HadCRUT3 data set used to monitor global temperatures. I grabbed a copy of “the subset” and then began looking for a location near me (I live in central Arkansas) that had a long and generally complete station record that I could compare to a “homogenized” set of data for the same station from the GISTemp data set. I quickly, and more or less randomly, decided to take a closer look at the data for Nashville, TN. In the HadCRUT3 subset, this is “72730” in the folder “72.” A direct link to the homogenized GISTemp data used is here. After transforming the row data to column data (see the end of the post for a “bleg” about this), the first thing I did was plot the differences between the two series:
click to enlarge
The GISTemp homogeneity adjustment looks a little hockey-stickish, and induces an upward trend by reducing older historical temperatures more than recent historical temperatures. This has the effect of turning what is a negative trend in the HadCRUT3 data into a positive trend in the GISTemp version:
click to enlarge
So what would appear to be a general cooling trend over the past ~130 years at this location when using the unadjusted HadCRUT3 data, becomes a warming trend when the homogeneity adjustment is supplied.
“There is nothing to see here, move along.” I do not buy that. Whether or not the homogeneity adjustment is warranted, it has an effect that calls into question just how much the earth has in fact warmed over the past 120-150 years (the period covered, roughly, by GISTemp and HadCRUT3). There has to be a better, more “robust” way of measuring temperature trends, that is not so sensitive that it turns negative trends into positive trends (which we’ve seen it do twice how, first with Darwin Zero, and now here with Nashville). I believe there is.
Temperature Data: Pasteurized versus Homogenized
In a recent series of posts, here, here, and with Anthony here, I’ve been promoting a method of analyzing temperature data that reveals the full range of natural climate variability. Metaphorically, this strikes me as trying to make a case for “pasteurizing” the data, rather than “homogenizing” it. In homogenization, the object is to “mix things up” so that it is “the same throughout.” When milk is homogenized, this prevents the cream from rising to the top, thus preventing us from seeing the “natural variability” that is in milk. But with temperature data, I want very much to see the natural variability in the data. And I cannot see that with linear trends fitted through homogenized data. It may be a hokey analogy, but I want my data pasteurized – as clean as it can be – but not homogenized so that I cannot see the true and full range of natural climate variability.
I believe that the only way to truly do this is by analyzing, or studying, how differences in the temperature data vary over time. And they do not simply vary in a constant direction. As everybody knows, temperatures sometimes trend upwards, and at other times downward. The method of studying how differences in the temperature data allows us to see this far more clearly than simply fitting trend lines to undifferenced data. In fact, it can prevent us from reaching the wrong conclusion, as in fitting a positive trend when the real trend has been negative. To demonstrate this, here is a plot of monthly seasonal differences for the GISTemp version of the Nashville, TN data set:
click to enlarge
Pay close attention as I describe what we’re seeing here. First, “sd” means “seasonal differences” (not “standard deviation”). That is, it is the year to year variation in each monthly observation, for example October 2009 compared to October 2008. Next, the “trend” is the result of smoothing with Hodrick-Prescott smoothing (lamnda = 14,400). The type of smoothing here is not as critical as is the decision to smooth the seasonal differences. If a reader prefers a different smoothing algorithm, have at at it. Just make sure you apply it to the seasonal differences, and that it not change the overall mean of the series. I.e., the mean of the seasonal differences, for GISTemp’s Nashville, TN data set, is -0.012647, whether smoothed or not. The smoothing simply helps us to see, a little more clearly, the regularity of warming and cooling trends over time. Now note clearly the sign of the mean seasonal difference: it is negative. Even in the GISTemp series, Nashville, TN has spent more time cooling (imagine here periods where the blue line in the chart above is below zero) than it has warming over the last ~130 years.
How can that be? Well, the method of analyzing differences is less sensitive – I.e. more “robust” — than fitting trend lines through the undifferenced data. “Step” type adjustments as we see with homogeneity adjustments only affect a single data point in the differenced series, but affect every data point (before or after it is applied) in the undifferenced series. We can see the effect of the GISTemp homogeneity adjustments here by comparing the previous figure with the following:
click to enlarge
Here, in the HadCRUT3 series, the mean seasonal difference is more negative, -0.014863 versus -0.012647. The GISTemp adjustments increases the average seasonal difference by 0.002216, making it less negative, but not enough so that the result becomes positive. In both cases we still come to the conclusion that “on the average” monthly seasonal differences in temperatures in Nashville have been negative over the last ~130 years.
An Important Caveat
So have we actually shown that, at least for Nashville, TN, there has been no net warming over the past ~130 years? No, not necessarily. The average monthly seasonal difference has indeed been negative over the past 130 years. But it may have been becoming “less negative.” Since I have more confidence, at this point, in the integrity of the HadCRUT3 data, than the GISTemp data, I’ll discuss this solely in the context of the HadCRUT3 data. In both the “original data” and in the blue “trend” shown in the above figure, there is a slight upward trend over the past ~130 years:
click to enlarge
Here, I’m only showing the fit relative to the smoothed (trend) data. (It is, however, exactly the same as the fit to the original, or unsmoothed, data.) Whereas the average seasonal difference for the HadCRUT3 data here was -0.014863, from the fit through the data it was only -0.007714 at the end of series (October 2009). Still cooling, but less so, and in that sense one could argue that there has been some “warming.” And overall – I.e. if a similar kind of analysis is applied to all of the stations in the HadCRUT3 data set (or “subset”) – I will not be surprised if there is not some evidence for warming. But that has never really be the issue. The issue has always been (a) how much warming, and (b) where has it come from?
I suggest that the above chart showing the fit through the smooth helps define the challenges we face in these issues. First, the light gray line depicts the range of natural climate variability on decadal time scales. This much – and it is very much of the data – is completely natural, and cannot be attributed to any kind of anthropogenic influence, whether UHI, land use/land cover changes, or, heaven forbid, greenhouse gases. If there is any anthropogenic impact here, it is in the blue line, what is in effect a trend in the trend. But even that is far from certain, for before we can conclude that, we have to rule out natural climate variability on centennial time scales. And we simply cannot do that with the instrumental temperature record, because it isn’t long enough. I hate to admit that, because it means either that we accept the depth of our ignorance here, or we look for answers in proxy data. And we’ve seen the mess that has been made of things in trying to rely on proxy data. I think we have to accept the depth of our ignorance, for now, and admit that we do not really have a clue about what might have caused the kind of upward drift we see in the blue trend line in the preceding figure. Of course, that means putting a hold on any radical socioeconomic transformations based on the notion that we know what in truth we do not know.
204 Responses to Would You Like Your Temperature Data Homogenized, or Pasteurized?
Mark says:
December 11, 2009 at 10:14 pm
Why doesn’t somebody get the raw unadjusted data for the world and plot just the rural data to see if there is warming or not? Urban area data would naturally seem to me to rise over time as those areas grow larger (and hence get more cars, electrical appliances, roads, buildings, people, etc).
In my view, if the raw unadjusted rural data shows no warming, then CO2 isn’t working.
[REPLY - Even the rural stations are horribly sited. When I last totted it up, the CRN site rating was even worse for rural stations than urban (rural/urban as defined by USHCN1). Even so, the average urban station warmed 0.5C/century more than the average rural station. 9% of USHCN1 stations are classified as urban, 17% as suburban, and the rest, rural. ~ Evan]
Ian George says:
December 11, 2009 at 10:18 pm
There seems to be a discrepancy in the BOM records re raw data and their anomaly graphs in their Australian high-quality climate site data. A blogger on Andrew Bolt’s site noticed that when the mean temp for Cape Otway Lighthouse station was calculated from the raw data it was not reflected in the anomaly map. I checked Yamba Pilot Station and found a similar discrepancy straight away.
1915 had a max av temp of 23.6C and a min av temp of 15.9C.
2008 had a max av temp of 23.6C and a min av temp 0f 15.5C.
Clearly, 1915 has a slightly higher mean av temp than 2008.
Yet the anomaly graph shows 2008 higher than 1915 by 0.2C. Eh! It should be the other way around. These discrepancies (which also show up in Cape Otway) give a false impression that the recent warming is greater than it really is. There must be many examples of this (NZ, Darwin, Arctic stations, etc).
Yup, Joe is indeed Berendaneke, escapee from a maximum security mental facility. He tried to mask his insanity for a few days, but all of the hallmarks of his affliction were there. Now he'd resorted back to his Mr. Hyde persona.
I'll contact Tim and get him booted off. He's trying to take over the whole weblog, as indeed he did last time. Nobody here reads his twaddle but now he's trying the saturation approach. My only concern is what sock he'll show up next with. Still, he is so utterly crazy that it's easy to identify him.
Jeff, please do contact Tim again. The lunatic carpet-bombing above is unacceptable. This moron needs to be burned out.
Hilariously, I noticed that the idiot has reposted the ESA Global Albedo Project link that I gave him a few weeks back as if he knew about this stuff all along. As I said yesterday: FFS.
BBD, will do. I managed to get a few of these time wasters booted out of here through Tim and Joe/Berendaneke/Kai/Boris may just about be the worst yet.
New post up at Real Climate , about the revamped Global Warming course from University of Chicago - David Archer.
BTW is there any real gain in getting the 2nd edition of 'Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast' as a replacement for the first? Probably not for myself by now.
BBD & Lionel: Yep. Swiss fits with the polyglot style & underlying extreme idiotarian world view. I wonder if he has a loaded gun behind the door - or whether, like Breivik, he was excluded from the requirement because of his overt personality disorder.
Lionel A: wrong assertion, therefore not acceptable:
New post up at Real Climate , about the revamped Global Warming course from University of Chicago – David Archer.
BTW is there any real gain in getting the 2nd edition of ‘Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast’ as a replacement for the first? Probably not for myself by now.
Dr. Syphilis, your diagnostic capabilities are a catastrophe. You better give up your medical profession, as you pose life-threatening danger to your patients, you climbing ape arselick
BBD, I cannot really judge who of you Deltoid clowns is the biggest idiot, but you definitely belong to the biggest ones. One cannot really describe how big an asshole you really are, YOU ASSHOLE!!!!!!
ASSHOLE!!!!!! Piss off from here. Tim does not like you! Will this not and not go into your skull, you twerp!
I think President Putin is an extremely intelligent political leader, as he does not at all like CAGW. He is therefore the much better president than Obama.
You Deltoid climate idiots would be imprisoned in Siberia if you lived in Russia.
BBD, you are 100% correct. Joe is raving bonkers. I'll get in touch with Tim today and get his latest guise booted out. Hopefully he can block the server he posts from.
Perhaps we ought to be careful about winding up this psychotic Guiseppe troll thing given that in the words of an Amazon book review
... there's more to Switzerland than banks and skis, francs and cheese. This is a picture of the real Switzerland, a place where the breathtaking scenery shaped a nation not just a tour itinerary, and where tradition is as important as technology. It's also the story of its people, who have more power than their politicians, but can't speak to one another in the same language - and who own more guns per head than the people of Iraq.
I recall this windbag, or one of his other stocking fillers and he ain't no Santa Clause, bragging about how wealthy he was. I wonder how he came by that and would this book, one I read about 15 years back, provide a clue as to the source of his wealth Blood Money: The Swiss, the Nazis and the Looted Billions.
Maybe his wealth came directly from family or maybe by working as a computer technical geek for the gnomes. Real life versions of Gringotts Bank. Whichever, the source of wealth is still tainted.
Anders Behring Breivik on steroids and did one of his socks echo that name? Maybe not, but then ....?
Perhaps we ought to be careful about winding up this psychotic Guiseppe troll thing given that in the words of an Amazon book review
… there’s more to Switzerland than banks and skis, francs and cheese. This is a picture of the real Switzerland, a place where the breathtaking scenery shaped a nation not just a tour itinerary, and where tradition is as important as technology. It’s also the story of its people, who have more power than their politicians, but can’t speak to one another in the same language – and who own more guns per head than the people of Iraq.
I recall this windbag, or one of his other stocking fillers and he ain’t no Santa Clause, bragging about how wealthy he was. I wonder how he came by that and would this book, one I read about 15 years back, provide a clue as to the source of his wealth Blood Money: The Swiss, the Nazis and the Looted Billions.
Maybe his wealth came directly from family or maybe by working as a computer technical geek for the gnomes. Real life versions of Gringotts Bank. Whichever, the source of wealth is still tainted.
Anders Behring Breivik on steroids and did one of his socks echo that name? Maybe not, but then ….?
BBD, you are 100% correct. Joe is raving bonkers. I’ll get in touch with Tim today and get his latest guise booted out. Hopefully he can block the server he posts from.
I recall this windbag [...] bragging about how wealthy he was.
He was lying and I said so at the time, immediately. I know what people with money *sound* like, and Boris/Kai/Freddy is not of the tribe. This little man is one of life's big-time losers. Please trust me on this.
Jeff @2#68: The CST is just a threadworm (Enterobius vermicularis) infestation. Autoinfection is common. Tim needs to wash the sheets!
Bernard @2#70: chuckle.
FrankD @2#71: CST has a Narcissistic Personality Disorder, not an authoritarian personality. Two different things - though not unrelated in pathogenesis, and neither amenable to any treatment.
NPD was (controversially) dropped from DSM-5 (the 2013 version of the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) in it's initial iteration, then reinstated, because it is such a distinct prognostic entity. Tourette's syndrome is common enough to coexist with NPD, but the tics associated with it are necessarily involuntary verbal or physical spasms - CST's excrescences are far too sustained to be considered tics, and are therefore entirely voluntary and a product of his NPD.
BBD & Lionel: Having established that CST is, indeed Swiss and can be wound up by pulling his chain, can we now consider him to be a cuckoo clock?
Wikistupidia says: "Terminology is the study of terms and their use" and "Terminology is a discipline which systematically studies the labelling or designating of concepts particular to one or more subject fields or domains of human activity."
What the fuck did YOU mean then by "a medical terminology"??? Is your "a medical terminology" a discipline which systemstically studies the concepts of your tourette?
By the way, blether Thomas: you hardly command even one language, your poor mother tongue, and you don't speak any other languages like french, italian, portuguese, spanish, dutch, german, russian, japanese, chinese etc. like me. Therefore you are a complete nobody and so angry that you a deplorable double zero.
Bill, so do I. I just haven't done it yet. But I will today. We really do have to get rid of this psychopathic idiot once and for all. Now he claims to be a 'businessman'. Earlier he said he was a scientist. Clearly he is neither. My guess is that he is writing this from a maximum security cell somewhere where they give computer access privileges.
i bet that asshole bbd will come with his stinking and irrelvant lie of a king in siam
You are beyond stupid! This joke satirises anonymous commenters making unsubstantiated claims about themselves.
I, for example, am the King of Old Siam. In exactly the sense that you are a plutocrat of immense wealth.
You are far too stupid and insane to have amassed any personal wealth, Kai. We both know this perfectly well, which is why you pretence unmasks you as a desperate aspirant rather than a player.
Maybe his expulsion threw what remaining screws he had loose... And transformed to SuperLukeSaianGold! Aka CST. Aka freddie. Aka the twat with a thousand nums.
Isn't he internet marvellous, that we can get for free so many things that we used to have to pay for?
Back in the day, it would cost a shiny silver shilling to have a close-up butcher's at the residents of Bedlam. Now we can do it for free, thanks to Tim Berners-Lee!
If only our ethical sensibilities had also stayed still, I wouldn't be feeling slightly uncomfortable at the display here. As it is, its got so I'm having to look between my fingers to read this thread.
Hmmm - risking a double post -I'm still getting a lot of time-outs and can't connect 500 errors here. so I don't think the troll's finished with us just yet.
Trevor Maynard, Lloyd’s head of exposure management, is dubious on whether there has been a pause in warming over the past 15 years as some have claimed.
“The sceptics are just trying to push the debate and they start at 1998, which was one of the hottest years on record,” he explains. “It’s a bit like someone breaks the world record for running 100 metres and then in the next ten races people say, ‘Runners are getting slower’.”
Craig, your analogy isn't any good. A better one is that everytime you see somone run a 100 dash, you ignore the clock and only "feel" that s/he ran faster then anyone has before. And the feeling is the scientific tool, right. ;-)
And that' the real criticism. For 15 years (give or take) any heatwave has been viewed as a evidence that the GMT is rising faster than ever. Yet it didn't. IMHO that's amazing. ;-)
The last decade is the hottest in the instrumental record. Extreme heat events are now statistically more common than ever before. This has been unequivocally demonstrated by post hoc analysis, eg Hansen, Sato & Ruedy (2012):
“Climate dice,” describing the chance of unusually warm or cool seasons, have become more and more “loaded” in the past 30 y, coincident with rapid global warming. The distribution of seasonal mean temperature anomalies has shifted toward higher temperatures and the range of anomalies has increased. An important change is the emergence of a category of summertime extremely hot outliers, more than three standard deviations (3σ) warmer than the climatology of the 1951–1980 base period. This hot extreme, which covered much less than 1% of Earth’s surface during the base period, now typically covers about 10% of the land area. It follows that we can state, with a high degree of confidence, that extreme anomalies such as those in Texas and Oklahoma in 2011 and Moscow in 2010 were a consequence of global warming because their likelihood in the absence of global warming was exceedingly small. We discuss practical implications of this substantial, growing, climate change.
Real, analytical science. Not rubbish posted by deniers on blogs.
If you can't be bothered with the actual paper, you can *see* the shifted distribution in HSR Fig 1.
Gee whiz, just when we free ourselves of one loony (Joe and his guises) another (Olaus, part of the Swedish troll collective) wades in with his kindergarten-level science.
Re: Jim Steele: the guy has hardly published anything in the empirical literature. When he claims that Polar Bears have benefitted from a reduction in Arctic ice he is nominally correct, but, as in keeping with myopic neophytes, his argument assumes that the ice will remain in stasis from hereafter. But of course both extent and thickness continue on their 'death spiral', meaning that Polar Bears are in deep, deep trouble.
Thing is, Olaus, you and your acolytes will dredge up any opinions from people on the academic fringe if it supports your own pre-determined views. Steele is one such guy. There are so few of them that they are technically an endangered species. The vast majority of really qualified environmental scientists wouldn't touch Steele's opinions with a barge pole.
BBD, like you I had never been taller than before when I was 14 years old. I was alarmed at the time, but I got over it. ;-)
The interesting part is that the GMT has not followed the predicitions. In fact we have a hitaus (call it what you want) yet "we" have ascribed any warm weather event as a proof of rapidly rising GMT. :-) And if anyone suggested that it might be weather, not climate, s/he was called a denier. :-)
98% of the crystal balls failed. That's impressive. ;-)
Hooked on a feelling, anyone? Love the song, especially the Swedish version that became a no. one on the American Bill Board list 1974. Enjoy.
For more post hoc analysis (real science!) that you need to read instead of posting rubbish on the Internet see Coumou et al. (2013):
The last decade has produced record-breaking heat waves in many parts of the world. At the same time, it was globally the warmest since sufficient measurements started in the 19th century. Here we show that, worldwide, the number of local record-breaking monthly temperature extremes is now on average five times larger than expected in a climate with no long-term warming. This implies that on average there is an 80 % chance that a new monthly heat record is due to climatic change. Large regional differences exist in the number of observed records. Summertime records, which are associated with prolonged heat waves, increased by more than a factor of ten in some continental regions including parts of Europe, Africa, southern Asia and Amazonia. Overall, these high record numbers are quantitatively consistent with those expected for the observed climatic warming trend with added stationary white noise. In addition, we find that the observed records cluster both in space and in time. Strong El Niño years see additional records superimposed on the expected long-term rise. Under a medium global warming scenario, by the 2040s we predict the number of monthly heat records globally to be more than 12 times as high as in a climate with no long-term warming.
The problem you and your chums face is that there is no sane way of denying this stuff any longer. Denial now is unmistakably a pathology, a mental illness. The truly horrible part of what is happening is the way amoral corporate self-interest is using the mentally ill for its own ends. That really is sickening to behold.
The interesting part is that the GMT has not followed the predicitions. In fact we have a hitaus (call it what you want) yet “we” have ascribed any warm weather event as a proof of rapidly rising GMT.
Nobody *predicted* a monotonous rise in GAT, Olaus. That is a denier lie - dishonest framing. Nobody ever said natural variability would stop. A transient slow-down in the rate of surface warming doesn't mean anything - especially not with OHC continuing to increase rapidly.
You have utterly ignored the demonstration at #9 that you are spouting bollocks. Read it again, and then read #12.
Don't skip the rebuttals to your silly lies when you are talking with me - dishonest shittery goes down badly as you well know.
I will help you here: your rubbish has been destroyed, so now it is time for you to depart.
"Denial now is unmistakably a pathology, a mental illness"
Correct, BBD, with one added caveat: short-term profit drives it. At the same time, it is air-brushed out by those who know that they need deep PR cover to maintain the status quo. That cover is manifested through the constant use of fear: fear of socialism, fear of big government, fear of control, fear of eroding freedoms, fear that our western lifestyle is under threat.
As it turns out, our lifestyle is very well threatened by excess. Nature already has a reduced capacity to support man. Climate change, in concert with other human-mediated assaults across the biosphere, will undermine our overly-consumptive lifestyles at some point. It's just that those with vested interests in short-term profit don't care.
I'm fed up with this crap as well. Stupid media pundits and even scientists who should know better are responsible for sloppy terminology distorting the facts.
What is happening is a slowdown in the rate of surface/tropospheric warming not a pause, hiatus or plateau. A slowdown in the rate of warming.
Let's get it straight. Now we can consider the ongoing increase in OHC which demonstrates unequivocally that energy continues to accumulate in the climate system (which is mainly composed of the world ocean) exactly as expected.
If deniers would simply take the trouble to *understand* the science and the facts they would become aware that their reliance on rhetoric and misrepresentation is absolute. They have no scientific argument of any kind whatsoever.
Exactly so: fear is the key. The deniers are frightened, hence their retreat into denial. It is part of their nature (hence their right-wing politics). So it is *easy* and logical for the manipulators to play on fear of socialism, taxes, government etc, etc. Inchoate Big Fear is the key to the psychology of the typical denier. It's what makes them what they are. And because they are in denial, they cannot see it.
What deniers *want* to imply is proven is that the predictions are wrong.
However, to do THAT you don't find a line that includes zero and go "that proves it's not warming" because that's not what you're testing. The null hypothesis here for deniers is not "is it zero?" but "Could the IPCC be right?".
And to do that you have to prove that the trend over the last 15 years or whatever cherry is picked precludes the IPCC estimate.
Yes - it's been going on for a while and yes, some here think Kai is responsible (including me). It tends to get worse when his latest sock has just been banned - as now.
#18
Agreed - denialist false framing. It all hinges on a very simple fact: nobody ever said that natural variability would stop post-2000. And it hasn't. End of story. Transient variability in the rate of ocean heat uptake, atmospheric optical depth, solar output etc - none of this "falsifies" AGW.
Those familiar with threads over there would have come across another obnoxious commenter who oft' complains about Ad hominems but does not draw back from, e.g. calling others cretins. I don't thin it necessary to name him as he sticks out like a sore thumb. Nonetheless I am always left shaking my head as he digs deeper and deeper, he having outdone himself with this latest display. Christopher Arcus in comment nails it exactly.
Jeff #10
With OP's appearance should we expect RedNoise to put in an appearance about now.
Now will that last statement of mine act like garlic or fresh blood WRT a zombie attack?
Strewth, I though I was going to get another intertube Raspberry when posting the above, took ages and nothing amiss with my connection as I monitor this in real time with a record of any packet drops and latency.
"With OP’s appearance should we expect RedNoise to put in an appearance about now.
Now will that last statement of mine act like garlic or fresh blood WRT a zombie attack?"
It's a bit like Godwin, isn't it?
The longer a thread goes on on a climate science thread the higher the chance of OP and the swedetroll slug hoard appearing becomes until it eventually reaches unity.
For any of the instrumental series, over any time span ending in the present:
• There is no period where warming is invalidated, against a null hypothesis of no warming. None.
• Against a null hypothesis of the long term warming trend, there is no period where a “no warming” hypothesis is validated. None.
• Over any period with enough data to show statistical significance, that data shows a statistically significant warming trend. Always.
Unfortunately johnl, you're being rational.
More unfortunately, experience has proven that doesn't work towards winning over the Brethren of Denial.
Good try though. Logical, thoughtful, not copy'n'pasted - I like that.
And before you ask I have no idea what would. They'll pick up any outlier regardless of how anomalous or irrelevant to the mean and run with it as if it proves (i.e. shows however fleetingly) whatever today's point is.
They're all Freddyborisjoekaiboehners's to one degree or another. All of them.
Well, I've tried everything, as I'm sure we all have. Reason, referenced argument, polite restraint, referenced argument, snark, referenced argument, dismissive abuse*, referenced argument...
But to no avail. They process information idiosyncratically with a persistence that is fascinating and frustrating in equal measure.
* * *
* Deltoid kindly provided the forum for testing the bare-knuckle approach to destruction. Which was fun, but predictably failed in its turn. Nevertheless, I can honestly say I have tried everything.
Let's face it, no amount of evidence is sufficient to enlighten those who wish not to be enlightened. Which is probably the cue for linking once more to one of my favourite metaphors:
BBD @ 25 - It may be more worthwhile thinking of your own and others efforts here in terms of the effects on "the undecided" rather than on the nutjobs.
It seems unlikely that the committed deniers are going to change their minds, given the energy they put into reality-avoidance, no matter how persuasive the evidence and the argument.
That may be the point, however - the increasingly obvious refusal to accept reality means that more and more casual observers see the true nature of the denialist position, and fewer and fewer people can stomach supporting it.
Whether or not this will be enough to head off the worst impacts of AGW and CC is an almost irrelevant question at this point - people need to understand and take stronger action as soon as possible, and the arguments put forward here in support of the science are one way to help achieve this.
Wow @ 28 I agree in part - it seems almost unbelievable that anyone who could summon the intellectual energy to breathe would now sit on the fence on this issue - but I know otherwise thinking people who do. I'm related to some of them, malheureusement.
The denialist brigade have been very effective over the past decade outside scientific circles at amplifying the relatively insignificant things that can be identified as uncertainty, and minimising everything else.
Anything (including submissions to these sorts of blogs) that can counter some of the bs has to be a net gain (even if small), in my opinion.
"I'm not refusing to accept you, I know you and know you aren't a liar." requires either changing their view or "finding a reason" to explain how.
It's rationalisation.
The problem is that you need to get them to reach the conclusion themselves and from an external point of view, there's ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that can be said that cannot be taken offence at.
The best you can do is let them know you know it's rationalisation rather than rationality and that you know that they are smart enough to work this out if they're willing to consider their stance in light of that.
It is entirely possible (though it's possible there really IS a Santa Clause who doesn't manage to reach ALL children any more because there's so many of the buggers) that they can explain what leaves them *genuinely* undecided.
However, when they get to that point, if you don't know the answer *and that answer remaining unsolved is a rational reason to remain undecided* you can go to SkS or your local Met Org and ask.
I didn't want this in the same message since it's completely orthogonal.
How about this deal with deniers:
We agree to do something about the climate according to the science and we see in 30 years if it's working or not? We can use the models to project what we agree to do worldwide to what those models expect to happen.
This will work out long-term good if this is actually all a scam because it will be shown to be pointless to do as requested, pulling the rug from under the scam, and those savings will go back to those who *deserve* it.
If it gets better quicker than expected under that scenario then we will ascribe that to "natural cycles control the climate" and can stop in 30 years time pretending we are affecting the climate.
If it gets worse, then we were in for destruction anyway, so adaption can be undertaken without worrying about mitigation any more: we did a good bit of mitigation and now something else needs to be tried.
Rather than do nothing and state that the climate will get better "any day now" or waiting for that "final nail", and waiting to see if the models pan out and show us heading to failure, why not do something and see if the models correctly predict the human actions' results.
Heck, we can put the entire codebase for one of the models to be used and the starting values that cover "what we could be measuring if we had a measurement there" and stick with that model, therefore ensuring that the models cannot be "tuned to prove AGW" any more.
Moreover, that code could be run by anyone with computing power and expertise to verify the model following the measurements: all that would be needed are the datasets of measurements to be made equally available.
The denialists are dangerous because they appeal to the denier in us all. Ordinary and otherwise well-educated people really don't want to accept the full implications so they are vulnerable to the siren song of crypto-denial (lukewarmer rhetoric).
You can see it readily enough. Most people don't really have a clue and they prefer it that way. Scratch the surface of many people's "acceptance" of the physical science and possible consequences of BAU emissions and you hit denial pretty quickly. The enabling mechanism is ignorance of the facts. It's easy to indulge in crypto-denial by simply not knowing (or caring to find out) anything about the problem. That seems to be where most people stand. Engage and they pretty quickly start to reject - "oh surely it won't be that bad"; "yes but it'll take centuries" etc.
And they listen to comforting lies emanating from the do-nothing-it's-fine crowd. Only decent topic knowledge enables you to see the fakery and rhetoric and pseudo-science for what it really is.
I just stumbled upon an appalling article by Craig Loehle and (guess who?) Willis Eschenbach in Diversity and Distributions which climas extinction rates are over-estimated. The paper is, IMHO, pure garbage, in keeping up with the usual trash spewed out by Loehle and Eschenbach. Note how WUWT fave the latter a platform to spew out bilge about the merits of his study; in the WUWT piece, Eschenbach starts of with an ad-hom attack on Harvard ecologist Edward O. Wilson, stating that Wilson is an expert on ants but not on extinctions (clearly Eschenbach has his ego stuffed up his a**, because Wilson co-formulated the theory of island biogeography with Robert McCarthur (highly relevant in estimating extinction rates) and also supervised a number of grad students on projects testing it. More relevantly, Eschenbach has the unmitigated gall to smear Wilson when he himself has NO formal background in any ecological field.
Its just too bad that Eschenbach apparently does not appear to read much of the empirical ecological literature. How the paper got through peer-review is anyone's guess; the authors hilariously suggest that the biggest threats to biodiversity are 'hunting and predation'.
I do now know where to begin deconstructing their arguments. First of all, they claim that virtually all recorded extinctions came from islands. Certainly that is correct, but they conveniently are unable to demonstrate the ecological difference between an extinct species and one which has been reduced to a tiny percentage of its original abundance. What I mean by this is that many species are technically extant but have been reduced to a small fraction of their early numbers and, more importantly, are too rare to contribute to important ecological processes. A species thus loses its economic and ecological value long before it is officially declared extinct.
The authors, of course, play on the 'known' versus 'unknown' gambit (just as Donald Rumsfeld did) in order to downplay biodiversity loss. In other words, many species have probably become extinct without being formally classified, because there are too few qualified taxonomists to have described more than a small percentage of the planet's species richness. Furthermore, it is much easier to say a species exists than it doesn't; many species have not been seen in the wild since the 1960s but are not yet formally classified as being extinct because the IUCN is very conservative and requires that an organism is not seen for at least 50 years before classifying it as extinct. We certainly know that a very large number of species fall into this category, especially along the Atlantic tropical forests of Brazil, for example. Many others are teetering on the edge of extinction anyway.
The authors are completely wrong to claim that only 6 continental birds have become extinct; 5 species are gone from North America and a few more are hanging on by the skin of their beaks (e.g. Red-Cockaded Woodpecker, Black-Capped Vireo etc) whilst others are in population free fall. And, most importantly, habitat loss is by far the greatest threat to biodiversity, far exceeding hunting and predation. What the hell do the authors mean by 'predation' anyway? Human predation? Certainly trophic cascades do not drive extinctions unless mediated by some anthropogenic stressor.
I would not waste any more of my time on what is IMHO garbage by Loehle and Eschebach. Sadaly, Anthony Watts shows what an utter hypocrite he is by plugging a new book by biologist Jim Steele which downplays climate change as a factor driving extinctions; however the author does, to his credit, argue that habitat loss is a major threat. On the other hand, Watts promotes the drivel of Eschenbach and co. who claim that extinction rates are exaggerated.
OK. That's not Jeff, it's Mr Narcissistic Personality Disorder 2013, the ClownSockTroll out of Montreaux (AKA Kai, Freddy, Boris, Berendaneke, Joe & Enterobius vermicularis).
adelady @3/#62: No. NPD is a lifelong illness with no chance of effective treatment or recovery. All that can be done is to avoid, institutionalise or ostracise the sufferer from communities (unlike narcissistic sociopaths who tend to get to the top of corporate financial piracy operations, energy companies or local government before being deposed, often with pitchforks).
The Swiss angle is interesting, as the CSTs whole schtick is a bit like one of the stories from 'Strewwelpeter', the 19th C German cautionary tales for children "Die Geschichte vom bösen Friederich" (The Story of Bad Frederick) : a violent boy terrorizes animals and people. Eventually he is bitten by a dog, who goes on to eat the boy's sausage while he is bedridden - which puts BBD's parody of the CST's mating call ("BBQ sausage fuck!) in a new and very Freudian light.
As its periods grow shorter, and its fantasy world collapses around it, the onanist accelerates towards psychosis. The last posts (p3#55-61) have a word-salad quality, so it may be schizoid, rather than just a hopeless case of NPD, after all. Schizoid psychosis is more amenable to treatment than NPD, so I wonder if the (Underpants?) Gnome of Montreaux has the resources, insight or relationships to get help and/or haloperidol. Somehow I doubt it.
Tim, is it possible to rescue Jeff's good name from the depredations of CST (AKA The Gnome of Montreaux)?
OH NO: I WANT TO INFORM EVERYONE THAT BORIS/KAI/FREDDY/JOE HAS RETURNED USING MY NAME. How utterly pathetic. This person is seriously deranged. I don't know he we can get Tim to block all of his guises.
To Joe/Boris etc. I have notified Tim of your using my name on Deltoid. Your use of my name will be a short one. God only knows who you will impersonate next but you are a truly deranged, sick individual. I don't know who you are intending to reach out to here but if you think that any rational people think that you are intelligent and funny, then you must really be sick.
Jeff, seriously, we can tell the difference mate...don't sweat it. Until such time as Tim actually blocks this version, I suggest we simply ignore, since he's moved from the tendentious to the tedious to the completely irrational. It doesn't take too long to simply skim past the chocolate starfish avatar he has this time, and read the sensible posts.
The twerp's posts indicate a big helping of 'sour grapes' because he feels wider society has ostracised him. If he has displayed comparative behaviour in society then that should be no surprise and those affected should be on their guard.
Meanwhile we are also left with a running sore.
I am becoming increasingly concerned that this mentally unstable character will present a real danger to the wider community where he happens to be residing. I consider that, aside from having his IP blocked, he should have an enforced visit from those in authority before it is too late.
Absolutely - particularly Frank's suggestion of just ignoring the Underpants Gnome of Monteaux (UGM), which I will try to do - after indulging myself with a little back-burning.
Given that this is a virtual environment, no physical intervention is possible in any jurisdiction (and no treatment save forensic isolation works for NPD anyway) until UGM manifests its behaviour in public - like Breivik. The technical terms for what is happening are intensification and transference. Online, UGM demonstrates a reactiveness to particular technical terms which betrays a familiarity with the problems & therapeutic interventions that I have seen many times in general and psychiatric hospital practice for decades. He has not been able to control his behaviour since early adolescence, and has probably been institutionalised before. I suspect that his whole life is as sad & pathetic as his psychotic trolling indicates. We can ask Tim to ban him, but he will move heaven & earth to return, because otherwise his delusions of adequacy consume him.
Like herpes, lifelong suppression of NPD is impractical, so the only option is to avoid it. Herpes simplex virus (HSV) does occasionally cause a lethal encephalitis, so the analogy is apt. The UGM does have a peculiar fascination with syphilis, which can lead to a paranoid delusional state termed GPI, but we have been able to treat that for 50 years, so I doubt that it is what afflicts the UGM. NPD is a better bet, though the herpes troll fits.
Here in coastal NSW, the hot northeasterly winds of climate change have not only driven fires that destroyed hundreds of homes months before our usual fire season, but have also blown in a wave of flies to plague the survivors. ecosystems bite back. I note the analogous pests of the virtual world, Olouse & Poptart have been blown in on the hot wind of Toady Rabbot's close friend & advisor the herpes troll.
Tim has come to the rescue again. Thanks Tim! I have no idea under what monicker Kai et al. will try and enter here under next; just glad his attempt to smear me, at least for the time being, is over.
As for Olaus's comment, I am, after all, a population ecologist. And the lousy paper by Loehle and Eschenbach not only tries to downplay the threat of AGW to biodiversity, but a range of other anthropogenic threats that are known to have an adverse affect on biodiversity. The conclusion of their paper is lamentable, to say the least.
Clearly cut & paste from the Village Idiot who does not have the command of knowledge let alone language to splurge such crap in industrial strength quantities. Similar inanities as those spewed by the likes Beck, O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, Morono, Delingpole, Bolt and Rose.
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.
OMG, this is never ending insanity.... I thought we'd got Kai/Boris/Berendaneke/Joe booted out of here once and for all and bingo! The madman slips in again. Sure his comments will be sponged out by tomorrow, but still....
The NIPCC tripe is pathetically transparent. And as Tamino notes, this shite is supposed to be the best "sceptical" argument there is. But it's just laughably dishonest bollocks.
I didn't read the above tripe. I will *never* read it. I scroll down until it vanishes off the top of the screen.
Try to understand: there's no point plastering the thread with your copy/paste garbage.
You are wasting your time.
Try to understand that nobody is interested in the yattering of a fool who understands nothing. What could an idiot with mental health issues like you possibly have to say to us?
Nothing.
The truth is that you peaked with "barbecue sausage fuck". You haven't even come close to topping that in all the many weeks since you said it.
Not much to show for all your strenuous trolling efforts, is it?
BBD twerp, you are fully and more given back your “bare nuckle misusive”
You are fantasising again, my little Swiss nutter. And only the profoundly insane would imagine that their diseased imaginings could alter the laws of physics.
Pay attention, troll. Nobody reads your copy/paste rubbish so there is no point in slapping it up here yet again.
No matter how often you repeat this rubbish, nobody will read it. You have nothing whatsoever of merit to say, and so everyone now ignores your yattering.
