November 2013 Open Thread

More thread.

More like this

By popular request. Comments from Brent and folks arguing with him are cluttering up more useful discussions. All comments by Brent and responses to comments by Brent should go in this thread. I can't move comments in MT, so I'll just delete comments that appear in the wrong thread.
By popular request. Comments from El Gordo and folks arguing with him are cluttering up more useful discussions. All comments by El Gordo and responses to comments by El Gordo should go in this thread. I can't move comments in MT, so I'll just delete comments that appear in the wrong thread.
This thread is for people who wish to engage Ray in discussion. Ray, please do not post comments to any other thread. Everyone else, please do not respond to Ray in any other thread.
By popular request, here is the Jonas thread. All comments by Jonas and replies to his comments belong in this thread.

If Abbott and Hunt really do want to make a putative WA re-election a referendum on the carbon price, then in addition to being honest about the carbon price they should be upfront about the fact that people far better placed to assess the matter than is the Coalition are forecasting severe economic consequences if we do not act to mitigate global warming:

http://treealerts.org/topic/extreme-weather/2013/10/one-third-of-global-economic-output-at-risk-from-climate-change-say-analysts/

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

Did anyone catch the article on wired uk/ars about food production? One clown in the comments there said

Longer growing season, higher CO2, and warmer temperatures are great for most food crop growing. Especially in the huge land masses north of the 49th... Hooray for Canada. If this is global warming, I'll take 2!

And now I have another head-shaped dent in my desk.

Chicken feed went up in price by about 5% this week . It's now about 20% more expensive than 3 years ago: 11€50 for 25 kg whereas 3 years ago it was 9€47.

By Turboblocke (not verified) on 05 Nov 2013 #permalink

Meanwhile aside from OPs ignorant quips another dose of reality but definitely not for the squeamish.

Climate change is good for us, isn't it?

As for Jon Howard and the GWPF that latter organisation should be strangled starting with axing its charity status as an education organ. The GWPF is more a cancerous dangerous organ that should be surgically removed and put in formaldehyde for future generations to either mock or vent over, and soon because it is infecting the body politic.

One satellite data TLT reconstruction which happens to be an outlier cherry-picked by deniers means nothing to me, Olaus. Why should it?

Who in their right minds would place any weight on the outlier of an unreliable synthetic series stitched together from multiple instruments, none of which actually measure temperature at TLT directly in the first place?

You lot really are quite profoundly insane, you know.

Here's some context for you.

You need it.

Olap and the deniers still fixated on TLT measurements as the be-all and end-all, I see. The rest of the climate system would be too complex for the simple level of understanding that can be grasped by those for whom denial is an option.

Climate changes all the time, but not as fast as your unscientific and portentology occupied minds fantasies about.

Can't be fun running away from the speeding rise of GMT. Its worse than you thought! Can we ce catch up fellas? :-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 06 Nov 2013 #permalink

It appears that this prat Olaus is more brain damaged than I thought if he/she/it thinks that the scenarios unfolding are something to joke about.

Do not the events of the last decade alone, which can include 2003 if you count the fence posts, provide you with a sense that things are happening faster than many scientists predicted back in the eighties and nineties, James Hansen being an exception, and that the trends are moving into the upper regions of predicted ecological mayhem earlier than expected by some.

And here is another metric for how fast the climate system is moving
Oceans heating up faster now than in the past 10,000 years, says new study
. When the climate system shifts phase, with major changes in fluid flows, oceanic and atmospheric, then we will be in little doubt as to the shit we are in. The recent wobbling of the jet stream being one indicator of system stress. Arctic Warming is Altering Weather Patterns, Study Shows.

Now are you going to continue behaving like a jerk or become sensible?

Climate changes all the time

That must surely be the most meaningless, context-free and open-ended slogan, ever. In other words, perfectly designed to gull lamebrains like Olap et al.

Climate changes all the time, but not as fast as your unscientific and portentology occupied minds fantasies about.

It changes in response to changes in net forcings. Crank one up and you get rapid change. To deny that is to deny the laws of physics as applied to the climate system, which is - as I pointed out above - insane.

QED, Olaus.

Incidentally, calling the standard scientific position among the entire multidisciplinary field of Earth System sciences "unscientific" is also completely insane.

QED again, Olaus.

climate changes all the time

"To sum up, Your Honour, there is ample evidence that forest fires have occurred across the span of the millenia - indeed, from the very time that there were any forests available to burn - well before the advent of our own species, and certainly long ahead of the arrival on the scene of my client and his cigarette puny little lighter, a beloved keepsake gifted him by his old mother. In short, this charge of 'arson' is a scientific absurdity, and amounts to little more than persecution!"

(If Monckton was a lawyer.)

The irony is that this isn't even much in the way of a parody - this is really how deniers think, in the loosest sense of the word...

Jo Nova has pulled out all the stops in a bid to make us laugh this week:
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/11/consensus-on-human-knee-ligaments-was-…

"How much don’t we know? This week doctors announce that yes, really, there is a whole ligament in the human knee that we didn’t know about, a..,...... you might have been told there was a consensus on knee anatomy, and because thousands of doctors have done knee surgery and knee replacements are now de rigeur, you might have thought the science was settled."

Yes, "Medical science advances therefore we can remain in denial about basic physics."

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 06 Nov 2013 #permalink

Joanne Codling is a disgrace to anyone who worked to get a science degree. She's indulging in the logical fallacy of false equivalence by conflating these two completely difference contexts.

Further the Claes et al paper is not coming up with anything original. Helito et al were there a few months ago, and Vincent et al published on the subject in 2011.

Of course, the fact that the structure was first discussed by Segond in 1879 seems to have escaped a lot of people...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 06 Nov 2013 #permalink

And I rather think that if we developed a IPKC (Intergovernmental Panel on Knee Construction) with qualified experts reviewing the current state of the literature we'd get to the heart of the matter rather swiftly...

Given both this obvious point, and the constant need to contend with the hyper-scrutiny of active - indeed, pathological - and financially vested enemies, there's hasn't been much in the sciences that has ever been more robust. In this regard the comparison to the smoking / cancer link is entirely justified.

'Settled' is the word I'm looking for.

climate changes all the time

What gets me about that drivel denier slogan is that no critical thinking (Why does it change? What changes it? etc.) is applied to it. The phrase itself is the end of the line to Olap et al.

Exactly. I did touch on the non-magical basis of physical climatology at #14. That old cause-and-effect thing so familiar from every other physical interaction in the known universe.

So far no response from Olaus.

Yes, I acknowledge and appreciate yours and Bill's contributions, BBD.
I just wanted to rub it in a bit more.

Hi chek

So did I ;-)

Perhaps Olaus or any contrarian looking in would be able to provide hypotheses for the physical mechanisms behind specific paleoclimate phenomena which do not involve efficacious forcing by GHGs. There's an embarrassment of choice, but for starters, how about:

- the termination of Snowball Earth states (eg Marinoan glaciation ~635Ma)

- the Permian-Triassic boundary event (250Ma)

- other major ocean anoxic events (eg OAE 2, Cenomanian-Turonian boundary, 93Ma)

- the PETM (55Ma)

Remember, the hypotheses must be consistent with each other.

Oily'll never manage it; how about I answer for him?

1: I had a rabbit called 'Snowball'. He was great. We et him! (And yes, we Marinoaded him first. How did you know?)

2: That's the bit in Jurassic Park where the T-Rex breaks through the electric fence, right? God I love Michael Crichton...

3: Anoxia is really terrible and all those actresses who are setting a bad example should just eat.

4: See 1

Heh - though I'm not sure Olap and friends could aspire to be that vapid, Bill.

From Pricing carbon: the politics of climate policy in Australia:

The politics of climate change in Australia, its carbon pricing politics in particular, is subject to complex and interrelated influences, with political and economic interests largely shaping the policy agenda over the last two decades. The objection of the carbon based industrial lobby to carbon pricing has long been a significant obstacle to the adoption of a carbon tax or an ETS, as has the influence of neoliberal and conservative politics. Normative shifts have been achieved at times, however, providing fleeting windows of opportunity to act, under the Hawke and Rudd governments in particular. However, neither government was able to withstand industry pressure or to provide the leadership required to achieve change. Ironically the most successful government in terms of achieving carbon pricing was the Gillard Labor minority government, which needed to act decisively in order to honor its written agreement with its Green political supporters. The MPCCC process established as agreed between Labor and the Greens, brought in the independents, who were then involved in shaping and agreeing to the carbon pricing mechanism and its passage through parliament. The fragile politics of minority government, with its distinctive uncertainty and bargaining opportunities, has therefore led directly to carbon pricing in Australia by providing for institutional processes that were secure against industry lobbying. However, these processes cannot guarantee that the government withstands industry lobbying during the implementation of carbon pricing nor that it ultimately achieves effective emissions abatement.

(WIREs Clim Change 2013, 4:603–613. doi: 10.1002/wcc.239)

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 07 Nov 2013 #permalink

# 27 bill

Very good, and marks awarded for internal consistency.

But where are the contrarians? Usually so voluble, so certain, so "knowledgeable"?

Where can they be?

:-)

# 30 Bernard J

Same as Arctic waters. Temp and pH knock out the bottom of the food chain and whoopsie daisy. The end.

And the band played on.

BTW, is RHWombat out there?

Worryingly silent since the rather disturbing comment-altering incident. Was this resolved?

I assume that only who the moderator/s is/are will read this. But anyway:OMG! November only happened at Deltoid on the 5th & because whoever you are succumbs to the whingers who want everyone banned or coralled into their own thread or in perpetual moderation, you have actually slowly but surely exposed your site to a slow and miserable demise. Who ever you are, you are quite clearly not interested in anything but your own blinkered view of the world.
I actually feel sorry for you.
The world has moved on.

By chameleon (not verified) on 08 Nov 2013 #permalink

Another year, another superstorm.
.A massive typhoon packing winds approaching 200 mph and called one of the most powerful storms ever recorded blasted into the Philippines on Friday, killing at least four people.
Thank goodness AGW isn't implicated.

Speaking of alternative realities, good ol' Stevie Goddard came up with what surely must be the most creative spin yet on Ken Cooch's defeat over at The Guardian

You couldn't, as they say, make it up.

ROFL

Goddard has as good idea about politics as he has of climate science. That statement by Goddard is a keeper.

84% of Virginia by land area voted for Cuccinelli, but the election was determined by people on the government payola scheme, which includes the global warming scam.

One fruitcake defending another.

Certainly a marker for Stephan Lewandowsky's Conspiracy Ideation.

As for that superstorm - it didn't hit the US so it doesn't count - for the deniers not Jeff Master's naturally

More knell of death for the GCR-cloud effect from Sloan & Wolfendale (full paper but it's a small 420kb pdf).

Abstract

Although it is generally believed that the increase in the mean global surface temperature since industrialization is caused by the increase in green house gases in the atmosphere, some people cite solar activity, either directly or through its effect on cosmic rays, as an underestimated contributor to such global warming. In this letter a simplified version of the
standard picture of the role of greenhouse gases in causing the global warming since industrialization is described. The conditions necessary for this picture to be wholly or partially wrong are then introduced. Evidence is presented from which the contributions of either cosmic rays or solar activity to this warming is deduced. The contribution is shown to be
less than 10% of the warming seen in the twentieth century.

It's been obvious for a while now that the GCR-cloud hypothesis is dead. But of course, the contrarians will never let it go...

And something I have mentioned in passing previously is that as ocean fish stocks decline, water warm and become more acidic, coral reefs are anchored, blown up and generally wrecked there is one class of organism that is thriving. I recall observing that we had better develop a taste for Jellyfish.

Fat chance this will become a big story in the news, 'we' will remain distracted by shenanigans in parliament at home and abroad - e.g. in Canada. Is that why such offensive buffoons are kept in office?

Let's face it, here in UK, with education, health, defence, energy and just about everything else 'the slick' and 'the smirk' have endorsed it is goon show time.

Deltoid flourish...;-)

Ok, I'll give you guys a little help. Have you seen the latest Lews from McIntyre? Very entertaining. Lew's data is even worse than Jeff's regarding the evil, big-oil funded, right wing conspiracy against climate sciene:

"However, drawing conclusions from a subpopulation of zero does take small population statistics to a new and shall-we-say unprecedented level."

http://climateaudit.org/2013/11/07/more-false-claims-from-lewandowsky/#…

Climate scientologists unite! :-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 08 Nov 2013 #permalink

Energy industry funding of organised denial is a matter of fact, Olaus.

Are you denying matters of fact? Careful with that.

Can you support your counterfactual?

Remember, argument from assertion is a logical fallacy.

Olaus

Just for fun, can we debate like adults about an interesting topic in climate science: Snowball Earth.

These extreme climate events may have happened several times, but the best evidence is for the last one, the "Marinoan glaciation" which started about 650 million years ago (Ma) and ended about 635Ma.

The whole planet - oceans and all - froze over. From space you would have seen a white planet.

This white ball reflects most of the sun's energy back out into space, so it stays frozen and icy cold.

But after millions of years, something melted the ice and the Earth went back to its usual state with liquid oceans and exposed (not covered by ice) continents.

The very slight increase in solar output resulting from stellar evolution during the Marinoan (and previous) Snowball Earth phases was insufficient to melt the ice, so why are we not still stuck in a Snowball Earth?

The highly reflective planetary surface ('high albedo') should have kept the climate locked in a frozen state.

What got the climate system out of this albedo-locked icehouse?

What do you think?

Natural phenomenon like volcano & earthquake & storm & etcetera????
Plus the creeping persistent encroachment of areas that weren't frozen aided and abetted by increased solar activity?
Not likely it was human induced.
Do I get a gold star?

By chameleon (not verified) on 08 Nov 2013 #permalink

Well BBD you have assumed this snowball earth was totally "albedo-locked" Over many millions of years the sun would , by a slow winkling, gradually unlock the earth from this ice if there was ever a slight weakness in your "albedo- locked" up state. The proponents of the "greenhouse" theory say that volcanoes and bugs produced CO2 and this "greenhouse gas" was responsible for unlocking the earth from its icy grip. At this point in time you are saying to me that the atmosphere is stopping the oceans from becoming one FROZEN ball. That is what your "greenhouse" theory actually says to you BBD.
Think about that very carefully. See if we can have an intelligent discussion here before abusing the fuck out of each other.

BBD, the strategy that dimwits like Olaus use is to downplay what should be obvious by now (e.g. that the fossil fuel lobby invests many millions of dollars in climate change denial). It is one of profound ignorance: if they don't read about it, meaning have the information shoved in front of their faces, then it isn't happening.

There are numerous sources showing how corporate PR works, beginning with Walter Lippmann and Edward Bernays to the present. Books by Sheldon Rampton, John Stauber, Sharon Beder, Andrew Rowell, David Helvarg and many others provide details of corporate PR and how it works. But since Olaus is a right wingnut who supports unregulated corporate capitalism, he doesn't want to know how this works so he ignores and ridicules it.

I give lectures on the subject and find that time wasters like Olaus are not worth the effort. What is ironic is that he pastes a page from Climate Fraudit ablog run by a denier affiliated with the George Marshall Institute, one of the more notorious corporate funded climate change denial think tanks. Essentially, Olaus is making my point for us here.

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

Thank you chek. I had gone to bed.

Olaus, I asked you a serious question in a civil manner. Please do me the courtesy of responding in a similarly considered and civil fashion.

Thank you.

We need to make a start as the Snowball Earth state is only the first of four examples of paleoclimate behaviour we need to discuss wrt. CO2-forced warming.

Without wishing to distract from BBD's serious question to OP [1], let there be no mistake about the forces that will counter push back against insane schemes such as drilling in the Arctic and fracking.

There was a US snake oil salesman given a chance to breath propaganda on BBC TV the other evening. Another sickening piece.

I see a time when the SAS are used against UK citizens, but more subtly, they will infiltrate the protesters to ensure violence ensues as an excuse for a crack-down with all its vile consequences, as per the 1980's miner's strike playbook where the miner's and Scargill were demonised. The real demons being in Whitehall who were rescued politically by the sacrifice of regular UK forces down south.

[1] Which requires answering else maybe we could continue to strike through his vapid posts.

Already happened at the G20 summit a few years ago, where footage of plainclothes officers in the crowd starting a fight was seized because it "put these plainclothes officers' lives at risk".

It's happened several times.

Further to my post at the top of this thread, The Tree put this out a few days back:

http://treealerts.org/topic/climate-science/2013/11/political-pressure-…

It's caught on around the traps, with rather less restrained but no less important emphasis on what it really means:

http://greenresistance.wordpress.com/2013/11/06/leaked-ipcc-draft-viole…

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023981331

Australia really must be an international laughing stock, with the rabidly regressive policies that the neo-fascist Liberal-National Coalition has introduced since gaining office in September. Especially so given the fact that the Australian environment minister Greg Hunt, who wrote an Honour's thesis on the benefits of controlling pollution by taxing polluters, has taken the astonishingly bizarre step of not attending the UN discussions in Warsaw on addressing climate change because he wants to stay in the country and progress the LNP policy of removing any and all price on human-emitted carbon dioxide.

Just before the election I said this:

I’m curious – if Abbott is determined to ignore the advice of the best economists and the best scientists on the matter of climate change, and it materialises in a decade or two that his policies are responsible for discernible delay and consequent damage to Australian and other national economies and to global ecosystems, is he not liable under law for not exercising due diligence and duty of care in his capacity as the leader of the Liberal Party and likely of the country?

In other words, if Abbott’s decision to ignore science leads to exacerbated damage to my childrens’ and grandchildrens’ world, can they seek redress from him or from his estate and/or the Liberal Party?

After all, he can’t say that he wasn’t told, especially with the contents of AR5 already known. If he willfully ignores the best professional advice, he and the Coalition are surely culpable under law for the consequences of their actions.

With reports such as Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability being leaked in the same week as Super Typhoon Haiyan kicking seven colours of snot out of the Philippines and soon Laos and Viet Nam, and the WG1 release of AR5 in September following on from so much other expert work and being accompanied by the October fires in NSW and Fitzroy Crossing breaking the Australian record for the hottest October mean, one wonders how the Coalition government can engage in its ecocidal and potentially genocidal policies without being absolutely and entirely culpable and legally liable for so acting.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 09 Nov 2013 #permalink

Mack @ #44

Well BBD you have assumed this snowball earth was totally “albedo-locked”

I doubt very much that BBD has assumed that at all for I know only to well that he appreciates the other factors involved in producing a snowball Earth (we both have read similar sources), you have thus created a strawman argument. I suggest that you go research the current state of paleoclimatology knowledge and you then come back and tell us what you have discovered. You should have some clues as to where to look for all this by now hovering around these threads like you do.