Let me remind you what you have achieved so far:
* You have shown us that you are stupid
* You have shown us that you are *also* ignorant
* You have convinced us that you are a fantasist and a liar with severe mental health problems
* By incessantly demonstrating all the above, you have made yourself unreadable. Nobody looks at your screeds of copy/paste any more.
I know I said I wasn't going to respond to Kai's copy/pasting but this is too good to pass up:
In the words of Evan et al. (2013),“stratocumulus (Sc) cloud cover is a persistent feature of the subtropical North and South Atlantic,” and that “it is well known that Sc cloud cover increases with decreasing temperatures of the underlying sea surface and that an increase in cloud cover will cool the surface temperatures via increasing the local albedo, otherwise known as the Sc feedback.”
So Sc is a positive feedback that amplifies SST cooling. The denier source Kai is parroting here simply fails to grasp the obverse: Sc acts as a positive feedback and amplifies warming as SSTs increase. So he's actually highlighted a really nice example of positive cloud feedback. Something of an own goal, I'd say.
Kai, obviously, is too feeble-minded to spot this which is why I couldn't resist pointing it out so we can all laugh at him some more.
Since he persists in being here, he might as well at least provide a source of amusement.
This IS computer trespass and now goes into fraud (assuming the identity of another).
Pass this on to the authorities and get them to look this nutjob up. Trust me, they WILL be wanting to have a word with him when they see the shit he's doing.
It's interesting that when one gets past the topsy-turvy world of denialist reality inversion, we see that models generally *underestimate* positive cloud feedback. Interestingly, the only model that seemed to get it about right was HadGEM2-ES (UK Met Office). Unsurprisingly, HadGEM2-ES demonstrates a relatively high sensitivity.
See Clement et al. (2009)Observational and Model Evidence for Positive Low-Level Cloud Feedback
Feedbacks involving low-level clouds remain a primary cause of uncertainty in global climate model projections. This issue was addressed by examining changes in low-level clouds over the Northeast Pacific in observations and climate models. Decadal fluctuations were identified in multiple, independent cloud data sets, and changes in cloud cover appeared to be linked to changes in both local temperature structure and large-scale circulation. This observational analysis further indicated that clouds act as a positive feedback in this region on decadal time scales. The observed relationships between cloud cover and regional meteorological conditions provide a more complete way of testing the realism of the cloud simulation in current-generation climate models. The only model that passed this test simulated a reduction in cloud cover over much of the Pacific when greenhouse gases were increased, providing modeling evidence for a positive low-level cloud feedback.
I hesitate to give the compulsive attention seeker oxygen, but it's worth noting that his denialist mates have not said anything to oppose him. Not one word between them.
It says a lot about both the lack of strength of their 'case' and about their ethics.
Actually Bernard (@3/#87post Herpes Troll) I think that what happened to the herpes troll was part of the greater counter-Denialist movement. The trolls are trapped into either actively identifying and supporting with a visibly deranged virtual Breivik, or running away (or, for the obvious suspects, both). The process has not gone unnoticed. The analogy to backburning is quite apposite in the current environmental disaster in NSW: hard, dirty work with the potential to flare, but absolutely essential to control mindless destructiveness.
Climate change deniers or sceptics are free to express opinions and political views on our page but not to misrepresent facts... On that basis, a letter that says, "there is no sign humans have caused climate change" would not make the grade for our page.
BBD - Tim is clearly scrubbing the stain off the carpet, if you would just restrain yourself a little. Any attention is good attention, for some, and you are feeding him. Indeed, if you reread your comments now that his chocolate starfish posts are gone, its *you* who comes off as the nutter, so for heavens sake, take Lisa Simpson's advice and "just don't look". M'Kay?
Bernard raises an interesting point. While we-all fingered Mr NPD as deranged quite a while ago, O-louse, GSW, the several socks of Mr Duff, KarenMackSpot and a few drivebys all fed him with smilies and vigourous head-nodding, supportive of his "substance" and "style".
If there are any left here who cheered him on - that is the twat representing *YOU*. I hope you are proud of your associates, clearly insane as they are?
Bernard, Frank & wow: I think we're all a bit disturbed at the sheer intensity of the psychosis of the Insane Clown Troll and what it has done to a once great blog. I'm pretty sure that p3#98 was the real Jeff, despite the reappearance chocolate starfish avatar most recently abused by ICT - which is as it should be when Tim's in charge. Sitting on the periphery of the NSW fires, I'm hopeful that the conversation can now return to sticking the resultant shit storm about climate change to Toady Rabbott's invisible gas policy, Greg ("Don't politicise it") Hunt and their political masters, George & Rupert. Smoke sticks.
And what hypocrites - they were quite happy to try to pin the Brisbane floods on the Greens (*fraudulently), and talkback clowns will happily try to pin this on 'not enough control burning' and 'too much nature generally', but it's somehow illegitimate to point out that AGW = hottest 12 month period in our history = raging firestorms? The hell it is!!
Invisible Gas Man is patently failing in his duty to protect Australians.
The AGW connection is so painfully obvious it takes a kind of genius not to see it...
The real me is back and hopefully Kai/Boris/Berendaneke/Joe is gone for good. I was telling my colleages at NIOO about it and they were as bemused as me. Actually, as Bernard said the other day, its telling that none of the regular deniers who post in here made one critical comment about the behavior of the mega-troll.
Essentially, they share a common pathology which explains their resounding silence. And that pathology is that 'anything goes' when it comes to smearing anyone who disagrees with them. They know fully well that science is not on their side and they will support anyone, no matter how obnoxious they are, who denies, denies, denies. Just look at the intellectual level of many (most) of the denier blogs. Climate Depot, Junk Science, Bishop's Hill, Hockey Schtick, WUWT, CA, Nova, etc.. its primarily sandbox level stuff aimed at idiots. No wonder they get all wound up and end up spreading like q virus all over the blogosphere.
"Bernard, Frank & wow: I think we’re all a bit disturbed at the sheer intensity of the psychosis of the Insane Clown Troll and what it has done to a once great blog."
Actually, the blog having nothing can be seen evidenced by the list of latest topics.
June Open Thread
July Open Thread
August Open Thread
September Open Thread
October Open Thread
That's the entire recent list of topics.
The blog has nothing on it. That is not a problem in and of itself because the reason for this could be that there's no time for tim to do anything other than open another thread once a month.
But it does mean that there's nothing going on.
Close it down and/or whitelist a few names until such time as the blog owner has time and topic to put something down on this blog. If it stops until then, all that is lost is
November Open Thread
December Open Thread
January Open Thread
....
I think the climate discussion will survive without that, don't you?
Whitelist a few names on and open the threads and they can be "miscellaneous" that may, when time permits, be genesis for a thread that isn't $MONTH Open Thread. In the meantime there's less time taken up chasing down the psychotic and dangerous nuts and deleting their criminal postings, therefore more time to end the stuff that is taking time away from doing anything on this blog.
Or we could start talking about climate and such, instead of trolls.
Which prompts me to ask something of our resident planty people that I've been wondering about for a little bit.
We hear a lot about CO2 as "plant food", and while I'm aware that there are other limits involved (water, nitrogen etc), it is, to a certain degree, true. There seems to be pretty good evidence that - so far - plants are bulking up a bit in response to elevated CO2, all other things being more or less equal. Not necessarily edible stuff for us like seeds or fruit, but more leaves and stems, which is good for some herbivores, I suppose
But what I'm wondering about is the extent to which this is good for plant health. Is it axiomatic that more stems and leaves = a fitter plant? Or does the extra - possibly unnecessary biomass - simply take relatively more resources to support, to the detriment of the overall fitness? I'm wondering here if plants putting on weight in response to CO2 isn't perhaps like humans putting on weight in response to excessive sugar...as we all know a 150 kg human is unlikely to be as healthy as a 75 kg. Is that another aspect in which the "CO2 is plant food" meme misses the point?
This might have been thrown at some of the resident idiots previously, but I have a habit of skimming over long replies to their stupidosity, so your indulgence is appreciated.
rhwombat - yes point taken, I forgot that Jeff had another real avatar, and probably skimmed over some of his comments during the crisis.
But personally I doubt much will stick to Misterrabbit or Gre Ghunt. When the fingers are pointed, it will all be the fault of the urban greenies not allowing fuel reduction burns around their tree-change dachas. Its because allocating blame requires that self-righteousness most commonly found in "Outraged Tone-fan of Turramurra"
It's Bernard J we need, but as a placeholder there's a good overview at SkS - see sections headed "Chemical responses & nutrition" and "Interactions with other species".
"Or we could start talking about climate and such, instead of trolls."
Which would be a lot easier if there were a whitelist. No trolls then. No time needed to crawl through the slime to find non-troll content. No bleach needed to remove trollshit. When normal operations can continue, retire the whitelist.
And it's not as if there's nowhere else to discuss climate. SkS for example. Realclimate. FriendsofGinAndTonic if you want a giggle.
"We hear a lot about CO2 as “plant food”, and while I’m aware that there are other limits involved (water, nitrogen etc), it is, to a certain degree, true. There seems to be pretty good evidence that – so far – plants are bulking up a bit in response to elevated CO2, all other things being more or less equal. Not necessarily edible stuff for us like seeds or fruit, but more leaves and stems, which is good for some herbivores, I suppose"
I disagree Frank. Its far more complicated than you suggest. Carbon is not generally a limiting nutrient for plants - nitrogen (and phosphorus) are. Herbivores have enough problems getting rid of excess carbon to acquire sufficient N without shunting more of the important limiting nutrients out of plant tissues. What many studies show is that in elevated C regimes herbivores compensate by feeding more. But of course, the 'plant food' nonsense also critically ignores other primary plant metabolites as well as secondary metabolites. Many plants that have C based allelochemistry will become more toxic as atmospheric C increases and vice-versa for plants with N-based allelochemistry.
So the plant-food argument is essentially comic book level science, simplifying a complex array of complex eco-physiological processes down to the lowest common denominator. Its been debunked already many times on Deltoid. Why dredge it up again?
Interesting article in a recent New Scientist on how extra CO2 was dramatically increasing the extent of vines in tropical and sub-tropical forests, with a cost to be - literally - borne by existing trees. Not likely to end happily.
Also, a bit extra of something may be a boon, at least for som, whereas a lot extra of something will most likely be a blight all round...
Re: #16 above
Excellent story, Bernard. Thanks for the link. I have already forwarded it to friends. It makes sobering reading: we are trashing the planet at a scary rate.
Thanks for the reply - I'm not trying to "dredge it up again", just to understand one particular aspect of plant physiology, not score a bullshit point. And while I tried to hedge the framing of the question with caveats, obviously I didn't include enough.
The point is this: Some of the science mags I read have referred to tropical plants bulking up in response to elevated carbon. My question is whether this additional bulk (to the extent that its even relevant with the complicating factors of changing temperature, humidity, eco-servicing organisms etc) is a generally "good" thing or a "bad" thing (to put it in ridiculously simple terms).
My analogy is someone who is trying to lose weight will exercise more - this increases muscle bulk: result - more weight, but "healthier" weight. So is additional plant bulk automatically "healthy" or does it place unwanted strains on the plant as a whole, say reducing seed production, building weaker tissues or whatever.
Clearly not all good news for herbivores, and as bill points out, for the ecosystem as a whole. But my knowledge of plants generally is pretty much limited to bad backyard gardening, so if this is simply too ludicrously simple to be worth addressing, just ignore it - as others have remarked, I can probably find the answers elsewhere. While the question was genuine, it was partly motivated by finding something to talk about other than trollfestations.
A problem for plants with merely bulking up is that the production of insecticides from their processes doesn't increase to the same rate for most plants. Therefore per-unit-eaten by an insect, the plant is less toxic and therefore feeds the insect better.
Of course, the nutrition may be worse, but they just eat more of it to compensate: they're resistant to the toxin at higher doses.
Sorry Frank. I guess I was a bit sensitive after having the mega-troll use my name to spread his disinformation.
My point is that the C02 is plant-food argument is being endlessly used by those intent on a business-as-usual agenda with respect to the use of fossil fuels. Few of them have any pedigree where it counts - trophic interactions and population ecology. What few scientists endorse this crap are generally stuck in labs and have no idea how various processes work in natural systems which are inherently much more complex. They boil down ecology to the lowest common denominator and draw simple linear conclusions on what in reality are immensely complex non-linear processes. Species in nature do not function independently: they interact with others in a dizzying array of ways whose outcomes are difficult to predict. Many of these processes lead to unpredictable (and often nasty) outcomes that are hard to deal with once they have occurred. Essentially, humans are conducting a massive global experiment in the various ways we are assaulting and simplifying nature. Bolstering atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases is just another ingredient in the mix. For those intent on driving nature to hell in a hand basket I cringe when I read denier blogs and others forcefully argue - on the basis of limited knowledge - that burning fossil fuels is good for plants and therefore good for nature and people. It is not that simple.
A UK dendrochronology Robert Wilson has described Mann's work as 'a crock of shit' and Tamsin Edwards (Bristol University) took issue with Mann's response which included the word 'denier'.
I noted that Brad Keyes, although banned at Hot Whopper, tried to comment and via the link to a Richard Tol Tweet we see Tol revealed for exactly what we think him. Another familiar name shows up in that lists of Tweetings and he too reveals himself as not very nice, and to think he shares the same initials with me.
BTW I have found a new way to lose weight.
I had a big toe-nail removed on Monday. Hence my relative silence of late.
A UK dendrochronology Robert Wilson has described Mann's work as 'a crock of shit' and Tamsin Edwards (Bristol University) took issue with Mann's response which included the word 'denier'.
I noted that Brad Keyes, although banned at Hot Whopper, tried to comment and via the link to a Richard Tol Tweet we see Tol revealed for exactly what we think him. Another familiar name shows up in that lists of Tweetings and he too reveals himself as not very nice, and to think he shares the same initials with me.
BTW I have found a new way to lose weight.
I had a big toe-nail removed on Monday. Hence my relative silence of late.
A UK dendrochronology Robert Wilson has described Mann's work as 'a crock of shit' and Tamsin Edwards (Bristol University) took issue with Mann's response which included the word 'denier'.
I noted that Brad Keyes, although banned at Hot Whopper, tried to comment and via the link to a Richard Tol Tweet we see Tol revealed for exactly what we think him. Another familiar name shows up in that lists of Tweetings and he too reveals himself as not very nice, and to think he shares the same initials with me.
BTW I have found a new way to lose weight.
I had a big toe-nail removed on Monday. Hence my relative silence of late.
@Lionel A #24 - yeah. I didn't expect it to generate much interest. I should have known that people like talking about people more than they do about science :)
It was interesting in that it highlighted some of the factions within the climate science community and paleo community. As well as inter-continental differences - USA vs UK/Europe in regard to cosying up to "skeptics".
Now I'm hoping for some ideas on why people engage with contrarians in the first place and what sort of engagement has the biggest payoff.
Sou, you said: "Now I’m hoping for some ideas on why people engage with contrarians in the first place and what sort of engagement has the biggest payoff"
I can tell you, why some alarmists, not that many, are intestested to engage with contrarians: simply because alarmists are desperate why their message is not liked and accepted by more and more people
FrankD: The 'bulking up' of plants as a result of increased CO2 is probably not as great as is generally supposed. At least in many grasses, vegetative shoots typically have two fully-expanded leaves and a third leaf emerging. Old leaves die at the same rate as new leaves are produced. As I recall (and it's been a long time since I looked at the literature), environmental factors affect the rate of turnover of leaves and also the size of individual leaves, but not the number of leaves on a shoot, limiting the increase in living plant mass. Other herbaceous plants probably respond similarly.
I've been frequently looking at the comments here, but in the last two or three years the 'arguments' of the climate change deniers have become increasingly silly and ignorable.
What that pantomime with Tamsin Edwards tells me, but I could be wrong, is that many scientists, especially perhaps the younger ones in the UK, have little knowledge of how the denial machine works and who belongs to it.
Perhaps Tamsin should have a word with Andrew Weaver, although I don't think the poster of that clip sees that which we we do.
Bugger. Now is the summer of our discontent made malodorous by the prating of fools: The Invisible Gas Man licks his lizard lips in every photo op, Greg 'wikipaedia is my guide' Hunt bares his bum on BBC, the NPR herpes troll is back (as Timmeh!), and the OIly Rock is regurgitating WTFUWT crap. Oh well, back to pointing and laughing.
Oily, no-one even mentioned the Scandinavian situation - in case you haven't noticed, we have problems of our own - so your link to merry Willard Tony's is just pure, gratuitous, pointless spamming, now isn't it?
And Jeff really does rile ALL you muppets up, doesn't he? It's because he's a successful scientist, isn't it? You hate them worse than anything, don't you?
On this afternoon's episode of The World Today Will Stephen put the boot into Greg Hunt and Tony Abbott for trying to dissociate bushfire risk and severity from the fact of climate change. Hunt's response was to concede that there was a link, but to effectively say that we shouldn't do anything about it - and especially by putting a market price on the pollution that causes climate change. The audio for the story should be up within a day, so I'll link to it soon.
On the same subject, the Climate Council sent this today:
Dear Bernard J,
We’ve been busy this week explaining the relationship between climate change and bushfires in the media. Today, analysis from Climate Councillors Lesley Hughes and Will Steffen was reported on the front page of The Age.
Many of you emailed us with questions about the bushfires, and the impacts of climate change on extreme weather events. So, we’re holding a live video briefing and Q&A on bushfires with Climate Councillor Prof. Lesley Hughes this Monday at 6.30pm.
You can submit your questions by simply replying to this email - info@climatecouncil.org.au. Please don’t hesitate to invite friends or family to join too.
Over the last three decades, extreme bushfire weather has increased in southern parts of Australia, especially in the southeast. As the conditions of our climate system change, we are experiencing more hot, dry days that increase the risk of bushfires.
Climate Councillors Prof Hughes and Prof Will Steffen are currently developing a report on the link between bushfires and extreme weathers. It will be released early November and you will be the first to get a copy.
Oh, and BJ, I wonder how many founder-members of the CC - such as you and I - asked them to kick-back at Abbott and Hunt's embarrassingly ignorant assertions in the Council's recent survey?
I wonder how many founder-members of the CC – such as you and I – asked them to kick-back at Abbott and Hunt’s embarrassingly ignorant assertions in the Council’s recent survey?
I certainly did - it seems that they were listening.
And on matters political, this is up on the ABC's Vote Compass:
It's very interesting to see that the left is far more technology-savvy, and it's also interesting to trawl through and see from where the noise is coming in each sector. It seems to reflect the Australian body politic more generally - there are many more smart and engaged progressives than there are conservatives, but the conservatives influence a huge herd of silent dimwits who swallow their right-wing ideological propaganda and vote accordingly.
In Australia one doesn't need substantive policy and intelligence, one needs simply to be able to pipe to the lemmings.
By your very postings here you make me seem a veritable genius by comparison.
Faint self-praise, no doubt, as your would make a pithed and pickled cane toad seem intelligent by comparison with yourself, but nevertheless true praise for that.
Let's just chalk up your reply as a big quod erat demonstrandum
The promotion of a forthcoming talk by Murray Salby by one
ScottishSceptic (our old friend Latimer Alder perhaps?) sheds similar bad light on the whole sorry circus of those in de Nile.
The tale of Salby changing the subject of his talk at a conference without warning is another marker for how devious some of those in denial can be.
Okay, that's it. Not only are my comments being moderated, they're not even making it out. Consider this my GBCW. If anyone can suggest a more actively and properly moderated blog to continue the discussion, I'll monitor this thread for a few more days.
As per, the "sceptics" will grab anything in their desperate quest for sciencey-sounding legitimacy. Who cares that Salby's arguments are incorrect so long as they keep the congregation happy? And perhaps confuse the public a little into the bargain.
Clearly the Scottish Sceptic is misnomered and Andrew Montford has no understanding of the material he is promoting. Which is, or should be, very damaging to his credibility.
The BBC should ask him about this next time he's on.
Lionel, the Scottish "skeptic" is a loon named Mike Haseler. The talk in Scotland is supported by an organization called "Science, Climate and Energy Forum". They have been touted by O'Sullivan of Sky Dragon fame.
They recently hosted another talk given by someone called Emil Royrvik. His "paper" has been circulated on Tall Bloke's site, it has been Curried and it also appears on O'Sullivan's PSI site. It is well known that AGW deniers deny many things including the effects of ozone, HIV/AIDS etc. However, Royrvik denies a couple of interesting things (at least interesting to me since I am Scottish).
He denies the Highland Clearances and he denies that the Celts were ever in Scotland. His "paper" is entitled "Consensus and Controversy" and was paid for by Det Norske, a Norwegian oil company.
Face it, you're the least intelligent person to post on Deltoid, although for that dubious honour it's a close race with the various incarnations of Sunspot.
Who else than tofal idiots like you believe in all this eco dirt
97%+ of the world's professional climatologists.
And I say "+" because at least some of the "sceptical" scientists know in their hearts that human-caused global warming is a fact of physics, but money and/or ideology prevent them from admitting it to themselves and to others.
The herpes troll syndrome is in the process of defining itself. It fulfils Koch's postulates and should be considered as a virtual pathogen. This outbreak will follow will follow a predictable course of the overt demonstration of early adolescent aversive behaviour, empty abuse and verbal masturbation. The dysfunctionality will escalate until banning, then reinfect with a new identity but no more insight into it's pathetic lack of identification with human feeling. It has nothing else, so it sits in the corner and screams abuse in the desperate attempt to connect with anything that gives a damn about it. Its assessment of itself as intelligent is hampered by the fact that it inhabits a world of its own, with no one else to care. Poor troll.
Indeed, what a sad comment on the ability of humans to breed such stupid pointless life. Life that thinks it is clever to continue 'DOS' (Service Unavailable...) attacks and using smelly socks.
I doubt that Climate Desperate, Cardinal Puff or the Bast*** would stoop to using such a creature as this, one who thinks its smart to use the foulest of language and plaster posts with emoticons, too much negative publicity if a connection were proven. Although the last mentioned above does not seem to know where to draw the line with that sort of stuff.
Amazing that, for a Scot, unless of course his ancestor's were allied to the Duke & Duchess of Sutherland.
In my treks across Scotland during the 1960s [1] I came across many a tumbled settlement. Maybe Royrvik is ignorant about those too.
[1[, Cairngorms (Ryvoan Lodge, Ben MacDui etc.), Glen Esk, Glen Clova (old Fairey Albacore crashed there), Glen Quiche (Ogilvy Land), Glen Nevis (walked from Dalwhinnie along Loch Ericht, staying overnight at Ben Alder Cottage and via Loch Ossian, Loch Treig into Glen Nevis down to Polldubh another bothy. This latter in those days was adjacent to the road-bridge then known as Thunderclap Bridge due to the noise made by traffic disturbing the timber beams of the road bed, the bridge has since been demolished and another built about 3/4 mile upstream. Also Glen Coe a num,ber of times (took a tumble down the north slope of the Buachaille Etive Mòr when a glissade went wrong). The Clachaig Inn has changed out of all recognition since those days too.
News of a new report ‘Extreme Weather Events in Europe: preparing for climate change adaptation‘ at Real Climate.
What a bummer that all those deniers and delayers have held up mitigation such that we have to try to adapt to the shit that is coming our way, and more especially the way of our grandchildren. This as we prepare to batten the hatches as a storm approaches from the Atlantic.
THE ESA GLOBALBEDO PROJECT FOR MAPPING THE EARTH'S LAND SURFACE ALBEDO FOR 15 YEARS FROM EUROPEAN SENSORS.
Jan-Peter Muller, Gerardo López, Gill Watson, Neville Shane, Tom Kennedy, Peter Yuen (1)
P. Lewis (2), Jürgen Fischer, Luis Guanter, Carlos Domench, Réné Preusker (3) Peter North, Andreas Heckel (4); Olaf Danne, Uwe Krämer, Marco Zühlke, Carsten Brockmann (5), Simon Pinnock (6)
(1) Mullard Space Science Laboratory, Dept. of Space & Climate Physics; (2) Dept. of Geography, University College London, UK
(3) Institut für Weltraumwissenschaften, Freie Universität Berlin, Germany (4) Department of Geography, Swansea University, UK
(5) Brockmann Consult, Geesthacht, Germany
(6) ESA-ESRIN, Frascati, Italy
1. GLOBALBEDO PROCESSING AND SAMPLES
A land surface broadband albedo map of the entire Earth’s land surface (snow and snow-free) is required for use in Global Climate Model initialisation and verification. A group of 10 users have been selected to work with the GlobAlbedo* Implementation team to define requirements and drive the project towards practical applications of the product. These requirements defined the need to generate a final product on 8-daily at spatial resolutions of 1km in sinusoidal projection using the MODIS 10o x 10o tiling scheme and 0.05o and 0.5o on monthly time-steps.
To generate such a global map by temporal compositing requires both sufficient directional looks and the very precise correction of top-of-atmosphere radiances to “at surface” directional reflectances (SDRs). In addition, such a map requires precise radiometric calibration and inter-calibration of different sensors [1] and the computation of radiative transfer coefficients to derive broadband SDRs from different input narrowband SDRs and given sufficient angular sampling from all the directional looks within a given temporal window, derive a suitable BRDF. This BRDF can be integrated to produce DHR (Direct Hemispherical Reflectance known as “black-sky”) and BHR (BiHemispherical Reflectance, known as “white-sky”) [2]. The final albedo product has been integrated in three spectral broadband ranges, namely the solar spectrum shortwave (400-3000nm), the visible PAR region (400-700nm) and the near- and shortwave-infrared (700-3000nm). In addition, maps of normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) and the fraction of absorbed photosynthetically active radiation (fAPAR) will be generated consistent with the albedo product to complement the Globalbedo data set for analysis of vegetation-related processes [3].
To achieve the aim of deriving independent estimates using European only assets, GlobAlbedo set out to create a 15 year time series by employing SPOT4-VEGETATION and SPOT5-VEGETATION2 as well as MERIS. Legacy algorithms for deriving SDRs using an optimal estimation approach are outlined [2] as well as a novel system for gap-filling using ten year mean estimates derived from equivalent BRDFs from MODIS [2]. Each and every output pixel albedo value has an estimated uncertainty associated with it and the corresponding BRDF a full uncertainty matrix for each pixel. Separate BRDFs are computed for snow and snow-free pixels and combined together to yield a gap-free dataset. An example of a sample output product browse in Figure 1 shows the BHR and the coefficient of variation derived from the uncertainty divided by the expectation value (loc.cit.)
Animations of 8-daily and monthly browse products including the full-resolution 1km tiles are available on the website for the products available to date (2005, 2009, 2010 and the first 6 months of 2011). An OGC-compliant server based on OpenLayers also allows display of global data and inter-comparison by flickering from one date with another. Global data at 0.05o and 0.5o, as well as individual tiles at 1km, can be downloaded using wget and scripts can be easily written by the user to harvest the data they require. A novel facility is the ability to extract a single pixel or a group of 3 x 3 or 5 x 5 pixels in CSV format through time for immediate plotting locally.
2. GLOBALBEDO VALIDATION
Extensive validation has been performed on final GlobAlbedo product for each and every year that correlative data is available. Shown here from [4], in Figure 2 is an example of a time series plot of Blue-Sky albedo from GlobAlbedo, MODIS priors, MODIS Collection 5 and MISR measurements. Uncertainties calculated from within the product [2] are shown for GlobAlbedo and MISR. For a desert bare rock site (upper panel), the GlobAlbedo product shows reasonable agreement with the other EO datasets and with the tower measurements. The differences shown at the year start may be related to spatial variability of the site (loc.cit.). The Toravere site like most BSRN sites is not chosen for its spatial homogeneity but rather it’s location close to a suitable laboratory. It has a high degree of spatial variability and almost all BSRN are in this category. In addition, unlike the SURFRAD tower albedometer at 30m with a 100m footprint, Toravere albedometers are at 5m above the surface with a 5m footprint so rendering them unhelpful for the purpose of validating spaceborne-derived land surface albedo. The time series shown for Travere shows a common phenomenon for the more than 80 sites worldwide which have been employed to date, related to the effect of snow in winter. Due to very different fields of view of the local albedometer and the 1km EO-derived equivalent values, snow albedo values from EO are typically 50% of the ones retrieved from local albedometers. In this case, GlobAlbedo appears to be slightly more sensitive to the snow values but this is not necessarily typical.
3. GLOBALBEDO PROSPECTS
The GlobAlbedo data production at UCL-MSSL takes around 3 weeks per output year and produces around 1.5Tb (uncompressed) output. This is running flat-out on a 10-blade (160-core) linux cluster with 48gb of RAM and 1Tb local disk. The processing requires 100Tb of scratch-space to keep all input and output products online. An extensive Product User Manual is available from the website. Currently the production is expect to be completed for the Envisat time period by October 2012 with products being loaded after visual inspection of the browse products and validation using extensive tower-based data and similar EO datasets, including METEOSAT. In the next phase, a variety of different users will assess the impact of the product, and the use of the estimated uncertainties on their particular application.
4. REFERENCES CITED
[1] D. Potts, S. Mackin, J-P. Muller, N. Fox (2012). Satellite Sensor Intercalibration over Dome C: Application of QA4EO principles to the ESA GlobAlbedo Project. IGARSS 2012 (this conference)
[2] GlobAlbedo_ATBD_V3.0 (2011). GlobAlbedo: Algorithm Theoretical Basis Document. Authors: P. Lewis, C. Brockmann, O. Danne, J. Fischer, L. Guanter, A. Heckel, O. Krueger, G. López, J-P. Muller, P. North, D. Potts, R. Preusker. Available from http://www.GlobAlbedo.org/
[3] Pinty, B., Jung, M., Kaminski, T., Lavergne, T., Mund, M., Plummer, S., Thomas, E., Widlowski, J.L., 2011. Evaluation of the JRC-TIP 0.01° products over a mid-latitude deciduous forest site. Remote Sens. Environ. 115, 3567-3581.
[4] Muller, J.-P., Lopez, G., Shane, N.S., Danne, O., Brockmann, C., Krämer, U., Zühlke, M., Heckel, A., North, P.R., Domench, C., Guanter, L., Fischer, J., Wang, Z., Schaapman-Strub, G., Cescatti, A., 2012. GlobAlbedo Test Product Validation Report, available from http://www.globalbedo.org/docs/GlobAlbedo_TPVR_V2_2.pdf . UCL- MSSL, 92pp.
Chuckle. Welcome back Stu - & no, the identifier of tuberculosis, cholera and anthrax may have been a strange bloke, but to tar him with the sins of Cheney's choke chain holders is too mean for poor old Robert.
A better analogy would be John Hunter - who inoculated several people (including himself) with gonorrhoeal pus to try to prove that it caused the symptoms of syphilis - unfortunately the inoculum was from a patient who had both gonorrhoea & syphilis. Such was his personal authority, that this confused the issue of what agent caused which disease for several decades in anglophone medicine - though the French worked it out correctly, by careful clinical observation over time. I wonder whether the Francophone denialist industry is as potent as the Anglophone one?.
Is that another aspect in which the “CO2 is plant food” meme misses the point?
Yes. It would be an incredible fluke of nature if a rapid global change in environment for plants or any other organism had a net beneficial effect by any measure, since evolution is a recording, of sorts, of environmental history, and organisms are adapted to that set of environments. And the only reason to even hope for such a beneficial effect is to use it as a denier talking point ... that is, even if there were such a coincidental net beneficial consequence to plants and their ecologies from increased CO2, it wouldn't nearly compensate for the numerous severe negative consequences of the increase.
John Hunter – who inoculated several people (including himself) with gonorrhoeal pus to try to prove that it caused the symptoms of syphilis – unfortunately the inoculum was from a patient who had both gonorrhoea & syphilis.
I'm an Infectious Diseases physician. I was raised on the cautionary tale of Hunter's deeply flawed experimentalism - including the point that germ theory was as contentious as climate change when Hunter was publishing. Even today, the observational 'science' of medical practice is orders of magnitude less well founded than climate science, yet most view medicine as beyond reproach. Thank Dog the antivaxers & HIV deniers are not still funded by Big Energy, even if the whole denial industry cut its teeth on tobacco.
BBD and I mentioned those very same volumes last month:...
Indeed, sorry, it was from your citation that I picked up on these two, and very glad, or saddened because it confirms other knowledge, to have done so.
For anybody with doubts as to how serious things are getting with climate change being a multiplier of such problems then you really need some serious study sessions.
Don't be stupid. I gave that Wikipedia link because it cites the very link you gave as reference #18 ... a link that calls your assertion into question.
Perhaps that is why you didn't even bother to read your own link:
SIR—I thank Dr. Gladstein [1] for his kind words. His point is well taken. Although informed speculation in the writing of history is unavoidable, I should have more carefully distinguished between fact and conjecture.
You could learn to do the same ... a good way to start is to read the rest of that exchange. As I said, "or perhaps not". Unlike the links between climate change and bush fires, your claims about Hunter are not well established from the evidence.
And to be clear, I am referring specifically to this assertion in all its details:
John Hunter – who inoculated several people (including himself) with gonorrhoeal pus to try to prove that it caused the symptoms of syphilis – unfortunately the inoculum was from a patient who had both gonorrhoea & syphilis
I am not responding to the general charge that Hunter engaged in "deeply flawed experimentalism".
BTW, the notion that using Wikipedia "is seldom a good idea" is stupid and ignorant. Hunt's problem is not that he used Wikipedia, but that he made the idiotic strawman "there have always been bush fires/storms/high and low temperatures/etc." argument that is a staple of deniers.
I will cop to be trying too hard to establish a conversation after recurrent troll strike, but I was attempting to be flippant, even if it was about a Scots secular saint. You did not post "or perhaps not", you said "Or not:".
I was attempting to riff on Stu's neat pun about Koch/Kochs, then (perhaps, over-) extending a metaphor about a subject that I am reasonably familiar with, independent of the rather confusing & poorly edited wikipedia entry.
Hunter's work in the 18th century is regarded by those of us who practice, research and teach medicine as both seminal and deeply flawed. Hunter & his contemporaries (eg Jenner) did some very disturbing things which are popularly cited as being breakthroughs, but when examined through the retrospectoscope of both current medicine and/or science (and the historiography of available primary documents) are textbook examples (literally) of how not to do science on humans - and are taught as such. I actually took part in some of the debate after the original paper and correspondence in CID (and other journals) in the mid 2005, and have reviewed as much of the primary material as I can find, and I have no doubt that Hunter did experiments which even he was ashamed of in the service of his own prejudices and standing. This is something not even Lindzen can be accused of, despite the overtness of his denial.
Please be careful with the terms stupid & ignorant: even in Blog science they should probably reserved for overt trolls (like Timmeh!), as evidenced by the Wilson /Mann brouhaha.
Note the little addendum from Greg Hunt. History will not judge him kindly at all, and his kids and grandkids will be embarrassed to have the internet archiving his stupidity so remorselessly...
You did not post “or perhaps not”, you said “Or not:”.
Oh gee, what a critical difference. So "A or not A" differs exactly how from "A or perhaps not A"?
Please be careful with the terms stupid
Look, jackass, you practically called me a denier by stupidly likening my use of Wikipedia to that of Greg Hunt. Your response was completely and utterly stupid. Have you even read your link yet? The correspondents there pretty much agreed that there is no evidentiary basis to think that Hunter inoculated himself. Why are you stupidly blathering on about his work being "deeply flawed" when I just said that I wasn't challenging that, only your specific claim? That, and your "wtf" shows that you're too busy blabbering to bother to read carefully ... that's pretty stupid, as is your intellectually dishonest notion that words like "stupid" should be "reserved" for only certain persons, rather than being applied whenever they fit.
Given that he’s not known for being conciliatory, this is where I pop in and remind Ianam that IIRC he’s not supposed to be here on health grounds.
I have no idea wtf you're on about, and even if I did I wouldn't be interested in your condescending "reminder". I do think I've mentioned several times what a wasted effort it is to argue with the Deltoid trolls, who are among the most stupid people on the planet, but that's not what I'm doing, now am I?
Please be careful with the terms stupid & ignorant: even in Blog science they should probably reserved for overt trolls (like Timmeh!), as evidenced by the Wilson /Mann brouhaha.
Do you seriously think that anything that goes on here has anything like the import and reach of the Mann/Wilson/Edwards/Betts/WUWT/BH/practically everybody brouhaha? When you reach the stature and importance of Mann and I start posting about you, or my tweets about you are featured, at WUWT (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/21/paleoscientist-manns-recent-work-…), then I can begin to remotely take that seriously.
OK ianam. I fully concede that I lack your substantiveness, comprehension skills and sense of humour, and am truly stupid and ignorant in my own field, not to mention overly sarcastic and not a little too fond of litotes. I most humbly apologise for my sins, and prostrate myself at the feet of the master . Can we go troll baiting again?
It does seem to me as though we're all a tad frayed after the enforced encounter with a diseased mind. It's not exactly surprising. Being raved at incessantly for weeks by a an ocean-going, copper-bottomed nutter is going to leave its mark. Hopefully it will wear off soon.
* * *
I trust my fellow Poms survived the crazy weather last night? Chek? Lionel A? You must have got it fairly bad Lionel.
Aye it blew a bit, but for this 'once copper-bottomed ocean going nutter' (joke) worse was experience at sea. Try a Force 12 whilst steaming through the Pentland Firth as on the old Ark Royal (one with cats and traps), for one. Even a big ship like that was bouncing around enough to train astronauts in weightlessness. But the old Ark took a more severe pounding whilst off the US Eastern Seaboard in early 1972, with decks bent up crushing ships boats and long splits in the hull from a huge swell on the for'ard port quarter.
But then I was here in Southern England for that October 87 - the Michael Fish - Hurricane. I was working into the early hours on school work, marking and preparations whilst hearing the garden being progressively torn to bits.
Then there was the one in early 1990. I was working in Southampton, doing a spell at contract software development. I was in the process of building an expansion for my home computer and walked across The Avenue in Southampton on my way to Maplin to get components, assorted resistors, capacitors, diodes and ICs etc. There were numerous chestnuts along the avenue, as there were in the grounds of the college where my office was in the computer section, numbers of which had come down as well as loads of branches whilst I was over in Maplin.
Our house suffered more during that 1990 storm with a hole in the roof.
We escaped this time but many didn't it would seem, sadly.
Strangely enough Dungerness nuclear power station has had to shut down 2 reactors thanks to the storm... and I thought that nuke's were supposed to be reliable and predictable...