Over many millions of years the sun would , by a slow winkling, ...

ROFL That bit of rampant lunacy is enough to warm the cockles of ones heart but your arguments lack muscle.

At this point in time you are saying to me that the atmosphere is stopping the oceans from becoming one FROZEN ball....

Yes, that is about the size of it, once again other factors are involved in climate change across geological time with the magnitude and relative timing of events being crucial to climate development.

There are some well know mechanisms for all of this so if you are still ignorant on these then that is either through your dogged determination not to see what has been put under your nose or that you are too stupid to sweep away the veils of your own ignorance. Of course you may know what these mechanisms are all along but, like McIntyre had 'the data' all along, are being mendacious.

Indeed Wow, another variant of the 'false flag'. I suspect that the miss-routing of the Duke & Duchess of Cornwall was planned to cause a disturbance. I suspect that some in 'The Establishment' consider Charles as being too socially fair minded and thus subversive of the Status quo.

Olaus spends too much of his time searching under any denier rocks to find more disinformation.

The Science and Education article is a case in point. It is written by the usual suspects and published in a journal with an impact factor of 0.707. This is almost as benthic as it gets. Its no small wonder this trash ended up in such a journal.

But one can expect it to be promoted with mega-phone loudness by denier weblogs as if it is in Nature, Science or PNAS. You see, since 99.9% of the crap published by deniers comes via books published by right wing think tanks or ends up in bottom-feeding journals, this is all they have left. A future study should evaluate the impact factor of the journals as well as the citations garnered by scientific papers on both sides of the AGW debate. What this will inevitably show is a huge discrepancy in both: pro-AGW studies are very well cited and end up in the top journals, whereas the opposite is true for anti-AGW studies.

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

# 43 chameleon

You get a credit for mentioning volcanism but to earn a gold star you must explain why it is relevant.

# 44 Sunspot/Mack

Well BBD you have assumed this snowball earth was totally “albedo-locked”

Changes in albedo *may* have been part of the unlocking process, but only a part. See Abbot & Pierrehumbert (2010).We need to look at the whole picture, not just one corner of it.

Over many millions of years the sun would , by a slow winkling, gradually unlock the earth from this ice if there was ever a slight weakness in your “albedo- locked” up state.

Um, no. You need much more than a hypothesised darkening around the equator to break the climate system out of the albedo-locked icehouse. See Abbot & Pierrhumbert (2010) for details.

At this point in time you are saying to me that the atmosphere is stopping the oceans from becoming one FROZEN ball. That is what your “greenhouse” theory actually says to you BBD.

It's not *my* greenhouse theory. It's *the* greenhouse theory. If all GHGs in the atmosphere were removed, the surface temperature would fall by about 33K. You are simply stating the obvious for no obvious reason.

So how do you get out of an albedo-locked icehouse without invoking a huge CO2 forcing? I have no idea. Nor does anyone else. CO2 forcing appears to be an absolute requirement.

The mechanism by which we get very high CO2 concentrations is fairly uncontroversial: volcanism is unaffected by the Snowball state. It just carries on as usual. After millions of years in the Snowball state with the biological/geological carbon sinks shut down beneath the ice, CO2 from ongoing volcanism builds up to extremely high concentrations and eventually the radiative
forcing is sufficient to overcome even the vast cooling from the high surface albedo.

First example of CO2 as a potent climate forcing demonstrated by paleoclimate behaviour.

* * *

So far, nobody has provided a persuasive alternative explanation for the physical mechanism that terminates the Snowball Earth state. Unless they do, this will stand as evidence demonstrating CO2 is an effective and powerful climate forcing.

Mack, you wally!

Over many millions of years the sun would , by a slow winkling, gradually unlock the earth from this ice if there was ever a slight weakness in your “albedo- locked” up state.

"Twinkle twinkle faintish star"? Jeebus!

We know what caused the end of Snowball Earth, pet, (5' 0'' if 'location' link dodgy - and, lookee; there's Tim!) and it turns out you lose.

Oily, answer the frickin' questions, petal. Or should we just let my answers stand for you?

What a pair of shining princes of your tribe you two are! Next.

Oh, and Cammy. Still as dumb as a sack of coal. Won't stick around without an offsider, though...

Bah! - here's that link again.

WARNING: considerable danger of learning something. Hence none of the above will actually bother.

Or, if they do, they'll announce that 'it's volcanoes that cause all the CO2'!

And this, dear reader, assuming you're not as Stupid as they are, is why such muppets have to be removed from this debate. Allowing public policy to be guided by brainfarts has caused enough damage already. See federal government with no Science Minister, for a start...

I can't recommend this too highly, if the BBC will allow you to see it directly.
It's a presentation by statistician Professor Hans Rosling (shown on mainstream UK TV, apparently!) which while only touching on climate change, is well worth the hour of anybody's time it takes. Engaging and very informative for those prone to giving headspace to outdated ideas about the world.

If the BBC's being awkward for you I'm sure 'This World - Don't Panic - The Truth About Population' will be on Youtube very shortly.

Chek, that appear to be an interesting program - I hope that Australia's ABC buys it from the Beeb so that we can see it here.

Not having seen it yet, perhaps you can answer a question for me. My concern is that Rosling may be focussing on the progress of the human population trajectory without carefully considering the physics of the planet's resources. I've heard presentations similar to what I suspect is Rosling's, and they fall short of an integration (boom, tish) of calculus and thermodynamics into the mix.

It's a bit like pulling the ripcord at 3100 metres into a 3 km fall.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 09 Nov 2013 #permalink

Can't see the BBC thing but I guess the program would be an expanded version of this TED talk.

http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_religions_and_babies.html

It's very good on debunking misconceptions about population growth, but he merely says at the end that we have to plan for a 10 billion strong population. He doesn't talk about what those plans might consist of. He also doesn't talk about other options for population limitation, like say, increasing average age at first birth much higher much more quickly.

BBD # 56
Apologies if a similar comment appears as I have had to change devices. My trusty old samsung tablet is in its death throws.
You did get a credit from me for asking a sensible question but I have now removed your credit for assuming that there is only one possible answer.
Volcanic influence is most likely the addition of magna and Laava heat. Volcanic gases and ash and particulants spewed into the atmosphere would most likely, on balance, block the influence of solar activity.
I note you summarily dismissed other likely variables in favour of a blinkered focus and obsession for C O 2 . So sorry, but no gold star from me :-)

By chameleon (not verified) on 09 Nov 2013 #permalink

BBD(@#33) - I'm OK, just out of touch. I've been up in Far North Queensland recreating - and doing some spirochete hunting in tick midguts. Nice to see the old place with only minor incursions of parasitic denialiti (Trollus horribilus var diminuendi) .

Yeah, look, get out there next Sunday or Abbott, Bolt and Murdoch win! Seriously - bug your friends!

Since, clearly, none of the muppets is up to the task of explaining to us why their magical thinking isn't magical thinking, and in honour of their being the Creationists of the 21st Century, I'm going to post what I'm going to tout as the tweet of the year -

what idiot called them creationists instead of primate change deniers

congratulations @dandouglas, you win the internet!

Unless, BJ, that's going to be a BBC program that Murdoch now owns the rights to...

BBD @ #40

And energy industry funding of denial is chump change for that industry as this demonstrates:

Big Oil, Big Profits, Big Tax Breaks

and this despite the get-out-of-jail inadequate fines such as this Exxon’s Fine For Massive Tar Sands Spill Is A Mere 1/3000th Of Its Third-Quarter Profits.

Nothing will change unless we redress the balance between profits for the Greedy Lying Bastards and the losses by Earth's supporting ecological systems and the rest of us.

# 64 rhwombat

I’m OK, just out of touch. I’ve been up in Far North Queensland recreating – and doing some spirochete hunting in tick midguts.

Good. Happy spirochete hunting. I try hard not to impose anthropocentric criteria on the natural world, but I'm afraid that I've never been able to muster up much enthusiasm for ticks. Their freight of charmless pathogens does not help.

But that's just how they are...

#67 Lionel

The greedy lying bastards will 'win'. They have all the money and will always be able to buy the public policy they want. By the time the electorate wakes up - if it ever does - it will be far too late.

#63 adelady

It's going to be hard to feed ~10 billion with CC progressively impacting agricultural productivity.

Doubtless you have seen the leak of AR5 WG2 SPM, but for others, here's some discussion of the contents.

It's not good news at all.

Bernard and Adelady, the Rosling presentation is good at explaining how population growth isn't and won't be exponential, but will stabilise at 10-11 billion due to family sizes already decreasing in poorer countries, producing a global 'pool' of around 2 B children under 16 and better life expectancy after that. The global average of 5 children per woman in 1963 has fallen to 2.5 in 2013 and is still decreasing.

Rosling's presentation doesn't, as you and Adelady point out, project resources to match that population, but it does explain how the poorest 2 B only require modest resources to escape crushing poverty and move from a notional $1 per day to 5 or more, which may not seem much to us, but is a huge difference to the individuals struggling at the bottom.

Rosling concedes that it will be challenging coping with the projected population's strain on resources, but I (and the live audience) found his analysis (much of the rural African and Asian subsistence farm economies are still employing 18th Century agricultural methods for instance) to be one of hope rather than despair.

Rosling's talk was fascinating but I was waiting for the part where resource limitation was factored in.

It really is all of us but that 1% and especially that 1% of the 1% need to listen up.

I saw an illustration recently on our prime minister, Cameron an Eton graduate, estimated personal fortune of £3.2million (before inheritance). Annual income over £200,000. Claimed £82,450 expenses in 5 years on his second home.

I wonder what Georgy-porgy, pudding and pie is worth?

And we are all in it together. Yes both in brown stuff, him in the gravy and we in that smelly stuff!

I am not jealous, I don't need £3.2m, nothing close.

For the record I have never had a flight in an airliner. But I guess during a couple of decades working with Air Arm heavy metal, and flying in some of it, would have added some to my carbon footprint. All those hours test running Phantom F4k Spey engines for a start, a few assorted Avons too.

Still *crickets* from the chumps, one notes.

You know, 'skeptics', some readers - and lurkers! - might well conclude that you have only the haziest notions of the physical and chemical basis of this whole debate - I still think 'I et Snowball' is about right ;-) - and that the old proverb about empty vessels making the most noise sums you all up to a 't'.

For twonker.

I repeat, we have allowed screeching, paranoiac blowhard Dunning-Krugerite muppets to poison a 'debate' where their opposition is as valid, as honest, and as well-informed as if some proverbial pack of barbary apes was to be allowed the run of MIT or CERN.

Result: we have a government with No Science Minister, that informs itself via wikipedia, whose superannuated goofball senior-'statesman' proudly tells a bunch of industry shills it's just fine to make-shit-up about climate and ignore the scientists as and when required because, basically, he's as boneheaded as you lot are - HL Mencken comes to mind - and that is now cheerfully gutting the CSIRO because they've never liked the cut of its jib, and, given it's devotion to,um, science, it's unlikely to get with their program!

And all cheered on by gazillionaire Plutocrat Murdoch, the twittering Big Brother of the Big Brother era, who sniffily opines en-route via helicopter to his Oyster Bay estate that this is all the end of 'elitism'.

All lapped up unquestioningly by you dogged dropkicks.

What. A. Rabble.

So much for 'natural causes' and 'natural variation' in the alleged recent slowdown of warming. Even here, the human fingerprint is indelible.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1999.html

Once GHG concentrations reach and exceed a critical tipping point, temperatures will rise rapidly again. But watch the pseudo-intellectual deniers go into defense mode again.

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

Tony Abbott generously offers his "thoughts and prayers" and $400k to the Philippines following the devastation wrought by Super Typhoon Haiyan, in which more than ten thousand people were killed even though there was much prior warning and significant preparation:

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2013/11/11/abbott-offers-more-help-p…

The Philippinos must be so thrilled at Abbott's moral and financial largesse.

Or not.

And this is in the thick of Abbott and Hunt trying to remove a price on carbon emissions and simultaneously snubbing the international climate talks in Warsaw this week. Only a particularly pernicious sort of psychological pathology could operate to allow this party of neo-fascists to act as they do and be able to stare at a television camera without blushing*. I've said it multiple times before and most recently above but I'll say it again - the Liberal/National parties are willfully negligent and criminally culpable for the damage that is emerging and will emerge even more as a consequence of their determination to ignore the best scientific and economic advice and to not act as strenuously and as responsibly as possible on mitigating the climate change that is being cause by human carbon dioxide emissions.

I'm not a lawyer but I am sure that there would be many potential national and international civil and criminal crimes being committed - governance and corporate and humanitarian crimes. Is there a lawyer in the house?

[*This might explain why Abbott is the invisible man in the media now that he is in the Lodge.]

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

Just to follow up on my previous post, the initial Australian offer of financial assistance works out to less than four dollars for every Philippino killed, and once the toll is finalised that figure is bound to be even less.

That's an insult of the highest magnitude coming from a bloke who, whilst acting as the opposition leader, single-handedly racked up in dodgy travel expenses almost a quarter of the value of the Philippines aid figure:

http://t.co/5xduA3IJEt

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

I'm not going to link to the crank-blog owned by well-known uni-dropout and ex-TV-weatherman, but I felt in need of a laugh on this rainy day, so I went over and read a contribution by screaming Lord Monckton wherein he offers the following:

(Try reading this without breaking out into laughter).
[blockquote]When I made a glancing reference to that research in an earlier posting, the propagandist John Abraham sneeringly offered me a $1000 bet that the fall in global temperature would not happen.

I did not respond to this characteristically jejune offer. A theory of climate is a hypothesis yet to be verified by observation, experiment and measurement. It is not yet a theorem definitively demonstrated. Explaining the difference to climate communists is likely to prove impossible. To them the Party Line, whatever it is, must be right even if it be wrong.[/blockquote]

He calls himself a "mathematician".

I awarded this 7.8 clownshoes on the KoKo scale, but I doubt the crankblog uni-dropout owner will publish my appreciation of Monckton's efforts.

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

Bugger. That 'Submit' button is damned quick.

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

Hello again BBD. OK, so far so good, we're talking nicely to each other here in a civilised fashion.
So you DO subscribe to the "greenhouse" theory which says that the atmosphere stops the oceans from becoming one frozen ball because you said so yourself. There it is in black and white...your comment #56..."If all GHGs in the atmosphere were removed, the surface temp would fall by about 33K" This of course would leave the oceans in a frozen state. Correct.
Well, this might come as a little bit of a shock to you, but I think the sun keeps the oceans from freezing BBD. Much in the same way as if you stick a snowball in front of a heat lamp it will melt. Does this seem unreasonable? I think that it is the power from the sun that warms ,and keeps warm the planet BBD. ...That's not too far fetched is it?
So if it is power from the sun, we might start thinking scientifically and put some numbers to this power. You may remember from physics..power over a surface is expressed in watts/sq.m. ..so you are going to have to get back to me with the numbers in watts/sq.m. that your "greenhouse" theory is telling you BBD Otherwise there's a chance I may have some grave doubts that your "greenhouse effect" science is incorrect, ie bullshit .

Mack, you're just making it up as you go along.

All the clever people have already studied this, and they concluded - well, I already gave you the easy link to the video that explains what happened for Oily's Bunny Earth.

And do you seriously imagine all this hadn't already calculated all this in Wm2? Where have you been? What have you been smoking?

Do at least try not to be (ganga-ed up?) Uncle Arthur, there's a good fellow...

Bill says..."And do you seriously imagine all this hadn't already CALCULATED all this in Wm2?" There's your problem right there Billbaby. You say these w/sq.m were "calculated" . Not MEASURED but CALCULATED.
Measurements are not usually wrong but calculations certainly can be. Bugger off and stick to taxi driving Billbaby

"Bill says…”And do you seriously imagine all this hadn’t already CALCULATED all this in Wm2?” There’s your problem right there Billbaby."

Yeah, bill, do you expect Spots to actually do work?!?!? After all, it's possible he's wrong and if he investigated his claims at best, he's vindicated, at worst (and eminently most likely) shown wrong.

THIS is why deniers don't do investigation. If they're going to be wrong, the "only fair thing" is for everyone else to do the work to show that. I mean, expecting these morons to both do the denying AND prove themselves wrong is just unconscionable!

Plus you can obviously see that Spots here doesn't know what calcuation means.

Your persona management is as feeble as your research skills, 'Mack'.

"Mack" @#83: I note the Billbaby, and the reference to driving a taxi, as well as the usual pathetic attempt to resuscitate an expired Denier meme with sneering reference to processes beyond the limited power of regurgitation available to you from the usual clown schools and propagandists. Do try and keep your pseudo - socks straight, KarenMackSunspotty. Civil conversation was eschewed by every one of your socks since well before the Swiss Sock Troll was finally exorcised for crimes against insanity. Bugger off yourself, you creepy little stalker.

# 81 Sunspot

So you DO subscribe to the “greenhouse” theory which says that the atmosphere stops the oceans from becoming one frozen ball because you said so yourself.

Of course I do. It is the standard scientific position. Are you saying that you deny the greenhouse effect?

You do appreciate that the way this works is that solar energy heats the surface/oceans and the GHE inhibits cooling, so increasing average surface temperature by ~33K?

I have a feeling this has gone over your head.

Nor have you conceded that the termination of Snowball Earth states demonstrates that CO2 is a powerful climate forcing. Since you can't provide an alternative physical mechanism that actually makes physical sense, you are obliged to concede this point.

That's how civil conversation works.

Spots head *is* right up his ass, so of course anything will go over his head.

It's also very echoey in there.

I just got an idea for a film script - Sunny goes to Alpha Centauri.

Or ... where was the sun which so wonderfully keeps the oceans unfrozen during several tens of millions of years of snowball earth conditions? On hols, that's where. Went to visit the twin cousins in the Milky Way recreation centre. .