"I do think I’ve mentioned several times what a wasted effort it is to argue with the Deltoid trolls, who are among the most stupid people on the planet, but that’s not what I’m doing, now am I?"
and I thought that nuke’s were supposed to be reliable and predictable…
They are, like any other source of power when redundancy is built into the wider system.
This is is why I am not too enamoured with the UK's projected Hinckley Point C, one on its own is goping to solve zilch. Also other nuclear should be built using other formats. There are some mature candidates one of which was initially explored by a joint UK-US/Canadian effort but which the UK had to divest from when UK Energy policy - NETA - made it uneconomical. That is not a detailed examination of the issues that raised themselves, suffice it to say it was from a lack of joined up thinking by our leaders.
Um, regarding a hack, it wouldn't appear to have been perpetrated by the most likely suspect, because the resulting text is rather too literate and coherent.
How substantial was the alteration?
Speaking of substance... [sigh] if I'm not arguing with you - rather I'm challenging characteristic behaviours - then there's no 'subtance' I'm obliged to address, is there? Oh Logical One.
Intriguing site, BJ. And, yeah, interesting times! Are they prepared to blow a hole in the budget to rectify the damage (not) done to the economy by the GBNT?
After campaigning in Tea Party mode - deficits bad, bad, bad - then announcing they were allowing them to blow out by another $200 billion... well, that really would be the icing on the cake, wouldn't it? These wallies may yet trigger a recession! Happy days!
Shorten's an intelligent man. I'd be surprised if he'd seriously countenance capitualting on this matter. Abbott would never let Australians forget if Labor caved in to the denialist conservatism, and the intelligent section of the community that understands the science would never forgive Labor for doing so.
It's salient to remember that Rudd was ousted in 2010 because his popularity nose-dived after he back-tracked on the CPRS following similar Coalition pressure. Abbott's using a tried-and-true gambit, and it would be pure folly to hit the lure a second time.
Besides eviscerating the Labor Party it would also catapult Australian political life back 100 years, and likely toward something resembling [dzzzt - Godwin...]
I am looking at the feasibility of putting wind + solar (maybe combined PV & HW) up on the roof. Unfortunately don't have a south facing house, faces NE-SW so solar on both sides of the pitch.
I would like to consider a perhaps smaller build of such units for the domestic market. I have considered the possibility of installing three poles around this semi. One at the end in line with the roof apex, one at the front and one at the rear. The poles could be cross braced by three horizontal members tie each pole to the two others. This for stability and structural integrity against strong blows with a minimum of load on the house structure.
WRT more conventional wind turbines
and having been involved in aviation I understand the airscrew shadow effect which can affect multiple wind turbines with rows packed to tight. However some aircraft of my acquaintance had contra-props others co-axial propellers. No they are not the same, the former is a single engine arrangement driving two contra-rotating propellers through a gearbox whereas the latter is a twin engined arrangement each driving their own prop via co-axial shafts.
Contra props were fitted on RR Griffon engined aircraft such as the Shackleton and later marks of Spitfire and Mustang. The RN Fairey Gannet was fitted with an Armstrong Siddeley (Umtum-Tiddeley to the boys in blue) Double Mamba twin turboprop. The Bristol Brabazon, which I used to see flying over when a very small boy, had eight Centaurus sleeve valved radials in twinned arrangements driving four sets of co-axial propellers.
Now, I do know that such arrangements suffered from noise issues, ignored in the military field. Maybe modern techniques could ameliorate such problems.
With any wind turbine the problem of bird strikes could this small issue be alleviated by finishing the blades in higher reflecting UV material to match the greater sensitivity of avian vision at those wavelengths. I see the Quiet Revolution qv5 as more of a problem because of its smaller rotating cross section, something like the cutters of a cylinder lawn-mower. Having cleared the remains of birds from aircraft windscreens, radomes, intakes and undercarriages I don't fancy frequent repeats of that, how ever small the real chances are.
David JC MacKay's 'Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air' has given me some impetus here.
Much investigative work to be done, particularly as I am of an age where I am unlikely to get any financial benefit from it, but if done properly the kids could benefit and the household electrical system needs a revamp anyway, that area is going to be the really expensive bit, I think. Planning permission in this anti-wind county may also be a project stopper.
Thanks for your concerns. At this stage I am conducting what we used to call on a trials installation unit, aviation, I worked on for some time, a feasibility study.
The items in your #5 have been done, double glazing too.
As for MacKay page 66 note 63, yes I have read that, I am studying the book here now.
Thanks for your links.
I am also studying Nuttall's 'Nuclear Renaissance' - again and am looking up more recent information on the state of play WRT ACR (Advanced CANDU Reactor), as a better option than the governments, IMHO questionable, moves to install a Franco-German EPR with Chinese financial backing.
Now if our financial house was in order, and bankers had been forced to surrender their bonuses (Fred Goodwin et. al. - RIH), and offshore accounts were policed we would have more than enough to cover it and ease pressure on societies most vulnerable by a more active programme of improving old housing stock WRT energy efficiency. Those sociopathic sods have much to answer four as well as the biggest carbon footprints.
"See MacKay, page 66 note 62 section 2 on microturbines."
MacKay is unreliable when he talks about renewables.
E.g. using an outdated version of wind turbine. Insisting that the entire footprint of the wind farm is used for that single purpose. Assuming the wrong value for energy use per person per day. Assuming 10% land use is the maximum we can use for windfarms (see single-use problem above), then when this still doesn't quite preclude wind power, reduces it by 75% "because".
"With any wind turbine the problem of bird strikes could this small issue be alleviated by finishing the blades in higher reflecting UV material"
The myth of air strikes were severalfold factors combining that no longer exist:
1) small rotors spin faster , meaning the disk is effectively solid for a slow flying bird.
2) Frames rather than a tower meant excellent perches for birds.
3) Site was on a migatory path despite problems being known about already.
There are versions of small turbines that are really impeller designs which are pretty safe to use. They're complicated and expensive, though.
TBH you'd be better off if you can't get a big enough rotor or live in a migration route getting solar thermal and heating water and using that for most of your heating needs (with heat reclaimation to pull some power from the hot water: see Stirling engine) and use PV or water mills to produce what you need for other needs.
The space you'd use for the turbine would work better with a solar panel for the same output and less hassle, but more expense. You can always build up and do the largest replacement project last, when it'll be cheaper and better.
BJ @ #3 - yes, it would be a whole-party suicide-note that would make Rudd's own walking away from the 'moral challenge of our generation' look like a minor pre-entrée. Which it would effectively have been.
That's no reason not to remind the bastards that that's what would happen, though. Fairfax was reporting this yesterday.
I know that you are aware of the latest Paul Hudson/BBC nonsense having commented at Stoat's, just like others here to know that the Beeb is still schizophrenic over climate change issues. Maybe something to do with pressure from 'They Who Cannot Be Named' over the forthcoming BBC license renewal. After all we cannot have the BBC pouring cold water on the Chancellors fracking plans now can we.
The bankers have fracked us
The energy companies are fracking us.
Big business and their champions in government have fracked us with their tax-dodging offshore accounting practices.
The MPs wan't to frack us by awarding themselves over the odds pay increases whilst the rest are squeezed tighter and tighter by policies from an out of control, arrogantly dismissive and generally incompetent cabinet.
One can see the example of blind arrogance that typifies this administration in this quote, my emphasis which can be applied to the race to frack:
O'Sullivan said: "We always said they were acting unlawfully and undemocratically in using an emergency process to bypass meaningful consultation and destroy an excellent hospital."
I have been prodding various limbs of the BBC over the fracking issue and what do I get - silence.
So let me get this right. The IPCC used:
a) Californian bristlecone chronologies, and,
b) upside down and contaminated Finnish lake sediments, and
c) European instrument temperature data.
in order to determine past temperatures in the SOUTHERN hemisphere!
Oh, didn't you know that other data was used? You thought only "bad data" was used because "good data" would have shown that there had been no warming?
I suspect that more than a few of the deluded denialists here haven't seen this:
In this highly entertaining and accessible presentation at the University of the West of England, George Marshall, founder of the Climate Outreach Information Network summarises some of our current understanding of the psychology of climate change- why it is so hard to accept and how can we help people to accept it?
In Part One he discusses how climate change is perfectly configured to confound our 'risk thermostat' and why how our response to climate is like our response to human rights abuses.
I doubt that they could watch it and actually see the scales that cover their eyes, but for the scientifically literate one thing is starkly clear - no denialist argument holds even a guttered candle to the strength of the professional science.
Warning - by part 3 it becomes somewhat depressing...
Like Svensmark and his GCR's, Lindzen and low climate sensitivity, Hudson seems to have a one card hand. Not worth much unless you are playing 'Indian Poker', which is about the cognitive limit of those taken in by this kind of simplistic garbage.
Warming pause and a coming ice age - give me flipping strength will this zombie never die!
What a relief to find that nothing much changes on Planet Deltoid as first Wow and then Lionel miss the point by a mile.
Try reading this slowly, 'mes enfants', it's not whether it's 'good data' or 'bad data' but that it is totally irrelevant data because it was taken from the NORTHERN hemisphere and thus distorts any research purporting to reach conclusions concerning the SOUTHERN hemisphere.
Now, what is it about the words 'NORTH' and 'SOUTH' that you don't understand?
"This remarkable turn of events occurred because IPCC Figure 5.7 relied on SH reconstructions from Mann et al 2008, citing three SH reconstructions from Mann et al 2008: Ma08eivl, Ma08eivf and Ma08cpsl."
Ah, yes, that dreadful 4-letter word - 'Mann'!
And one thing they left out ("Shurely shome mishtake - Ed") was "Antarctic ice core d18O isotope data covering the medieval period".
Duffer the Puffer is wrong as usual, not right as he claims:
So let me get this right. The IPCC used:
McIntyre and all the other deniers quoting this nonsense made the usual lazy mistake, they didn't read the actual paper where the data were taken from.
If you check out Table S1 you will find that different proxies were used for NH and SH and the total was used for Global.
Trust deniers to make such an elementary mistake but it is always good to see how incompetent they actually are. I can never tell whether they are just lazy or are too stupid to actually read and correctly interpret the actual papers, probably both. Or they may actually know what they are doing and are being completely dishonest.
Did you by chance happen to look at the actual Draft Report itself?
Not in a million years! Duffhead lets his blog pseudo-science sewer conspiranoid sources to do his thinking for him.
And even though he's always, but always shown how they're incorrect, incompetent or just plain lying. he desperately wants to believe they're not. Even at the expense of his credibility taking such a pounding he has to lie low for six months or so until he thinks his last shit soufflé has been forgotten.
Of course being the arrogant little jumped-up, supercilious twat he is, he will always comes back with what he has been led to believe (but never checked for himself) is another zinger. And we can be just as 100% sure it will always be more garbage.
The Duffer will never understand that there's a difference between science and denial blog pseudo-science.
And still there is no evidence for a global and synchronous MCA, which has been the standard position for some time now and most recently confirmed by PAGES-2k (see below) which I believe came after the cutoff for inclusion in AR5. So where's the beef?
* * *
Also remember that arguing for a highly variable climate system is arguing for a high climate sensitivity to radiative perturbation - be that from internal variability or an external
forcing.
Past global climate changes had strong regional expression. To elucidate their spatio-temporal pattern, we reconstructed past temperatures for seven continental-scale regions during the past one to two millennia. The most coherent feature in nearly all of the regional temperature reconstructions is a long-term cooling trend, which ended late in the nineteenth century. At multi-decadal to centennial scales, temperature variability shows distinctly different regional patterns, with more similarity within each hemisphere than between them. There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age, but all reconstructions show generally cold conditions between ad 1580 and 1880, punctuated in some regions by warm decades during the eighteenth century. The transition to these colder conditions occurred earlier in the Arctic, Europe and Asia than in North America or the Southern Hemisphere regions. Recent warming reversed the long-term cooling; during the period ad 1971–2000, the area-weighted average reconstructed temperature was higher than any other time in nearly 1,400 years.
I hope that's clear. There is a degree of antiphase between the hemispheres. The MCA does not appear to have been a global and synchronous event. Global average temperatures did not match GAT today. Please try to be objective about this.
Oh, riiiight, you mean Finnish lake sediments and Californian bristlecones to say nothing of European instrument measures of temperature occur in the SOUTHERN hemisphere - which is what the IPCC were writing about in their "SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE RECONSTRUCTIONS", and that's 'SOUTHERN' as in, er, SOUTHERN not global, and as illustrated in their graph "IPCC AR5 FIgure 5.7(b)" on which it has the word "Southern Hemisphere" printed in large letters.
Let me try and put it another way; what is it about the title "SOUTHERN Hemisphere Reconstructions" that you do not understand and which, like the IPCC, you appear to confuse with 'NORTHERN Hemisphere Reconstruction'?
And again I ask why, given their (and your) confusion over the geographical location of, er, Californian bristlecones, Finnish lakes and European temperatures, did they not remain 'confused' by SOUTHERN, Antarctic ice cores?
Btw, BBD - no storm damage here this week. I seem to be quite lucky as the big storm of '87 just clipped the area of Cambridgeshire we lived in at the time, with just one tree on the March road blown over.
I had no idea of that one's impact until the following April when going to a wedding in Sussex, the devastation travelling through the south east looked like an arboricidal giant with a roller had flattened every wood and copse available. I couldn't help thinking of the sheer amount of high quality wood of so many types that could never be harvested before it decayed.
Don't try thinking it through Duffer, you're not up to it.
There are NH proxies and SH proxies. Both combine to produce global reconstructions. Try reading the links next time, they're not there for decoration.
God knows what you're on about, but here's a very brief selection of SH papers in Chapter 5. Go tell your fake "auditors" to chew on them and stop lying to you. It really makes you look stupid and too incompetent to read for yourself, and all on top of the handicap of just being your usual, natural clueless, credulous, mouth-agape fuckwit.
"A recent global temperature compilation (Shakun et al., 2012), Southern Ocean temperature records (Lamy et al., 2007; Barker et al., 2009; De Deckker et al., 2012),
evidence from SH terrestrial records (Kaplan et al., 2010; Putnam et al., 2010) and transient climate model experiments (Menviel et al., 2011)
provide multiple lines of evidence for the inter-hemispheric character of millennial-scale variability during
the last glacial termination and for DO events (high confidence).
Newly available marine records (Martrat et al., 2007; Grützner and Higgins, 2010; Margari et al., 2010;
Kleiven et al., 2011),
Antarctic WMGHG records (Loulergue et al., 2008; Schilt et al., 2010) and statistical
analyses of Antarctic ice core data (Siddall et al., 2010; Lambert et al., 2012)
"New high-resolution, climate reconstructions for the last millennium are based on tree-ring records from the
subtropical and central Andes, northern and southern Patagonia, Tierra del Fuego, New Zealand and
Tasmania (Cook et al., 2006; Boninsegna et al., 2009; Villalba et al., 2009), ice cores, lake and marine
sediments and documentary evidence from southern South America (Prieto and García Herrera, 2009;
Vimeux et al., 2009; von Gunten et al., 2009; Tierney et al., 2010; Neukom et al., 2011), terrestrial and
shallow marine geological records from eastern Antarctica (Verleyen et al., 2011), ice cores from Antarctica
(Goosse et al., 2012c; Abram et al., 2013; Steig et al., 2013), boreholes from western Antarctica (Orsi et al.,
2012) and coral records from the Indian and Pacific Oceans (Linsley et al., 2008; Zinke et al., 2009; Lough,
2011; DeLong et al., 2012). There is medium confidence that southern South America (Neukom et al., 2011)
austral summer temperatures during 950–1350 were warmer than the 20th century. A 1000-year temperature
reconstruction for land and ocean representing Australasia indicates a warm period during 1160–1370 though
this reconstruction is based on only three records before 1430 (PAGES 2k Consortium, 2013). In Australasia,
1971–2000 temperatures were very likely higher than any other 30-year period over the last 580 years."
Duffer the Puffer continues with his deceitful ways. He still hasn't read the actual paper where the data come from where it explicitly explains that NORTHERN HEMISPHERE proxies were used for the NORTHERN HEMISPHERE plot and SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE PROXIES were used for the SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE plot and both sets were combined for the GLOBAL plot. Here are some numbers:
1800-1855 Full NH proxies 993
1800-1855 Full SH proxies 165
1800-1855 Global proxies 1158
In case he is also mathematically challenged 1158 = 993 + 165
Stop being so stupid and/or dishonest, read a real and honest paper for once. Or are you admitting that you are so intellectually challenged that you can't understand the big words and real numbers?
Duffer the Puffer continues with his deceitful ways. He still hasn't read the actual paper where the data come from where it explicitly explains that NORTHERN HEMISPHERE proxies were used for the NORTHERN HEMISPHERE plot and SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE PROXIES were used for the SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE plot and both sets were combined for the GLOBAL plot. Here are some numbers:
1800-1855 Full NH proxies 993
1800-1855 Full SH proxies 165
1800-1855 Global proxies 1158
In case he is also mathematically challenged 1158 = 993 + 165
Stop being so stupid and/or dishonest, read a real and honest paper for once. Or are you admitting that you are so intellectually challenged that you can't understand the big words and real numbers?
Duffer the Puffer continues with his deceitful ways. He still hasn't read the actual paper where the data come from where it explicitly explains that NORTHERN HEMISPHERE proxies were used for the NORTHERN HEMISPHERE plot and SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE PROXIES were used for the SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE plot and both sets were combined for the GLOBAL plot. Here are some numbers:
1800-1855 Full NH proxies 993
1800-1855 Full SH proxies 165
1800-1855 Global proxies 1158
In case he is also mathematically challenged 1158 = 993 + 165
Stop being so stupid and/or dishonest, read a real and honest paper for once. Or are you admitting that you are so intellectually challenged that you can't understand the big words and real numbers?
[blockquote]A study of 602 articles in 10 newspapers by the Australian Centre for Independent Journalism found that 32% dismissed or questioned whether human activity was causing the climate to change.[/blockquote]
[blockquote]newspapers based a small fraction of their coverage on peer-reviewed science, instead relying heavily on comment pieces penned by writers without a scientific background.[/blockquote]
[blockquote]There were 97% of comment pieces in the Herald Sun which either questioned or rejected the view of the vast majority of climate scientists – which has ironically also been measured at 97%.[/blockquote]
[blockquote]Bolt, who regularly rails against the established science of climate change in print and on his Channel Ten TV show, dedicated 49% of his words in the surveyed period to climate science,.[/blockquote]
[blockquote]Just 1% of News Corporation articles referred to peer-reviewed science[/blockquote]
Gentlemen, I use the term loosely, of course, may I suggest that:
1: You look at the diagram very carefully entitled:
"IPCC AR5 FIgure 5.7(b). Reconstructed … Southern Hemisphere… annual temperatures during the last 2000 years."
2: Double check the actual words inside the diagram put there specially for really, really bright scientific minds like yours just in case, you know, that in your total amazing brilliance you might get confused between 'North' and 'South' - " (b) Southern Hemisphere".
If you check further you will discover that this diagram and the reports that went with it used three papers from Prof. Mann which, unsurprisingly in his case, included NORTHERN hemisphere data to work out a historical SOUTHERN temperature reconstruction.
And no-one has told me why they ignored isotope readings from the SOUTH. Could it be that the pesky little things kept telling the 'wrong' story?
The only thing that surprised me about this tale was the fact that I was totally un-surprised. It's exactly the sort of shoddy, underhand, now-you-see-it-now-you-don't 'agit-prop' beloved of your strange sect.
I'm off for a couple of days so please do try to work out the difference between north and south!
Duffhead hasn't got a clue of the context he's rote-repeating, Fig 5.7 relating to the section 5.7 "Evidence and Processes of Abrupt Climate Change". "This assessment of abrupt climate change on timescales of 10–100 years focuses on Dansgaard-Oeschger (DO) events and iceberg/meltwater discharges during Heinrich events, especially the advances since AR4 in reconstructing and understanding their global impactsb and in extending the record of millennial-scale variability to ~800 ka.
Thus Duffdick presents as clear an example as possible on the shortcomings of "citizen science" riling up their dim-witted followers, or the monkeys having their cages rattled as it's more commonly known. So it seems his main objection is he's too ignorant to know what the IPCC are even talking about, never mind understand it.
Read the fucking words and respond to them as written. Forget your idiotic, confected, non-issue grubbed up out of misunderstandings and misrepresentations.
Forget it. Concentrate on the underlying concepts. Try fucking thinking like an adult for five minutes.
Let's try again:
And still there is no evidence for a global and synchronous MCA, which has been the standard position for some time now and most recently confirmed by PAGES-2k (see #25; #26) which I believe came after the cutoff for inclusion in AR5. So where’s the beef?
* * *
Also remember that arguing for a highly variable climate system is arguing for a high climate sensitivity to radiative perturbation – be that from internal variability or an external forcing.
Please think about this carefully as it bears directly on the climatological effects of increased forcing from CO2.
Respond only the points raised above. I don't care about McIntyre's silly lies and half-baked misrepresentations so do not raise them here again.
If you want to talk about a "hot" MCA, then by all means do, but you will conceptualise it within a physically consistent framework that incorporates a high climate sensitivity.
Or you can fuck off. I really don't care anymore. Up to you: think and engage in rational discourse based on real-world physics or jabber like an enraged marmoset. Up to you.
Do the former and I'll talk with you. Do the latter and I will piss on you.
I’m off for a couple of days so please do try to work out the difference between north and south!
You come in here with your big flat dirty feet kicking up dust using malformed reasoning from those out to continue the delay on action, knowing, or using the excuse, that you are going to piss off when it gets to hot.
To stupid add mendacious for you are clearly both.
Now you should try to understand as to why a label such as Southern Hemisphere is quite valid within the context.
Ah yes that concept 'context' again, always a problem for your type. You are being played by the likes of M&M and their agents with bog blogs.
Why is it that you never open with a precise citation ahead of your drivel? Don't you know how too or is it that you know your utterances will be exposed as the crap they are?
Maybe you just think its smart to make us waste our time figuring out where you are coming from. Clearly that strategy failed yet again.
What it did do was give us another opportunity to debunk you again so that lurkers see once again how ideologically bigoted you are. Of course if you are being paid to do this, and there is some hint of your being fed by others more knowledgeable than yourself here, then your patrons should ask for their money back because you are being counter productive.
Our international readers have probably caught wind of the interesting legal restructuring of Queensland (and soon of other "Liberal" [cough, gag] states), but for those not aware Larvatus Prodeo has a handy update:
where a commenter who is apparently cohenite rants about Muslim bikies... Yes, you read that correctly - it seems that Australian is besieged by gangs of Muslim bikies.
Now cohenite is (if rumour is to be believed) a lawyer so he should have some respect for the stinging critiques coming from senior legal practioners such as Tony Fitzgerald, although admittedly IIRC cohenite is a divorce lawyer so perhaps the broader legal issues are a bit slippery for him - but apparently he's good with Newman's jackbooting. And not only that, cohenite has been a bit of a proclaimer against the leftist nanny state that wants to impose a price on carbon and pursue other measures to reduce global carbon emissions - and yet here he is lending what appears to me to be at least tacit support to a rightist move that goes flying past 'nanny state' at the speed of light and straight to deep fascist territory, just without the pretty uniforms.
Who'd 'a' thunk it?
Oh, and what's that word I'm looking for that describes the circumstance where one has a bias against particular races or religions...?
Most interesting Bernard. I remember cohenite well. A very silly man who knew nothing whatsoever about climate science yet felt that he knew enough to state that the experts were all wrong.
But I had no idea he was also a fascist. Well, well, well.
<blockquote)God, hammering out HTML by email or BB must have been a fucking nightmare.
Which was the way I started web pages back in 94 using a text editor. However one that came with the computer of then choice and was streets ahead of anything from MS as with the OS, then or since.
I set up a text file with the commonly used tags laid out in a sensible order and then it was a matter of cut & paste.
God, hammering out HTML by email or BB must have been a fucking nightmare.
Which was the way I started web pages back in 94 using a text editor. However one that came with the computer of then choice and was streets ahead of anything from MS as with the OS, then or since.
I set up a text file with the commonly used tags laid out in a sensible order and then it was a matter of cut & paste.
I am in error at #25 and #47: PAGES 2k Consortium (2013) is referenced - frequently - by AR5 WG1 Ch 5. Not that it makes a blind bit of difference to the central issues, both of which I have hammered on above.
AR5 WG1 5.5.1:
In conclusion, [SH] continental scale surface temperature reconstructions from 950 to 1250 show multidecadal intervals that were in some regions as warm as in the mid-20th century and in others as warm as in the late
20th century (high confidence). These intervals were not as synchronous across seasons and regions as the warming since the mid-20th century (high confidence).
You show me a global and synchronous MCA as warm as or warmer than the present and I'll show you a climate system with a high sensitivity to radiative perturbation. One that must endure significant, rapid and sustained warming if CO2 concentrations continue to increase without policy intervention.
Perhaps fortunately for the deniers, there is no evidence whatsoever that there was a global and synchronous MCA as warm as or warmer than the late C20th.
There is however plentiful evidence from paleoclimate behaviour that S/2xCO2 is about 3C.
I have never understood the strange fascination with paleoclimate that grips so many deniers. There is absolutely nothing of any comfort for them there.
Lionel, that is the second article in a series by Ridley, the first was called "Why dishonest bankers are good for the world". He will shortly write a third one called "Why poisonous herbicides are good for the world, especially in Argentina".
Blame the idea that web design should be done by graphic desingers for the shit that is the web and formatting today (and the past 20 years).
Print design is about a fixed and rigid medium where you can definitively lay out the art to draw attention to the bits that are needed when they are needed. Placement is paramount. And ENTIRELY under the control of the designer.
Web pages are markup. HINTS about what things should go where but where the print is done on a device that may be 800x600, 640x480, WXGA, 11:9 portrait smartphone 16:9 widescreen. 14:9 TV. 8" tablet, WXSVGA. etc.
And where the user may choose fonts, where the fonts designed (being copyrighted) cannot be forced to display, where assistive technologies will change output colour for colour-impaired or even screenreaders.
Or even decide not to show something AT ALL.
Placement is not only not possible but antithetical to the web browser intent and design.
But the company wants a bling site and the graphic designers traded on print where placement is perfect and under their control were used to print flyers, posters AND WEB PAGES.
And brought all the wrong ideas about the content and presentation.
So HTML had to incorporate the needs of these corporate backers who wanted their designers to be able to fiddle pixel perfect on their 1024x768 15" monitors.
Then find that not everyone in 1992 had a high res 15".
Rosenthal et al. (p. 617) present a temperature record of western equatorial Pacific subsurface and intermediate water masses over the past 10,000 years that shows that heat content varied in step with both northern and southern high-latitude oceans. The findings support the view that the Holocene Thermal Maximum, the Medieval Warm Period, and the Little Ice Age were global events, and they provide a long-term perspective for evaluating the role of ocean heat content in various warming scenarios for the future.
This result is consistent with the idea that the LIA was a global event, probably caused by a change in solar and volcanic forcing, and was not simply a seesaw-type redistribution of heat between the hemispheres as would be predicted by some ocean-circulation hypotheses.
and which does not necessarily come to the conclusions that would support your ideology. Indeed, given the presence of Jeff Severinghaus who is one clever bunny and who worked closely with Wally Broecker I doubt that it would.
Not having access to the full texts I cannot comment other than that I would be surprised if your quotes are intended as context free picks.
The abstract for Orsi et al says what it says which is quoted above. It presents evidence for a global LIA
Rosenthal et al is being discussed widely including by Revkin who has an interview with two of the authors. http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/
Revkin says that "Mann will not be pleased with this". He has already tried to do a hatchet job on it.
It presents evidence to show both the MWP and LIA were global events.
RC is a blog site and could be considered a mouthpiece for Mann and the team.
Try to expand your reading.Lol
So quotes from the abstracts (or the journal editors summary) of published papers are now considered to be "smoke and mirrors."
Are you in denial Lenoil
The MCA was global but there was no global and synchronous warming event that elevated global average temperature to equivalent or higher than the present, as I have pointed out to you and your David Duff sock many, many times before.
You simply do not understand the material that someone else has cherry-picked and misrepresented for you. And it is absolutely obvious that you don't.
This is hilarious coming from you, a lazy troll who has never read a scientific paper in your life but gets *all* his bollocks from denier blogs run by liars, cranks and shills.
The MCA was global but there was no global and synchronous warming event that elevated global average temperature to equivalent or higher than the present,
And originally
You show me a global and synchronous MCA as warm as or warmer than the present
We show that water masses linked to North Pacific and Antarctic intermediate waters were warmer by 2.1 ± 0.4°C and 1.5 ± 0.4°C, respectively, during the middle Holocene Thermal Maximum than over the past century. Both water masses were ~0.9°C warmer during the Medieval Warm period than during the Little Ice Age and ~0.65° warmer than in recent decades.
That includes practically all the Pacific, about one third the Earth's surface area, spread over northern and southern hemispheres, being about 0.65C warmer during the MWP than present decades.
So no evidence whatsoever.
Only on Planet deltoid.
“We may have underestimated the efficiency of the oceans as a storehouse for heat and energy,” Rosenthal said. “It may buy us some time – how much time, I don’t really know – to come to terms with climate change. But it’s not going to stop climate change.”
As I said upthread, there is nothing in paleoclimate behaviour that offers any comfort to deniers.
* * *
I have to agree with chek here - can this be the same troll that spent so much energy a few weeks back denying the validity of modern OHC measurements?
There's just sod-all intellectual consistency with you morons.
Global and synchronous warm MCA = high climate sensitivity to radiative perturbation
Stop changing the subject.
Rosenthal et al show evidence for a MWP over practically the whole pacific, one third earths surface area which must have had dramatic effects globally.
Are you that pig headed that you cannot accept your original statement was hasty.
The latest climate sensitivity estimates, based on the temperature record rather than proxies, have nearly all been on the low side (between 1 and 2 C)
So your statement
Global and synchronous warm MCA = high climate sensitivity to radiative perturbation.
You cannot have the one without the other.
Does not seem to match the latest evidence and requires some explanation.
I have to agree with chek here – can this be the same troll that spent so much energy a few weeks back denying the validity of modern OHC measurements?
Do you mean the ones with errors much larger than the increases being measured.
Putting them into an historical perspective, say over the last few thousand years, they seem just a drop in the ocean.
I'm not changing the subject - I raised this point upthread before your appeared. Read the fucking thread you lazy troll.
Nor is this a change of subject. Again you reveal your essential stupidity. You cannot separate the issues. Read the fucking words. Try to think.
Re a couple of recent estimates of S - simple: the so-called "observational" estimates are uninformative. They are too sensitive to assumptions made about changes in aerosol forcing and transient variability in ocean heat uptake. Only those who don't understand the science handwave a couple of uninformative results and ignore the vast majority of the evidence which points to a value for S around 3C.
* * *
Your rubbish about OHC has been dealt with. I am not going over it again.
The intermediate waters of the Pacific Ocean are absorbing heat 15 times faster over the past 60 years than in the past 10,000
[...]
“Our work showed that intermediate waters in the Pacific had been cooling steadily from about 10,000 years ago” said Linsley. This places the recent warming of Pacific intermediate waters in temporal context. The trend has now reversed in a big way and the deep ocean is warming.”
There's another clue to the way this study is being misrepresented in the abstract, where we read:
Although documented changes in global surface temperatures during the Holocene and Common era are relatively small, the concomitant changes in OHC are large.
Remember - the study examines intermediate waters - the so-called "middle deeps" between 500m and 1000m. Now read that quote again.
Ya gotta hand to to old Rednose. Goes straight to a denier blog when his arguments are shredded. As BBD says this clown hasn't read a single scientific paper in his life. Instead, he reads the shill blogs and gleans his wisdom from there.
Incidentally, in addition to the latest bilge from Ridley comes more from Richard Tol and Bjorn Lomborg (both with bloated egos to match). Tol and Lomborg are crowing on about rhe net benefits of warming, without providing a shred of evidence other than to try and link correlation and causation. Then Lomborg goes on to state that conditions for biodiversity will actually improve over the next 30-40 years - based of course on the sandbox level science he is famous for. Sadly, this verbal diarrhea is being pasted in the mainstream corporate media as well as In New Scientist. Nothing in Lomborg's little myopic worldview is there any place for the harsh reality of corporate expansion, resource wars and the concentration of wealth as well as the scramble for the world's last fish stocks and other critical resources.
But then again, Lomborg isn't preaching to scientists who he knows will crush him, but the general public in developed countries who anxiously embrace optimism and the notion that we can continue along the current trajectory with few or no costs.
So you accept there is evidence for a global MWP and temperatures were higher than the present day.
The observational estimates for sensitivity are based on direct measurements and not proxies and are therefore likely to be more accurate and reliable. The proxie based values also use guestimates and assumptions, and no one was around to validate them. As to scientists such as Otto et al not understanding the science and handwaving uninformative results I cannot comment.
Is it not interesting that OHC was very much higher in the past during the global MWP.
So you accept there is evidence for a global MWP and temperatures were higher than the present day.
No, I do not. Nor have you presented any here.
The observational estimates for sensitivity are based on direct measurements and not proxies and are therefore likely to be more accurate and reliable.
Can't you fucking well read, you tit? Try again.
Is it not interesting that OHC was very much higher in the past during the global MWP.
The intermediate waters of the Pacific Ocean are absorbing heat 15 times faster over the past 60 years than in the past 10,000
Yes read that. Have you also read the comment by the author during an interview
BRAD: We have fossils that have been bioturbated … we have pretty high accumulation rates, but we don’t have annual resolution .. You could say that we probably have century-scale resolution at best… It’s possible that the sediments just didn’t record similar warmings in the past.”
So using their methods, unlikely to have a resolution over 60 years to determine this. Expect some bright spark spliced on a copy of your crap OHC graphs onto the end of theirs to toe the party line. Didnt Marcot or somebody get into trouble for doing this?
Didnt Marcot or somebody get into trouble for doing this?
Actually no. There was a vigorous disinformation campaign by McIntyre and Watts that attempted to create this framing, but it was all lies.
Modern warming will continue because the forcing is continuous and steadily increasing. Laws of physics.
Crapping on about brief, regional, asynchronous warming events in the past is actually an irrelevance. The only point of contact between the past and the future is climate sensitivity.
As I have already pointed out, if you show me a global, synchronous hot MCA, I will show you a climate system that is sensitive to radiative perturbation and that must warm rapidly in response to increasing CO2 forcing.
But you don't have that information. The Rosenthal study doesn't even come close to providing global OHC estimates nor does it remotely claim to. So what you have twice now repeated here is simply a silly lie.
With the ocean 0.65C warmer than present decades, even your feeble brain should be able to comprehend that OHC would be higher.
And that alarming drivel about absorbing heat so many times faster over the last 60 years, when you cut the crap and look at the ARGO data, when reliable measurements are starting to be made, what do we see? http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/figure-26.png
Which bit of the ocean? Not by any manner of means all of it. Read the source again.
Misrepresentation and lies, as per.
Don't quote loons like Tisdale at me, tit. Have you no sense at all?
And now it's time for you to admit that you cannot separate the issue of past climate variability from climate sensitivity as they are simply aspects of the same thing.
And FFS let's not go back to this imbecile trick of trying to express OCH in degrees Celsius. Go and find out about the specific heat of water, then get some numbers on the volume of the 0 - 2000m layer of the global ocean and plug them in.
That's how you get a handle on how much energy is required to warm the upper ocean even by a fraction of a degree Celsius. It is a truly vast amount.
More stupid denier misrepresentations. Bored to tears with this.
So quotes from the abstracts (or the journal editors summary) of published papers are now considered to be “smoke and mirrors.”
It is the way that you present this stuff, shorn of all context that is 'smoke and mirrors' you comprehension challenged fool.
As for Real Climate being a blog site sure, but one that provides articles from currently active scientists (Who do you think eric is?) who continue to write peer reviewed papers. Now where do you get your info'? From the likes of Nova, Hockeschtick, Bishop Shill, Climate Desperate, etc., etc., OK, so that equates —–—— NOT!
As for the Orsi abstract, did you not see this bit:
The difference in the magnitude of the LIA between Greenland and West Antarctica suggests that the feedbacks amplifying the radiative forcing may not operate in the same way in both regions.
Which seems to be a bet-hedger, but I would like to be able to see the full article for complete context.
Whatever, did you bother to read that article at Real Climate?
Did you bother to scan the comments, note there are very clued up people who input there and those who are not are corrected or if repeating shite get short shrift - as they should.
Note to comment #3
As for the LIA, *that* is where the specificity of location is relevant. Nothing can be said about "the Southern Hemisphere" in general during the LIA from these results alone.--eric
and while you are there read Mike Roddy's comment at #2.
As for Revkin, well yes we know that he tends to flip-flop around with his utterings, and as for JC well nothing much of value coming from that direction for some time now.
The official Committee on Science, Space, and Technology is now being run by the lunatics with the Chair, Lunatic in Chief being Lamar Smith. Want to know some more about him --- don't tempt me!
As for Rosenthal's paper BBD has that well covered. Go read that PR.
The suspect named above are only too quick to try to make a 'sow's ear out of a silk purse', that is all they have got and they sucker you every time.
The Northern Hemisphere experienced a widespread cooling from about 1400 to 1850 C.E., often referred to as the Little Ice Age (hereafter LIA). The LIA was the latest of a series of centennial scale oscillations in the climate [Wanner et al., 2011]. Understanding the cause of this type of event is key to our knowledge of the variability in the climate system, and to our ability to forecast future climate changes. The LIA cooling was associated with a time of lower solar irradiance and increased persistent volcanism [Mann et al., 2009]. This forcing must have been amplified by natural feedbacks, because the magnitude of the forcing by itself is too small to explain the observed response. It is still unclear whether the Southern Hemisphere high latitudes had a temperature response synchronous to that of the Northern Hemisphere: changes in the solar forcing would call for hemispheric synchroneity, but evidence from the southward movement of the Inter-tropical Convergence Zone in the Pacific Ocean [Sachs et al., 2009], and from changes in the ocean circulation [Keigwin and Boyle, 2000] argue for a delayed [Goosse et al., 2004] or inverse response [Broecker, 2000].
A delayed or inverse response.
As I mentioned to one of the trolls some way upthread, there is a degree of antiphase between the hemispheres. Obviously, this reduces the effect on global average temperature. The possibility that feedbacks operated differently in either hemisphere is plausible (more positive feedback from albedo change in the NH, with boreal forest reduced and snow/sea ice cover increased).
Conservative groups at the forefront of global warming denialism are doubling down on trying to discredit the new report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In recent weeks, they've been cranking out a stream of op-eds, blogs and reports to sow doubt in the public's mind before the report is published, with no end in sight, Chek Climate News has learned.
"The goal is to inform the public, scientific community and media that the upcoming IPCC report doesn't have all the science to make informed judgments," said Jim B'Ozo, a spokesman for the Clownshoe Institute, a libertarian think tank based in Chicago that has been spearheading the efforts.
Clownshoe gained notoriety last year after running a billboard campaign comparing climate change believers to "Tunabomber" Jed Kyrgyzsta (pronounced ‘kyrgyzsta’), which caused several corporate donors and ichthusophiles worldwide to withdraw support for the group.
The 5th assessment report by the IPCC, the world's leading scientific advisory body on global warming, concludes with at least 95% certainty that human activities have caused most of earth's temperature rise since 1950, and will continue to do so in the future. That's up from a confidence level of 90%in 2007, the year the last assessment came out. The IPCC, which consists of thousands of scientists and reviewers from more than 100 countries, shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Almost-President Al Gore. Governments are supposed to use its periodic reviews of climate risks to set targets for reducing carbon emissions and other policies. Because the IPCC's conclusions are produced by a consensus process, they are inherently conservative.
Environmentalists told ChekClimateNews they believe skeptics' attempts to sway public and media opinion will fail to resonate with people. They say the spate of costly and deadly weather events over the last year has turned climate change into something tangible for many people.
In addition, scientists have become more proactive when it comes to squashing scientific inaccuracies pushed by skeptic groups. Dozens of prominent scientists involved with drafting IPCC reports formed a Climate Science Rapid Response Team that punches back against misleading claims about climate research.
Kevin Trenberth is part of that team as well as a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and an author and editor on the forthcoming IPCC report. He explained that nearly every time there is a scientific paper linking man-made carbon dioxide emissions to climate change, the "denial-sphere" immediately responds with accusations that the research is wrong.
"The scientists get nasty emails. Certain websites comment. ... So a bunch of us formed this rapid response team to deflate these arguments." The group has been very busy since the IPCC released a 20-page summary of its report for policymakers on Sept. 27, as well as Working Group I's assessment, which examines the science behind climate change.
To try to shape coverage of the findings, the Clownshoe Institute released a 1,200-page report on Wednesday by the provocatively titled Not-a-governmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). The 10-year-old coalition of nongovernment “scientists” and “scholars" disputes the reality of man-made climate change.
Their new report, "Climate Change Re-interpreted Again", uses layman's language to present solid evidence that today's climate changes are well within the bounds of natural variability," according to Bob Clownshoe, a former marine geologist at Australia's James Cook University and a consultant to clownshoe groups. "Real world observations tell us that the IPCC's speculative computer models do not work, ice is not melting at an enhanced rate, sea-level rise is not accelerating, the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events is not increasing, the sky is not really blue, water is not really wet and dangerous global warming is not really occurring," he said in a news release.
The report rests its argument largely on the uncertainty surrounding climate sensitivity, a measure used by scientists to determine how global temperatures will change in response to carbon dioxide emissions. In short, it says the IPCC exaggerates the warming effect of CO2.
The report is the latest in the Clownshoe Institute's "Climate Change Re-interpreted" franchise and the cornerstone of its campaign against the IPCC's fifth assessmentt. Clownshoe is aggressively pushing its own report (Craig Clownshoe was pushing to call it "Climate Change Re-interpreted Again, Bitch!" according to insider Dr. Nils Driveshaft-Clownshoe) in op-eds, blogs and in articles in conservative newspapers and news stations. Among others, it has received coverage in the Australian newspaper The Daily Clownshoe, The Washington Clownshoe and the UK's Clownshoe Mail, in articles that all had to be "significantly" changed due to "errors".
Other groups participating in the report include the Science & Clownshoe Policy Project, a research and advocacy group founded by climate skeptic Fred Clownshoe —who is also the director of Clownshoe 's Science and Environmental Clownshoe Project—and the Center for the Study of Clownshoes, an Arizona-based climate clownshoe group partly funded by ExxonMobil and Shoelace World.
Over the next few weeks, authors of the report will hold speaking events in New York City, Boston, Florida and St. Louis. A Washington, D.C. event will be co-sponsored with the Clownshoe Foundation, a conservative think tank. In early October, Clownshoe and Clownshoe will give talks in England, Germany and the Netherlands. The Clownshoe Institute will also release videos and podcasts on its website using content from the events. Clownshoe isn't alone in taking pre-emptive swipes against the IPCC.
For months, Cato’s Clownshoe, a libertarian think tank in Washington, D.C. co-founded by billionaire Charles Clownshoe, has been publishing a series of blog posts and op-eds by Patrick Clownshoe, the organization's director for the Center for the Study of Clownshoes, challenging the new IPCC report. In recent weeks, this activity has increased significantly. He has written an op-ed for The Wall Street Clownshoe and been a source for media outlets like Greedygorbs, publishers of the famous Rich Lists among other titles.
Clownshoe said his dream outcome would be for the IPCC to acknowledge the scientific errors revealed by the clownshoe community. "That's what a responsible organization would do, but for obvious reasons it would also mean the end of the IPCC," Clownshoe said. "So it is understandable that they wouldn't commit professional suicide."
The website Clownshoes With That? has also picked apart leaked drafts of the report and is publishing multiple stories per hour chronicling how the new IPCC report is filled with "dodgy statistics" and "serious frauds." Furthermore, leading skeptic Lord Christopher Clownshoe loudly accused the IPCC of unlawfully dumping reports into the blogosphere without a permit or so much as a by-your-leave.
While in the past, IPCC scientists have seemed ill prepared for clownshoe campaigns, they say they are more ready for dealing with the criticism this time around. Created in 2010, the Climate Science Rapid Response Team now has 135 climate researchers on standby for media outlets and policymakers to interview and ask questions. Journalists and others contact the group through its website and organizers track down the best scientist to call or meet the inquiring party.
Dr.Trenberth said that the website has made it easier to respond to scientific inaccuracies, but that the constant attacks on his and his colleagues' work by clownshoe groups "is tiresome." "We've heard these arguments before. We've debunked them before. Why are we debating the same things over and over? We need to move forward."
For clownshoes, keeping the debate alive is exactly the point.
Conservative groups known for attacking global warming science like the Clownshoe Institute, Cato’s Clownshoe and the Global Clownshoe Policy Foundation have received many millions of dollars from energy companies and sympathetic interests to cast doubt on the science of climate change and the need for policies to curb emissions.
James Clownshoe, a senior environmental fellow with the Clownshoe Institute suggested "Climate change is a major political topic again," ever since President Obama made climate action a priority for this second term, said Taylor. "People are looking for a more centralist view. We're trying to give it to them. For instance Professor Richard Clownshoe’s sphincter theory suggests that were the climate ever to warm it would immediately be evacuated into outer space. The IPCC doesn’t tell them that”.
Environmentalists and several scientists said they're not as worried as they might have been just a few years ago. Cindy Baxter, a longtime climate campaigner, said she thinks climate clownshoes "are getting more shrill, but getting less notice," because people are more convinced that global warming is real.
But Patrick Clownshoe of Cato’s Clownshoe said he isn't convinced his messages are falling on deaf ears, especially among IPCC scientists. "Do I think the IPCC is very sensitive to these critiques?" he said. "Do I think they keep an eye on what me and my apparently few clownshoes are saying? You bet I do, if only for the entertainment value."
© Chek Climate Reports Oct 7 2013
Wombat makes enthusiastic sea lion noises of approbation for CCR @#1 - in lieu of the unfortunate fact that the normal method for wombats to show sincere appreciation is to leave at least two cubic droppings on a prominent landmark.
@chek
Only an informal question: is there a web address of "ChekClimateNews"?
@chek
When I google "clownshoe climate" there is no reasonable information. Whom do you mean with the term "clownshoe"?
Is it the Heartland Institute???
chek, what is your opinion on my subsequent 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.
chek, your "clownshoe" is irritating and counter-productive as it reduces the ease of reading comprehension of what you want to express!
Whom do you mean by saying "billionaire Charles Clownshoe"????
Clownsocktroll.
Joe
Joe
That's all that needs to be said. (Sorry for the first one.)
rhwombat, ianam
poor argumentation, actually no argumentation!
"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"
B*. The MWP wasn't deleted - it was never included because it was a virtual non-event that was a construct largely of the denial industry. The MWP was only 'generated' after Mann et als. 1998 paper in Nature. You see, Joe you simple fool, the deniers are incapable of producing their own science independently. Instead, IMO they make things up when studies are published that they don't like. In other words, like creationists, their job is simply to try and poke holes in the empirical literature to promote their own agenda. The MWP is a case in point.
Get your 'facts' correct Joe/Kai etc. at least.
Actually Joe, rh and ianam's responses are valid. That is because your arguments are so utterly ridiculous that they don't deserve a polite response. You make Karen's nonsense look good - and believe me that is saying a lot.
Will no-one rid us of this turbulent imbecile?
Oh, and +1 for Chek Climate News.
#7, #8, #9, #10, #12, #13, #14:
all ad hominem, most of them without any substantial real stuff, just plain ad hominem.
Do you feel better now?
poor argumentation, actually no argumentation!
The former is false, the latter is true but irrelevant. Neither I nor anyone else has any obligation to argue a claim; the claim does not gain any legitimacy by a failure to argue against it. If your argument is cogent, you should be happy that no one has offered a rebuttal. But that is not what you're about ... your intention is to troll, to be disruptive, to get a rise out of people. I'll give you one: you're a stupid fucking piece of dishonest shit and I hope you die a horrible death, soon.
Now I have nothing else to say.
This is and always has been your mods operandi.
It's good to see though that you are admitting as much to rhwombat and ianam.
rhwombat.
Your nick wouldn't be a reflection of said marsupial's rhomboid poops, would it?
My students and I always used to marvel at how they produced that shape - I lost count of how many times I was asked if they have square bums.
Joe/Kai,
#12 was not ad hominem. Read it again you fool: the MWP is an artificial construct of the denial industry. It was never considered until after Mann started publishing his proxies. The denial industry in not proactive; it is reactive. It waits until studies show some causal factor with GW linked to human activities. It then attempts to downplay or counter these studies by producing results(usually not published in reputable sources) suggesting alternate non-anthropogenic explanations.
That isn't science; its dishonest chicanery. The creationists do it. Climate change deniers do it. Anti-environmentalists do it. It is often referred to it as "directed conclusions"; in other words, generating results with a pre-determined view.
If the best you can do is the crap you've put up her so far, then you're lucky anybody responds to you.
I'll add this rebuttal of the garbage from Joe the troll who is a shit stain on humanity, not for him but for the intellectually honest folks:
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/09/global-warming-pause-ipcc
Oh give me a break. Kai-troll running a "Joe" sock and still pasting the same shite from WTFUWT and expecting to be taken seriously?
Troll, you know absolutely nothing. Here's some actual science for you, which has been referenced here dozens of times, so wake the fuck up and pay attention: there was not global and synchronous MWP. It is as Jeff says, simply a denier meme used to try and discredit IPCC TAR. You are a silly mug, a gull, a dupe, a rube, a mark, a fuckwit, a fool.
The latest and most extensive millennial reconstructions fully support the reconstructions in MBH98/99. They fully support AR5.
See the findings of the PAGES 2k Consortium (2013) Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia
This is the state of knowledge. It has nothing to do with Mann, Bradley and Hughes, nor with the IPCC. Get your infantile head around the facts and update yourself. Stop simply being a repeater for other people's lies. Show some vestige of intellectual pride FFS.
In your case, Kai, it's more like sub hominem.
For, Dear Jackass, I put it to you plain - you are a Jackass; you bray like a Jackass, have Jackass thoughts, lead a Jackass life, and have sad little Jackass dreams.
And, most of all, you're a slavish partisan of the tribe of Jackasses, a veritable terrier under the Jackass Flag, hence your execrable, Jackass, efforts here.
Why the phony affront: is anyone here offering mealy-mouthed pretense that they regard you as anything other than the most blithering of idiots? Hardly.
I repeat: you are a Jackass. Decry it all you like; this is a statement of fact.
#1 chek
ChekClimateNews number one! NIPCC number ten!
And love the running clownshoe gag! (Geddit??)
;-)
As long as it's not the sole gag.
Ooowwww...
Well, I couldn't find the right smiley for sticking out one's tongue so I would have warned you to hold your nose when you read it but that would have been insole-nt.
(Note to self: arch humour not big hit with BBD?)
Thanks all, I was hoping it would provide some mild amusement and hopefully insight.
... andf thanks to my html skills for sodding #28 up, although at least the links still work.
Perhaps it rankles a bit?
Ouch, were you in-tendon to be that callus? I bet it fell flat with BBD. I'm thinking he's a bit more strait-laced when it comes to pun-ditry than he gives himself credit for.
I was thinking a little while back that the best way this blog could be immunised against B. Freddiekai by conversing only in rhyming slang.
Now that I've read ChekClimateNews, I'm revising that opunion.
@ check and Lotharsson
Oh no! Stop! You two! Behave!
;-)
It's so right. The Family Clownshoe - one size fits all.
FrankD, that sounded corny even with my tinea.
(Or did that look tinny to my cornea?)
@ Lotharsson
Stobit! You'll clog this thread up with splinters.
Well I suppose you could always set fire to them. Gedit?
This thread's becoming a platform for pedestrian flip-floppery.
Soon change that with some rapid-reheat.
Nice one at #1 btw.
... or perhaps it needs a reboot?
FFS chek!
;-)
You always like this or was lunch a bit above average?
And it's all my fault. I unleashed this horror upon the world...
Where's me .38?
Well here is one 38. .
On another track at Real Climate Climate Change on Film. North Pole: Living on Thin Ice.
There is your chance James Delingpole, David Rose and the whole bloody GWPF team, go and join them and see how real science is done.
Second thoughts, don't bother, that team can do without liabilities tagging along, you would not have a clue as to how to survive.
OK, back to business.
Mike Mann's put this video out to support the Democrat candidate for Governor, Terry McAuliffe against Ken Clownsh Cuccinelli in the upcoming Virginia election.
With sea level rise there already over 14 inches since 1930, and North Carolina next door shutting its eyes and putting its fingers in its ears as its officially adopted solution together with the shutdown currently making the Republican brand toxic, I'll wish him well too.,
OK, back to business.
Mike Mann's put this video out to support the Democrat candidate for Governor, Terry McAuliffe against Ken Clownsh Cuccinelli in the upcoming Virginia election.
With sea level rise there already over 14 inches since 1930, and North Carolina next door shutting its eyes and putting its fingers in its ears as its officially adopted solution together with the shutdown currently making the Republican brand toxic, I'll wish him well too.
Bloody 500 errors!
Sorry for the double post folks.
It's Williwatts that needs the experience of a trans-polar trek, Lionel.
I had a quick look, but can't find the details at the moment, but I do recall him making great hilarity of a similar expedition a few years ago, from his lair in sunny Califormia.
One fundamental question to all of the climate alarmists on Deltoid:
Since it is quit obvious that you alarmists would vote for Democrats in the US or for green lefty parties in Oz, are you convinced that people who vote Democratic in the US or green-leftist in Oz are *better* humans compared to climate deniers (or "crank fuckwits" etc. how you use to denounce them) who vote Republican in the US or Abbott in Oz?
Don't hesitate to confess your position!
One fundamental question to all of the climate alarmists on Deltoid:
Since it is quit obvious that you alarmists would vote for Democrats in the US or for green lefty parties in Oz, are you convinced that people who vote Democratic in the US or green-leftist in Oz are *better* humans compared to climate deniers (or “crank fuckwits” etc. how you use to denounce them) who vote Republican in the US or Abbott in Oz?
Don’t hesitate to confess your position!
What Guiseppe here doesn't grasp, amongst a multitude of other things, is that we recognise that a left-right political continuum is a feature of what poses as democracy is a totally so last century way of thinking.
Natural systems don't give a flying fuckig for politics although because of human impact on the planet natural systems, of which humanity is a part and not overlords, will respond to aspects brought out by the socio-political enterprise depending upon how the different factions manage resources whilst safeguarding eco-systems, the later being in a state of near collapse.
Climate change is one of the big threats to ecosystems, along with resource depletion (including fresh water and even the air we breath) and pollution. These latter two are both results of overconsumption by a few, with consumption being in an inverse relationship with numbers of a particular social class, at the expense of many. In other words the consumption, carbon and pollution footprints of the top one percent are much larger per capita than other social classes below.
What none of us expect is a communist system but would like to see a more equitable sharing of the planets resources with an overall, and large, reduction in all of those adverse factors indicated above.
If this does not happen and soon, the planet is going to turn into one big Syria as ecosystems and our ability to feed ourselves unravel like the threads of old worn out knitwear.
Even in so called First World countries, there are growing pockets of the disadvantaged breading grounds for big trouble.
But of course shallow thinkers and blinkered readers such as Guiseppe, who use narrow streams of information acquisition would never have thought through all this.
I would suggest, for one aspect, that Guiseppe takes up the challenge presented by BBD (and Bill IIRC) of reading Professor Callum Roberts on the oceans and seas:
'The Unnatural History of the Sea: The Past and Future of Humanity and Fishing'
'Ocean of Life'
Reading these reminds me again of how close Bill Ruddiman has been with his pushing back the date of the start of the Anthropocene.
It may surprise the Joetroll that many senior US climatologists Hansen and Emanuel for example (and indeed many academics across the world) are registered Republicans and old-school conservatives. It is possible to be both a small 'c' conservative and a relatively decent human being.
However they tend not be the "free-market" uber alles , jihadist, neoliberal, tea partyist privatising fanatics (and in some cases are actual ex-Trotskyite permanent revolutionaries) that have hi-jacked many Republican/Conservative parties globally. But an ideology that both chooses and promotes ignorance and crassness in pursuit of its ends has no future. Anyone in opposition to those (absence of) values is a de facto "better person" imho.
Indeed former "monsters" of the old Right such as Nixon in the US and Heath in the UK seem like lefty dreamers in comparison.
viz Ben Pile, from LM Group to professional misrepresenter on contract to Godfrey Bloom, late of UKIP.
It's amazing how far into the slurry-pond a hatred of "environmentalism" can propel some people.
"Since it is quit obvious that you alarmists would vote for Democrats in the US"
Joe, you are such an ignorant dork. Do you actually think the Democrats are a left wing Party? They are part of the corporate-political establishment through and through. As the late Gore Vidal said, there is one party in the US: the Property Party, with two right wings: Republican and Democrat. The great US writer Sheldon Wolin has referred to the American political system as a form of "Inverted totalitarianism". A corporate state.
Joe is as dense as a plank.
He is also a sockpuppet hydra and abusive troll who has been banned from commenting here by Tim, so the reasons for ignoring him multiply apace. Just strike out his comments like this (eg bill #47 - that's the spirit!) and try and ignore the horrible stink. It will eventually dissipate.
And - whaddaya know - the DOS attacks have started up again. As they do every time the screws get tightened on Kai - Freddy - Boris - Berendwanker.
Coincidence? Perhaps. But this fucking nutter fits the bill of social-inadequate script-kiddie very well indeed, so it's hard not to be rather suspicious. Especially what with the timing of the problems here. Not to mention his own claims of mad skillz etc, and his completely fake-sounding "complaints" and "test comments" when the interruptions were at their worst a few weeks back. I thought it might be him then, and I think it might be him now.
Scum.
What did I write about Lindzen being in a spiral of decline he now resorting to WeUseWishfulThinking to claim 'arctic sea ice is suddenly showing surprising growth'.
Joins Curry & Michaels in the SAD (Silly And Deluded) group with Spencer and Christy orbiting ever closer.
As it's a bit quiet I wondered if a random if related musing might provide some reflection away from the textbooks and referenced papers I know many of us take time to read if not fully understand.
Having recently seen the (not-at-all-the-reported turkey, imho given the limitations of blockbuster format and the requirements of getting an image in front of a mass audience) and subsequently re-read the book of same name, subtitled "An Oral History of the Zombie War". (Yes Virginia it's a fictional SF-style fantasy, which is to say that much use is made of a series of allegories which may or may not be pertinent to the reader).
Now I isn't no scholar. as should be plainly obvious since well before this, and I hate to seem pretentious - Who, Moi? But for a series of concisely drawn character studies of reaction in the face of an existential threat (here's hoping the relevance is peeking through at this point) that imho again, rivals Dickens it's a great read.
I'm not saying reading it will make you a better person, or more popular, or more attractive to women or more in touch with the ol' zeitgeist, but then again, ya never know.
In any case, the three acts of the movie are achieved very well if it's understood the book is its inspiration.
And now back to our normal scheduling.
Are deniers getting even more boring and predictable in their ineptitude? asks the LA Times
I think the answer to that one is already fairly well established.
To replace borked link above Are deniers getting even more boring and predictable in their ineptitude? asks the LA Times
Oh FFS, this time... pretty please...
Are deniers getting even more boring and predictable in their ineptitude? asks the LA Times
Lets add some substance to the discussion and lety people draw their own conclusions. Deniers will always win if the 'discussion' is performed in words or data and that is because any contrary argument no matter how false halves the value of the truth simply due to the doubt factor. So lets leave the words out of it. Numerical data suffers as it requires interpretation and that automatically opens the field for intereter doubt.
The first one is the history of the Atmospheric CO2 measurtements and at the end there is a list of all of the institutions that have contributed to the data and who add their credibility to information's validity
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vA7tfz3k_9A&feature=player_embedded
The second is a timelapse image compilation from satelite photographs an the story here is obvious, ice dimishing at an alarming rate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQ3QUdIxvxg&feature=player_embedded
The third is a graphical evaluation of that ice loss rate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChABcwItlAE&feature=player_embedded
The conclusions are inescapable: rising atmospheric CO2 levels equal proportional Arctic Ice loss; overshoot is inevitable to a very hot global environment.
So each person can accept the undeniable evidence, or not. But be aware that in not accepting the "in plane sight" evidence ones IQ automatically slumps 30 points.
From the LA Times link -
Exactly.
chek
I haven't seen the film yet but like you, I thought Brooks' book surprisingly good. And not just because so little in the genre lives up to the early brilliance of Romero's Night/Dawn/Day trilogy with its (ahem) biting socio-political satire. In fact despite the occasionally shaky acting in the first 20 minutes, the long version of Dawn is an enduring classic, a real fairground mirror - welcome to the moronic inferno.
* * *
I'm delighted to see that the letters editor of the LA Times is doing his job properly. The deniers are treated with far too much generosity by most of the media and this is desperately overdue for reversal. Arguments from false assertion should not be rebroadcast in the letters page or anywhere else. Editors need to edit, not pander to liars and facilitate false balance.
#58 BilB
Good links, but I disagree with the substance of your argument. Data are valuable. Data quantify. Data underpin the strongest arguments.
Deniers deny everything with equal ease. Showing them video evidence instead of numbers and graphs won't even give them pause. You will get exactly the same rubbish in response: it's natural variability; the ice is recovering; we're heading for an ice age; CO2 isn't ever going to make much difference (fundamental physics denial); Murray Salby woz repressed etc.
I've been forced to conclude that deniers are qualitatively different. They are fundamentally incapable of processing information like rational beings. Denial may be the cause or it may be an emergent property of their brain chemistry, but it is *deep*. It lies beyond the reach of reasoned argument. It is exactly what they are constantly accusing everybody else of with trademark projection: it is a manifestation of blind faith.
BBD,
The videos are for the casually interest but persuadable public. A video is a powerful credibility gap bridge, so spread them around liberally because the MSM is certainly not going to.
Ah. I think I've misunderstood exactly what you meant in your first paragraph at #58. I read "people" and "deniers" as equivalent, but clearly they are not. In which case what you say is reasonable, although certain data presentations are vivid and instantaneous - no need for a video!
Keeling curve
The underlying problem is that the public isn't paying attention. The public may even be inclining towards mild-form denial, although this seems to evaporate in the face of local reactions to extreme weather events. The public isn't here in droves trying to improve its understanding. We are mostly talking either to deniers or to each other.
One small lie for Mann. one giant fraud for mankind,
And now for the good news! (I wish.) http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2013/oct/10/scienceofc…
Yes, Mack. One small lie for the trashing of Mann, one giant fraud on mankind just so your political ideology can be free of blame...
"The videos are for the casually interest but persuadable public."
Most of the public IS persuaded and know that AGW is going on. However, they're powerless, know they're powerless and know that there's absolutely no direction from their "leaders" and hence do what they can to get through the days.
But they know there's a problem and do something about it:see the public collective investment divesting itself of fossil fuel stocks. Despite the public whining by the extremely vocal extremist fringe, CFLs sold well enough to make a mint on razor thin margins. Smaller and more efficient cars are selling better to the general public than the idiot cars that RWNs insist they're going to buy two of "just to enjoy a bit nicer weather, so haha to you!".
None of the parties do anything about it, but on the promise of doing something about it, the Tories won, despite the "MAGGIE THATCHER!!!!" scare tactics.
And every time the tories show they were talking bollocks about being green, their ratings drop.
The public HAVE BEEN persuaded.
Those in power use the fake roots denialist industry to make out that they're "listening to the public" and "waiting until we're sure, and everyone agrees that we must do something about it".
Gee, 'Mack' dropped by to show us his new bumper sticker!
Tell us, 'Mack', how many other independent reconstructions have arrived at the same Hockey Stick shape? Oh, you don't know? You mean they don't tell you that at Jo Nova's? Golly!...
I sincerely hope Cuccinelli is about to be creamed - certainly he's not polling well, but there's still more than 3 weeks to go...
@ Sunspot sock "Mack"
Sunny, you are banned from posting except to your own thread, so please fuck off.
But you can take this with you!
PAGES-2K verifies MBH99
Caption: Green dots show the 30-year average of the new PAGES 2k reconstruction. The red curve shows the global mean temperature, according HadCRUT4 data from 1850 onwards. In blue is the original hockey stick of Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1999 ) with its uncertainty range (light blue). Graph by Klaus Bitterman.
There you go, cretin. Your ridiculous lie skewered by the latest, most comprehensive, independent research by dozens of authors worldwide. Mann was right, and you and your stupid denier chums were wrong all along.
It's o-ver, fuckwits.
Read all about it!
PAGES 2k Consortium (2013) Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia
Having looked at the Real Climate post 'The evolution of radiative forcing bar-charts' (I have quite a few of those versions here in various documents and books) earlier, see above, as the result of a new post at Eli's , I had to call in again to look see what Joe had written.
Well the chart presented therein is well worth a look. It just about sums up the level of argument of the crack-heads around here - including our Joe sock. Crack as in broken and not out out their heads on dangerous materials, although it can be difficult to tell the difference at times, with our Joe in particular.
Is their an emoticon for a crack-head in that latter sense?
I'm guessing you mean this chart, Lionel?
Sums it up beautifully - particularly the multiple instances of 'all of it', which had me genuinely laughing-out-loud.
I saw that at the time but couldn't really believe "our" sock posted it. A sense of humour and a grasp of the scientific context are both required, which on the face of it would disqualify him.
Aargh! Yes Bill, html snaffu again!
This was intended, fingers crossed this time:
the chart presented therein
I intended for any followers to see the actual thread over there as well as that chart.
Seems we've got the gremlins in again.
...and having said that they're gone!
Hey guyz, I have no idea about which Joe you are talking about, Real Climate and other nonsense.
Could you ignorants express yourself more exlicutly and in understandable language!
Hey guyz, I have no idea about which Joe you are talking about, Real Climate and other nonsense.
Could you ignorants express yourself more exlicutly and in understandable language!
Well you wouldn't would you dork because you cannot read. If you could it would be blindingly obvious. But of course not being able to read, not the same as being able to see words as reading implies understanding, you don't have any idea about anything, except maybe fence post array errors.
Don't talk to the banned troll, Lionel. Eventually, it will go away.
Hilarious doings over at WWOTW - one Winged Monkey's had its poo thrown back at it by a Winkie, which infuruated it. Then all the other Winged Monkeys and Winkies joined in a giant faeces-slinging stoush and it is so on!
Read all about it at Sou's place. Like a good birdseye chilli, the irony burns, but is so delicious...
FrankD
Yes, hilarious. I don't bother with WUWT much and Sou's dissections of doings over there are priceless.
As somebody pointed out Eschenbach has an entry at DeSmogBlog.
Amongst his credentials is a California Massage Certificate, Aames School of Massage.
Well, well. One cannot get much higher than that in science now can one.
I note Lubos Motl has chimed in at WUWT with this bit of cheer-leading:
String theory must be becoming increasingly dull.
Phew, that was a close thing for ol' Roy there. His relief must be palpable.
It's also hard to believe that a hard working, regularly publishing scientist like Willis has no relevant qualifications, which are after all only pieces of paper.
However, such details are easily addressed.
Clownshoe School of Climate Science for Citizen Scientists more commonly known as the ClownShoe³ awards, each one hand tooled then finished harnessing the incredible power of laser technology and printed onto carefully selected card stock, can be in the mail to you within days of payment clearance. Established many years. Many satisfied customers.
"Better than an industrial compressor for pumping up your CV" Mr. John O'S (UK)
"Mine says I'm the first ever Climate Scientist!" Mr. Tim B. (Canada)
I also have mine on a T-shirt! (Dr. Judith C, USA)
Chek:
"More than made up for that crappy JCU PhD that I never got" Mr John McL(Australia)
rhwombat ... now that was really unkind.
And you'll be smiling on the other side of your face when the temperature drops next year by 2 degrees (?? or whatever it was supposed to do last year).
Last year was 1956, I seem to recall, or was it even earlier?
Not. Even. Wrong.
chek, what do you want to express with your uninspired Clownshoe idiotism?
chek, what do you want to express with your uninspired Clownshoe idiotism?
Banned troll.
We seem to have the DOS problem back again. Surprise, surprise.
chek, what do you want to express with your uninspired Clownshoe idiotism?
Banned troll.
We seem to have the DOS problem back again. Surprise, surprise.
Banned troll.
We seem to have the DOS problem back again. Surprise, surprise.
Please don't feed the bbd troll who ony writes insane bullshit
bbd, nobody has asked you twerp, hence shut up you dirty asshole.
chek again the question to you : what do you want to express with your uninspired Clownshoe idiotism?
Please Deltoids, don't pay attention to this utter arselick bbd. He is a shame for everything.
Listen BBD, nobody likes you here and misses you. Just piss off, arsehole
But I haven't been banned. So I can comment here.
You have been banned, so:
bbd, nobody has asked you twerp, hence shut up you dirty asshole.
chek again the question to you : what do you want to express with your uninspired Clownshoe idiotism?
Please Deltoids, don’t pay attention to this utter arselick bbd. He is a shame for everything.
Listen BBD, nobody likes you here and misses you. Just piss off, arsehole
Joe, If a vote into Deltoid, pretty well everybody would boot you off, simply because you are an ignorant, moronic idiot as your kindergarten-level comments show.
I am sure all of your sock puppets have been banned. But if that is not the case, that can be remedied. Watch this space. Your time is running out here.
Why our species is well and truly headed for the precipice:
http://www.zcommunications.org/the-coming-plague-by-stephen-leahy.html
And yet watch the deniers put their usual lying spin on this.
BBD, yes you are right, for once
"But I haven’t been banned. So I can comment here."
Very rare that you excrement something a bit true, namely that I AM NOT BANNED, BUT YOU, YOU DISHONEST MULTIPE SOCKTROLL AND CHRONIC LIAR.
Jefff, just learn to read thermometers and you will be enlightened to learn that CAGW is bullshit.
But you layman haven't even heard from the peplopause or the FUDA currents, such a bloody layman there you are
re. #90
Joe = clownshoe.
hey, clownshoe! -
chek, what do you want to express with your uninspired Clownshoe idiotism?
Banned troll.
We seem to have the DOS problem back again. Surprise, surprise.
Please don’t feed the bbd troll who ony writes insane bullshit
bbd, nobody has asked you twerp, hence shut up you dirty asshole.
chek again the question to you : what do you want to express with your uninspired Clownshoe idiotism?
Please Deltoids, don’t pay attention to this utter arselick bbd. He is a shame for everything.
Listen BBD, nobody likes you here and misses you. Just piss off, arsehole
BBD, yes you are right, for once
“But I haven’t been banned. So I can comment here.”
Very rare that you excrement something a bit true, namely that I AM NOT BANNED, BUT YOU, YOU DISHONEST MULTIPE SOCKTROLL AND CHRONIC-
Jefff, just learn to read thermometers and you will be enlightened to learn that CAGW is bullshit.
But you layman haven’t even heard from the peplopause or the FUDA currents, such a bloody layman there you are
chek = arseshow
bill, clownshow!
@ Sunspot sock “Mack”
Sunny, you are banned from posting except to your own thread, so please fuck off.
But you can take this with you!
PAGES-2K verifies MBH99
Caption: Green dots show the 30-year average of the new PAGES 2k reconstruction. The red curve shows the global mean temperature, according HadCRUT4 data from 1850 onwards. In blue is the original hockey stick of Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1999 ) with its uncertainty range (light blue). Graph by Klaus Bitterman.
There you go, cretin. Your ridiculous lie skewered by the latest, most comprehensive, independent research by dozens of authors worldwide. Mann was right, and you and your stupid denier chums were wrong all along.
It’s o-ver, fuckwits.
Read all about it!
PAGES 2k Consortium (2013) Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia
Past global climate changes had strong regional expression. To elucidate their spatio-temporal pattern, we reconstructed past temperatures for seven continental-scale regions during the past one to two millennia. The most coherent feature in nearly all of the regional temperature reconstructions is a long-term cooling trend, which ended late in the nineteenth century. At multi-decadal to centennial scales, temperature variability shows distinctly different regional patterns, with more similarity within each hemisphere than between them. There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age, but all reconstructions show generally cold conditions between ad 1580 and 1880, punctuated in some regions by warm decades during the eighteenth century. The transition to these colder conditions occurred earlier in the Arctic, Europe and Asia than in North America or the Southern Hemisphere regions. Recent warming reversed the long-term cooling; during the period ad 1971–2000, the area-weighted average reconstructed temperature was higher than any other time in nearly 1,400 years.
wow, clownshow, kindergarden!
“The videos are for the casually interest but persuadable public.”
Most of the public IS persuaded and know that AGW is going on. However, they’re powerless, know they’re powerless and know that there’s absolutely no direction from their “leaders” and hence do what they can to get through the days.
But they know there’s a problem and do something about it:see the public collective investment divesting itself of fossil fuel stocks. Despite the public whining by the extremely vocal extremist fringe, CFLs sold well enough to make a mint on razor thin margins. Smaller and more efficient cars are selling better to the general public than the idiot cars that RWNs insist they’re going to buy two of “just to enjoy a bit nicer weather, so haha to you!”.
None of the parties do anything about it, but on the promise of doing something about it, the Tories won, despite the “MAGGIE THATCHER!!!!” scare tactics.
And every time the tories show they were talking bollocks about being green, their ratings drop.
The public HAVE BEEN persuaded.
Those in power use the fake roots denialist industry to make out that they’re “listening to the public” and “waiting until we’re sure, and everyone agrees that we must do something about it”.
jeff, cliwnshiw???
Joe, If a vote into Deltoid, pretty well everybody would boot you off, simply because you are an ignorant, moronic idiot as your kindergarten-level comments show.
I am sure all of your sock puppets have been banned. But if that is not the case, that can be remedied. Watch this space. Your time is running out here.
Jeff, wrong! Not my time is running out, but your time is running out as an elderly with a lot of extremely unhealthy habits! Believe your doctor!
No Joe, you aren't following. Try harder.
Joe + clownshoe information + clownshoe experts + clownshoe websites = clownshoe.
The maths are quite irrefutable.
chek@1#96:
Joe=clownsock (mit einem wirklich schrecklichen Geruch).
Ja, das stimmt!
rhwombat, bill
you assholes try to speak swedish? How ridiculous, you untalented monolingual null performers.
Mouth wide open, performance nil. That's typical of the alarmist twerps.
Joe is now displaying classic regression behavior to his old sock puppets. Lashing out with the usual childish smears. As I said Joe, I can get you booted off of this blog and its my intention t do so. Why do you think Karen, Luke, and your other socks disappeared suddenly? By magic?
We're asking you to bugger off on your own. But if you won't, then we'll get it done officially.
By the way, Joe/Kai/Boris etc., the paper I referred to was published in Nature. I used to be an editor there. How many peer-reviewed papers have you published in your illustrious career?
My guess is ZERO.
Joe:
i.e. they are eager to prevent people from believing a lie.
The fact is that the last 15 years do not show a statistically significant change from the average rate of warming of the previous 24 years.
Average rate of warming 1974-1998: 0.17 deg C/decade (Gistemp)
2 sigma confidence interval 1998-present: 0.061±0.133 deg C/decade
0.17 deg C/decade is within the 2 sigma confidence interval of the last 15 years.
Therefore there is no statistically significant slowdown in warming in the last 15 years.
Simply ignore Joe, don't even bother with strikeout. In his case it's more effective than pointing out the problems with his comments because he's attention seeking, and any kind of attention will do.
Lotharsson alarmist: wrong!
I do not seek attention! At least your attention, as I don't like to talk to real idiots like you, BBD, bill, rhwombat and all the other overly narcisstic ignorants and wannabees without scientific background and substance. You blethers do only copy paste what your climate priests want you to ruminate over and over again: your utterly primitive message: it's maybe getting warner and maybe we must swim in 1000s of years from now. Never in the whole history of mankind was there a more idiotic "scientific" prophecy than "it's getting warmer"
hahahahahaha, what a terrible threat, some tenths of a degree Celsius more than now due to unproven factors like "greenhouse gases" or other rubbish.
Listen Lotharsson:
YOU ARE SEEKING ATTENTION,YOU CLIMATE ARSEHOLES, BECAUSE YOU WANT TO IMPOVERISH THE PEOPLE.