"Of course I do.....are you saying that you deny the greenhouse effect?"
Of course I do. There is no "greenhouse effect" , no "greenhouse gases" and the Earth's temp. is purely hydrological. Simple as that. This concept may be difficult for you to get your head around BBD, but do try to think beyond what you've been taught in the school classroom. It's easy if you try.
You've evaded my question to you with regard to the radiative balance (or imbalance) of your quack "greenhouse" theory because you're either ignorant of the numbers or just too afraid to talk to me about them. It is ,after all, called the RADIATIVE "greenhouse" gas theory BBD, so there must be some numbers to support your junk theory. So where are they? If there is a mistake or some such in the watts/sq.m in your crap "greenhouse" theory wouldn't you like to find out? No , methinks you would prefer to sit in this echo chamber with the rest of the remaining Doltoids.and keep youself nice and cosy and ignorant.
So for your information, CO2 (ever so slightly) cools the lower atmosphere....it behaves no differently to any other gas in the atmosphere. The physical properties of gases say that gases do not add energy but disperse it. All gases dissipate heat. That's how your hair-dryer works BBD.
In addition to the cooling effect of CO2 in the lower atmosphere there is even greater cooling in the upper atmosphere...the THERMOSPHERE (look it up if you don't know anything about it BBD) Here, newer observations from newer outer satellites (SABER study) reveal that we can actually see the cooling of nitric oxide and CO2 as they glow from the incoming solar radiation. It appears that the atmosphere is not so translucent to incoming solar radiation than your old crap outdated unreal "greenhouse" theory is trying to tell you BBD.

Oh, sod off, you tedious, pathological, dimwitted dissembler.

#92 Sunspot

What a load of crank bollocks.

Here is a discussion of the theory and observations of atmospheric radiation. You desperately need to read it.

It might surprise some here, but I hadn't realised just how insane you actually are. It seems you really are a physics-denying nutter, and consequently not worth talking too since there can be no exchange of ideas with someone living in a fairground mirror universe where all is mutable and distorted. You are beyond the reach of reasoned, supported argument.

* * *

Since Sunspot/Mack/Karen is confined to the Sunspot thread, that is where it should now remain.

Further comments will be struck through until Tim bans the "Mack" sock.

Mmmmm. didn't last long did you BBD. Only 3 or 4 comments and full on ad. hom. Couldn't hold it together, eh boy.

Sunspot

The problem began when you refused to acknowledge that CO2 is demonstrably and efficacious climate forcing, as demonstrated by the termination of Snowball Earth states.

That is an example of intellectual dishonesty, aka bad faith.

It merits censure, but I was polite - I asked you *again* to concede the point. You didn't. Instead, you tried to push the conversation onto an unrelated topic. More intellectual dishonesty/bad faith.

You then launched into an bizarre Gish Gallop of unmitigated crankery.

At this point - and with real justification - I ceased being polite. After all, when you are being dishonest and pissing in my face, why should I be polite to you?

Why? You don't seem to understand that the fault here is yours and you cannot whine.

Btw, BBD your link is to SOD , a wacko lawyer , SOD deletes anything that gets a little too close for comfort.. I saw him even delete one of De Witt Payne's comments because he was starting to question the watts/sq.m issue too closely. SOD has got it wrong on his website and of course he can't delete his own posting.
Aaahahahahahahaha my heart bleeds.

Sunspot/Mack/Karen

A few final remarks:

- The SoD article you have not read is a review. It is *full* of links to the literature it discusses. No errors have ever emerged in that body of work. Your focus on SoD rather than the science under examination is the most childish strawman imaginable.

- If you claim there are errors in the standard scientific position wrt the calculation of surface/TOA forcings, the onus is on *you* to demonstrate them with specifics, either by your own calculations or from the published literature. We both know you cannot do this, so your empty posturing is (once again) revealed in all its unpleasant detail.

- You have still failed to acknowledge that the termination of Snowball Earth states demonstrates the efficacy of CO2 as a climate forcing. Every single comment above is an exercise in bad faith and intellectual dishonesty, with forays into outright crankery thrown in for good measure.

- Finally, you are banned from commenting except on the Sunspot thread, so I'm going to strike out any further responses you make because I don't want to encourage to to continue in breach of the constraints Tim has placed on you.

-

I've said it before and I'll say it again...

Notice how Mackulus never puts forward a cogent (or otherwise) scientific argument to support his own fantasies, or to refute the mainstream? He just makes unsubstantiated claims and never follows through with substance, and moves along to the next meme when his previous one is fried in the light of scrutiny.

The numpty is worse than Oz, because at least the latter could appear to be impressive. Mackulus is just a sad-arsed evolutionary experiment whose germ-line will peter out a little bit sooner than that of the rest of humanity's that he is so desperate to drag down on the way.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 12 Nov 2013 #permalink

There's not even enough accuracy or coherency in Spots' mumblings to argue on.

If there were even a vague approach to rationaility there, there could be something to point out, but there just plain isn't.

The greenhouse effect is not hydrological only, and it's just blurted out "it is". The only rational response is to just say: You're wrong, Spots.

I'm not quite ready to let this drift off over the horizon yet. Here's Sunspot (posting as "Mack") finally outing himself as a physics-denying crank of the most extreme variety:

There is no “greenhouse effect” , no “greenhouse gases” and the Earth’s temp. is purely hydrological. Simple as that. This concept may be difficult for you to get your head around BBD, but do try to think beyond what you’ve been taught in the school classroom. It’s easy if you try.

Yes, you read that right. This clown is a complete and utter nutter, right down to the obligatory crank certainty that he knows the real science.

What a pathetic exhibition of ignorance, stupidity and mental illness. We should not mock the afflicted I know, but this unpleasant, lying, three-sock wonder does not deserve pity.

Mackspottybottomheadupof:

Mmmmm. didn’t last long did you BBD. Only 3 or 4 comments and full on ad. hom. Couldn’t hold it together, eh boy.

Only to the dimwitted who persist in not understanding what an 'ad hominem' is. That's you Mackspottybottomheadupof:

As for a greenhouse effect Tyndall worked out the mechanism a century and a half ago, here is some help with this:

Climate Science History - interactive style.

But of course you will refuse to go anywhere near anything that will abuse you of your rampant ignorance.

BBD

WRT Aubrey & Maturin another volume you may find of interest and utility is Seamanship in the Age of Sail by John Harland.

That is the publishers page, the book can also be found at Amazon, of course, note the reviews. I would also give it 5 stars.

Note also Darcy Lever's 'The Young Sea Officer's Sheet Anchor: Or a Key to the Leading of Rigging and to Practical Seamanship' depicted on that Amazon page. I don't have a copy myself, I am tempted as it is frequently cited in other books written by those in the know.

Lionel, if the commenter on that thread at TP is indicative of the intellectual ability of those involved in in situ gasification then prepare for the worst, he doesn't have a clue as to the chemistry of the process.

Incidentally, the author of the post referred to the product as "synthetic natural gas'' when it is in fact "syn gas" which is different.

By Ian Forrester (not verified) on 12 Nov 2013 #permalink

Someone is out to make a name for themselves. Fossil fuels keep the heat in the earth

"Coal, oil, oil-gas, and fat belong to the same hydrocarbons, and the functions of their thermal insulation are exactly the same. "

This is my favourite line from the paper:
"Based on mathematical law, when A = B, and B = C, then A = C. So Ee and Ew are equal exactly," Such insight.

By Anthony David … (not verified) on 12 Nov 2013 #permalink

When you et fluffy little Snowball, Oily, what marinoade did you use?

The Richard Reiher comment at a guess Ian? There were only a couple of comments when I first saw the article. Yes that is way out!

Jeezu, an unholy alliance of cranks, shills and "look! a squirrel!" style idiots.
But a confederacy of losers if only they'd realise it sooner rather than later.

Lionel:

Who else is on Link Energy’s payroll? Abbott the Black perhaps.

Coincidentally a friend and I had taken to referring him last weekend as "Black Abbott". There was much merriment resulting from rejigging the lyrics of the theme to Blackadder...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 12 Nov 2013 #permalink

Given the current situation in Australian politics and the media and the climate debate, I think it is high time this site started to become more active again - even if that means asking guest authors or other bloggers to come on board. This used to be grand central for climate change information in Australia - and it is clear that people still navigate and gravitate here looking for that. (love a mixed metaphor!)

He'll gut the CSIRO,
To Science he will not give a Min'stry,
Climate change is crap, or don'tcha know?
Could be, the Worst PM in histr'y?!

Black Abbott, Black Abbott,
Murdoch's pet in media,
Black Abbott, Black Abbott,
gets his facts from Wikipedia!

Black Abbott, Black Abbott,
This anti-science schmuck,
Black Abbott, Black Abbott,
Prime Minister, worse luck!

Duckster, the reason for Deltoid's demise is the extemes views, unscientificnesss and conspiratory thinking epressed by the loudmouths. Their hate and cursings are no more in fashion.

Portentology heavily spiced with fire and brimstone has seen its best days.

But I have to admit that I'm fascinated by how the ugly anti-humanism and sooth-saying characterizing this site can go from mainstream in media to something turning into an unpleasant memory.

Maybe the climate soon is ready for some science again, or more correct, not being distorted by politics,ideology and authoritarian minds?

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 13 Nov 2013 #permalink

Oily, as is amply demonstrated by anybody who takes the time to peruse these threads, you have not the slightest comprehension of the issues in the discussion of climate.

Indeed, you have only recently completely piked out of giving us you alternative, non-CO2, explanation for the termination of Snowball Earth.

Without papa Watts or the Sticky Bishop regurgitating pre-masticated chunks into your swollen crop for you to flap straight over and hoik up over here, you are completely helpless, baby bird.

Indeed, you are as hapless and hopeless a fool as your offsider, the serial sock-puppet, who holds a position so unphysical, and so contemptibly absurd, that even Watts and Monckton disown it!