YOU SHOULD GET ARRESTED DUE TO HIGH TREASON, YOU UNSPEAKBLE ECO FUNDAMENTALIST STINKING ARSELICKS.
YOUR TIME IS OVER. THIS BLOG WILL BE STOPPED. AND YOU PISS OFF NOW, IDIOTIC TWERP LOTHARSSON
Nurse.
NURSE!
Yup, Joe is Berendaneke alright. He has resorted to form. Bernard is right - but we need nurses armed with straightjackets. I can get him booted out of here soon, no problem, but this guy is so utterly wacko that he will try and enter using another sock. Its true that he's ranting to everyone and no-one, but its truly scary to know such deranged people exist.
Guiseppe doesn't realise the irony of his claims that all we do is copy and paste. Where his irony meter fails is that it does not appreciate that unlike him we may copy and paste but with context.
Another thing his mangel-wurzel brain cannot grasp is the reason why we do what we do - because the field is so vast, has so many interlinked factors covered via a multitude of scientific disciplines with a multitude of papers an order of magnitude greater than that of the fields themselves. BTW mangel-wurzel brain, by fields I do not indicate places where one could park cows.
Thanks to DeSmogBlog I have been informed of a move by the Union of Concerned Scientists to facilitate informed public participation in the Hydraulic Fracturing, fracking, debate by the publication of a Full Report and an Executive Sunmmary Toward an Evidence-Based Fracking Debate.
Page 3 of the Executive Summary carries a link to a Fracking Informational Toolkit, which I have included here.
Although this is designed for the US citizen in may well be of use to those in other lands where the fracking mania threatens to take hold. Indeed in the UK it may be of help in countering 'The Madness of King George' Osborne, the UK Chancellor of the Exchequer and all round member of the old boy network and an inside placeman for the socio-paths of banking, commerce and industry.
Aargh! Banana fingers, gout, produced a spurious space inside an html link closing tag.
Page 3 of the Executive Summary carries a link to a Fracking Informational Toolkit, which I have included here.
Although this is designed for the US citizen in may well be of use to those in other lands where the fracking mania threatens to take hold. Indeed in the UK it may be of help in countering 'The Madness of King George' Osborne, the UK Chancellor of the Exchequer and all round member of the old boy network and an inside placeman for the socio-paths of banking, commerce and industry.
Groan,
Page 3 of the Executive Summary carries a link to a Fracking Informational Toolkit, which I have included here.
Lionel A, you are not at all polyglot and don't speak swedish, therefore your akward trials to elicit the impression as if you would dispose of more than your camp's mean mainstream talents loooks just very ridiculous. You are unfortunately, like so many others in the warmist idicoy, of extremely limited talent in all dimensions. It' just embarassing when such a low-performer like you behaves as if he would be something special. You are only a tiny completely unimportant asshole, full of lies, hatred, and evil morality, completely devoid of decent ethical standards. You are a real asshole.
Harvey, you dirty arselick: YOU WILL BE BANNED SOON
Yup, Joe is Berendaneke alright. He has resorted to form. Bernard is right – but we need nurses armed with straightjackets. I can get him booted out of here soon, no problem, but this guy is so utterly wacko that he will try and enter using another sock. Its true that he’s ranting to everyone and no-one, but its truly scary to know such deranged people exist.
bill, your swedish is painstakingly akward. Please spare all of us from testimonies of your lacking talents, arsehole
Oh FFS.
Who's trying to speak Swedish? The foreign language on this page at #4 and 5 is German.
Following the link to Climate Desperate at the Rabett's place in The 97% Need To Strike Back I would like to borrow a bucket as I have filled all mine, and the bath-tub too.
I have never looked in there before, what an asylum it is where even language is sickened with e.g. this gem - new word (?) highlighted, one has to scroll down the below Lindzen in the right hand pane after linking through Climate Depot home :
Jerk, jerk and jerk. Anyone for Heartland Jerky?
Sorry if this is a repeat as the first vanished into a Service Unavailable.
I recommend people check the Stoat's Burrow and look for "Freddy". There's some info there that may be of relevance to Tim. If Joe has the same IP (or same host), inquiring minds like to know that fact.
Marco, are you an agent of the IPCC climate police or just a nasty shamus?
I recommend to Tim to investigate whether you and "Freddy" are sock puppets of an anonymous hysteric climate alarmist.
In any case Tim should ban you ignorant asshole.
Marco
There's no doubt that "Joe" is Kai - Freddy - Boris - Berendanke etc.
I suspect the problem for Tim is that our sock hydra is using proxy servers - now that it's got easy enough for any script kiddie to do.
Marco, here is your insane idiocy:
I recommend people check the Stoat’s Burrow and look for “Freddy”. There’s some info there that may be of relevance to Tim. If Joe has the same IP (or same host), inquiring minds like to know that fact.
BBD, and here is your shit:
Marco
There’s no doubt that “Joe” is Kai – Freddy – Boris – Berendanke etc.
I suspect the problem for Tim is that our sock hydra is using proxy servers – now that it’s got easy enough for any script kiddie to do.
BBD, oh my god:
"ip", "proxy", "host", "script", "dds" etc.
You absolutely ignorant stinker arselick could not have shown better what an incredible full wooden post in IT you are, such an non-informed idiot you are, the same as in meteorology
rhwombat, bill
you assholes try to speak swedish? How ridiculous, you untalented monolingual null performers.
Mouth wide open, performance nil. That’s typical of the alarmist twerps.
bill, your swedish is painstakingly akward. Please spare all of us from testimonies of your lacking talents, arsehole
Marco, are you an agent of the IPCC climate police or just a nasty shamus?
I recommend to Tim to investigate whether you and “Freddy” are sock puppets of an anonymous hysteric climate alarmist.
In any case Tim should ban you ignorant asshole.
BBD, oh my god:
“ip”, “proxy”, “host”, “script”, “dds” etc.
You absolutely ignorant stinker arselick could not have shown better what an incredible full wooden post in IT you are, such an non-informed idiot you are, the same as in meteorology
Deutsche, dummkopf!
Since you won't go away, please explain why I am "absolutely ignorant stinker arselick"?
These are the terms you think I have misused:
What am I getting wrong here?
Warning. This blog contains traces of ClownSockTroll (AKA Kai, Freddy, Boris, Berendaneke & Joe).
ClownSockTroll Hunting by Scat Analysis. (or how to spend Sunday when it was too bloody hot to climb in October).
Despite knowing that this will inflame the Narcissistic Personality Disordered (NPD) virtual pustule known as the ClownSockTroll (CST) to the point of bursting, it is interesting to do a Gogol-style google on the various manifestations of the CST.
The underlying NPD, distinctive 'style', repetitive errors, fascist perspective, vehemence, humourlessness, affectations, resentment and neediness permeates his posts (it is, of course, male) and makes them readily identifiable through a trail of socks & servers. From Kai to Freddy to Berendaneke to Boris to Joe, the CST has used a trail of nyms to plague Deltoid (and a few more stringently moderated blogs) with the sneering contempt of a prepubescent tagger.
Despite the similarities in attitude (and probably a shared pathology) the CST is not the "Olaf Koenders" who's stuffed head was left up for RC's regulars to mock. Olaf Koenders is a local dickhead (vide: http://ericpetersautos.com/2012/01/08/road-clovers/ ) who posts on WTFUWT & Coddling's Crap with similar world views but an obviously anglophone background, despite the name. English is not CST's preferred language.
Some of CST's previous responses on Deltoid provide some clues: He's not medical, but retains some awe of the title and familiarity with sub specialisation (including misidentification of "Lime" disease but familiarity with sexually transmitted spirochaetosis!). I suspect that he has worked on the IT side of medicine, possibly with a German cardiology MRI group -from one of whom he pinched his first pseudonym. Freddy, Boris and Joe are fairly obvious generic nyms that fit with his adolescent fantasy character of the fearless script kiddie afflicting the adults who don't know how important and dangerous he really is (that's called sarcasm, CST, don't get excited). Berendaneke is more interesting, since the nym does not occur (outside Deltoid) in any searchable form.
So: CST is a northern European male with NPD and anti-Socialist tendencies, some IT skills and a dogged devotion to trolling Deltoid. I don't think he's Anders Behring Breivik, but I could be wrong. Anyone else want to play?
Marco@2#24: Well that was interesting. CST doesn't get out much does he?
rhwombat
you suffer from the same disease as all the other CAGW arseholes here: you think you are far more intelligent, skilled, knowledgeable, ethical, right etc. than you really are. YOU ARE A PRIMITIVE FOOL, AN OVER UTTERLY ARROGANT ASSHOLE. Look at yourself, you stinking shit: you are a subordinate, dependent employee without money, ambitious but not skilled and successful beyond small local horizons, outside your village nobody knows you twerp.
Here is an example of your stinking shit :
ClownSockTroll Hunting by Scat Analysis. (or how to spend Sunday when it was too bloody hot to climb in October).
Despite knowing that this will inflame the Narcissistic Personality Disordered (NPD) virtual pustule known as the ClownSockTroll (CST) to the point of bursting, it is interesting to do a Gogol-style google on the various manifestations of the CST.
The underlying NPD, distinctive ‘style’, repetitive errors, fascist perspective, vehemence, humourlessness, affectations, resentment and neediness permeates his posts (it is, of course, male) and makes them readily identifiable through a trail of socks & servers. From Kai to Freddy to Berendaneke to Boris to Joe, the CST has used a trail of nyms to plague Deltoid (and a few more stringently moderated blogs) with the sneering contempt of a prepubescent tagger.
Despite the similarities in attitude (and probably a shared pathology) the CST is not the “Olaf Koenders” who’s stuffed head was left up for RC’s regulars to mock. Olaf Koenders is a local dickhead (vide: http://ericpetersautos.com/2012/01/08/road-clovers/ ) who posts on WTFUWT & Coddling’s Crap with similar world views but an obviously anglophone background, despite the name. English is not CST’s preferred language.
Some of CST’s previous responses on Deltoid provide some clues: He’s not medical, but retains some awe of the title and familiarity with sub specialisation (including misidentification of “Lime” disease but familiarity with sexually transmitted spirochaetosis!). I suspect that he has worked on the IT side of medicine, possibly with a German cardiology MRI group -from one of whom he pinched his first pseudonym. Freddy, Boris and Joe are fairly obvious generic nyms that fit with his adolescent fantasy character of the fearless script kiddie afflicting the adults who don’t know how important and dangerous he really is (that’s called sarcasm, CST, don’t get excited). Berendaneke is more interesting, since the nym does not occur (outside Deltoid) in any searchable form.
So: CST is a northern European male with NPD and anti-Socialist tendencies, some IT skills and a dogged devotion to trolling Deltoid. I don’t think he’s Anders Behring Breivik, but I could be wrong. Anyone else want to play?
Regarding what tie AR5 SPM said, it is almost comical. I gather you have read Ross McKitricks summary:
“SPM in a nutshell: Since we started in 1990 we were right about the Arctic, wrong about the Antarctic, wrong about the tropical troposphere, wrong about the surface, wrong about hurricanes, wrong about the Himalayas, wrong about sensitivity, clueless on clouds and useless on regional trends. And on that basis we’re 95% confident we’re right.”
Pretty much sums it up, wouldn’t you say? Not even overstated …
Look Deltoid ignorants what the IPCC admits:
The effect of clouds on Earth’s present-day top-of-atmosphere (TOA) radiation budget, or cloud radiative effect (CRE), can be inferred from satellite data by comparing upwelling radiation in cloudy and non-cloudy conditions (Ramanathan et al., 1989). By enhancing the planetary albedo, cloudy conditions exert a global and annual shortwave cloud radiative effect (SWCRE) of approximately –50 W m–2 and, by contributing to the greenhouse effect, exert a mean longwave effect (LWCRE) of approximately +30 W m–2, with a range of 10% or less between published satellite estimates (Loeb et al., 2009). Some of the apparent LWCRE comes from the enhanced water vapour coinciding with the natural cloud fluctuations used to measure the effect, so the true cloud LWCRE is about 10% smaller (Sohn et al., 2010). The net global mean CRE of approximately –20 W m–2 implies a net cooling effect of clouds on the current climate. Due to the large magnitudes of the SWCRE and LWCRE, clouds have the potential to cause significant climate feedback (Section 7.2.5). The sign of this feedback on climate change cannot be determined from the sign of CRE in the current climate, but depends instead on how climate-sensitive the properties are that govern the LWCRE and SWCRE.
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.
Deltoid ignorants, here some stuff, you must learn to understand:
THE ESA GLOBALBEDO PROJECT FOR MAPPING THE EARTH'S LAND SURFACE ALBEDO FOR 15 YEARS FROM EUROPEAN SENSORS.
Jan-Peter Muller, Gerardo López, Gill Watson, Neville Shane, Tom Kennedy, Peter Yuen (1)
P. Lewis (2), Jürgen Fischer, Luis Guanter, Carlos Domench, Réné Preusker (3) Peter North, Andreas Heckel (4); Olaf Danne, Uwe Krämer, Marco Zühlke, Carsten Brockmann (5), Simon Pinnock (6)
(1) Mullard Space Science Laboratory, Dept. of Space & Climate Physics; (2) Dept. of Geography, University College London, UK
(3) Institut für Weltraumwissenschaften, Freie Universität Berlin, Germany (4) Department of Geography, Swansea University, UK
(5) Brockmann Consult, Geesthacht, Germany
(6) ESA-ESRIN, Frascati, Italy
1. GLOBALBEDO PROCESSING AND SAMPLES
A land surface broadband albedo map of the entire Earth’s land surface (snow and snow-free) is required for use in Global Climate Model initialisation and verification. A group of 10 users have been selected to work with the GlobAlbedo* Implementation team to define requirements and drive the project towards practical applications of the product. These requirements defined the need to generate a final product on 8-daily at spatial resolutions of 1km in sinusoidal projection using the MODIS 10o x 10o tiling scheme and 0.05o and 0.5o on monthly time-steps.
To generate such a global map by temporal compositing requires both sufficient directional looks and the very precise correction of top-of-atmosphere radiances to “at surface” directional reflectances (SDRs). In addition, such a map requires precise radiometric calibration and inter-calibration of different sensors [1] and the computation of radiative transfer coefficients to derive broadband SDRs from different input narrowband SDRs and given sufficient angular sampling from all the directional looks within a given temporal window, derive a suitable BRDF. This BRDF can be integrated to produce DHR (Direct Hemispherical Reflectance known as “black-sky”) and BHR (BiHemispherical Reflectance, known as “white-sky”) [2]. The final albedo product has been integrated in three spectral broadband ranges, namely the solar spectrum shortwave (400-3000nm), the visible PAR region (400-700nm) and the near- and shortwave-infrared (700-3000nm). In addition, maps of normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) and the fraction of absorbed photosynthetically active radiation (fAPAR) will be generated consistent with the albedo product to complement the Globalbedo data set for analysis of vegetation-related processes [3].
To achieve the aim of deriving independent estimates using European only assets, GlobAlbedo set out to create a 15 year time series by employing SPOT4-VEGETATION and SPOT5-VEGETATION2 as well as MERIS. Legacy algorithms for deriving SDRs using an optimal estimation approach are outlined [2] as well as a novel system for gap-filling using ten year mean estimates derived from equivalent BRDFs from MODIS [2]. Each and every output pixel albedo value has an estimated uncertainty associated with it and the corresponding BRDF a full uncertainty matrix for each pixel. Separate BRDFs are computed for snow and snow-free pixels and combined together to yield a gap-free dataset. An example of a sample output product browse in Figure 1 shows the BHR and the coefficient of variation derived from the uncertainty divided by the expectation value (loc.cit.)
Animations of 8-daily and monthly browse products including the full-resolution 1km tiles are available on the website for the products available to date (2005, 2009, 2010 and the first 6 months of 2011). An OGC-compliant server based on OpenLayers also allows display of global data and inter-comparison by flickering from one date with another. Global data at 0.05o and 0.5o, as well as individual tiles at 1km, can be downloaded using wget and scripts can be easily written by the user to harvest the data they require. A novel facility is the ability to extract a single pixel or a group of 3 x 3 or 5 x 5 pixels in CSV format through time for immediate plotting locally.
2. GLOBALBEDO VALIDATION
Extensive validation has been performed on final GlobAlbedo product for each and every year that correlative data is available. Shown here from [4], in Figure 2 is an example of a time series plot of Blue-Sky albedo from GlobAlbedo, MODIS priors, MODIS Collection 5 and MISR measurements. Uncertainties calculated from within the product [2] are shown for GlobAlbedo and MISR. For a desert bare rock site (upper panel), the GlobAlbedo product shows reasonable agreement with the other EO datasets and with the tower measurements. The differences shown at the year start may be related to spatial variability of the site (loc.cit.). The Toravere site like most BSRN sites is not chosen for its spatial homogeneity but rather it’s location close to a suitable laboratory. It has a high degree of spatial variability and almost all BSRN are in this category. In addition, unlike the SURFRAD tower albedometer at 30m with a 100m footprint, Toravere albedometers are at 5m above the surface with a 5m footprint so rendering them unhelpful for the purpose of validating spaceborne-derived land surface albedo. The time series shown for Travere shows a common phenomenon for the more than 80 sites worldwide which have been employed to date, related to the effect of snow in winter. Due to very different fields of view of the local albedometer and the 1km EO-derived equivalent values, snow albedo values from EO are typically 50% of the ones retrieved from local albedometers. In this case, GlobAlbedo appears to be slightly more sensitive to the snow values but this is not necessarily typical.
3. GLOBALBEDO PROSPECTS
The GlobAlbedo data production at UCL-MSSL takes around 3 weeks per output year and produces around 1.5Tb (uncompressed) output. This is running flat-out on a 10-blade (160-core) linux cluster with 48gb of RAM and 1Tb local disk. The processing requires 100Tb of scratch-space to keep all input and output products online. An extensive Product User Manual is available from the website. Currently the production is expect to be completed for the Envisat time period by October 2012 with products being loaded after visual inspection of the browse products and validation using extensive tower-based data and similar EO datasets, including METEOSAT. In the next phase, a variety of different users will assess the impact of the product, and the use of the estimated uncertainties on their particular application.
4. REFERENCES CITED
[1] D. Potts, S. Mackin, J-P. Muller, N. Fox (2012). Satellite Sensor Intercalibration over Dome C: Application of QA4EO principles to the ESA GlobAlbedo Project. IGARSS 2012 (this conference)
[2] GlobAlbedo_ATBD_V3.0 (2011). GlobAlbedo: Algorithm Theoretical Basis Document. Authors: P. Lewis, C. Brockmann, O. Danne, J. Fischer, L. Guanter, A. Heckel, O. Krueger, G. López, J-P. Muller, P. North, D. Potts, R. Preusker. Available from http://www.GlobAlbedo.org/
[3] Pinty, B., Jung, M., Kaminski, T., Lavergne, T., Mund, M., Plummer, S., Thomas, E., Widlowski, J.L., 2011. Evaluation of the JRC-TIP 0.01° products over a mid-latitude deciduous forest site. Remote Sens. Environ. 115, 3567-3581.
[4] Muller, J.-P., Lopez, G., Shane, N.S., Danne, O., Brockmann, C., Krämer, U., Zühlke, M., Heckel, A., North, P.R., Domench, C., Guanter, L., Fischer, J., Wang, Z., Schaapman-Strub, G., Cescatti, A., 2012. GlobAlbedo Test Product Validation Report, available from http://www.globalbedo.org/docs/GlobAlbedo_TPVR_V2_2.pdf . UCL- MSSL, 92pp.
Correction : Message improvement!!!
++++++++ BREAKING NEWS ++++++++ BREAKING NEWS ++++++++ BREAKING NEWS
Arctic Sea Ice Minimum 2013 dramatically high:
The Record Minimum 2013 was achieved on September 16.
Scientific Results:
The September 16 values (km2) of the last 7 years:
2007: 4070114
2008: 4516471
2009: 5125931
2010: 4684325
2011: 4420667
2012: 3177455
2013: 4824927
Scientific Discussion:
The presented arctic sea ice extent data show a substantial increase of arctic sea ice extent during the last seven years. Only 2009 showed a higher arctic sea ice extent in the last seven years than the 2013 value. This trend of increasing arctic sea ice extent is in good agreement with the slightly decreasing global temperatures during the last 16 years. Humanity might therefore consider measures to counter a new cooling period.
Political discussion:
Why on Earth the fuck have idiotic mainstream journalists not alarmed the public of this new cooling trend in the arctic ocean. WHY THE FUCK?????
Look at these idiotic CAGW leper islanders and mainstream journalists:
:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
++++++++ BREAKING NEWS ++++++++ BREAKING NEWS ++++++++ BREAKING NEWS
@Harvey eco fundamentalist and CO2 clown :evil:
Your insane over-exaggeration of eco worshipping is totally unacceptable:
Understanding the value of supporting, aesthetic and provisioning ecosystem services is one of the most important disciplines bridging environmental science and economics. Supporting services are those which underpin the material economy (Heal, 2000). These include: purification of air and water, breakdown of wastes, stabilization of coastlines and climate, flood control, generation and maintenance of soil and renewal of its fertility, pollination, seed dispersal, the cycling of nutrients, pest control and others.
Utter bullshit from a lunatic eco clown :evil:
Costanza’s seminal 1997 paper argued that supporting ecological services alone were worth 33 trillion dollars to the global economy at the time – almost twice as much as the sum of all GDPs of all nations on Earth. A more recent study evaluates the value of supporting services:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041612000101
Utter bullshit from a lunatic eco clown :evil:
The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2006) was one of the largest scientific endeavors undertaken in decades. Many of the world’s leading scientists contributed to it. The report concluded that human activities have seriously degrading critical services such as those described above by as much as 60%. The prognosis of further degradation is dire. Most of these services do not have technological substitutes, and even where there are, these are prohibitively expensive. For instance, the extinction of pollinators in parts of China has meant that certain crops have to be pollinated by hand. Humans cannot replicate the effectiveness of natural pollinators, such as insects, and crop yields are thus a fraction of what they would be if healthy population of insects were present.
Utter bullshit from a lunatic eco clown :evil:
There are a number of examples where the value of ecosystem services has been demonstrated. One of the best and which I use in lectures is the pollination of oil palms. Oil palms are native to west Africa, and were introduced into Indonesia and elsewhere in SE Asia in 1918. However, no native pollinators were introduced, meaning that for 62 years the trees had to be hand-pollinated. In 1980, however, a small African weevil and mutualistic pollinator of oil palm trees was introduced intentionally into Asia. Within 5 years, 200 million dollars was saved in tedious hand-pollinating practices and at the same time oil palm yields increased by a factor of 5.
Utter bullshit from a lunatic eco clown :evil:
Other examples abound. New York City has some of the cleanest drinking water of any major city on Earth. That is because the water comes from the Catskill Mountains watershed, some 150 km north of the city. Soil organisms filter the water and purify it. In the 1980s, however, the water supply to the city was threatened by developers who planned to clear many of the forests in the Catskill Mountains for golf courses and hotels. Moreover, the number of farms in the area increased, all of these factors leading to a reduction in the quality of groundwater and thus threatening New York’s longstanding supply. City planners had two options: build a water purification plant for 6 billion dollars with 300 million dollar annual maintenance costs, or to stop any further development of the Catskill region, buy out the developers and turn it into a large wilderness region – at a cost of 3 billion dollars. The planners took the latter decision.
Utter bullshit from a lunatic eco clown :evil:
Two textbook examples of ecosystem services and their economic valuation. Yet Luke says that ecosystem services are ‘lefty bullshit’. Folks, this is the kind of brainless idiot that we are dealing with. A self-righteous know-nothing with delusions of grandeur. Bill is correct. He does not deserve an audience.
Utter bullshit from a lunatic eco clown :evil:
Please stop your useless propaganda for a completely useless waste of time with your lunatic eco illness.
@Harvey greenpisser
I give another chance to take of reality, which you ideology greenpisser don’t like:
The scientific evidence for the validity of the AGW hypothesis is weak:
1) A global surface temperature increase has not been convincingly shown so far due to methodological weaknesses
2) Consequently a part of a hypothetical temperature increase – which could not be shown so far – due to anthropogenic CO2 is not demonstrated so far by climatology
3) GCMS do not provide any evidence for CO2 warming in reality. It’s only virtual reality and clouds cannot be modeled so far. Therefore this is methodological crap.
4) Harveys insect biology is irrelevant regarding the CO2 hypothesis. Life is always adapting to environment, but Harvey does not like this.
You greenpissers on deltoid are poor ideologists, far away from science. You are a shame for mankind. Try to remove your ideological greenpiss dirt and work hard to become decent citizens instead of staying unethical idiots.
Further testimonies from post-normal climatology:
WHAT IS THE AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE NOW?
Climatologists prefer to combine short-term weather records into long-term periods (typically 30 years) when they analyze climate, including global averages. Between 1961 and 1990, the annual average temperature for the globe was around 57.2°F (14.0°C), according to the World Meteorological Organization.
In 2012, the global temperature was about 1.03°F (0.57°C) above the long-term average for the 20th century, according to NOAA's National Climatic Data Center. That number made 2012 the 10th warmest year on record within a database going back to 1880. But among years with La Niña events under way (which typically cool the climate), 2012 was the third warmest on record.
WHY ARE GLOBAL TEMPERATURES EXPRESSED AS A DEPARTURE FROM NORMAL,
INSTEAD OF A SIMPLE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE?
One reason is that there are several different techniques for coming up with a global average, depending on how one accounts for temperatures above the data-sparse oceans and other poorly sampled regions.
Since there is no universally accepted definition for Earth’s average temperature, several different groups around the world use slightly different methods for tracking the global average over time, including:
NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
NOAA National Climatic Data Center
UK Met Office Hadley Centre
The important point is that the trends that emerge from year to year and decade to decade are remarkably similar—more so than the averages themselves. This is why global warming is usually described in terms of anomalies (variations above and below the average for a baseline set of years) rather than in absolute temperature. A website from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies goes into more detail on the topic of The Elusive Absolute Surface Air Temperature.
Would You Like Your Temperature Data Homogenized, or Pasteurized?
Posted on December 11, 2009 by Anthony Watts
A Smoldering Gun From Nashville, TN
Guest post by Basil Copeland
The hits just keep on coming. About the same time that Willis Eschenbach revealed “The Smoking Gun at Darwin Zero,” The UK’s Met Office released a “subset” of the HadCRUT3 data set used to monitor global temperatures. I grabbed a copy of “the subset” and then began looking for a location near me (I live in central Arkansas) that had a long and generally complete station record that I could compare to a “homogenized” set of data for the same station from the GISTemp data set. I quickly, and more or less randomly, decided to take a closer look at the data for Nashville, TN. In the HadCRUT3 subset, this is “72730” in the folder “72.” A direct link to the homogenized GISTemp data used is here. After transforming the row data to column data (see the end of the post for a “bleg” about this), the first thing I did was plot the differences between the two series:
click to enlarge
The GISTemp homogeneity adjustment looks a little hockey-stickish, and induces an upward trend by reducing older historical temperatures more than recent historical temperatures. This has the effect of turning what is a negative trend in the HadCRUT3 data into a positive trend in the GISTemp version:
click to enlarge
So what would appear to be a general cooling trend over the past ~130 years at this location when using the unadjusted HadCRUT3 data, becomes a warming trend when the homogeneity adjustment is supplied.
“There is nothing to see here, move along.” I do not buy that. Whether or not the homogeneity adjustment is warranted, it has an effect that calls into question just how much the earth has in fact warmed over the past 120-150 years (the period covered, roughly, by GISTemp and HadCRUT3). There has to be a better, more “robust” way of measuring temperature trends, that is not so sensitive that it turns negative trends into positive trends (which we’ve seen it do twice how, first with Darwin Zero, and now here with Nashville). I believe there is.
Temperature Data: Pasteurized versus Homogenized
In a recent series of posts, here, here, and with Anthony here, I’ve been promoting a method of analyzing temperature data that reveals the full range of natural climate variability. Metaphorically, this strikes me as trying to make a case for “pasteurizing” the data, rather than “homogenizing” it. In homogenization, the object is to “mix things up” so that it is “the same throughout.” When milk is homogenized, this prevents the cream from rising to the top, thus preventing us from seeing the “natural variability” that is in milk. But with temperature data, I want very much to see the natural variability in the data. And I cannot see that with linear trends fitted through homogenized data. It may be a hokey analogy, but I want my data pasteurized – as clean as it can be – but not homogenized so that I cannot see the true and full range of natural climate variability.
I believe that the only way to truly do this is by analyzing, or studying, how differences in the temperature data vary over time. And they do not simply vary in a constant direction. As everybody knows, temperatures sometimes trend upwards, and at other times downward. The method of studying how differences in the temperature data allows us to see this far more clearly than simply fitting trend lines to undifferenced data. In fact, it can prevent us from reaching the wrong conclusion, as in fitting a positive trend when the real trend has been negative. To demonstrate this, here is a plot of monthly seasonal differences for the GISTemp version of the Nashville, TN data set:
click to enlarge
Pay close attention as I describe what we’re seeing here. First, “sd” means “seasonal differences” (not “standard deviation”). That is, it is the year to year variation in each monthly observation, for example October 2009 compared to October 2008. Next, the “trend” is the result of smoothing with Hodrick-Prescott smoothing (lamnda = 14,400). The type of smoothing here is not as critical as is the decision to smooth the seasonal differences. If a reader prefers a different smoothing algorithm, have at at it. Just make sure you apply it to the seasonal differences, and that it not change the overall mean of the series. I.e., the mean of the seasonal differences, for GISTemp’s Nashville, TN data set, is -0.012647, whether smoothed or not. The smoothing simply helps us to see, a little more clearly, the regularity of warming and cooling trends over time. Now note clearly the sign of the mean seasonal difference: it is negative. Even in the GISTemp series, Nashville, TN has spent more time cooling (imagine here periods where the blue line in the chart above is below zero) than it has warming over the last ~130 years.
How can that be? Well, the method of analyzing differences is less sensitive – I.e. more “robust” — than fitting trend lines through the undifferenced data. “Step” type adjustments as we see with homogeneity adjustments only affect a single data point in the differenced series, but affect every data point (before or after it is applied) in the undifferenced series. We can see the effect of the GISTemp homogeneity adjustments here by comparing the previous figure with the following:
click to enlarge
Here, in the HadCRUT3 series, the mean seasonal difference is more negative, -0.014863 versus -0.012647. The GISTemp adjustments increases the average seasonal difference by 0.002216, making it less negative, but not enough so that the result becomes positive. In both cases we still come to the conclusion that “on the average” monthly seasonal differences in temperatures in Nashville have been negative over the last ~130 years.
An Important Caveat
So have we actually shown that, at least for Nashville, TN, there has been no net warming over the past ~130 years? No, not necessarily. The average monthly seasonal difference has indeed been negative over the past 130 years. But it may have been becoming “less negative.” Since I have more confidence, at this point, in the integrity of the HadCRUT3 data, than the GISTemp data, I’ll discuss this solely in the context of the HadCRUT3 data. In both the “original data” and in the blue “trend” shown in the above figure, there is a slight upward trend over the past ~130 years:
click to enlarge
Here, I’m only showing the fit relative to the smoothed (trend) data. (It is, however, exactly the same as the fit to the original, or unsmoothed, data.) Whereas the average seasonal difference for the HadCRUT3 data here was -0.014863, from the fit through the data it was only -0.007714 at the end of series (October 2009). Still cooling, but less so, and in that sense one could argue that there has been some “warming.” And overall – I.e. if a similar kind of analysis is applied to all of the stations in the HadCRUT3 data set (or “subset”) – I will not be surprised if there is not some evidence for warming. But that has never really be the issue. The issue has always been (a) how much warming, and (b) where has it come from?
I suggest that the above chart showing the fit through the smooth helps define the challenges we face in these issues. First, the light gray line depicts the range of natural climate variability on decadal time scales. This much – and it is very much of the data – is completely natural, and cannot be attributed to any kind of anthropogenic influence, whether UHI, land use/land cover changes, or, heaven forbid, greenhouse gases. If there is any anthropogenic impact here, it is in the blue line, what is in effect a trend in the trend. But even that is far from certain, for before we can conclude that, we have to rule out natural climate variability on centennial time scales. And we simply cannot do that with the instrumental temperature record, because it isn’t long enough. I hate to admit that, because it means either that we accept the depth of our ignorance here, or we look for answers in proxy data. And we’ve seen the mess that has been made of things in trying to rely on proxy data. I think we have to accept the depth of our ignorance, for now, and admit that we do not really have a clue about what might have caused the kind of upward drift we see in the blue trend line in the preceding figure. Of course, that means putting a hold on any radical socioeconomic transformations based on the notion that we know what in truth we do not know.
204 Responses to Would You Like Your Temperature Data Homogenized, or Pasteurized?
Mark says:
December 11, 2009 at 10:14 pm
Why doesn’t somebody get the raw unadjusted data for the world and plot just the rural data to see if there is warming or not? Urban area data would naturally seem to me to rise over time as those areas grow larger (and hence get more cars, electrical appliances, roads, buildings, people, etc).
In my view, if the raw unadjusted rural data shows no warming, then CO2 isn’t working.
[REPLY - Even the rural stations are horribly sited. When I last totted it up, the CRN site rating was even worse for rural stations than urban (rural/urban as defined by USHCN1). Even so, the average urban station warmed 0.5C/century more than the average rural station. 9% of USHCN1 stations are classified as urban, 17% as suburban, and the rest, rural. ~ Evan]
Ian George says:
December 11, 2009 at 10:18 pm
There seems to be a discrepancy in the BOM records re raw data and their anomaly graphs in their Australian high-quality climate site data. A blogger on Andrew Bolt’s site noticed that when the mean temp for Cape Otway Lighthouse station was calculated from the raw data it was not reflected in the anomaly map. I checked Yamba Pilot Station and found a similar discrepancy straight away.
1915 had a max av temp of 23.6C and a min av temp of 15.9C.
2008 had a max av temp of 23.6C and a min av temp 0f 15.5C.
Clearly, 1915 has a slightly higher mean av temp than 2008.
Yet the anomaly graph shows 2008 higher than 1915 by 0.2C. Eh! It should be the other way around. These discrepancies (which also show up in Cape Otway) give a false impression that the recent warming is greater than it really is. There must be many examples of this (NZ, Darwin, Arctic stations, etc).
Deltoid teabaggers and watermelons
PLEASE START NOW WHINING AND JUMP TO MUMMY FOR CONSOLATION
AND CALL THE IPCC CLIMATE POLICE FOR APPEAL TO AUTHORITY
Test 45
wtf test 45
test 32
still workng
CST/Tourette Troll: Fapfapfapfapfap.
A hit, a very palpable hit .
This is fascinating - I must show some of my students.
Back to cruelly ignoring the CST.
Yup, Joe is indeed Berendaneke, escapee from a maximum security mental facility. He tried to mask his insanity for a few days, but all of the hallmarks of his affliction were there. Now he'd resorted back to his Mr. Hyde persona.
I'll contact Tim and get him booted off. He's trying to take over the whole weblog, as indeed he did last time. Nobody here reads his twaddle but now he's trying the saturation approach. My only concern is what sock he'll show up next with. Still, he is so utterly crazy that it's easy to identify him.
RHW:
Very interesting.
A nationality clue here perhaps:
Berendaneke
Horatio Nelson must really get up this ones nose, and they can keep their bacon too.
Jeff, please do contact Tim again. The lunatic carpet-bombing above is unacceptable. This moron needs to be burned out.
Hilariously, I noticed that the idiot has reposted the ESA Global Albedo Project link that I gave him a few weeks back as if he knew about this stuff all along. As I said yesterday: FFS.
This has gone on long enough.
Freddy/Kai etc is operation out of a server in Switzerland.
Gah. operation -> "operating". It's catching.
BBD, will do. I managed to get a few of these time wasters booted out of here through Tim and Joe/Berendaneke/Kai/Boris may just about be the worst yet.
BBD #54
I see what you mean - nailed.
Montreux.
Server owned by Swisscom (Schweiz) AG.
Maybe Tim could arrange for this to be the trolls permanent avatar found via:
a comment at Stoat's.
Maybe Tim could just IP-block the tedious, mad little fucker.
New post up at Real Climate , about the revamped Global Warming course from University of Chicago - David Archer.
BTW is there any real gain in getting the 2nd edition of 'Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast' as a replacement for the first? Probably not for myself by now.
BBD & Lionel: Yep. Swiss fits with the polyglot style & underlying extreme idiotarian world view. I wonder if he has a loaded gun behind the door - or whether, like Breivik, he was excluded from the requirement because of his overt personality disorder.
Lionel A: wrong assertion, therefore not acceptable:
New post up at Real Climate , about the revamped Global Warming course from University of Chicago – David Archer.
BTW is there any real gain in getting the 2nd edition of ‘Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast’ as a replacement for the first? Probably not for myself by now.
Dr. Syphilis, your diagnostic capabilities are a catastrophe. You better give up your medical profession, as you pose life-threatening danger to your patients, you climbing ape arselick
BBD, I cannot really judge who of you Deltoid clowns is the biggest idiot, but you definitely belong to the biggest ones. One cannot really describe how big an asshole you really are, YOU ASSHOLE!!!!!!
ASSHOLE!!!!!! Piss off from here. Tim does not like you! Will this not and not go into your skull, you twerp!
I think President Putin is an extremely intelligent political leader, as he does not at all like CAGW. He is therefore the much better president than Obama.
You Deltoid climate idiots would be imprisoned in Siberia if you lived in Russia.
BBD, you are 100% correct. Joe is raving bonkers. I'll get in touch with Tim today and get his latest guise booted out. Hopefully he can block the server he posts from.
You are fucked, "Joe".
Whenever the sock-puppeteer posts I get spittle on the inside of my computer's screen.
rhwombat, authoritarian personalities are not normally described as having a personality disorder, are they?
Although reading his posts, perhaps they should be. He seems to suffer from some form of carefully-typed Tourettes...
Harveys and BBDs computer and climate illiteracy make me vomiting for hours
You are still fucked, "Joe" in Montreux, Swisscom account user.
BBD, you are as always wrong, never mind
but are you aware that you do strictly illegal things?