So you can prattle on like a gormless plonker all you like, the fact is that it's you that does not - indeed, can not - get it, you whose opinions are best characterised as 'sooth-saying', and you, and your twisted, Dunning-Krugerite cohort, who are the very acme of anti-humanism

Who has the world's academies of science to back them, again? And 97% of real-live publishing climate scientists? Hint: it's not you. The race may not be always to the swift, but that's how the smart money bets, petal. (Don't worry, you'll never figure it out!)

'Conspiratory' thinking indeed, 'espressed' by a sub-literate twonker!

Dear Bill, thanks for confirming.

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 13 Nov 2013 #permalink

Putrid brings up the word, 'anti-humanism'.

What a hoot. The guy is unhinged like most deniers. He thinks that those opposing the current dominant bankrupt socio-economic system that is driving poverty and starvation, concentrating wealth, and destroying our ecological life support systems are 'anti-human'.

This should tell you all about the mind set of deluded individuals like Olly. Like many of us, he's a beneficiary of the current rapaciously unsustainable system but he has to bury his guilt in pedantics. He doesn't do a good job of that, as illustrated by the fact that he's never read a science book in his life.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 13 Nov 2013 #permalink

Dear Bill, thanks for confirming.

Stop yapping and answer the question about Snowball Earth. Engage like an adult. Demonstrate topic understanding. Demonstrate good faith.

You talk incessantly and never say anything. Patience is exhausted. It's time to walk the walk or exit stage left, Olaus.

#4 Lionel A

Thanks again. Earlier suggestions will probably suffice for a non-sailor like me, but I now have a file, with links... More books. No time.

Jeff, I know from before that your mind reading skills hold the same merits as your ability to navigate in the real world, ergo crap.

On the other hand you are comptent in being angry, very intolerent and extremply prone to conspiracy thinking. Your athoritarian mind set is gargantuan and so is your pathological faiblesse for selfidolatry.

Schhhhh....Don't mention the CV...., like John Cleese would say. ;-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 13 Nov 2013 #permalink

Jeff, I know from before that your mind reading skills hold the same merits as your ability to navigate in the real world, ergo crap.

On the other hand you are comptent in being angry, very intolerent and extremply prone to conspiracy thinking. Your athoritarian mind set is gargantuan and so is your pathological faiblesse for selfidolatry.

Schhhhh….Don’t mention the CV…., like John Cleese would say. ;-)

Stop yapping and answer the question about Snowball Earth. Engage like an adult. Demonstrate topic understanding. Demonstrate good faith.

You talk incessantly and never say anything. Patience is exhausted. It’s time to walk the walk or go, Olaus.

Hum! Putrid Olas (or maybe Old Yap) aside I think that sock drawer (the swiss roll) is trying to break through again, signs of interrupted service again.

Let's face it; you've been caught out, Oily! In public. You sad, sad little nonentity, you...

Any other third-rate, incompetent hacks looking for an eternal electronic humiliation?

Yes Oily, I am angry and intolerant of the type of willful ignorance you and other like-minded deniers spew forth. People who think like you are perfect examples of those whose consent has been manufactured - with kudos to Walter Lippmann for coining the phrase just under a century ago. You'll never win any scientific or intellectual arguments but you know that you don't need to; to ensure the short term status quo is retained, you just have to sow enough doubt as to prevent any meaningful actions being implemented. You are brazenly ignorant about the way the world works, and you function inside your own little myopic shell.

Thankfully there are those courageous enough to see the world as it really is and who are anxious to make changes. You aren't one of them. Your consent was manufactured a long time ago. You've never put forward a single, cogent, rational thought on this blog. Most of the time you've been one of Jonas' poodles, lapping up everything he says with nary a hint of rationality. You arguments are gleaned entirely from denier web logs with an ax to grind. If you want to risk wading into any relevant areas of global change biology/ecology, then give it a whirl. But be prepared to be sent packing as you usually are.

And yes, if you must know, my qualifications blow yours out of the water. But that's not hard, given that you don't have any at all.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 13 Nov 2013 #permalink

I have daughers about this age:

http://www.smh.com.au/world/philippines-typhoon-survivors-become-desper…

http://blackshama.blogspot.com.au/2011_12_01_archive.html

I weep for the Philippines - literally - and I weep for the future generations whose lives will be blighted by more of this type of horror far above what might otherwise occur if only we had a government of character.

I abhor and despise the Coalition's willful and criminally negligent determination to put the profits of their puppeteers and mates above the lives of hundreds of millions, of generations, of so much life on the planet.

I said last year (or perhaps the year before) that Abbott would be remembered by history as being as bad as Hilter, if not worse. I don't resile from that opinion.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 13 Nov 2013 #permalink

Duckster at #15.

The thought has crossed my mind. There are several regulars here who I think could do Tim proud.

Perhaps a delegation?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 13 Nov 2013 #permalink

Yes well the UK has gone to pot (with a PM who was once caught smoking it) since our coalition took over and is moving in directions which will ensure that we will renege on our climate promises and obligations, policies which include strictures on wind turbine deployment ashore, with my home county of Hampshire, conservative run, in the vanguard. and also making overtures to the 'frackers'.

Given the arrogant and ignorant messing up of education, health and defence it will surely not be long before a vote of no confidence ensues. The only thing stopping the Lib Dem's from jumping that ship is the fact that they are unlikely to do well in any forthcoming election which would surely have to be called if they did abandon the coalition.

And the conservatives are removing all records of their pre-election promises, none of which they managed to meet and many they did the 180 degree opposite of.

Such liars are, of course, bread and butter to the circus that the deniers put on.

"The only thing stopping the Lib Dem’s from jumping that ship is the fact that they are unlikely to do well in any forthcoming election "

Mostly by demonstrating that they are actually incompetent to be in power.

So overwhelmed by the actual factual responsibility they abrogated all of THEIR promises because the Tories *even from cabinet ministers in a different cabinet* tell them what to do.

They've managed to prove that they are not worth voting for by virtue of being incompetent, whereas the other two parties are not worth voting for by virtue of being malignant.

And I'd prefer malice over incompetence. The latter has all the bad sides of the former without any actual ability being necessary, therefore a weeding-out process.

with my home county of Hampshire, conservative run, in the vanguard.

True. Bullingdon Cross, etc. I'm in Hampshire too (as I believe Lionel knows already).

I'm interested to see you mentioning Aubrey/Maturin - I recently decided to re-read the series. Am up to "Reverse of the Medal". Loving it.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 13 Nov 2013 #permalink

Olaus links us to the blogsite of one Roy Spencer, creationist.

I notice a graph on that blog which labels the 1998 temperature peaks with the note, "El Nino warming".

If Spencer mistakes El Nino for a forcing, then he is incompetent. Olaus, are you reading this? Your source is nonsense.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 13 Nov 2013 #permalink

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/global-warming-si…

"A new study by British and Canadian researchers shows that the global temperature rise of the past 15 years has been greatly underestimated. The reason is the data gaps in the weather station network, especially in the Arctic. If you fill these data gaps using satellite measurements, the warming trend is more than doubled in the widely used HadCRUT4 data, and the much-discussed “warming pause” has virtually disappeared."

Now, *that*'s pretty inconvenient for your faith-based believe, wouldn't you say Olaus, Rednoise, et al.?

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 13 Nov 2013 #permalink

But, of course, facts have never had any impact on the beliefs of the buffoons that turn up here.

They don't want to believe it; therefore it's not true. It's that simple. Our local serial pests serve as the best possible exemplars that there really is no argument, indeed, no comprehension, there, beyond their cherished 'gut feeling' like our equally Stupid former PM, and his even-more-gauche reincarnation.

Then they get together with a whole bunch of equally Stupid people online, and puff themselves up into believing they're Galileos, a scalding irony that is a prime example of the Dunning-Kruger effect in itself.

What we are going to do with them all is a real issue. They've caused enough trouble already...

We mock them, bill. They are just clowns. The real enemies of mankind are in the boardrooms and never show their faces.

I suspect the organ grinders regard the monkeys as ultimately expendable. The final misdirection. The monkeys are too stupid to recognise that their paymasters are setting them up to be the targets of public rage when eventually denial becomes utterly untenable. They are to be useful idiots, right to the end.

It's all rather obvious, really. The players - and the played.

James Hansen:

Make no doubt, however, if tipping points are passed, if we, in effect, destroy Creation, passing on to our children, grandchildren, and the unborn a situation out of their control, the contrarians who work to deny and confuse will not be the principal culprits. The contrarians will be remembered as court jesters. There is no point to joust with court jesters. They will always be present. They will continue to entertain even if the Titanic begins to take on water. Their role and consequence is only as a diversion from what is important.

The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children. The court jesters are their jesters, occasionally paid for services, and more substantively supported by the captains’ disinformation campaigns.

That would be a cartoon

more like a documentary!...

(oopsie, reposted from the October thread...)

Who’s up for a trip to pariah country?

Seriously, will these twerps be the worst government we’ve ever had, or will it just seem like that in the cold hard light of the present? I remember JWH being an arse, but at 6 years distance Mr Rabbit is making me have icky nostalgic feelings…

FrankD.

From the end of that piece:

Australia’s reputation at these talks needs to change, and it will rely on Prime Minister Abbott’s political will and good diplomatic sense.

That's it then. Autralia's reputation is trashed until the Coalition is voted out.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 14 Nov 2013 #permalink

Craig @ #35, and BBD

I also have read this series, on my third passage with the first being at the gallop and out of sequence as I managed to obtain each volume. My third is so as to read slowly and consider the accuracy of the passages where the working and manoeuvring of the ships is covered.

I don't know if you have seen the film 'Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World' but look out for the two-disc special edition DVD set.

On Disc 2 of which is a feature of the making of the film including construction of a full sized tank replica, the purchase and alteration of a frigate 'The Rose', filming of sequence preparation and shooting and also music selection and playing. This latter of the two main characters Crowe-Aubrey & Bettany-Maturin and also sequence music by an orchestra.

One has to admire the amount of detail paid attention to in the making of such a convincing period piece of a film.

There is also a feature on how Peter Weir approached the making of the film by absorbing himself in the period with artefacts, following in O'Brian's footprints, absorbing the text of the books.

I was disappointed that only one film came out of so many books with Weir describing how once you have shaken the words out of the book there isn't much of a plot. But he does indicate that maybe he would re-visit O'Brian in the future. Well so much time has now elapsed that I doubt that would be plausible without a change of the main cast characters.

Bernard and Frank

The problem is that Australia sits on so much mineral wealth, which 'assets' those in charge in the background and who think they own Australia will not easily forfeit.

Australia is likely to live up to the 'Mad Max' image and like Canada will continue to create its own versions of Mordor.

Abbott the Black, Troll in Chief, for the present, but being worked by the the dark lords behind.

Sheeesh Frank #44

It is a pity that the comments at that The Conversation piece are closed as I would like to throw a dose of reality at that Andrew Gilmour who cite the following as grist for his Quote: "Top Scientists Slam and Ridicule UN IPCC Climate Report... punt with its:

...noted Professor Judith Curry...

...Meteorology Professor Richard Lindzen at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who served as a lead author with the third IPCC report, for example...

....climate experts Patrick Michaels and Paul "Chip" Knappenberger...

with this continuing on Michaels and Knappenberger

“The Humpty Dumpty-esque report once claiming to represent the ‘consensus of scientists’ has fallen from its exalted wall and cracked to pieces under the burdensome weight of its own cumbersome and self-serving processes, which is why all the governments’ scientists and all the governments’ men cannot put the IPCC report together again,” they wrote [Michaels & Knappenberger], saying the IPCC’s climate models needed fixing as evidenced by the fact that the UN could not even track the Earth’s average temperature for the last 10 to 20 years. The IPCC report, the two experts [strewth - M & K again - experts!] continued, was not only “obsolete on its release, but completely useless as a basis to form opinions (or policy) related to human energy choices and their influence on the climate.”

In a later post Gilmour cites this propaganda piece Update: U. S. Senate Minority Report: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims - Scientists Continue to Debunk “Consensus” in 2008 - Released: December 11, 2008 - from Marc 'motor-mouth' Morano (of which the over-long title is typical) way back in 2007 with more of the infamous listed:

New Zealand: IPCC reviewer and climate researcher and scientist Dr. Vincent Gray,

Poland: Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski

Australia: Prize-wining Geologist Dr. Ian Plimer [cough]

Britain: Dr. Richard Courtney

Denmark: Space physicist Dr. Eigil Friis-Christensen

Altogether rather disappointing stuff.

I would not be surprised if Gilmour crops up at WUWT.

That's "Dr." Richard Courtney - there's no evidence he ever got a PhD.

Heh - beat me to it, Marco.

Hmmm?
BBD has been screeching for someone to answer his question.
I tried 5 days ago . But of course the moderator/s here also succumb to BBD et al and don't allow a real discussion.
This place is turning into a ghost town or a hokey backwater.
Lots of nepotism and backslapping; but no actual discussion about science, politics & the environment.

By chameleon (not verified) on 15 Nov 2013 #permalink

Lionel #48 - The Conversation has the potential to be a really good site, with its original terms of use basically requiring commenters to be associated with an academic institution. But that was all "oooh, look at them repressing my free speech" so they opened the doors to dickheads like Andrew Gillmour and Marc Hendricx (who should be banned for his spamalicious sig block alone).

So the conversation at The Conversation becomes the all-too-familiar "look at those socialists trying to contaminate our precious bodily fluids", pretty much like Boris-Freddie-Kai, but with smarmier English skills.

But the OP's are usually interesting before getting dragged down by the usual suspects.

Lionel #47 - These days, I'm almost constantly reminded of the words of Donald Horne, when he dubbed Australia "the Lucky Country". The quote may be familiar, but perhaps the context is less so. Most think the term was intended positively, but at more length, clearly not: "

"Australia is a lucky country run mainly by second-rate people who share its luck. It lives on the other people’s ideas, and, although its ordinary people are adaptable, most of its leaders (in all fields) so lack curiosity about the events that surround them that they are often taken by surprise... According to the rules Australia has not deserved its good fortune.

Horne observed that while post-WW2 Europe was reinventing itself to generate wealth through creativity and generating new social institutions to replace the older broken forms, Australia was simply a bunch of rentiers relying on the steady, seemingly endless cashflow of digging shit up and flogging it oveseas, and simply acquiring social advantages without "earning" them (and therefore not valuing them). Despite this Horne was optimistic that a new society and a new economy was coming down the tracks, yet the truth is Australia has remained staggeringly resistant to change, aside from a few brief and rapidly-rewound flirtations. 50 years on, and Australia is reverting to type again, unpacking the bong from wherever we hid it six years ago and packing a nice big coneful of "lucky".

Horne's uncurious second-raters (well, the left are second-raters, the right are mostly third or worse) have fostered an Australian society that is now all grown-up and with a careless addiction - with all the denial, selfishness, rationalisation and self-justification that goes with it - that will ensure we cause the maximum harm to others.

I think its time to move to Denmark... :-(

FrankD #52

As it happens a series of novels mentioned here and in last month's thread the Patrick O'Brian 'Luck' Jack Aubrey and Stephen Maturin books that began with 'Master and Commander' visit some of the inequities that were prevalent in this new, penal, colony that became Australia.

The two books 'The Nutmeg of Consolation' and 'Clarissa Oaks', which latter is published in the US under the tile 'The Truelove' have the plot involving the colony. Why do Americans have to do this, publish a book under a different title?

Indeed the plot of these books weaves around the events involving Bligh, Jamieson and Macarthur and the 'Rum Rebellion' with the duel involving Jack Aubrey's ship's surgeon Stephen Maturin and an escaped convict Clarissa Oaks, HMS Surprise being chased out to sea by an 'Australian' revenue cutter after Oaks.

O'Brian brilliantly weaves into this series real events of the period, such as a Stock Exchange scam which Aubrey becomes unwittingly involved in, finding himself in the stocks, from which he was rescued. I'll not spoil the plot further by revealing how in case you decide to dip into this genre. O'Brian is far more convincing than C S Forrester which latter is nudged into third place IMHO by Richard Woodman with the Nathaniel Drinkwater series, with Alexander Kent (aka Douglas Reeman) bringing up the rear and I think aimed at a different, perhaps younger, readership.

There are also books by Julian Stockwin and Showell Styles that may appeal to 'younger' readers.

I have been fencing with omnologos over at Climate Crocks, although omnologos insists on using his rhetorical cudgel, below the 'Fauxpause: Warming Underestimated by Half article and began to think that omno' is a denizen at WUWT. This has been confirmed by recent posts at Sou's HotWhopper e.g. in the post where I found this excellent reply from MikeH, which ended with this cracker:

There is also a rather infantile take on the paper at Bishop Hill which drew this response from Gavin Schmidt on twitter.
"This is a significantly lower bar than Arthur C Clarke had in mind for the inability of some to distinguish science"
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/11/15/climate-magic.html

Well done Mike, the twerps just cannot help putting their feet in their mouths can they, this after the peccant parts have been lopped off 'Black Knight' style.

Oh, look who's arrived! cham'on @ # 51

I tried 5 days ago

Well try again it's never too late.

BBD our county is going to be 'fracked',

Hampshire County Council accused of towing Government line in fracking row.

on the wider UK picture:

Fracking Digest

Note this remark:

"Tim Yeo, chair of the Energy and Climate Change Committee, raised eyebrows when, speaking to was speaking to an audience of energy industry representatives and diplomats at the Westminster Russia Forum, he expressed the possibility of climate change being due to natural causes.

.

I smell the GWPF at work!

I am still trying to pick the bones out of all this and a google on "fracking licences" AND "Hampshire" has turned up documents. More reading!!!

# 51 chameleon

If you mean your handwave at volcanism, I saw it and responded at the time. I said then - and repeat now - that you need to explain the physical mechanism by which volcanism contributed to the termination of the Snowball phase. Just going "volcanism!" is not sufficient.

If you need a clue, go back and read the thread.

Lionel

Oh yes. The future wrt fracking looks fairly clear now. And the GWPF has pushed this from the outset. No doubt from a disinterested and objective stance...

I propose a neology: we can modify "lackeys" into "frackeys".

BTW, did you see our very own Peter Lilley out himself as a denier in comments at RC the other day?

See # 12 and Gavin's response to # 18.

This is blatant bollocks, so out it goes:

BBD has been screeching for someone to answer his question.

Being mischaracterised by self-serving liars is irritating. So don't do it, 'chameleon'.

It's funny how a distinct double standard has emerged with politicians and climate science. Politicians don't generally espouse, even promote, a view directly counter to the standard scientific position. But with climate science, it's different.