FrankD, no clue what Tourette is? It means a small tower and is french, you ignorant greenosser
Perhaps we ought to be careful about winding up this psychotic Guiseppe troll thing given that in the words of an Amazon book review
I recall this windbag, or one of his other stocking fillers and he ain't no Santa Clause, bragging about how wealthy he was. I wonder how he came by that and would this book, one I read about 15 years back, provide a clue as to the source of his wealth Blood Money: The Swiss, the Nazis and the Looted Billions.
Maybe his wealth came directly from family or maybe by working as a computer technical geek for the gnomes. Real life versions of Gringotts Bank. Whichever, the source of wealth is still tainted.
Anders Behring Breivik on steroids and did one of his socks echo that name? Maybe not, but then ....?
Lionel A(sshole): unbased conspiration theory:
Perhaps we ought to be careful about winding up this psychotic Guiseppe troll thing given that in the words of an Amazon book review
… there’s more to Switzerland than banks and skis, francs and cheese. This is a picture of the real Switzerland, a place where the breathtaking scenery shaped a nation not just a tour itinerary, and where tradition is as important as technology. It’s also the story of its people, who have more power than their politicians, but can’t speak to one another in the same language – and who own more guns per head than the people of Iraq.
I recall this windbag, or one of his other stocking fillers and he ain’t no Santa Clause, bragging about how wealthy he was. I wonder how he came by that and would this book, one I read about 15 years back, provide a clue as to the source of his wealth Blood Money: The Swiss, the Nazis and the Looted Billions.
Maybe his wealth came directly from family or maybe by working as a computer technical geek for the gnomes. Real life versions of Gringotts Bank. Whichever, the source of wealth is still tainted.
Anders Behring Breivik on steroids and did one of his socks echo that name? Maybe not, but then ….?
Harvey blether and no effect:
BBD, you are 100% correct. Joe is raving bonkers. I’ll get in touch with Tim today and get his latest guise booted out. Hopefully he can block the server he posts from.
This from our resident script kiddie? Ha ha!
You are still fucked, "Joe".
;-)
Lionel
He was lying and I said so at the time, immediately. I know what people with money *sound* like, and Boris/Kai/Freddy is not of the tribe. This little man is one of life's big-time losers. Please trust me on this.
"Harveys and BBDs computer and climate illiteracy make me vomiting for hours"
Keep at it, Joe/Kai/Berendaneke/Boris. Eventually you'll dehydrate to death and we'll be spared your mindless drivel forever.
Note also the appalling grammar. My guess is that Joe is from Uranus.
BBD, he may have opened his Monopoly board game...
Jeff @2#68: The CST is just a threadworm (Enterobius vermicularis) infestation. Autoinfection is common. Tim needs to wash the sheets!
Bernard @2#70: chuckle.
FrankD @2#71: CST has a Narcissistic Personality Disorder, not an authoritarian personality. Two different things - though not unrelated in pathogenesis, and neither amenable to any treatment.
NPD was (controversially) dropped from DSM-5 (the 2013 version of the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) in it's initial iteration, then reinstated, because it is such a distinct prognostic entity. Tourette's syndrome is common enough to coexist with NPD, but the tics associated with it are necessarily involuntary verbal or physical spasms - CST's excrescences are far too sustained to be considered tics, and are therefore entirely voluntary and a product of his NPD.
BBD & Lionel: Having established that CST is, indeed Swiss and can be wound up by pulling his chain, can we now consider him to be a cuckoo clock?
Joe
October 15, 2013
FrankD, no clue what Tourette is? It means a small tower and is french, you ignorant greenosser
Wrong, Joe, a 'small tower', in French, is a "tourette".
When you write 'Tourette', you are referencing a medical terminology.
This is a common mistake made by Swiss-Germans when they mistakenly capitalise words.
Personally I'm standing by until the infestation is finally removed.
@bill
ppppppffffffffffffffffffart
Craig: "... a medical terminology ..."
Wikistupidia says: "Terminology is the study of terms and their use" and "Terminology is a discipline which systematically studies the labelling or designating of concepts particular to one or more subject fields or domains of human activity."
What the fuck did YOU mean then by "a medical terminology"??? Is your "a medical terminology" a discipline which systemstically studies the concepts of your tourette?
By the way, blether Thomas: you hardly command even one language, your poor mother tongue, and you don't speak any other languages like french, italian, portuguese, spanish, dutch, german, russian, japanese, chinese etc. like me. Therefore you are a complete nobody and so angry that you a deplorable double zero.
some idiots said above that i would work for somebody: hahaha
no, i let people let work for me, you assholes, but nobody of you losers would get a job in any of my companies.
by the fuck, asshole bbd: i own at least several thousand of times the amount of your tiny "property", you poor jealous and envying ZERO.
i bet that asshole bbd will come with his stinking and irrelvant lie of a king in siam
and i bet that doctor syphilis is a descendant of former criminals, but he will lie about this, as he always lies.
and i bet that twerp asshole Harvey has cheated that he contacted Tim. As a chronic, professional liar he does not even know how to reach Tim.
Hmmm. Deltoid as Skinner box, or is this one of Stephan Lewandowsky's studies (or even Douglas Adams) that we are caught up in?
I know how to reach Tim.
Bill, so do I. I just haven't done it yet. But I will today. We really do have to get rid of this psychopathic idiot once and for all. Now he claims to be a 'businessman'. Earlier he said he was a scientist. Clearly he is neither. My guess is that he is writing this from a maximum security cell somewhere where they give computer access privileges.
You are beyond stupid! This joke satirises anonymous commenters making unsubstantiated claims about themselves.
I, for example, am the King of Old Siam. In exactly the sense that you are a plutocrat of immense wealth.
You are far too stupid and insane to have amassed any personal wealth, Kai. We both know this perfectly well, which is why you pretence unmasks you as a desperate aspirant rather than a player.
Luke was an NPD.
Maybe his expulsion threw what remaining screws he had loose... And transformed to SuperLukeSaianGold! Aka CST. Aka freddie. Aka the twat with a thousand nums.
Joe, your time is running out here. Watch this space.
Isn't he internet marvellous, that we can get for free so many things that we used to have to pay for?
Back in the day, it would cost a shiny silver shilling to have a close-up butcher's at the residents of Bedlam. Now we can do it for free, thanks to Tim Berners-Lee!
If only our ethical sensibilities had also stayed still, I wouldn't be feeling slightly uncomfortable at the display here. As it is, its got so I'm having to look between my fingers to read this thread.
Good news, folks. Joe, at least in his latest guise, is history. Now the site can get back to discussing the matters at hand...
Thanks Jeff, once again. What an affliction this has been.
Thanks Tim - and Jeff
Hmmm - risking a double post -I'm still getting a lot of time-outs and can't connect 500 errors here. so I don't think the troll's finished with us just yet.
National Day of Climate Action! Sunday November 17th.
Not just in capital cities, but in towns right across the nation.
https://www.getup.org.au/campaigns/climate-action-now/national-day-of-c…
Lloyd's says Lindzen, Curry and gang are nuts:
http://www.lloyds.com/news-and-insight/news-and-features/environment/en…
Trevor Maynard, Lloyd’s head of exposure management, is dubious on whether there has been a pause in warming over the past 15 years as some have claimed.
“The sceptics are just trying to push the debate and they start at 1998, which was one of the hottest years on record,” he explains. “It’s a bit like someone breaks the world record for running 100 metres and then in the next ten races people say, ‘Runners are getting slower’.”
One of Jeff's buddies has taken action.
http://www.mercurynews.com/pacifica/ci_24317137/avid-environmentalist-c…
Yep, as usual 10,000 peer reviewed papers prove nothing, but this guy's putting a book out...
Next.
And, MikeH, I've already donated. I hope this goes as well as the revamped Climate Commission.
Unfortunately I'm already booked in to a field survey that weekend...
Craig, your analogy isn't any good. A better one is that everytime you see somone run a 100 dash, you ignore the clock and only "feel" that s/he ran faster then anyone has before. And the feeling is the scientific tool, right. ;-)
And that' the real criticism. For 15 years (give or take) any heatwave has been viewed as a evidence that the GMT is rising faster than ever. Yet it didn't. IMHO that's amazing. ;-)
For U:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x20v9F-sWHQ
Olaus
The last decade is the hottest in the instrumental record. Extreme heat events are now statistically more common than ever before. This has been unequivocally demonstrated by post hoc analysis, eg Hansen, Sato & Ruedy (2012):
Real, analytical science. Not rubbish posted by deniers on blogs.
If you can't be bothered with the actual paper, you can *see* the shifted distribution in HSR Fig 1.
At least click that link and *look*.
Gee whiz, just when we free ourselves of one loony (Joe and his guises) another (Olaus, part of the Swedish troll collective) wades in with his kindergarten-level science.
Re: Jim Steele: the guy has hardly published anything in the empirical literature. When he claims that Polar Bears have benefitted from a reduction in Arctic ice he is nominally correct, but, as in keeping with myopic neophytes, his argument assumes that the ice will remain in stasis from hereafter. But of course both extent and thickness continue on their 'death spiral', meaning that Polar Bears are in deep, deep trouble.
Thing is, Olaus, you and your acolytes will dredge up any opinions from people on the academic fringe if it supports your own pre-determined views. Steele is one such guy. There are so few of them that they are technically an endangered species. The vast majority of really qualified environmental scientists wouldn't touch Steele's opinions with a barge pole.
BBD, like you I had never been taller than before when I was 14 years old. I was alarmed at the time, but I got over it. ;-)
The interesting part is that the GMT has not followed the predicitions. In fact we have a hitaus (call it what you want) yet "we" have ascribed any warm weather event as a proof of rapidly rising GMT. :-) And if anyone suggested that it might be weather, not climate, s/he was called a denier. :-)
98% of the crystal balls failed. That's impressive. ;-)
Hooked on a feelling, anyone? Love the song, especially the Swedish version that became a no. one on the American Bill Board list 1974. Enjoy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5jkAkm4JmM
@ Olaus
For more post hoc analysis (real science!) that you need to read instead of posting rubbish on the Internet see Coumou et al. (2013):
The problem you and your chums face is that there is no sane way of denying this stuff any longer. Denial now is unmistakably a pathology, a mental illness. The truly horrible part of what is happening is the way amoral corporate self-interest is using the mentally ill for its own ends. That really is sickening to behold.
Nobody *predicted* a monotonous rise in GAT, Olaus. That is a denier lie - dishonest framing. Nobody ever said natural variability would stop. A transient slow-down in the rate of surface warming doesn't mean anything - especially not with OHC continuing to increase rapidly.
You have utterly ignored the demonstration at #9 that you are spouting bollocks. Read it again, and then read #12.
Don't skip the rebuttals to your silly lies when you are talking with me - dishonest shittery goes down badly as you well know.
I will help you here: your rubbish has been destroyed, so now it is time for you to depart.
"Denial now is unmistakably a pathology, a mental illness"
Correct, BBD, with one added caveat: short-term profit drives it. At the same time, it is air-brushed out by those who know that they need deep PR cover to maintain the status quo. That cover is manifested through the constant use of fear: fear of socialism, fear of big government, fear of control, fear of eroding freedoms, fear that our western lifestyle is under threat.
As it turns out, our lifestyle is very well threatened by excess. Nature already has a reduced capacity to support man. Climate change, in concert with other human-mediated assaults across the biosphere, will undermine our overly-consumptive lifestyles at some point. It's just that those with vested interests in short-term profit don't care.
I'm fed up with this crap as well. Stupid media pundits and even scientists who should know better are responsible for sloppy terminology distorting the facts.
What is happening is a slowdown in the rate of surface/tropospheric warming not a pause, hiatus or plateau. A slowdown in the rate of warming.
Let's get it straight. Now we can consider the ongoing increase in OHC which demonstrates unequivocally that energy continues to accumulate in the climate system (which is mainly composed of the world ocean) exactly as expected.
If deniers would simply take the trouble to *understand* the science and the facts they would become aware that their reliance on rhetoric and misrepresentation is absolute. They have no scientific argument of any kind whatsoever.
Jeff, we crossed.
Exactly so: fear is the key. The deniers are frightened, hence their retreat into denial. It is part of their nature (hence their right-wing politics). So it is *easy* and logical for the manipulators to play on fear of socialism, taxes, government etc, etc. Inchoate Big Fear is the key to the psychology of the typical denier. It's what makes them what they are. And because they are in denial, they cannot see it.
I think scienceblogs is being ddos'd and fubar'd. All sorts of weird shit.
Probably kai-the-asshole and friends.
So what if there's a pause, a zero trend even?
So what?
Pick one number. Trend: zero. Proves nothing.
What deniers *want* to imply is proven is that the predictions are wrong.
However, to do THAT you don't find a line that includes zero and go "that proves it's not warming" because that's not what you're testing. The null hypothesis here for deniers is not "is it zero?" but "Could the IPCC be right?".
And to do that you have to prove that the trend over the last 15 years or whatever cherry is picked precludes the IPCC estimate.
It does not.
#17
Yes - it's been going on for a while and yes, some here think Kai is responsible (including me). It tends to get worse when his latest sock has just been banned - as now.
#18
Agreed - denialist false framing. It all hinges on a very simple fact: nobody ever said that natural variability would stop post-2000. And it hasn't. End of story. Transient variability in the rate of ocean heat uptake, atmospheric optical depth, solar output etc - none of this "falsifies" AGW.
Craig #4
Yes that Lloyd's story was brought up at Climate Crocks: Lloyd’s of London Latest Insurer to Warn on Warming, Mocks Deniers yesterday.
Those familiar with threads over there would have come across another obnoxious commenter who oft' complains about Ad hominems but does not draw back from, e.g. calling others cretins. I don't thin it necessary to name him as he sticks out like a sore thumb. Nonetheless I am always left shaking my head as he digs deeper and deeper, he having outdone himself with this latest display. Christopher Arcus in comment nails it exactly.
Jeff #10
With OP's appearance should we expect RedNoise to put in an appearance about now.
Now will that last statement of mine act like garlic or fresh blood WRT a zombie attack?
Strewth, I though I was going to get another intertube Raspberry when posting the above, took ages and nothing amiss with my connection as I monitor this in real time with a record of any packet drops and latency.
"With OP’s appearance should we expect RedNoise to put in an appearance about now.
Now will that last statement of mine act like garlic or fresh blood WRT a zombie attack?"
It's a bit like Godwin, isn't it?
The longer a thread goes on on a climate science thread the higher the chance of OP and the swedetroll slug hoard appearing becomes until it eventually reaches unity.
For any of the instrumental series, over any time span ending in the present:
• There is no period where warming is invalidated, against a null hypothesis of no warming. None.
• Against a null hypothesis of the long term warming trend, there is no period where a “no warming” hypothesis is validated. None.
• Over any period with enough data to show statistical significance, that data shows a statistically significant warming trend. Always.
Unfortunately johnl, you're being rational.
More unfortunately, experience has proven that doesn't work towards winning over the Brethren of Denial.
Good try though. Logical, thoughtful, not copy'n'pasted - I like that.
And before you ask I have no idea what would. They'll pick up any outlier regardless of how anomalous or irrelevant to the mean and run with it as if it proves (i.e. shows however fleetingly) whatever today's point is.
They're all Freddyborisjoekaiboehners's to one degree or another. All of them.
Well, I've tried everything, as I'm sure we all have. Reason, referenced argument, polite restraint, referenced argument, snark, referenced argument, dismissive abuse*, referenced argument...
But to no avail. They process information idiosyncratically with a persistence that is fascinating and frustrating in equal measure.
* * *
* Deltoid kindly provided the forum for testing the bare-knuckle approach to destruction. Which was fun, but predictably failed in its turn. Nevertheless, I can honestly say I have tried everything.
BBD, I share your angish.
Let's face it, no amount of evidence is sufficient to enlighten those who wish not to be enlightened. Which is probably the cue for linking once more to one of my favourite metaphors:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8IBnfkcrsM
BBD @ 25 - It may be more worthwhile thinking of your own and others efforts here in terms of the effects on "the undecided" rather than on the nutjobs.
It seems unlikely that the committed deniers are going to change their minds, given the energy they put into reality-avoidance, no matter how persuasive the evidence and the argument.
That may be the point, however - the increasingly obvious refusal to accept reality means that more and more casual observers see the true nature of the denialist position, and fewer and fewer people can stomach supporting it.
Whether or not this will be enough to head off the worst impacts of AGW and CC is an almost irrelevant question at this point - people need to understand and take stronger action as soon as possible, and the arguments put forward here in support of the science are one way to help achieve this.
There aren't any undecided.
20 years ago, there could be people who didn't know or only knew "something, something, research needed".
10 years ago, you could be unwilling to decide.
Today, you're only undecided if you've decided it cannot be.
There is one group, maybe, that have reason to be undecided. Kids too young to follow this.
They don't go on blogs much and look to get educated thereon. We prefer to use teachers for that.
Wow @ 28 I agree in part - it seems almost unbelievable that anyone who could summon the intellectual energy to breathe would now sit on the fence on this issue - but I know otherwise thinking people who do. I'm related to some of them, malheureusement.
The denialist brigade have been very effective over the past decade outside scientific circles at amplifying the relatively insignificant things that can be identified as uncertainty, and minimising everything else.
Anything (including submissions to these sorts of blogs) that can counter some of the bs has to be a net gain (even if small), in my opinion.
No, I seriously doubt that they're undecided.
"I'm not refusing to accept you, I know you and know you aren't a liar." requires either changing their view or "finding a reason" to explain how.
It's rationalisation.
The problem is that you need to get them to reach the conclusion themselves and from an external point of view, there's ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that can be said that cannot be taken offence at.
The best you can do is let them know you know it's rationalisation rather than rationality and that you know that they are smart enough to work this out if they're willing to consider their stance in light of that.
It is entirely possible (though it's possible there really IS a Santa Clause who doesn't manage to reach ALL children any more because there's so many of the buggers) that they can explain what leaves them *genuinely* undecided.
However, when they get to that point, if you don't know the answer *and that answer remaining unsolved is a rational reason to remain undecided* you can go to SkS or your local Met Org and ask.
I didn't want this in the same message since it's completely orthogonal.
How about this deal with deniers:
We agree to do something about the climate according to the science and we see in 30 years if it's working or not? We can use the models to project what we agree to do worldwide to what those models expect to happen.
This will work out long-term good if this is actually all a scam because it will be shown to be pointless to do as requested, pulling the rug from under the scam, and those savings will go back to those who *deserve* it.
If it gets better quicker than expected under that scenario then we will ascribe that to "natural cycles control the climate" and can stop in 30 years time pretending we are affecting the climate.
If it gets worse, then we were in for destruction anyway, so adaption can be undertaken without worrying about mitigation any more: we did a good bit of mitigation and now something else needs to be tried.
Rather than do nothing and state that the climate will get better "any day now" or waiting for that "final nail", and waiting to see if the models pan out and show us heading to failure, why not do something and see if the models correctly predict the human actions' results.
Heck, we can put the entire codebase for one of the models to be used and the starting values that cover "what we could be measuring if we had a measurement there" and stick with that model, therefore ensuring that the models cannot be "tuned to prove AGW" any more.
Moreover, that code could be run by anyone with computing power and expertise to verify the model following the measurements: all that would be needed are the datasets of measurements to be made equally available.
#30 St Cyr
The denialists are dangerous because they appeal to the denier in us all. Ordinary and otherwise well-educated people really don't want to accept the full implications so they are vulnerable to the siren song of crypto-denial (lukewarmer rhetoric).
You can see it readily enough. Most people don't really have a clue and they prefer it that way. Scratch the surface of many people's "acceptance" of the physical science and possible consequences of BAU emissions and you hit denial pretty quickly. The enabling mechanism is ignorance of the facts. It's easy to indulge in crypto-denial by simply not knowing (or caring to find out) anything about the problem. That seems to be where most people stand. Engage and they pretty quickly start to reject - "oh surely it won't be that bad"; "yes but it'll take centuries" etc.
And they listen to comforting lies emanating from the do-nothing-it's-fine crowd. Only decent topic knowledge enables you to see the fakery and rhetoric and pseudo-science for what it really is.
Service again unavailable
I just stumbled upon an appalling article by Craig Loehle and (guess who?) Willis Eschenbach in Diversity and Distributions which climas extinction rates are over-estimated. The paper is, IMHO, pure garbage, in keeping up with the usual trash spewed out by Loehle and Eschenbach. Note how WUWT fave the latter a platform to spew out bilge about the merits of his study; in the WUWT piece, Eschenbach starts of with an ad-hom attack on Harvard ecologist Edward O. Wilson, stating that Wilson is an expert on ants but not on extinctions (clearly Eschenbach has his ego stuffed up his a**, because Wilson co-formulated the theory of island biogeography with Robert McCarthur (highly relevant in estimating extinction rates) and also supervised a number of grad students on projects testing it. More relevantly, Eschenbach has the unmitigated gall to smear Wilson when he himself has NO formal background in any ecological field.
Its just too bad that Eschenbach apparently does not appear to read much of the empirical ecological literature. How the paper got through peer-review is anyone's guess; the authors hilariously suggest that the biggest threats to biodiversity are 'hunting and predation'.
I do now know where to begin deconstructing their arguments. First of all, they claim that virtually all recorded extinctions came from islands. Certainly that is correct, but they conveniently are unable to demonstrate the ecological difference between an extinct species and one which has been reduced to a tiny percentage of its original abundance. What I mean by this is that many species are technically extant but have been reduced to a small fraction of their early numbers and, more importantly, are too rare to contribute to important ecological processes. A species thus loses its economic and ecological value long before it is officially declared extinct.
The authors, of course, play on the 'known' versus 'unknown' gambit (just as Donald Rumsfeld did) in order to downplay biodiversity loss. In other words, many species have probably become extinct without being formally classified, because there are too few qualified taxonomists to have described more than a small percentage of the planet's species richness. Furthermore, it is much easier to say a species exists than it doesn't; many species have not been seen in the wild since the 1960s but are not yet formally classified as being extinct because the IUCN is very conservative and requires that an organism is not seen for at least 50 years before classifying it as extinct. We certainly know that a very large number of species fall into this category, especially along the Atlantic tropical forests of Brazil, for example. Many others are teetering on the edge of extinction anyway.
The authors are completely wrong to claim that only 6 continental birds have become extinct; 5 species are gone from North America and a few more are hanging on by the skin of their beaks (e.g. Red-Cockaded Woodpecker, Black-Capped Vireo etc) whilst others are in population free fall. And, most importantly, habitat loss is by far the greatest threat to biodiversity, far exceeding hunting and predation. What the hell do the authors mean by 'predation' anyway? Human predation? Certainly trophic cascades do not drive extinctions unless mediated by some anthropogenic stressor.
I would not waste any more of my time on what is IMHO garbage by Loehle and Eschebach. Sadaly, Anthony Watts shows what an utter hypocrite he is by plugging a new book by biologist Jim Steele which downplays climate change as a factor driving extinctions; however the author does, to his credit, argue that habitat loss is a major threat. On the other hand, Watts promotes the drivel of Eschenbach and co. who claim that extinction rates are exaggerated.
Jeff, is it the rapidly rising GMT that makes you behave so normal?
Portentologist unite! :-)
OK. That's not Jeff, it's Mr Narcissistic Personality Disorder 2013, the ClownSockTroll out of Montreaux (AKA Kai, Freddy, Boris, Berendaneke, Joe & Enterobius vermicularis).
I suppose Guiseppe thinks he is so clever, but what a sad loser to have to resort to such low trickery.
Get a life.
Get a job.
Get somebody who might, just, love you.
Otherwise see a trick cyclist.
...aaand the persistent botfly Olouse the Scandinavian Troll (AKA Polygonoporus giganticus), shows its usual discriminating intelligence.
A petition to spread and sign: https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/keep_Australias_commitment_to_Carb…
It never ends, does it.
Honestly, before I logged on I was planning to write a brief message about how nice it was to have ..... not this crap.
adelady @3/#62: No. NPD is a lifelong illness with no chance of effective treatment or recovery. All that can be done is to avoid, institutionalise or ostracise the sufferer from communities (unlike narcissistic sociopaths who tend to get to the top of corporate financial piracy operations, energy companies or local government before being deposed, often with pitchforks).
The Swiss angle is interesting, as the CSTs whole schtick is a bit like one of the stories from 'Strewwelpeter', the 19th C German cautionary tales for children "Die Geschichte vom bösen Friederich" (The Story of Bad Frederick) : a violent boy terrorizes animals and people. Eventually he is bitten by a dog, who goes on to eat the boy's sausage while he is bedridden - which puts BBD's parody of the CST's mating call ("BBQ sausage fuck!) in a new and very Freudian light.
As its periods grow shorter, and its fantasy world collapses around it, the onanist accelerates towards psychosis. The last posts (p3#55-61) have a word-salad quality, so it may be schizoid, rather than just a hopeless case of NPD, after all. Schizoid psychosis is more amenable to treatment than NPD, so I wonder if the (Underpants?) Gnome of Montreaux has the resources, insight or relationships to get help and/or haloperidol. Somehow I doubt it.
Tim, is it possible to rescue Jeff's good name from the depredations of CST (AKA The Gnome of Montreaux)?
Tb@3#43: signed and spread. Let's not let the CST win.
OH NO: I WANT TO INFORM EVERYONE THAT BORIS/KAI/FREDDY/JOE HAS RETURNED USING MY NAME. How utterly pathetic. This person is seriously deranged. I don't know he we can get Tim to block all of his guises.
To Joe/Boris etc. I have notified Tim of your using my name on Deltoid. Your use of my name will be a short one. God only knows who you will impersonate next but you are a truly deranged, sick individual. I don't know who you are intending to reach out to here but if you think that any rational people think that you are intelligent and funny, then you must really be sick.
Jeff, seriously, we can tell the difference mate...don't sweat it. Until such time as Tim actually blocks this version, I suggest we simply ignore, since he's moved from the tendentious to the tedious to the completely irrational. It doesn't take too long to simply skim past the chocolate starfish avatar he has this time, and read the sensible posts.
The twerp's posts indicate a big helping of 'sour grapes' because he feels wider society has ostracised him. If he has displayed comparative behaviour in society then that should be no surprise and those affected should be on their guard.
Meanwhile we are also left with a running sore.
I am becoming increasingly concerned that this mentally unstable character will present a real danger to the wider community where he happens to be residing. I consider that, aside from having his IP blocked, he should have an enforced visit from those in authority before it is too late.
You may find this interesting,
Who is Willis Eschenbach?
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/10/who-is-willis-eschenbach.html
As of 2012 Mr. Eschenbach has been employed as a House Carpenter.
He is not a “computer modeler”, he is not an “engineer” and he is certainly not a “scientist” (despite all ridiculous claims to the contrary).
“A final question, one asked on Judith Curry’s blog a year ago by a real scientist, Willis Eschenbach…”
Poptart
We already knew that (see up-thread), you are late to the party and a gatecrasher to boot.
Well maybe then the god Abbott having come to the end of his first month on the throne can help stop this sort of thing happening. .
Canute-Abbott, Abbott-Canute.
I see Jeff is in the eco-mood again. Nothing new at Deltoid. :-)
#88 One of the Jeff Harveys
Some of this seems vaguely familiar. Lol
Jeff @3#70, Frank @3#71 & Lionel @3/#73:
Absolutely - particularly Frank's suggestion of just ignoring the Underpants Gnome of Monteaux (UGM), which I will try to do - after indulging myself with a little back-burning.
Given that this is a virtual environment, no physical intervention is possible in any jurisdiction (and no treatment save forensic isolation works for NPD anyway) until UGM manifests its behaviour in public - like Breivik. The technical terms for what is happening are intensification and transference. Online, UGM demonstrates a reactiveness to particular technical terms which betrays a familiarity with the problems & therapeutic interventions that I have seen many times in general and psychiatric hospital practice for decades. He has not been able to control his behaviour since early adolescence, and has probably been institutionalised before. I suspect that his whole life is as sad & pathetic as his psychotic trolling indicates. We can ask Tim to ban him, but he will move heaven & earth to return, because otherwise his delusions of adequacy consume him.
Like herpes, lifelong suppression of NPD is impractical, so the only option is to avoid it. Herpes simplex virus (HSV) does occasionally cause a lethal encephalitis, so the analogy is apt. The UGM does have a peculiar fascination with syphilis, which can lead to a paranoid delusional state termed GPI, but we have been able to treat that for 50 years, so I doubt that it is what afflicts the UGM. NPD is a better bet, though the herpes troll fits.
Here in coastal NSW, the hot northeasterly winds of climate change have not only driven fires that destroyed hundreds of homes months before our usual fire season, but have also blown in a wave of flies to plague the survivors. ecosystems bite back. I note the analogous pests of the virtual world, Olouse & Poptart have been blown in on the hot wind of Toady Rabbot's close friend & advisor the herpes troll.
Rednoise@3#93: ...and another of Beelzebub's minions buzzes in on the wings of The Herpes Troll's delusions.
So the Herpes Troll uses one of the stolen UEA emails. Wonder if it was involved in the stealing?
Sou has (another) excellent observation of the Fundamentalist Deniers at HotWopper: http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/10/the-evangelical-science-denier-and.h… . Koch dollars at work.
Lionella, the Desmogblog post does not include most of the information in the one I provided, I suggest reading it,
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/10/who-is-willis-eschenbach.html
Tim has come to the rescue again. Thanks Tim! I have no idea under what monicker Kai et al. will try and enter here under next; just glad his attempt to smear me, at least for the time being, is over.
As for Olaus's comment, I am, after all, a population ecologist. And the lousy paper by Loehle and Eschenbach not only tries to downplay the threat of AGW to biodiversity, but a range of other anthropogenic threats that are known to have an adverse affect on biodiversity. The conclusion of their paper is lamentable, to say the least.
Thanks Tim
Oh for fucks' fucking sake.
OK, i concede that it IS worse than herpes.
AND Beelzebub's minions.
AND rabies.
AND Dicks Cheney & Nixon.
AND dead Maggie Thatcher.
AND Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvil.
AND Eva Braun's boyfriend.
But not as bad as the Jabberwock.
OK, so it IS worse than the Jabberwock, because it's not imaginary.
Clearly cut & paste from the Village Idiot who does not have the command of knowledge let alone language to splurge such crap in industrial strength quantities. Similar inanities as those spewed by the likes Beck, O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, Morono, Delingpole, Bolt and Rose.
Oh and PT - you missed the point!
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?
OMG, this is never ending insanity.... I thought we'd got Kai/Boris/Berendaneke/Joe booted out of here once and for all and bingo! The madman slips in again. Sure his comments will be sponged out by tomorrow, but still....
The NIPCC tripe is pathetically transparent. And as Tamino notes, this shite is supposed to be the best "sceptical" argument there is. But it's just laughably dishonest bollocks.
Fuck off, banned, vile, insane troll.
You are scum. Nobody wants your foul breath in their face. So clear off.
When is this pullulating anus going to be removed from here?
You never use someone else's screen name. Never.This is way past being funny. This loathsome and deranged little shitsmear needs banning now..
Just foxtrot oscar you dim Swiss roll, or is it a Danish pastry made into a Swiss role? Whatever, the IR is about the same.
What a sad little person you are. Won't anyone else play with you and pull your ting-a-ling?
Stop using JH's name, scum.
Kai
I didn't read the above tripe. I will *never* read it. I scroll down until it vanishes off the top of the screen.
Try to understand: there's no point plastering the thread with your copy/paste garbage.
You are wasting your time.
Try to understand that nobody is interested in the yattering of a fool who understands nothing. What could an idiot with mental health issues like you possibly have to say to us?
Nothing.
The truth is that you peaked with "barbecue sausage fuck". You haven't even come close to topping that in all the many weeks since you said it.
Not much to show for all your strenuous trolling efforts, is it?
And stop using JH's screen name, scum.
You are fantasising again, my little Swiss nutter. And only the profoundly insane would imagine that their diseased imaginings could alter the laws of physics.
Now stop using JH's screen name, you filthy little troll!
That's beyond out of order.
Pay attention, troll. Nobody reads your copy/paste rubbish so there is no point in slapping it up here yet again.
No matter how often you repeat this rubbish, nobody will read it. You have nothing whatsoever of merit to say, and so everyone now ignores your yattering.
Let me remind you what you have achieved so far:
* You have shown us that you are stupid
* You have shown us that you are *also* ignorant
* You have convinced us that you are a fantasist and a liar with severe mental health problems
* By incessantly demonstrating all the above, you have made yourself unreadable. Nobody looks at your screeds of copy/paste any more.
Nice work, Kai.
Now stop using JH's name, you frothing madman.
I know I said I wasn't going to respond to Kai's copy/pasting but this is too good to pass up:
So Sc is a positive feedback that amplifies SST cooling. The denier source Kai is parroting here simply fails to grasp the obverse: Sc acts as a positive feedback and amplifies warming as SSTs increase. So he's actually highlighted a really nice example of positive cloud feedback. Something of an own goal, I'd say.
Kai, obviously, is too feeble-minded to spot this which is why I couldn't resist pointing it out so we can all laugh at him some more.
Since he persists in being here, he might as well at least provide a source of amusement.
This IS computer trespass and now goes into fraud (assuming the identity of another).
Pass this on to the authorities and get them to look this nutjob up. Trust me, they WILL be wanting to have a word with him when they see the shit he's doing.
It's interesting that when one gets past the topsy-turvy world of denialist reality inversion, we see that models generally *underestimate* positive cloud feedback. Interestingly, the only model that seemed to get it about right was HadGEM2-ES (UK Met Office). Unsurprisingly, HadGEM2-ES demonstrates a relatively high sensitivity.
See Clement et al. (2009) Observational and Model Evidence for Positive Low-Level Cloud Feedback
I hesitate to give the compulsive attention seeker oxygen, but it's worth noting that his denialist mates have not said anything to oppose him. Not one word between them.
It says a lot about both the lack of strength of their 'case' and about their ethics.
Actually Bernard (@3/#87post Herpes Troll) I think that what happened to the herpes troll was part of the greater counter-Denialist movement. The trolls are trapped into either actively identifying and supporting with a visibly deranged virtual Breivik, or running away (or, for the obvious suspects, both). The process has not gone unnoticed. The analogy to backburning is quite apposite in the current environmental disaster in NSW: hard, dirty work with the potential to flare, but absolutely essential to control mindless destructiveness.
Yep, there's no denier behaviour so deranged that these valiant 'skeptics' won't whistle and look the other way.
Stupid AND pathetic moral cowards!
...what did you do in the troll wars, Daddy?
It really is a bad time to be a denier. No wonder they're scraping the bottom of the barrel!
SMH letters editors = LA Times letters editors:
BBD - Tim is clearly scrubbing the stain off the carpet, if you would just restrain yourself a little. Any attention is good attention, for some, and you are feeding him. Indeed, if you reread your comments now that his chocolate starfish posts are gone, its *you* who comes off as the nutter, so for heavens sake, take Lisa Simpson's advice and "just don't look". M'Kay?
Bernard raises an interesting point. While we-all fingered Mr NPD as deranged quite a while ago, O-louse, GSW, the several socks of Mr Duff, KarenMackSpot and a few drivebys all fed him with smilies and vigourous head-nodding, supportive of his "substance" and "style".
If there are any left here who cheered him on - that is the twat representing *YOU*. I hope you are proud of your associates, clearly insane as they are?
Can it be that Jeff Harvey has been banned now?
No. Next.
Harry @3#93: (hopefully) not the real Jeff, only the pathetic loser who usurped his identity.
A quick skim through the above reveals the real Jeff Harvey's comments are all still there.
If it gets awkward but the blog still wants to be run, then whitelist commenters.
Not on the list? Don't get in.
No, I hopefully haven't. Tim told me that the imposter tried to use both of my email accounts to get access. How pathetic.
#92 FrankD
Well, you had to be there. And you weren't. Also please see #84 and #86. Not really the work of a nutter.
Note
I don't care if I'm not on the list: the blog has nothing on it and nothing for a long time.
Idiot.
Jeff's avatar is consistently lavendar, and your troll-associated one is brown. And we know the pattern.
You're not fooling anyone but yourself you sick git.
...lavender...
Um, BJ, 'both my email accounts'? Jeff has 2 avatars...
Bernard, Frank & wow: I think we're all a bit disturbed at the sheer intensity of the psychosis of the Insane Clown Troll and what it has done to a once great blog. I'm pretty sure that p3#98 was the real Jeff, despite the reappearance chocolate starfish avatar most recently abused by ICT - which is as it should be when Tim's in charge. Sitting on the periphery of the NSW fires, I'm hopeful that the conversation can now return to sticking the resultant shit storm about climate change to Toady Rabbott's invisible gas policy, Greg ("Don't politicise it") Hunt and their political masters, George & Rupert. Smoke sticks.
Agreed!
And what hypocrites - they were quite happy to try to pin the Brisbane floods on the Greens (*fraudulently), and talkback clowns will happily try to pin this on 'not enough control burning' and 'too much nature generally', but it's somehow illegitimate to point out that AGW = hottest 12 month period in our history = raging firestorms? The hell it is!!
Invisible Gas Man is patently failing in his duty to protect Australians.
The AGW connection is so painfully obvious it takes a kind of genius not to see it...
The real me is back and hopefully Kai/Boris/Berendaneke/Joe is gone for good. I was telling my colleages at NIOO about it and they were as bemused as me. Actually, as Bernard said the other day, its telling that none of the regular deniers who post in here made one critical comment about the behavior of the mega-troll.
Essentially, they share a common pathology which explains their resounding silence. And that pathology is that 'anything goes' when it comes to smearing anyone who disagrees with them. They know fully well that science is not on their side and they will support anyone, no matter how obnoxious they are, who denies, denies, denies. Just look at the intellectual level of many (most) of the denier blogs. Climate Depot, Junk Science, Bishop's Hill, Hockey Schtick, WUWT, CA, Nova, etc.. its primarily sandbox level stuff aimed at idiots. No wonder they get all wound up and end up spreading like q virus all over the blogosphere.
Wasn't that chocolate starfish avatar the one that Kai used to slag off at Jeff?!
My head hurts...
First Dog!
"Bernard, Frank & wow: I think we’re all a bit disturbed at the sheer intensity of the psychosis of the Insane Clown Troll and what it has done to a once great blog."
Actually, the blog having nothing can be seen evidenced by the list of latest topics.
June Open Thread
July Open Thread
August Open Thread
September Open Thread
October Open Thread
That's the entire recent list of topics.
The blog has nothing on it. That is not a problem in and of itself because the reason for this could be that there's no time for tim to do anything other than open another thread once a month.
But it does mean that there's nothing going on.
Close it down and/or whitelist a few names until such time as the blog owner has time and topic to put something down on this blog. If it stops until then, all that is lost is
November Open Thread
December Open Thread
January Open Thread
....
I think the climate discussion will survive without that, don't you?
Whitelist a few names on and open the threads and they can be "miscellaneous" that may, when time permits, be genesis for a thread that isn't $MONTH Open Thread. In the meantime there's less time taken up chasing down the psychotic and dangerous nuts and deleting their criminal postings, therefore more time to end the stuff that is taking time away from doing anything on this blog.
Or we could start talking about climate and such, instead of trolls.
Which prompts me to ask something of our resident planty people that I've been wondering about for a little bit.
We hear a lot about CO2 as "plant food", and while I'm aware that there are other limits involved (water, nitrogen etc), it is, to a certain degree, true. There seems to be pretty good evidence that - so far - plants are bulking up a bit in response to elevated CO2, all other things being more or less equal. Not necessarily edible stuff for us like seeds or fruit, but more leaves and stems, which is good for some herbivores, I suppose
But what I'm wondering about is the extent to which this is good for plant health. Is it axiomatic that more stems and leaves = a fitter plant? Or does the extra - possibly unnecessary biomass - simply take relatively more resources to support, to the detriment of the overall fitness? I'm wondering here if plants putting on weight in response to CO2 isn't perhaps like humans putting on weight in response to excessive sugar...as we all know a 150 kg human is unlikely to be as healthy as a 75 kg. Is that another aspect in which the "CO2 is plant food" meme misses the point?
This might have been thrown at some of the resident idiots previously, but I have a habit of skimming over long replies to their stupidosity, so your indulgence is appreciated.
rhwombat - yes point taken, I forgot that Jeff had another real avatar, and probably skimmed over some of his comments during the crisis.
But personally I doubt much will stick to Misterrabbit or Gre Ghunt. When the fingers are pointed, it will all be the fault of the urban greenies not allowing fuel reduction burns around their tree-change dachas. Its because allocating blame requires that self-righteousness most commonly found in "Outraged Tone-fan of Turramurra"
FrankD
It's Bernard J we need, but as a placeholder there's a good overview at SkS - see sections headed "Chemical responses & nutrition" and "Interactions with other species".
"Or we could start talking about climate and such, instead of trolls."
Which would be a lot easier if there were a whitelist. No trolls then. No time needed to crawl through the slime to find non-troll content. No bleach needed to remove trollshit. When normal operations can continue, retire the whitelist.
And it's not as if there's nowhere else to discuss climate. SkS for example. Realclimate. FriendsofGinAndTonic if you want a giggle.
"We hear a lot about CO2 as “plant food”, and while I’m aware that there are other limits involved (water, nitrogen etc), it is, to a certain degree, true. There seems to be pretty good evidence that – so far – plants are bulking up a bit in response to elevated CO2, all other things being more or less equal. Not necessarily edible stuff for us like seeds or fruit, but more leaves and stems, which is good for some herbivores, I suppose"
I disagree Frank. Its far more complicated than you suggest. Carbon is not generally a limiting nutrient for plants - nitrogen (and phosphorus) are. Herbivores have enough problems getting rid of excess carbon to acquire sufficient N without shunting more of the important limiting nutrients out of plant tissues. What many studies show is that in elevated C regimes herbivores compensate by feeding more. But of course, the 'plant food' nonsense also critically ignores other primary plant metabolites as well as secondary metabolites. Many plants that have C based allelochemistry will become more toxic as atmospheric C increases and vice-versa for plants with N-based allelochemistry.
So the plant-food argument is essentially comic book level science, simplifying a complex array of complex eco-physiological processes down to the lowest common denominator. Its been debunked already many times on Deltoid. Why dredge it up again?
Wow
how should the whitelist be defined?
However Tim wants, Harry.
It's his blog.
http://www.theherald.com.au/story/1848433/the-ocean-is-broken/
Interesting article in a recent New Scientist on how extra CO2 was dramatically increasing the extent of vines in tropical and sub-tropical forests, with a cost to be - literally - borne by existing trees. Not likely to end happily.
Also, a bit extra of something may be a boon, at least for som, whereas a lot extra of something will most likely be a blight all round...
Re: #16 above
Excellent story, Bernard. Thanks for the link. I have already forwarded it to friends. It makes sobering reading: we are trashing the planet at a scary rate.
@ Frank D October 22, 2013
* Carbon Dioxide Enrichment Inhibits Nitrate Assimilation in Wheat and Arabidopsis. Bloom et al (2010).
* Grassland Responses to Global Environmental Changes Suppressed by Elevated CO2. (Shaw 2007)
* Photosynthetic inhibition after long-term exposure to elevated levels of carbon dioxide.(DeLucia 1985)
* Insects Take A Bigger Bite Out Of Plants In A Higher Carbon Dioxide World.
* Food for Thought: Lower-Than-Expected Crop Yield Stimulation with Rising CO2 Concentrations
* Temperature dependence of growth, development, and photosynthesis in maize under elevated CO2 (PDF)
* Nitrate assimilation in plant shoots depends on photorespiration
Jeff,
Thanks for the reply - I'm not trying to "dredge it up again", just to understand one particular aspect of plant physiology, not score a bullshit point. And while I tried to hedge the framing of the question with caveats, obviously I didn't include enough.
The point is this: Some of the science mags I read have referred to tropical plants bulking up in response to elevated carbon. My question is whether this additional bulk (to the extent that its even relevant with the complicating factors of changing temperature, humidity, eco-servicing organisms etc) is a generally "good" thing or a "bad" thing (to put it in ridiculously simple terms).
My analogy is someone who is trying to lose weight will exercise more - this increases muscle bulk: result - more weight, but "healthier" weight. So is additional plant bulk automatically "healthy" or does it place unwanted strains on the plant as a whole, say reducing seed production, building weaker tissues or whatever.
Clearly not all good news for herbivores, and as bill points out, for the ecosystem as a whole. But my knowledge of plants generally is pretty much limited to bad backyard gardening, so if this is simply too ludicrously simple to be worth addressing, just ignore it - as others have remarked, I can probably find the answers elsewhere. While the question was genuine, it was partly motivated by finding something to talk about other than trollfestations.
A problem for plants with merely bulking up is that the production of insecticides from their processes doesn't increase to the same rate for most plants. Therefore per-unit-eaten by an insect, the plant is less toxic and therefore feeds the insect better.
Of course, the nutrition may be worse, but they just eat more of it to compensate: they're resistant to the toxin at higher doses.
Brassicas often have this property.
Re Bernard J @ #17
For those interested in the long, long history of human mining of natural resources these could be an eye opener:
The Unnatural History of the Sea: The Past and Future of Humanity and Fishing
and
Ocean of Life
will be eye openers.
No catastrophe looming here folks, move along and go for that new iPhone or iPad - much more fun than reading about real world stuff.
About the same level of thinking as Bill O'Reilly's, 'Tide goes in, tide goes out.'
Sorry Frank. I guess I was a bit sensitive after having the mega-troll use my name to spread his disinformation.
My point is that the C02 is plant-food argument is being endlessly used by those intent on a business-as-usual agenda with respect to the use of fossil fuels. Few of them have any pedigree where it counts - trophic interactions and population ecology. What few scientists endorse this crap are generally stuck in labs and have no idea how various processes work in natural systems which are inherently much more complex. They boil down ecology to the lowest common denominator and draw simple linear conclusions on what in reality are immensely complex non-linear processes. Species in nature do not function independently: they interact with others in a dizzying array of ways whose outcomes are difficult to predict. Many of these processes lead to unpredictable (and often nasty) outcomes that are hard to deal with once they have occurred. Essentially, humans are conducting a massive global experiment in the various ways we are assaulting and simplifying nature. Bolstering atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases is just another ingredient in the mix. For those intent on driving nature to hell in a hand basket I cringe when I read denier blogs and others forcefully argue - on the basis of limited knowledge - that burning fossil fuels is good for plants and therefore good for nature and people. It is not that simple.
Oh! My!
Sou has stirred up the hornets nest, see especially comments whilst pointing out Watts sallying forth on the topic of name calling.
A UK dendrochronology Robert Wilson has described Mann's work as 'a crock of shit' and Tamsin Edwards (Bristol University) took issue with Mann's response which included the word 'denier'.
I noted that Brad Keyes, although banned at Hot Whopper, tried to comment and via the link to a Richard Tol Tweet we see Tol revealed for exactly what we think him. Another familiar name shows up in that lists of Tweetings and he too reveals himself as not very nice, and to think he shares the same initials with me.
BTW I have found a new way to lose weight.
I had a big toe-nail removed on Monday. Hence my relative silence of late.
Oh! My!
Sou has stirred up the hornets nest, see especially comments whilst pointing out Watts sallying forth on the topic of name calling.
A UK dendrochronology Robert Wilson has described Mann's work as 'a crock of shit' and Tamsin Edwards (Bristol University) took issue with Mann's response which included the word 'denier'.
I noted that Brad Keyes, although banned at Hot Whopper, tried to comment and via the link to a Richard Tol Tweet we see Tol revealed for exactly what we think him. Another familiar name shows up in that lists of Tweetings and he too reveals himself as not very nice, and to think he shares the same initials with me.
BTW I have found a new way to lose weight.
I had a big toe-nail removed on Monday. Hence my relative silence of late.
Oh! And somebody is still messing with us.
Oh! My!
Sou has stirred up the hornets nest, see especially comments whilst pointing out Watts sallying forth on the topic of name calling.
A UK dendrochronology Robert Wilson has described Mann's work as 'a crock of shit' and Tamsin Edwards (Bristol University) took issue with Mann's response which included the word 'denier'.
I noted that Brad Keyes, although banned at Hot Whopper, tried to comment and via the link to a Richard Tol Tweet we see Tol revealed for exactly what we think him. Another familiar name shows up in that lists of Tweetings and he too reveals himself as not very nice, and to think he shares the same initials with me.
BTW I have found a new way to lose weight.
I had a big toe-nail removed on Monday. Hence my relative silence of late.
Somebody is still playing with us.
LA @#23 - you forgot 'you can't explain it!' !
What a maroon.
And the BK/LA/DK tag-team is still in action? Who cares?
No doubt they'll all run with the Mann called what's'isname a denier, therefore no AGW meme for years now. Because it's all they've got...
Speaking of Mann, or, in this case, a Mann's man ( ;-) ) it may yet be that Kenny Kooky-nelly is fried, not least due to the recent wrecking ball swung randomly by his Tea Party buddies.
We can but hope!
Avaaz's petition to Invisible Gas Man!
@Lionel A #24 - yeah. I didn't expect it to generate much interest. I should have known that people like talking about people more than they do about science :)
It was interesting in that it highlighted some of the factions within the climate science community and paleo community. As well as inter-continental differences - USA vs UK/Europe in regard to cosying up to "skeptics".
Now I'm hoping for some ideas on why people engage with contrarians in the first place and what sort of engagement has the biggest payoff.
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/10/talking-to-contrarians-why-do-you-do…
bill, I want you to express all due respect to the Prime Minister of Australia
I do.
Sou, you said: "Now I’m hoping for some ideas on why people engage with contrarians in the first place and what sort of engagement has the biggest payoff"
I can tell you, why some alarmists, not that many, are intestested to engage with contrarians: simply because alarmists are desperate why their message is not liked and accepted by more and more people
Gee, guess who's back?
Yes, Bill, the asylum has opened its doors again. Its never ending.
Break out the Acyclovir.
Fellas, no need to worry, I'm ok. I am one of the lucky ones that escaped the lethal effects of global warming in Stockholm. ;-)
Given the high scientific quality of the study I'm a bit surprised that Jeff' isn't a co-author.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/24/claim-climate-change-caused-more-…
FrankD: The 'bulking up' of plants as a result of increased CO2 is probably not as great as is generally supposed. At least in many grasses, vegetative shoots typically have two fully-expanded leaves and a third leaf emerging. Old leaves die at the same rate as new leaves are produced. As I recall (and it's been a long time since I looked at the literature), environmental factors affect the rate of turnover of leaves and also the size of individual leaves, but not the number of leaves on a shoot, limiting the increase in living plant mass. Other herbaceous plants probably respond similarly.
I've been frequently looking at the comments here, but in the last two or three years the 'arguments' of the climate change deniers have become increasingly silly and ignorable.
Sou @ #30,
What that pantomime with Tamsin Edwards tells me, but I could be wrong, is that many scientists, especially perhaps the younger ones in the UK, have little knowledge of how the denial machine works and who belongs to it.
Perhaps Tamsin should have a word with Andrew Weaver, although I don't think the poster of that clip sees that which we we do.
Bugger. Now is the summer of our discontent made malodorous by the prating of fools: The Invisible Gas Man licks his lizard lips in every photo op, Greg 'wikipaedia is my guide' Hunt bares his bum on BBC, the NPR herpes troll is back (as Timmeh!), and the OIly Rock is regurgitating WTFUWT crap. Oh well, back to pointing and laughing.
Oily, no-one even mentioned the Scandinavian situation - in case you haven't noticed, we have problems of our own - so your link to merry Willard Tony's is just pure, gratuitous, pointless spamming, now isn't it?
And Jeff really does rile ALL you muppets up, doesn't he? It's because he's a successful scientist, isn't it? You hate them worse than anything, don't you?
On this afternoon's episode of The World Today Will Stephen put the boot into Greg Hunt and Tony Abbott for trying to dissociate bushfire risk and severity from the fact of climate change. Hunt's response was to concede that there was a link, but to effectively say that we shouldn't do anything about it - and especially by putting a market price on the pollution that causes climate change. The audio for the story should be up within a day, so I'll link to it soon.
On the same subject, the Climate Council sent this today:
Lionel:
BBD and I mentioned those very same volumes last month:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/09/08/september-2013-open-thread/#…
They're not easy reading - a "gird-the-loins" warning is advised...
Well, I've got 'Unnatural History' as an audiobook, and it's not easy listening, either!
Oh, and BJ, I wonder how many founder-members of the CC - such as you and I - asked them to kick-back at Abbott and Hunt's embarrassingly ignorant assertions in the Council's recent survey?
Bill:
I certainly did - it seems that they were listening.
And on matters political, this is up on the ABC's Vote Compass:
http://votecompass.com/images/au-2013/auspol-twitterverse.jpg
It's very interesting to see that the left is far more technology-savvy, and it's also interesting to trawl through and see from where the noise is coming in each sector. It seems to reflect the Australian body politic more generally - there are many more smart and engaged progressives than there are conservatives, but the conservatives influence a huge herd of silent dimwits who swallow their right-wing ideological propaganda and vote accordingly.
In Australia one doesn't need substantive policy and intelligence, one needs simply to be able to pipe to the lemmings.
Dear Kai/Freddy/Berandaneke/Boris/Joe/ClownSockTroll/ Underpants Gnome of Montreaux /Insane Clown Troll/ NPD Troll/ Herpes Troll / Timmeh!
Fuck off.
While 'Timmie' is giving an outstanding example of intelligence, of course. Not to mention ethics.
(Well, representative, certainly...)
Sock Puppeteer.
By your very postings here you make me seem a veritable genius by comparison.
Faint self-praise, no doubt, as your would make a pithed and pickled cane toad seem intelligent by comparison with yourself, but nevertheless true praise for that.
Let's just chalk up your reply as a big quod erat demonstrandum
I see that John Mashey has dropped by the comments at Sou's Anthony Watts is finally back to his field of expertise, with help with some meat on Salby which throws ill light on WUWT and BH.
Thank you again John.
The promotion of a forthcoming talk by Murray Salby by one
ScottishSceptic (our old friend Latimer Alder perhaps?) sheds similar bad light on the whole sorry circus of those in de Nile.
The tale of Salby changing the subject of his talk at a conference without warning is another marker for how devious some of those in denial can be.
Okay, that's it. Not only are my comments being moderated, they're not even making it out. Consider this my GBCW. If anyone can suggest a more actively and properly moderated blog to continue the discussion, I'll monitor this thread for a few more days.
As per, the "sceptics" will grab anything in their desperate quest for sciencey-sounding legitimacy. Who cares that Salby's arguments are incorrect so long as they keep the congregation happy? And perhaps confuse the public a little into the bargain.
Clearly the Scottish Sceptic is misnomered and Andrew Montford has no understanding of the material he is promoting. Which is, or should be, very damaging to his credibility.
The BBC should ask him about this next time he's on.
Lionel, the Scottish "skeptic" is a loon named Mike Haseler. The talk in Scotland is supported by an organization called "Science, Climate and Energy Forum". They have been touted by O'Sullivan of Sky Dragon fame.
They recently hosted another talk given by someone called Emil Royrvik. His "paper" has been circulated on Tall Bloke's site, it has been Curried and it also appears on O'Sullivan's PSI site. It is well known that AGW deniers deny many things including the effects of ozone, HIV/AIDS etc. However, Royrvik denies a couple of interesting things (at least interesting to me since I am Scottish).
He denies the Highland Clearances and he denies that the Celts were ever in Scotland. His "paper" is entitled "Consensus and Controversy" and was paid for by Det Norske, a Norwegian oil company.
Good intelligence Ian.
Let's hope he's blessed with the proverbial one man and his dog for an audience.
KFBBJT...
Face it, you're the least intelligent person to post on Deltoid, although for that dubious honour it's a close race with the various incarnations of Sunspot.
It eats away at your soul, doesn't it?
It's multiplying!
He's (more than) a little lame with a lot to learn...
For those without small children, and who may have missed the reference...
97%+ of the world's professional climatologists.
And I say "+" because at least some of the "sceptical" scientists know in their hearts that human-caused global warming is a fact of physics, but money and/or ideology prevent them from admitting it to themselves and to others.
Tell me KFBBJT, why do you feel the need to use so many poorly-disguised sock puppets?
Why, it's Master Yada.
To meet you, a pleasure it's not.
The herpes troll syndrome is in the process of defining itself. It fulfils Koch's postulates and should be considered as a virtual pathogen. This outbreak will follow will follow a predictable course of the overt demonstration of early adolescent aversive behaviour, empty abuse and verbal masturbation. The dysfunctionality will escalate until banning, then reinfect with a new identity but no more insight into it's pathetic lack of identification with human feeling. It has nothing else, so it sits in the corner and screams abuse in the desperate attempt to connect with anything that gives a damn about it. Its assessment of itself as intelligent is hampered by the fact that it inhabits a world of its own, with no one else to care. Poor troll.
Ian, Røyrvik also has some interesting opinions on 9/11. Let me just say that he isn't quite convinced it was Al Qaeda that was responsible...
RHW
Indeed, what a sad comment on the ability of humans to breed such stupid pointless life. Life that thinks it is clever to continue 'DOS' (Service Unavailable...) attacks and using smelly socks.
This one has elements of The Lambton Worm, or maybe given all the socks The Hydra.
I doubt that Climate Desperate, Cardinal Puff or the Bast*** would stoop to using such a creature as this, one who thinks its smart to use the foulest of language and plaster posts with emoticons, too much negative publicity if a connection were proven. Although the last mentioned above does not seem to know where to draw the line with that sort of stuff.
Ian,
Amazing that, for a Scot, unless of course his ancestor's were allied to the Duke & Duchess of Sutherland.
In my treks across Scotland during the 1960s [1] I came across many a tumbled settlement. Maybe Royrvik is ignorant about those too.
[1[, Cairngorms (Ryvoan Lodge, Ben MacDui etc.), Glen Esk, Glen Clova (old Fairey Albacore crashed there), Glen Quiche (Ogilvy Land), Glen Nevis (walked from Dalwhinnie along Loch Ericht, staying overnight at Ben Alder Cottage and via Loch Ossian, Loch Treig into Glen Nevis down to Polldubh another bothy. This latter in those days was adjacent to the road-bridge then known as Thunderclap Bridge due to the noise made by traffic disturbing the timber beams of the road bed, the bridge has since been demolished and another built about 3/4 mile upstream. Also Glen Coe a num,ber of times (took a tumble down the north slope of the Buachaille Etive Mòr when a glissade went wrong). The Clachaig Inn has changed out of all recognition since those days too.
News of a new report ‘Extreme Weather Events in Europe: preparing for climate change adaptation‘ at Real Climate.
What a bummer that all those deniers and delayers have held up mitigation such that we have to try to adapt to the shit that is coming our way, and more especially the way of our grandchildren. This as we prepare to batten the hatches as a storm approaches from the Atlantic.
1
THE ESA GLOBALBEDO PROJECT FOR MAPPING THE EARTH'S LAND SURFACE ALBEDO FOR 15 YEARS FROM EUROPEAN SENSORS.
Jan-Peter Muller, Gerardo López, Gill Watson, Neville Shane, Tom Kennedy, Peter Yuen (1)
P. Lewis (2), Jürgen Fischer, Luis Guanter, Carlos Domench, Réné Preusker (3) Peter North, Andreas Heckel (4); Olaf Danne, Uwe Krämer, Marco Zühlke, Carsten Brockmann (5), Simon Pinnock (6)
(1) Mullard Space Science Laboratory, Dept. of Space & Climate Physics; (2) Dept. of Geography, University College London, UK
(3) Institut für Weltraumwissenschaften, Freie Universität Berlin, Germany (4) Department of Geography, Swansea University, UK
(5) Brockmann Consult, Geesthacht, Germany
(6) ESA-ESRIN, Frascati, Italy
1. GLOBALBEDO PROCESSING AND SAMPLES
A land surface broadband albedo map of the entire Earth’s land surface (snow and snow-free) is required for use in Global Climate Model initialisation and verification. A group of 10 users have been selected to work with the GlobAlbedo* Implementation team to define requirements and drive the project towards practical applications of the product. These requirements defined the need to generate a final product on 8-daily at spatial resolutions of 1km in sinusoidal projection using the MODIS 10o x 10o tiling scheme and 0.05o and 0.5o on monthly time-steps.
To generate such a global map by temporal compositing requires both sufficient directional looks and the very precise correction of top-of-atmosphere radiances to “at surface” directional reflectances (SDRs). In addition, such a map requires precise radiometric calibration and inter-calibration of different sensors [1] and the computation of radiative transfer coefficients to derive broadband SDRs from different input narrowband SDRs and given sufficient angular sampling from all the directional looks within a given temporal window, derive a suitable BRDF. This BRDF can be integrated to produce DHR (Direct Hemispherical Reflectance known as “black-sky”) and BHR (BiHemispherical Reflectance, known as “white-sky”) [2]. The final albedo product has been integrated in three spectral broadband ranges, namely the solar spectrum shortwave (400-3000nm), the visible PAR region (400-700nm) and the near- and shortwave-infrared (700-3000nm). In addition, maps of normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) and the fraction of absorbed photosynthetically active radiation (fAPAR) will be generated consistent with the albedo product to complement the Globalbedo data set for analysis of vegetation-related processes [3].
To achieve the aim of deriving independent estimates using European only assets, GlobAlbedo set out to create a 15 year time series by employing SPOT4-VEGETATION and SPOT5-VEGETATION2 as well as MERIS. Legacy algorithms for deriving SDRs using an optimal estimation approach are outlined [2] as well as a novel system for gap-filling using ten year mean estimates derived from equivalent BRDFs from MODIS [2]. Each and every output pixel albedo value has an estimated uncertainty associated with it and the corresponding BRDF a full uncertainty matrix for each pixel. Separate BRDFs are computed for snow and snow-free pixels and combined together to yield a gap-free dataset. An example of a sample output product browse in Figure 1 shows the BHR and the coefficient of variation derived from the uncertainty divided by the expectation value (loc.cit.)
Animations of 8-daily and monthly browse products including the full-resolution 1km tiles are available on the website for the products available to date (2005, 2009, 2010 and the first 6 months of 2011). An OGC-compliant server based on OpenLayers also allows display of global data and inter-comparison by flickering from one date with another. Global data at 0.05o and 0.5o, as well as individual tiles at 1km, can be downloaded using wget and scripts can be easily written by the user to harvest the data they require. A novel facility is the ability to extract a single pixel or a group of 3 x 3 or 5 x 5 pixels in CSV format through time for immediate plotting locally.
2. GLOBALBEDO VALIDATION
Extensive validation has been performed on final GlobAlbedo product for each and every year that correlative data is available. Shown here from [4], in Figure 2 is an example of a time series plot of Blue-Sky albedo from GlobAlbedo, MODIS priors, MODIS Collection 5 and MISR measurements. Uncertainties calculated from within the product [2] are shown for GlobAlbedo and MISR. For a desert bare rock site (upper panel), the GlobAlbedo product shows reasonable agreement with the other EO datasets and with the tower measurements. The differences shown at the year start may be related to spatial variability of the site (loc.cit.). The Toravere site like most BSRN sites is not chosen for its spatial homogeneity but rather it’s location close to a suitable laboratory. It has a high degree of spatial variability and almost all BSRN are in this category. In addition, unlike the SURFRAD tower albedometer at 30m with a 100m footprint, Toravere albedometers are at 5m above the surface with a 5m footprint so rendering them unhelpful for the purpose of validating spaceborne-derived land surface albedo. The time series shown for Travere shows a common phenomenon for the more than 80 sites worldwide which have been employed to date, related to the effect of snow in winter. Due to very different fields of view of the local albedometer and the 1km EO-derived equivalent values, snow albedo values from EO are typically 50% of the ones retrieved from local albedometers. In this case, GlobAlbedo appears to be slightly more sensitive to the snow values but this is not necessarily typical.
3. GLOBALBEDO PROSPECTS
The GlobAlbedo data production at UCL-MSSL takes around 3 weeks per output year and produces around 1.5Tb (uncompressed) output. This is running flat-out on a 10-blade (160-core) linux cluster with 48gb of RAM and 1Tb local disk. The processing requires 100Tb of scratch-space to keep all input and output products online. An extensive Product User Manual is available from the website. Currently the production is expect to be completed for the Envisat time period by October 2012 with products being loaded after visual inspection of the browse products and validation using extensive tower-based data and similar EO datasets, including METEOSAT. In the next phase, a variety of different users will assess the impact of the product, and the use of the estimated uncertainties on their particular application.
4. REFERENCES CITED
[1] D. Potts, S. Mackin, J-P. Muller, N. Fox (2012). Satellite Sensor Intercalibration over Dome C: Application of QA4EO principles to the ESA GlobAlbedo Project. IGARSS 2012 (this conference)
[2] GlobAlbedo_ATBD_V3.0 (2011). GlobAlbedo: Algorithm Theoretical Basis Document. Authors: P. Lewis, C. Brockmann, O. Danne, J. Fischer, L. Guanter, A. Heckel, O. Krueger, G. López, J-P. Muller, P. North, D. Potts, R. Preusker. Available from http://www.GlobAlbedo.org/
[3] Pinty, B., Jung, M., Kaminski, T., Lavergne, T., Mund, M., Plummer, S., Thomas, E., Widlowski, J.L., 2011. Evaluation of the JRC-TIP 0.01° products over a mid-latitude deciduous forest site. Remote Sens. Environ. 115, 3567-3581.
[4] Muller, J.-P., Lopez, G., Shane, N.S., Danne, O., Brockmann, C., Krämer, U., Zühlke, M., Heckel, A., North, P.R., Domench, C., Guanter, L., Fischer, J., Wang, Z., Schaapman-Strub, G., Cescatti, A., 2012. GlobAlbedo Test Product Validation Report, available from http://www.globalbedo.org/docs/GlobAlbedo_TPVR_V2_2.pdf . UCL- MSSL, 92pp.
Seems I'm out of the dungeon for now. Did my theory on the troll's Berend* puppet ever make it out of moderation in time for anyone to notice?
Oh, and I can't resist...
Would those be the Koch brother's postulates? (Tee hee, etc)
Chuckle. Welcome back Stu - & no, the identifier of tuberculosis, cholera and anthrax may have been a strange bloke, but to tar him with the sins of Cheney's choke chain holders is too mean for poor old Robert.
A better analogy would be John Hunter - who inoculated several people (including himself) with gonorrhoeal pus to try to prove that it caused the symptoms of syphilis - unfortunately the inoculum was from a patient who had both gonorrhoea & syphilis. Such was his personal authority, that this confused the issue of what agent caused which disease for several decades in anglophone medicine - though the French worked it out correctly, by careful clinical observation over time. I wonder whether the Francophone denialist industry is as potent as the Anglophone one?.
Is that another aspect in which the “CO2 is plant food” meme misses the point?
Yes. It would be an incredible fluke of nature if a rapid global change in environment for plants or any other organism had a net beneficial effect by any measure, since evolution is a recording, of sorts, of environmental history, and organisms are adapted to that set of environments. And the only reason to even hope for such a beneficial effect is to use it as a denier talking point ... that is, even if there were such a coincidental net beneficial consequence to plants and their ecologies from increased CO2, it wouldn't nearly compensate for the numerous severe negative consequences of the increase.
John Hunter – who inoculated several people (including himself) with gonorrhoeal pus to try to prove that it caused the symptoms of syphilis – unfortunately the inoculum was from a patient who had both gonorrhoea & syphilis.
Or not:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hunter_(surgeon)#Self-experimentation
ianam@#72:
Following Greg Hunt's example (http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/greg-hunt-uses-wi… ) is seldom a good idea:
http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/41/1/128.2.full.pdf+html
I'm an Infectious Diseases physician. I was raised on the cautionary tale of Hunter's deeply flawed experimentalism - including the point that germ theory was as contentious as climate change when Hunter was publishing. Even today, the observational 'science' of medical practice is orders of magnitude less well founded than climate science, yet most view medicine as beyond reproach. Thank Dog the antivaxers & HIV deniers are not still funded by Big Energy, even if the whole denial industry cut its teeth on tobacco.
Bernard J #45 on books by Prof. Callum Roberts:
Indeed, sorry, it was from your citation that I picked up on these two, and very glad, or saddened because it confirms other knowledge, to have done so.
For anybody with doubts as to how serious things are getting with climate change being a multiplier of such problems then you really need some serious study sessions.
Meanwhile, as a diversion, some of those little Maltese boats called 'Strong>dghajjes', pronounced dice-ohs, three of which I captured whilst they were sculling around Ark Royal waiting for trade in Valletta harbour in late 1970. Clearly, the owner of the nearest one was yet to feel the Dom Mintoff, anti-colonial and pro Gaddafi, effect.
Those Photoshop filters don't always end up with a reasonable end effect but this pleases me. I have not aired this one in public before.
Following Greg Hunt’s example
Don't be stupid. I gave that Wikipedia link because it cites the very link you gave as reference #18 ... a link that calls your assertion into question.
I was raised on ...
Perhaps that is why you didn't even bother to read your own link:
SIR—I thank Dr. Gladstein [1] for his kind words. His point is well taken. Although informed speculation in the writing of history is unavoidable, I should have more carefully distinguished between fact and conjecture.
You could learn to do the same ... a good way to start is to read the rest of that exchange. As I said, "or perhaps not". Unlike the links between climate change and bush fires, your claims about Hunter are not well established from the evidence.
And to be clear, I am referring specifically to this assertion in all its details:
John Hunter – who inoculated several people (including himself) with gonorrhoeal pus to try to prove that it caused the symptoms of syphilis – unfortunately the inoculum was from a patient who had both gonorrhoea & syphilis
I am not responding to the general charge that Hunter engaged in "deeply flawed experimentalism".
BTW, the notion that using Wikipedia "is seldom a good idea" is stupid and ignorant. Hunt's problem is not that he used Wikipedia, but that he made the idiotic strawman "there have always been bush fires/storms/high and low temperatures/etc." argument that is a staple of deniers.
Um, ianam - WTF?
I will cop to be trying too hard to establish a conversation after recurrent troll strike, but I was attempting to be flippant, even if it was about a Scots secular saint. You did not post "or perhaps not", you said "Or not:".
I was attempting to riff on Stu's neat pun about Koch/Kochs, then (perhaps, over-) extending a metaphor about a subject that I am reasonably familiar with, independent of the rather confusing & poorly edited wikipedia entry.
Hunter's work in the 18th century is regarded by those of us who practice, research and teach medicine as both seminal and deeply flawed. Hunter & his contemporaries (eg Jenner) did some very disturbing things which are popularly cited as being breakthroughs, but when examined through the retrospectoscope of both current medicine and/or science (and the historiography of available primary documents) are textbook examples (literally) of how not to do science on humans - and are taught as such. I actually took part in some of the debate after the original paper and correspondence in CID (and other journals) in the mid 2005, and have reviewed as much of the primary material as I can find, and I have no doubt that Hunter did experiments which even he was ashamed of in the service of his own prejudices and standing. This is something not even Lindzen can be accused of, despite the overtness of his denial.
Please be careful with the terms stupid & ignorant: even in Blog science they should probably reserved for overt trolls (like Timmeh!), as evidenced by the Wilson /Mann brouhaha.
Agreed.
Given that he's not known for being conciliatory, this is where I pop in and remind Ianam that IIRC he's not supposed to be here on health grounds.
Following up on my post last week, this is the Will Steffen interview:
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2013/s3876936.htm
Note the little addendum from Greg Hunt. History will not judge him kindly at all, and his kids and grandkids will be embarrassed to have the internet archiving his stupidity so remorselessly...
You did not post “or perhaps not”, you said “Or not:”.
Oh gee, what a critical difference. So "A or not A" differs exactly how from "A or perhaps not A"?
Please be careful with the terms stupid
Look, jackass, you practically called me a denier by stupidly likening my use of Wikipedia to that of Greg Hunt. Your response was completely and utterly stupid. Have you even read your link yet? The correspondents there pretty much agreed that there is no evidentiary basis to think that Hunter inoculated himself. Why are you stupidly blathering on about his work being "deeply flawed" when I just said that I wasn't challenging that, only your specific claim? That, and your "wtf" shows that you're too busy blabbering to bother to read carefully ... that's pretty stupid, as is your intellectually dishonest notion that words like "stupid" should be "reserved" for only certain persons, rather than being applied whenever they fit.
Given that he’s not known for being conciliatory, this is where I pop in and remind Ianam that IIRC he’s not supposed to be here on health grounds.
I have no idea wtf you're on about, and even if I did I wouldn't be interested in your condescending "reminder". I do think I've mentioned several times what a wasted effort it is to argue with the Deltoid trolls, who are among the most stupid people on the planet, but that's not what I'm doing, now am I?
P.S.
Please be careful with the terms stupid & ignorant: even in Blog science they should probably reserved for overt trolls (like Timmeh!), as evidenced by the Wilson /Mann brouhaha.
Do you seriously think that anything that goes on here has anything like the import and reach of the Mann/Wilson/Edwards/Betts/WUWT/BH/practically everybody brouhaha? When you reach the stature and importance of Mann and I start posting about you, or my tweets about you are featured, at WUWT (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/21/paleoscientist-manns-recent-work-…), then I can begin to remotely take that seriously.
[sigh]
Yes, sigh away, Bill. You already knew what to expect from me, so why would did you expect something different? Now try refuting me on substance, eh?
OK ianam. I fully concede that I lack your substantiveness, comprehension skills and sense of humour, and am truly stupid and ignorant in my own field, not to mention overly sarcastic and not a little too fond of litotes. I most humbly apologise for my sins, and prostrate myself at the feet of the master . Can we go troll baiting again?
inane really likes to strut, rhwombat.
It does seem to me as though we're all a tad frayed after the enforced encounter with a diseased mind. It's not exactly surprising. Being raved at incessantly for weeks by a an ocean-going, copper-bottomed nutter is going to leave its mark. Hopefully it will wear off soon.
* * *
I trust my fellow Poms survived the crazy weather last night? Chek? Lionel A? You must have got it fairly bad Lionel.
Aye it blew a bit, but for this 'once copper-bottomed ocean going nutter' (joke) worse was experience at sea. Try a Force 12 whilst steaming through the Pentland Firth as on the old Ark Royal (one with cats and traps), for one. Even a big ship like that was bouncing around enough to train astronauts in weightlessness. But the old Ark took a more severe pounding whilst off the US Eastern Seaboard in early 1972, with decks bent up crushing ships boats and long splits in the hull from a huge swell on the for'ard port quarter.
But then I was here in Southern England for that October 87 - the Michael Fish - Hurricane. I was working into the early hours on school work, marking and preparations whilst hearing the garden being progressively torn to bits.
Then there was the one in early 1990. I was working in Southampton, doing a spell at contract software development. I was in the process of building an expansion for my home computer and walked across The Avenue in Southampton on my way to Maplin to get components, assorted resistors, capacitors, diodes and ICs etc. There were numerous chestnuts along the avenue, as there were in the grounds of the college where my office was in the computer section, numbers of which had come down as well as loads of branches whilst I was over in Maplin.
Our house suffered more during that 1990 storm with a hole in the roof.
We escaped this time but many didn't it would seem, sadly.
Um... #88 has been altered from what I posted. Are we being hacked?
Strangely enough Dungerness nuclear power station has had to shut down 2 reactors thanks to the storm... and I thought that nuke's were supposed to be reliable and predictable...
Ianam:
"I do think I’ve mentioned several times what a wasted effort it is to argue with the Deltoid trolls, who are among the most stupid people on the planet, but that’s not what I’m doing, now am I?"
Yes it is Ianam. :-)
#92 RHW
Your comment has been altered? Then yes, hackery seems likely. Someone better tell Tim. Straight away.
and I thought that nuke’s were supposed to be reliable and predictable…
They are, like any other source of power when redundancy is built into the wider system.
This is is why I am not too enamoured with the UK's projected Hinckley Point C, one on its own is goping to solve zilch. Also other nuclear should be built using other formats. There are some mature candidates one of which was initially explored by a joint UK-US/Canadian effort but which the UK had to divest from when UK Energy policy - NETA - made it uneconomical. That is not a detailed examination of the issues that raised themselves, suffice it to say it was from a lack of joined up thinking by our leaders.
B.....!
They are, like any other source of power when redundancy is built into the wider system.
Whilst making corrections, one to my #75 above:
Maltese boats called‘dghajjes‘,
Don't mention the war!...
Um, regarding a hack, it wouldn't appear to have been perpetrated by the most likely suspect, because the resulting text is rather too literate and coherent.
How substantial was the alteration?
Speaking of substance... [sigh] if I'm not arguing with you - rather I'm challenging characteristic behaviours - then there's no 'subtance' I'm obliged to address, is there? Oh Logical One.
I've got Tim's email at home, but I'm not there. Is Jeff around?
Here's a site I haven't seen previously:
http://treealerts.org/australia/
Found it whilst doing some background searching about political conflict-of-interest:
http://treealerts.org/type/alerts/2013/10/vested-interests-complicate-c…
Intriguing site, BJ. And, yeah, interesting times! Are they prepared to blow a hole in the budget to rectify the damage (not) done to the economy by the GBNT?
After campaigning in Tea Party mode - deficits bad, bad, bad - then announcing they were allowing them to blow out by another $200 billion... well, that really would be the icing on the cake, wouldn't it? These wallies may yet trigger a recession! Happy days!
John Quiggin's doing this one currently, I'll add.
GetUp! fears that Shorten's about to climb down on the tax. Don't let him.
Here's the link.
(That would just about be the end of Labor, I might add. What's the point of having two Liberal parties, after all?)
Shorten's an intelligent man. I'd be surprised if he'd seriously countenance capitualting on this matter. Abbott would never let Australians forget if Labor caved in to the denialist conservatism, and the intelligent section of the community that understands the science would never forgive Labor for doing so.
It's salient to remember that Rudd was ousted in 2010 because his popularity nose-dived after he back-tracked on the CPRS following similar Coalition pressure. Abbott's using a tried-and-true gambit, and it would be pure folly to hit the lure a second time.
Besides eviscerating the Labor Party it would also catapult Australian political life back 100 years, and likely toward something resembling [dzzzt - Godwin...]
I am looking at the feasibility of putting wind + solar (maybe combined PV & HW) up on the roof. Unfortunately don't have a south facing house, faces NE-SW so solar on both sides of the pitch.
I find this model of wind turbine interesting, besides aesthetically pleasing.
I would like to consider a perhaps smaller build of such units for the domestic market. I have considered the possibility of installing three poles around this semi. One at the end in line with the roof apex, one at the front and one at the rear. The poles could be cross braced by three horizontal members tie each pole to the two others. This for stability and structural integrity against strong blows with a minimum of load on the house structure.
WRT more conventional wind turbines
and having been involved in aviation I understand the airscrew shadow effect which can affect multiple wind turbines with rows packed to tight. However some aircraft of my acquaintance had contra-props others co-axial propellers. No they are not the same, the former is a single engine arrangement driving two contra-rotating propellers through a gearbox whereas the latter is a twin engined arrangement each driving their own prop via co-axial shafts.
Contra props were fitted on RR Griffon engined aircraft such as the Shackleton and later marks of Spitfire and Mustang. The RN Fairey Gannet was fitted with an Armstrong Siddeley (Umtum-Tiddeley to the boys in blue) Double Mamba twin turboprop. The Bristol Brabazon, which I used to see flying over when a very small boy, had eight Centaurus sleeve valved radials in twinned arrangements driving four sets of co-axial propellers.
Now, I do know that such arrangements suffered from noise issues, ignored in the military field. Maybe modern techniques could ameliorate such problems.
With any wind turbine the problem of bird strikes could this small issue be alleviated by finishing the blades in higher reflecting UV material to match the greater sensitivity of avian vision at those wavelengths. I see the Quiet Revolution qv5 as more of a problem because of its smaller rotating cross section, something like the cutters of a cylinder lawn-mower. Having cleared the remains of birds from aircraft windscreens, radomes, intakes and undercarriages I don't fancy frequent repeats of that, how ever small the real chances are.
David JC MacKay's 'Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air' has given me some impetus here.
Much investigative work to be done, particularly as I am of an age where I am unlikely to get any financial benefit from it, but if done properly the kids could benefit and the household electrical system needs a revamp anyway, that area is going to be the really expensive bit, I think. Planning permission in this anti-wind county may also be a project stopper.
Lionel, be very wary of microturbines. See MacKay, page 66 note 62 section 2 on microturbines.
Cavity wall insulation, loft insulation, new boiler and energy A-rated domestic appliances might be the way forward.
Sorry, that should be note 63.
Here are a couple of the links from MacKay:
Carbon Trust report (2008) on microturbines:
http://www.carbontrust.com/media/77248/ctc738_small-scale_wind_energy.p…
That Eco-Bollocks award:
http://www.housebuildersupdate.co.uk/2006/12/eco-bollocks-award-windsav…
BBD
Thanks for your concerns. At this stage I am conducting what we used to call on a trials installation unit, aviation, I worked on for some time, a feasibility study.
The items in your #5 have been done, double glazing too.
As for MacKay page 66 note 63, yes I have read that, I am studying the book here now.
Thanks for your links.
I am also studying Nuttall's 'Nuclear Renaissance' - again and am looking up more recent information on the state of play WRT ACR (Advanced CANDU Reactor), as a better option than the governments, IMHO questionable, moves to install a Franco-German EPR with Chinese financial backing.
Now if our financial house was in order, and bankers had been forced to surrender their bonuses (Fred Goodwin et. al. - RIH), and offshore accounts were policed we would have more than enough to cover it and ease pressure on societies most vulnerable by a more active programme of improving old housing stock WRT energy efficiency. Those sociopathic sods have much to answer four as well as the biggest carbon footprints.
"See MacKay, page 66 note 62 section 2 on microturbines."
MacKay is unreliable when he talks about renewables.
E.g. using an outdated version of wind turbine. Insisting that the entire footprint of the wind farm is used for that single purpose. Assuming the wrong value for energy use per person per day. Assuming 10% land use is the maximum we can use for windfarms (see single-use problem above), then when this still doesn't quite preclude wind power, reduces it by 75% "because".
He pushes nuclear by refusing any alternative.
He still shills for the nukes.
"With any wind turbine the problem of bird strikes could this small issue be alleviated by finishing the blades in higher reflecting UV material"
The myth of air strikes were severalfold factors combining that no longer exist:
1) small rotors spin faster , meaning the disk is effectively solid for a slow flying bird.
2) Frames rather than a tower meant excellent perches for birds.
3) Site was on a migatory path despite problems being known about already.
There are versions of small turbines that are really impeller designs which are pretty safe to use. They're complicated and expensive, though.
TBH you'd be better off if you can't get a big enough rotor or live in a migration route getting solar thermal and heating water and using that for most of your heating needs (with heat reclaimation to pull some power from the hot water: see Stirling engine) and use PV or water mills to produce what you need for other needs.
The space you'd use for the turbine would work better with a solar panel for the same output and less hassle, but more expense. You can always build up and do the largest replacement project last, when it'll be cheaper and better.
BJ @ #3 - yes, it would be a whole-party suicide-note that would make Rudd's own walking away from the 'moral challenge of our generation' look like a minor pre-entrée. Which it would effectively have been.
That's no reason not to remind the bastards that that's what would happen, though. Fairfax was reporting this yesterday.
This is little short of brilliant!
BBD.
I know that you are aware of the latest Paul Hudson/BBC nonsense having commented at Stoat's, just like others here to know that the Beeb is still schizophrenic over climate change issues. Maybe something to do with pressure from 'They Who Cannot Be Named' over the forthcoming BBC license renewal. After all we cannot have the BBC pouring cold water on the Chancellors fracking plans now can we.
The bankers have fracked us
The energy companies are fracking us.
Big business and their champions in government have fracked us with their tax-dodging offshore accounting practices.
The MPs wan't to frack us by awarding themselves over the odds pay increases whilst the rest are squeezed tighter and tighter by policies from an out of control, arrogantly dismissive and generally incompetent cabinet.
I wonder how much this little fiasco cost the taxpayer.
One can see the example of blind arrogance that typifies this administration in this quote, my emphasis which can be applied to the race to frack:
I have been prodding various limbs of the BBC over the fracking issue and what do I get - silence.
So let me get this right. The IPCC used:
a) Californian bristlecone chronologies, and,
b) upside down and contaminated Finnish lake sediments, and
c) European instrument temperature data.
in order to determine past temperatures in the SOUTHERN hemisphere!
That work for you, my little Deltoids?
"a) Californian bristlecone chronologies, and..."
...lots of other trees.
Oh, didn't you know that other data was used? You thought only "bad data" was used because "good data" would have shown that there had been no warming?
Guess what?
"Good data" shows AGW warming too, retard.
I suspect that more than a few of the deluded denialists here haven't seen this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOsl5-AUTv4
I doubt that they could watch it and actually see the scales that cover their eyes, but for the scientifically literate one thing is starkly clear - no denialist argument holds even a guttered candle to the strength of the professional science.
Warning - by part 3 it becomes somewhat depressing...
A'hem douche-bag at #14!
Why don't you try to find something new other than that example of the type of garbage Hudson likes to spew?
Note my pointer to the Stoat above on a more recent excursion into denier methodology by Hudson and note that you seem to be picking from around 2009:
Donald at Real Climate: A warming pause?.
Like Svensmark and his GCR's, Lindzen and low climate sensitivity, Hudson seems to have a one card hand. Not worth much unless you are playing 'Indian Poker', which is about the cognitive limit of those taken in by this kind of simplistic garbage.
Warming pause and a coming ice age - give me flipping strength will this zombie never die!
What a relief to find that nothing much changes on Planet Deltoid as first Wow and then Lionel miss the point by a mile.
Try reading this slowly, 'mes enfants', it's not whether it's 'good data' or 'bad data' but that it is totally irrelevant data because it was taken from the NORTHERN hemisphere and thus distorts any research purporting to reach conclusions concerning the SOUTHERN hemisphere.
Now, what is it about the words 'NORTH' and 'SOUTH' that you don't understand?
Duffer,
If you could explain from which part of any of the IPCC reports these strawmen were constructed then maybe we could have a more constructive dialogue.
What you #14 appears to be is the regurgitation from some denier blog, or perhaps the Daily Smell - '...a rose by any other name...' etc,.
Some of this smells of McIntyre and McKitrick as discussed here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/search.php?t=c&Search=hockey%20stick
Whatever this is all another exercise in Fish Slapping.
"This remarkable turn of events occurred because IPCC Figure 5.7 relied on SH reconstructions from Mann et al 2008, citing three SH reconstructions from Mann et al 2008: Ma08eivl, Ma08eivf and Ma08cpsl."
Ah, yes, that dreadful 4-letter word - 'Mann'!
And one thing they left out ("Shurely shome mishtake - Ed") was "Antarctic ice core d18O isotope data covering the medieval period".
I wonder why?
Way to go Duff! :-) According to McIntyre the SH is actaully the NH, or is it the other way around? :-)
http://climateaudit.org/2013/10/28/the-ipcc-southern-hemisphere-reconst…
Duffer the Puffer is wrong as usual, not right as he claims:
McIntyre and all the other deniers quoting this nonsense made the usual lazy mistake, they didn't read the actual paper where the data were taken from.
Here is a link to Mann's 2008 paper:
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/09/02/0805721105.full.pdf+html
If you check out Table S1 you will find that different proxies were used for NH and SH and the total was used for Global.
Trust deniers to make such an elementary mistake but it is always good to see how incompetent they actually are. I can never tell whether they are just lazy or are too stupid to actually read and correctly interpret the actual papers, probably both. Or they may actually know what they are doing and are being completely dishonest.
Ah! So.
Duff, why are you never specific about your sources of information?
We always trace it to some denier blog bog.
Did you by chance happen to look at the actual Draft Report itself?
If you did you would have seen this:
Still, the hooligans (M&M - 'Get in the Bowl') in the argument never were ones for playing by the rules and you smug gits are just as culpable.
More later, I have other issues to deal with.
Not in a million years! Duffhead lets his blog pseudo-science sewer conspiranoid sources to do his thinking for him.
And even though he's always, but always shown how they're incorrect, incompetent or just plain lying. he desperately wants to believe they're not. Even at the expense of his credibility taking such a pounding he has to lie low for six months or so until he thinks his last shit soufflé has been forgotten.
Of course being the arrogant little jumped-up, supercilious twat he is, he will always comes back with what he has been led to believe (but never checked for himself) is another zinger. And we can be just as 100% sure it will always be more garbage.
The Duffer will never understand that there's a difference between science and denial blog pseudo-science.
And still there is no evidence for a global and synchronous MCA, which has been the standard position for some time now and most recently confirmed by PAGES-2k (see below) which I believe came after the cutoff for inclusion in AR5. So where's the beef?
* * *
Also remember that arguing for a highly variable climate system is arguing for a high climate sensitivity to radiative perturbation - be that from internal variability or an external
forcing.
* * *
PAGES 2k Consortium (2013) Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia
I hope that's clear. There is a degree of antiphase between the hemispheres. The MCA does not appear to have been a global and synchronous event. Global average temperatures did not match GAT today. Please try to be objective about this.
Oh, riiiight, you mean Finnish lake sediments and Californian bristlecones to say nothing of European instrument measures of temperature occur in the SOUTHERN hemisphere - which is what the IPCC were writing about in their "SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE RECONSTRUCTIONS", and that's 'SOUTHERN' as in, er, SOUTHERN not global, and as illustrated in their graph "IPCC AR5 FIgure 5.7(b)" on which it has the word "Southern Hemisphere" printed in large letters.
Let me try and put it another way; what is it about the title "SOUTHERN Hemisphere Reconstructions" that you do not understand and which, like the IPCC, you appear to confuse with 'NORTHERN Hemisphere Reconstruction'?
And again I ask why, given their (and your) confusion over the geographical location of, er, Californian bristlecones, Finnish lakes and European temperatures, did they not remain 'confused' by SOUTHERN, Antarctic ice cores?
Jest askin'!
Btw, BBD - no storm damage here this week. I seem to be quite lucky as the big storm of '87 just clipped the area of Cambridgeshire we lived in at the time, with just one tree on the March road blown over.
I had no idea of that one's impact until the following April when going to a wedding in Sussex, the devastation travelling through the south east looked like an arboricidal giant with a roller had flattened every wood and copse available. I couldn't help thinking of the sheer amount of high quality wood of so many types that could never be harvested before it decayed.
#27
Read the fucking words, imbecile.
#28 chek
Very glad to hear it. Sorry - Mrs BBD and little just back from visit to the in-laws. Got to go!
Duffer the Puffer continues with his deceitful ways. He still hasn't read the actual paper where the data come from where it explicitly explains that NORTHERN HEMISPHERE proxies were used for the NORTHERN HEMISPHERE plot and SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE PROXIES were used for the SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE plot and both sets were combined for the GLOBAL plot. Here are some numbers:
1800-1855 Full NH proxies 993
1800-1855 Full SH proxies 165
1800-1855 Global proxies 1158
In case he is also mathematically challenged 1158 = 993 + 165
Stop being so stupid and/or dishonest, read a real and honest paper for once. Or are you admitting that you are so intellectually challenged that you can't understand the big words and real numbers?
Duffer the Puffer continues with his deceitful ways. He still hasn't read the actual paper where the data come from where it explicitly explains that NORTHERN HEMISPHERE proxies were used for the NORTHERN HEMISPHERE plot and SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE PROXIES were used for the SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE plot and both sets were combined for the GLOBAL plot. Here are some numbers:
1800-1855 Full NH proxies 993
1800-1855 Full SH proxies 165
1800-1855 Global proxies 1158
In case he is also mathematically challenged 1158 = 993 + 165
Stop being so stupid and/or dishonest, read a real and honest paper for once. Or are you admitting that you are so intellectually challenged that you can't understand the big words and real numbers?
Duffer the Puffer continues with his deceitful ways. He still hasn't read the actual paper where the data come from where it explicitly explains that NORTHERN HEMISPHERE proxies were used for the NORTHERN HEMISPHERE plot and SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE PROXIES were used for the SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE plot and both sets were combined for the GLOBAL plot. Here are some numbers:
1800-1855 Full NH proxies 993
1800-1855 Full SH proxies 165
1800-1855 Global proxies 1158
In case he is also mathematically challenged 1158 = 993 + 165
Stop being so stupid and/or dishonest, read a real and honest paper for once. Or are you admitting that you are so intellectually challenged that you can't understand the big words and real numbers?
Ooops sorry about the extra posts. Maybe Duffer will read at least one of them.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/oct/30/one-third-of-austral…
[blockquote]A study of 602 articles in 10 newspapers by the Australian Centre for Independent Journalism found that 32% dismissed or questioned whether human activity was causing the climate to change.[/blockquote]
[blockquote]newspapers based a small fraction of their coverage on peer-reviewed science, instead relying heavily on comment pieces penned by writers without a scientific background.[/blockquote]
[blockquote]There were 97% of comment pieces in the Herald Sun which either questioned or rejected the view of the vast majority of climate scientists – which has ironically also been measured at 97%.[/blockquote]
[blockquote]Bolt, who regularly rails against the established science of climate change in print and on his Channel Ten TV show, dedicated 49% of his words in the surveyed period to climate science,.[/blockquote]
[blockquote]Just 1% of News Corporation articles referred to peer-reviewed science[/blockquote]
No, Duffer will not read them. He is not seeking information, and will not accept anything that contradicts his irrational and ignorant beliefs.
Craig, this blog requires '' rather than '[' and '].'
Not that I can talk with the number of flubs I make....
But you do wish that adhering to a common standard would be achievable. Or surely a measly bloody preview or editing function at the least.
And typically the previous post declined to show the back arrow on comma+shift thus - .
God, hammering out HTML by email or BB must have been a fucking nightmare.
And typically the previous post declined to show the back arrow on comma+shift thus - .
God, hammering out HTML by email or BB must have been a fucking nightmare.
And typically the previous post declined to show the back arrow on comma+shift thus - .
God, hammering out HTML by email or BB must have been a fucking nightmare.
And typically the previous post declined to show the back arrow on comma+shift thus - , and the forward arrow above stop+shift, thus - >
God, hammering out HTML by email or BB must have been a fucking nightmare. And a repetitive one at that.
Gentlemen, I use the term loosely, of course, may I suggest that:
1: You look at the diagram very carefully entitled:
"IPCC AR5 FIgure 5.7(b). Reconstructed … Southern Hemisphere… annual temperatures during the last 2000 years."
2: Double check the actual words inside the diagram put there specially for really, really bright scientific minds like yours just in case, you know, that in your total amazing brilliance you might get confused between 'North' and 'South' - " (b) Southern Hemisphere".
If you check further you will discover that this diagram and the reports that went with it used three papers from Prof. Mann which, unsurprisingly in his case, included NORTHERN hemisphere data to work out a historical SOUTHERN temperature reconstruction.
And no-one has told me why they ignored isotope readings from the SOUTH. Could it be that the pesky little things kept telling the 'wrong' story?
The only thing that surprised me about this tale was the fact that I was totally un-surprised. It's exactly the sort of shoddy, underhand, now-you-see-it-now-you-don't 'agit-prop' beloved of your strange sect.
I'm off for a couple of days so please do try to work out the difference between north and south!
Duffer, you've already been debunked. See above. So all you've just done is soiled yourself. In public. Again.
A perfect "SQUIRRELS!!!" from duffer.
Duffhead hasn't got a clue of the context he's rote-repeating, Fig 5.7 relating to the section 5.7 "Evidence and Processes of Abrupt Climate Change".
"This assessment of abrupt climate change on timescales of 10–100 years focuses on Dansgaard-Oeschger (DO) events and iceberg/meltwater discharges during Heinrich events, especially the advances since AR4 in reconstructing and understanding their global impactsb and in extending the record of millennial-scale variability to ~800 ka.
Thus Duffdick presents as clear an example as possible on the shortcomings of "citizen science" riling up their dim-witted followers, or the monkeys having their cages rattled as it's more commonly known. So it seems his main objection is he's too ignorant to know what the IPCC are even talking about, never mind understand it.
Prat above:
Read the fucking words and respond to them as written. Forget your idiotic, confected, non-issue grubbed up out of misunderstandings and misrepresentations.
Forget it. Concentrate on the underlying concepts. Try fucking thinking like an adult for five minutes.
Let's try again:
And still there is no evidence for a global and synchronous MCA, which has been the standard position for some time now and most recently confirmed by PAGES-2k (see #25; #26) which I believe came after the cutoff for inclusion in AR5. So where’s the beef?
* * *
Also remember that arguing for a highly variable climate system is arguing for a high climate sensitivity to radiative perturbation – be that from internal variability or an external forcing.
Please think about this carefully as it bears directly on the climatological effects of increased forcing from CO2.
Think.
Think.
Try.
Respond only the points raised above. I don't care about McIntyre's silly lies and half-baked misrepresentations so do not raise them here again.
If you want to talk about a "hot" MCA, then by all means do, but you will conceptualise it within a physically consistent framework that incorporates a high climate sensitivity.
Or you can fuck off. I really don't care anymore. Up to you: think and engage in rational discourse based on real-world physics or jabber like an enraged marmoset. Up to you.
Do the former and I'll talk with you. Do the latter and I will piss on you.
Ah! Duffer. True to form.
You come in here with your big flat dirty feet kicking up dust using malformed reasoning from those out to continue the delay on action, knowing, or using the excuse, that you are going to piss off when it gets to hot.
To stupid add mendacious for you are clearly both.
Now you should try to understand as to why a label such as Southern Hemisphere is quite valid within the context.
Ah yes that concept 'context' again, always a problem for your type. You are being played by the likes of M&M and their agents with bog blogs.
Why is it that you never open with a precise citation ahead of your drivel? Don't you know how too or is it that you know your utterances will be exposed as the crap they are?
Maybe you just think its smart to make us waste our time figuring out where you are coming from. Clearly that strategy failed yet again.
What it did do was give us another opportunity to debunk you again so that lurkers see once again how ideologically bigoted you are. Of course if you are being paid to do this, and there is some hint of your being fed by others more knowledgeable than yourself here, then your patrons should ask for their money back because you are being counter productive.
to piss off when it gets too hot.
Too stupid add mendacious for you are clearly both.
Our international readers have probably caught wind of the interesting legal restructuring of Queensland (and soon of other "Liberal" [cough, gag] states), but for those not aware Larvatus Prodeo has a handy update:
http://larvatusprodeo.net/archives/2013/10/his-honour-v-herr-kommandant/
One of the interesting things linked in the piece is the comments section of a Catallaxy piece:
http://archive.is/5kNC9
where a commenter who is apparently cohenite rants about Muslim bikies... Yes, you read that correctly - it seems that Australian is besieged by gangs of Muslim bikies.
Now cohenite is (if rumour is to be believed) a lawyer so he should have some respect for the stinging critiques coming from senior legal practioners such as Tony Fitzgerald, although admittedly IIRC cohenite is a divorce lawyer so perhaps the broader legal issues are a bit slippery for him - but apparently he's good with Newman's jackbooting. And not only that, cohenite has been a bit of a proclaimer against the leftist nanny state that wants to impose a price on carbon and pursue other measures to reduce global carbon emissions - and yet here he is lending what appears to me to be at least tacit support to a rightist move that goes flying past 'nanny state' at the speed of light and straight to deep fascist territory, just without the pretty uniforms.
Who'd 'a' thunk it?
Oh, and what's that word I'm looking for that describes the circumstance where one has a bias against particular races or religions...?
Rhymes with "spigot"?
Most interesting Bernard. I remember cohenite well. A very silly man who knew nothing whatsoever about climate science yet felt that he knew enough to state that the experts were all wrong.
But I had no idea he was also a fascist. Well, well, well.
There's a surprising amount of it about.
<blockquote)God, hammering out HTML by email or BB must have been a fucking nightmare.
Which was the way I started web pages back in 94 using a text editor. However one that came with the computer of then choice and was streets ahead of anything from MS as with the OS, then or since.
I set up a text file with the commonly used tags laid out in a sensible order and then it was a matter of cut & paste.
Argh! Got me again!
Which was the way I started web pages back in 94 using a text editor. However one that came with the computer of then choice and was streets ahead of anything from MS as with the OS, then or since.
I set up a text file with the commonly used tags laid out in a sensible order and then it was a matter of cut & paste.
I am in error at #25 and #47: PAGES 2k Consortium (2013) is referenced - frequently - by AR5 WG1 Ch 5. Not that it makes a blind bit of difference to the central issues, both of which I have hammered on above.
AR5 WG1 5.5.1:
You show me a global and synchronous MCA as warm as or warmer than the present and I'll show you a climate system with a high sensitivity to radiative perturbation. One that must endure significant, rapid and sustained warming if CO2 concentrations continue to increase without policy intervention.
Perhaps fortunately for the deniers, there is no evidence whatsoever that there was a global and synchronous MCA as warm as or warmer than the late C20th.
There is however plentiful evidence from paleoclimate behaviour that S/2xCO2 is about 3C.
I have never understood the strange fascination with paleoclimate that grips so many deniers. There is absolutely nothing of any comfort for them there.
I think I've found the thickest denier yet: I present Amirlach
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/11719-why-climate-change-is-good-f…
It's about the "rebranding" of AGW as CC. The punch line is the end of comment #30
Anyone who thinks that the surface of the Greenland Ice Sheet can be used as a proxy for global temperature isn't a sharp chisel, granted.
But Teh Abysmal Stupid over IP*CC* made my eyeballs ache. Just WTF? really.
And that article was written by Matt Ridley who feels hopes that it will clean his image.
Hum! Whitewash never stopped coal being black at heart.
Note the other denial sites that is pointed to by 'Climate Change Dispatch:
Warning Signs
Tom Nelson
Real Science
Australian Climate Madness
IceCap
Watts up with that?
JoNova
Climate Depot
Planet Gore
Dr. Tim Ball's Blog
MORE…
MORE brings up a list which includes Bishop Hill.
So no surprises about that!
Lionel, that is the second article in a series by Ridley, the first was called "Why dishonest bankers are good for the world". He will shortly write a third one called "Why poisonous herbicides are good for the world, especially in Argentina".
Lionel #58:
Blame the idea that web design should be done by graphic desingers for the shit that is the web and formatting today (and the past 20 years).
Print design is about a fixed and rigid medium where you can definitively lay out the art to draw attention to the bits that are needed when they are needed. Placement is paramount. And ENTIRELY under the control of the designer.
Web pages are markup. HINTS about what things should go where but where the print is done on a device that may be 800x600, 640x480, WXGA, 11:9 portrait smartphone 16:9 widescreen. 14:9 TV. 8" tablet, WXSVGA. etc.
And where the user may choose fonts, where the fonts designed (being copyrighted) cannot be forced to display, where assistive technologies will change output colour for colour-impaired or even screenreaders.
Or even decide not to show something AT ALL.
Placement is not only not possible but antithetical to the web browser intent and design.
But the company wants a bling site and the graphic designers traded on print where placement is perfect and under their control were used to print flyers, posters AND WEB PAGES.
And brought all the wrong ideas about the content and presentation.
So HTML had to incorporate the needs of these corporate backers who wanted their designers to be able to fiddle pixel perfect on their 1024x768 15" monitors.
Then find that not everyone in 1992 had a high res 15".
And it's not getting better.
It's getting worse.
/curmudgeon=permanently on
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2013/s3881396.htm
...but it's not warming*...
[*Irony alert]
MMMM.
Rosenthal et al for one
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6158/617
And Orsi et al 2012
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL051260/abstract
On Orsi et. al this has been examined at Real Climate:
Fresh hockey sticks from the Southern Hemisphere
and which does not necessarily come to the conclusions that would support your ideology. Indeed, given the presence of Jeff Severinghaus who is one clever bunny and who worked closely with Wally Broecker I doubt that it would.
Not having access to the full texts I cannot comment other than that I would be surprised if your quotes are intended as context free picks.
In other words, more smoke and mirrors.
#63 why when you're talking about the MCA in the first paragraph do you give a link for the LIA?
The abstract for Orsi et al says what it says which is quoted above. It presents evidence for a global LIA
Rosenthal et al is being discussed widely including by Revkin who has an interview with two of the authors.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/
Revkin says that "Mann will not be pleased with this". He has already tried to do a hatchet job on it.
It presents evidence to show both the MWP and LIA were global events.
RC is a blog site and could be considered a mouthpiece for Mann and the team.
Try to expand your reading.Lol
So quotes from the abstracts (or the journal editors summary) of published papers are now considered to be "smoke and mirrors."
Are you in denial Lenoil
#65
Because the second backs up part of the first. ie global events.
The MCA was global but there was no global and synchronous warming event that elevated global average temperature to equivalent or higher than the present, as I have pointed out to you and your David Duff sock many, many times before.
You simply do not understand the material that someone else has cherry-picked and misrepresented for you. And it is absolutely obvious that you don't.
" It presents evidence for a global LIA"
In a paper you put up to rebut the claim:
" there is no evidence whatsoever that there was a global and synchronous MCA as warm as or warmer than the late C20th. "
The only letter MCA and LIA have in common is the A.
How the fuck did you manage to get the two confused?
This is hilarious coming from you, a lazy troll who has never read a scientific paper in your life but gets *all* his bollocks from denier blogs run by liars, cranks and shills.
Fascinating too that the efforts by Redarse to deny contemporary OHC in previous weeks are suddenly now wholly acceptable.
And originally
That includes practically all the Pacific, about one third the Earth's surface area, spread over northern and southern hemispheres, being about 0.65C warmer during the MWP than present decades.
So no evidence whatsoever.
Only on Planet deltoid.
You haven't shown me an MCA which was *globally* warmer than the present. Is your reading comprehension really so piss-poor that you do not see this?
Read the fucking thread you lazy troll.
I don't know why I bother with you anymore.
Rosenthal:
As I said upthread, there is nothing in paleoclimate behaviour that offers any comfort to deniers.
* * *
I have to agree with chek here - can this be the same troll that spent so much energy a few weeks back denying the validity of modern OHC measurements?
There's just sod-all intellectual consistency with you morons.
And Rednoise, can you not understand simple physics as explained repeatedly above?
Global and synchronous warm MCA = high climate sensitivity to radiative perturbation.
You cannot have the one without the other.
Try actually thinking for once.
Stop changing the subject.
Rosenthal et al show evidence for a MWP over practically the whole pacific, one third earths surface area which must have had dramatic effects globally.
Are you that pig headed that you cannot accept your original statement was hasty.
The latest climate sensitivity estimates, based on the temperature record rather than proxies, have nearly all been on the low side (between 1 and 2 C)
So your statement
Does not seem to match the latest evidence and requires some explanation.
Do you mean the ones with errors much larger than the increases being measured.
Putting them into an historical perspective, say over the last few thousand years, they seem just a drop in the ocean.
Incidentally Judith Curry also discuses this paper with links to other discussions on it elsewhere
http://judithcurry.com/2013/11/01/pacific-ocean-heat-content-for-the-pa…
I'm not changing the subject - I raised this point upthread before your appeared. Read the fucking thread you lazy troll.
Nor is this a change of subject. Again you reveal your essential stupidity. You cannot separate the issues. Read the fucking words. Try to think.
Re a couple of recent estimates of S - simple: the so-called "observational" estimates are uninformative. They are too sensitive to assumptions made about changes in aerosol forcing and transient variability in ocean heat uptake. Only those who don't understand the science handwave a couple of uninformative results and ignore the vast majority of the evidence which points to a value for S around 3C.
* * *
Your rubbish about OHC has been dealt with. I am not going over it again.
I think you should just read the press release:
There's another clue to the way this study is being misrepresented in the abstract, where we read:
Remember - the study examines intermediate waters - the so-called "middle deeps" between 500m and 1000m. Now read that quote again.
Ya gotta hand to to old Rednose. Goes straight to a denier blog when his arguments are shredded. As BBD says this clown hasn't read a single scientific paper in his life. Instead, he reads the shill blogs and gleans his wisdom from there.
Incidentally, in addition to the latest bilge from Ridley comes more from Richard Tol and Bjorn Lomborg (both with bloated egos to match). Tol and Lomborg are crowing on about rhe net benefits of warming, without providing a shred of evidence other than to try and link correlation and causation. Then Lomborg goes on to state that conditions for biodiversity will actually improve over the next 30-40 years - based of course on the sandbox level science he is famous for. Sadly, this verbal diarrhea is being pasted in the mainstream corporate media as well as In New Scientist. Nothing in Lomborg's little myopic worldview is there any place for the harsh reality of corporate expansion, resource wars and the concentration of wealth as well as the scramble for the world's last fish stocks and other critical resources.
But then again, Lomborg isn't preaching to scientists who he knows will crush him, but the general public in developed countries who anxiously embrace optimism and the notion that we can continue along the current trajectory with few or no costs.
So you accept there is evidence for a global MWP and temperatures were higher than the present day.
The observational estimates for sensitivity are based on direct measurements and not proxies and are therefore likely to be more accurate and reliable. The proxie based values also use guestimates and assumptions, and no one was around to validate them. As to scientists such as Otto et al not understanding the science and handwaving uninformative results I cannot comment.
Is it not interesting that OHC was very much higher in the past during the global MWP.
No, I do not. Nor have you presented any here.
Can't you fucking well read, you tit? Try again.
Not global OHC, tit. Try again.
Can anyone else be bothered with this lying clown? I am sick to death of this.
Yes read that. Have you also read the comment by the author during an interview
So using their methods, unlikely to have a resolution over 60 years to determine this. Expect some bright spark spliced on a copy of your crap OHC graphs onto the end of theirs to toe the party line. Didnt Marcot or somebody get into trouble for doing this?
Still a way to go to match global MWP OHC values.
Actually no. There was a vigorous disinformation campaign by McIntyre and Watts that attempted to create this framing, but it was all lies.
Modern warming will continue because the forcing is continuous and steadily increasing. Laws of physics.
Crapping on about brief, regional, asynchronous warming events in the past is actually an irrelevance. The only point of contact between the past and the future is climate sensitivity.
As I have already pointed out, if you show me a global, synchronous hot MCA, I will show you a climate system that is sensitive to radiative perturbation and that must warm rapidly in response to increasing CO2 forcing.
Your inability to joint up the dots is laughable.
But you don't have that information. The Rosenthal study doesn't even come close to providing global OHC estimates nor does it remotely claim to. So what you have twice now repeated here is simply a silly lie.
Isn't it, Rednoise?
You are lying. Stop it.
With the ocean 0.65C warmer than present decades, even your feeble brain should be able to comprehend that OHC would be higher.
And that alarming drivel about absorbing heat so many times faster over the last 60 years, when you cut the crap and look at the ARGO data, when reliable measurements are starting to be made, what do we see?
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/figure-26.png
A warming trend 0-700m of 0.032 degrees C/decade.
Sigh.
Which bit of the ocean? Not by any manner of means all of it. Read the source again.
Misrepresentation and lies, as per.
Don't quote loons like Tisdale at me, tit. Have you no sense at all?
And now it's time for you to admit that you cannot separate the issue of past climate variability from climate sensitivity as they are simply aspects of the same thing.
Admit this, please.
And FFS let's not go back to this imbecile trick of trying to express OCH in degrees Celsius. Go and find out about the specific heat of water, then get some numbers on the volume of the 0 - 2000m layer of the global ocean and plug them in.
That's how you get a handle on how much energy is required to warm the upper ocean even by a fraction of a degree Celsius. It is a truly vast amount.
More stupid denier misrepresentations. Bored to tears with this.
"With the ocean 0.65C warmer than present decades,"
How do you know, arse?
Were you there?
Were the ocean buoys developed by dinosaurs able to measure to 2km deep?
"The observational estimates for sensitivity are based on direct measurements"
These being...?
"Stop changing the subject."
LOL!
From an assertion of a high global MCA, you post a paper about LIA!!!
Rednoise (aka another Duffer),
It is the way that you present this stuff, shorn of all context that is 'smoke and mirrors' you comprehension challenged fool.
As for Real Climate being a blog site sure, but one that provides articles from currently active scientists (Who do you think eric is?) who continue to write peer reviewed papers. Now where do you get your info'? From the likes of Nova, Hockeschtick, Bishop Shill, Climate Desperate, etc., etc., OK, so that equates —–—— NOT!
As for the Orsi abstract, did you not see this bit:
Which seems to be a bet-hedger, but I would like to be able to see the full article for complete context.
Whatever, did you bother to read that article at Real Climate?
Did you bother to scan the comments, note there are very clued up people who input there and those who are not are corrected or if repeating shite get short shrift - as they should.
Note to comment #3
and while you are there read Mike Roddy's comment at #2.
As for Revkin, well yes we know that he tends to flip-flop around with his utterings, and as for JC well nothing much of value coming from that direction for some time now.
Is it not indicative of Judith 'uncertainty' Curry's positioning in this debate, although she tries to pretend to be a fence sitter, that she was chosen along with Dick 'low sensitivity' Lindzen and Patrick 'Greening Earth' Michaels for the counter arguments for the House Science and Technology Committee “Rational Discussion of Climate Change,” in November 2010 where Michaels got a well deserved pasting from Ben Santer..
The official Committee on Science, Space, and Technology is now being run by the lunatics with the Chair, Lunatic in Chief being Lamar Smith. Want to know some more about him --- don't tempt me!
As for Rosenthal's paper BBD has that well covered. Go read that PR.
The suspect named above are only too quick to try to make a 'sow's ear out of a silk purse', that is all they have got and they sucker you every time.
Lionel
Orsi et al. (2012) full.
#66 Oh the irony
RC is a blog site and could be considered a mouthpiece for Mann and the team.
Try to expand your reading.Lol
And what is his link earlier in that very post: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/
Orsi et al. (2012):
A delayed or inverse response.
As I mentioned to one of the trolls some way upthread, there is a degree of antiphase between the hemispheres. Obviously, this reduces the effect on global average temperature. The possibility that feedbacks operated differently in either hemisphere is plausible (more positive feedback from albedo change in the NH, with boreal forest reduced and snow/sea ice cover increased).
RedNoise:
Tisdale Science. Taking a Tis at the tisdale. Old ships and all that.
BBD Thanks.
I don't tend to dirty my feet at such, so I guess it is McIntyre pulling Rednoise's chain.
Yes, Sou's really got Bob's number, hasn't she? I do enjoy that blog.
I suggest you listen to the interview with Revkin.
You might learn something.