Chebbie, you're still as dumb as a sack of coal. You certainly won't do any better than your dimwit peers have done. Run away!

No BBD,
My next comment after the one you refer to languished in moderation.
It's up now so perhaps you could check?
Whoever moderates this site is killing it by succumbing to all the whingers.

By chameleon (not verified) on 15 Nov 2013 #permalink

I’ll not spoil the plot further by revealing how in case you decide to dip into this genre.

I've read an enjoyed a few of the earlier O'Brian's, but not this (and none at all for years), so thanks for the non-spoiler. My brother (a day-racing sailor) has been pestering me to read more of them for a while.

O’Brian is far more convincing than C S Forrester ... with Alexander Kent (aka Douglas Reeman) bringing up the rear...

Yes, I read a dozen or so Kent's as a kid (the whole set as it was in 1983, but I know its grown since), and even then thought of them as enjoyable hokum. Reeman was better under his own name.

I'm a little surprised that this sub-discussion hasn't (as far as I've seen, I've not been following religiously) mentioned C. Northcote Parkinson. The Richard Delancey stories have a "truthiness" lacking in the Bolithos, and his Hornblower Companion is an excellent acquisition for any who like Forrester.

But without pointing the finger at any one author, its a genre I found dominated by pot-boilers which were amusing but lacked substance. Generally I've preferred very short series or one-off's - I found The Long Fight absorbing, for instance; the one venture into the genre by ex-Battle of the Atlantic LCDR D.A. Rayner, more famous for writing The Enemy Below.

And YMMV of course, but (not being ex-RN) I'm not so wedded to the whole "Jolly Jack Tars showing those Frenchies what for, eh?" vibe. There are a sufficiently large number of excellent one-off naval history books that read like fiction to keep me amused - a lot of which recount events which have been ripped-off for fictional characters deeds. I'd recommend a few titles, but all my Napoleonic/Age of Sail stuff has been in storage for several years - my house is definitely deficient in the "walls, lining with books, for the use of" department...

BBD @ #59 WRT Peter Lilley,

There are two, at present, follow up comments to that which you cited, the first from edgeofkaos where Gavin provides weight for the identity of that mendacious or ignorant one. In either case a vote of no confidence is due, in particular considering the obvious conflict of interest.

The second from deconvoluter provides a little more background. Not that I have learned anything new but it it is good to see more exposure.

Is it not past time that the GWPF was stripped of its educational aspirations smokescreen and lost its charitable status. I suspect that shredders are working overtime as I write this. Lawson & co' are planetary hooligans.

#64 chameleon

BBD # 56
Apologies if a similar comment appears as I have had to change devices. My trusty old samsung tablet is in its death throws [sic].
You did get a credit from me for asking a sensible question but I have now removed your credit for assuming that there is only one possible answer.
Volcanic influence is most likely the addition of magna and Laava heat. Volcanic gases and ash and particulants spewed into the atmosphere would most likely, on balance, block the influence of solar activity.
I note you summarily dismissed other likely variables in favour of a blinkered focus and obsession for C O 2 . So sorry, but no gold star from me :-)

Let's examine this.

1/ Short-lived aerosol spikes from volcanism will cause a slight cooling, though this is insignificant when the climate system is already in a Snowball state. So irrelevant.

2/ The Marinoan glaciation lasted for many millions of years. Intermittent and - on geological time-scales - infinitesimally brief episodes of volcanism cannot overcome a whole-surface albedo-locked icehouse state. They are tiny flickers. Volcanism doesn't heat the climate system today, so how you can possibly imagine that it was enough to haul it out of a planetary icehouse state is completely beyond me. Try thinking before typing.

3/ This leaves accumulating CO2 from volcanism, unable to leave the atmosphere because all the carbon sinks are shut down beneath the ice. Over millions of years, concentrations inevitably rise and the forcing inevitably increases until eventually sufficient to overcome even the extremely powerful albedo cooling effect and the Snowball state terminates. This is the only plausible physical mechanism for terminating Snowball climate states. I cannot lose credit for pointing out that this is the case. Attempting to point-score as you did makes you look like a cretin.

Your arguments are junk, which is why they were dismissed. The only plausible physical mechanism is CO2 forcing which you deny because you are a denier. The blinkers are on your face, not mine. The obsession with denying the evidence all all costs - including your own intellectual integrity - is yours, not mine.

You need to get a grip on your incessant projection. It is, or should be, embarrassing.

F.F.S

#64 chameleon

BBD # 56
Apologies if a similar comment appears as I have had to change devices. My trusty old samsung tablet is in its death throws [sic].
You did get a credit from me for asking a sensible question but I have now removed your credit for assuming that there is only one possible answer.
Volcanic influence is most likely the addition of magna and Laava heat. Volcanic gases and ash and particulants spewed into the atmosphere would most likely, on balance, block the influence of solar activity.
I note you summarily dismissed other likely variables in favour of a blinkered focus and obsession for C O 2 . So sorry, but no gold star from me :-)

Let's examine this.

1/ Short-lived aerosol spikes from volcanism will cause a slight cooling, insignificant when the climate system is already in a Snowball state. So irrelevant.

2/ The Marinoan glaciation lasted for many millions of years. Intermittant and - on geological time-scales - infinitesmally brief episodes of volcanism cannot overcome a whole-surface albedo-locked icehouse state. They are tiny flickers. Volcanism doesn’t heat the climate system today, so how you can possibly imagine that it was enough to haul it out of a planetary icehouse state is completely beyond me. Try thinking before typing.

3/ This leaves accumulating CO2 from volcanism, unable to leave the atmosphere because all the carbon sinks are shut down beneath the ice. Over millions of years, concentrations inevitably rise and the forcing inevitably increases until eventually sufficient to overcome even the extremely powerful albedo cooling effect and the Snowball state terminates. This is the only plausible physical mechansim for terminating Snowball climate states. I cannot lose credit for pointing out that this is the case. Attempting to point-score as you did makes you look like a cretin.

Your arguments are junk, which is why they were dismissed. The only plausible physical mechanism is CO2 forcing which you deny because you are a denier. The blinkers are on your face, not mine. The obsession with denying the evidence all all costs - including your own intellectual integrity - is yours, not mine.

You need to get a grip on your incessant projection. It is, or should be, embarrassing.

This is the only plausible physical mechansim for terminating Snowball climate states.

Don't be silly BBD, it was God orbiting with a blow-torch.

Well that is what creationist chameleon thinks.

One only has to look at the major "portents" (as our Swedish moron contingent would call them) since the "magickal" year of 1998 - the collapse of the Larsen B iceshelf in Antarctica(2002), Arctic ice collapse (2005), Hurricane Katrina SE USA (2005), the major droughts and dust storms in China, Australia and the USA (2009-2010), the further record collapse of the Arctic ice in summer 2012, and Hurricane Sandy's devastation of the NE USA just a year ago to know that the denial script of "the pause" was only ever a PR stunt never backed up by anything but the most selective choosing of "the facts".

Taking the retro-nautical theme of some recent posts into account, Lawson, Watts and their whole scummy crew should be hung from the highest yard arm for what they've tried to achieve in the period.

The problem is that Australia sits on so much mineral wealth, which ‘assets’ those in charge in the background and who think they own Australia will not easily forfeit.

Perhaps someone should point out to these clowns that Australia also sits on a "wealth" of asbestos deposits.

Well, not quite. They were a wealth asset until the community decided that they were too dangerous to dig up and use. Their current (lack of) value reflects that.

The same thing is going to happen to fossil "assets" at some time in the not so distant future. They can jump up and down and wail and whine about how valuable and important these things are, but they will go the inevitable way of all those makers of "valuable" buggy whips, whalebone corsets, asbestos products and typewriters. If they had any commercial sense they'd be looking to get onto the new wealth bus before the fossil one leaves them stranded.

Adelady, its funny that the "socialiists" and "alarmists" are the ones advocating sensible and measured adjustment to the capitalist landscape to preserve maximum wealth, while the "conservative" and "rational" people are advocating doing nothing until the market reduces these to stranded assets and panic selling crashes stock prices for these companies.

It's almost like there are people who think that if they can just stay one step ahead of the mug punter, that they can actually benefit from a market crash in these sectors.... *gasp*

;-)

BBD,
There is little to no point trying to discuss this issue when my comments languish in moderation (partly at your behest) because whoever the moderator is here succumbs to rather pathetic whinging and conspiracy theories.
You had to copy/paste my comment from the previous page to continue the discussion.
If you bothered to read my comments with your blinkers off, you would perhaps have noticed that Volcanism was but one of the factors I highlighted and that in reality you were the one who latched onto and then commenced hand waving re volcanism.
I am not denying that extra CO2 from volcanic activity could play its part.
However from your own comments here:
"Short-lived aerosol spikes from volcanism will cause a slight cooling, insignificant when the climate system is already in a Snowball state. So irrelevant."

and here:

infinitesimally brief episodes of volcanism cannot overcome a whole-surface albedo-locked icehouse state. They are tiny flickers.

If the spikes are short lived then perhaps your comments about the longevity of CO2 from short lived, infinitesimally brief episodes of volcanism that are tiny flickers would need some assistance from other sources, influences and forcings than just volcanic CO2?

By chameleon (not verified) on 16 Nov 2013 #permalink

Chebbie, quit your moaning. The reason you're not getting on autnmatically is the system thinks you're 'new', and you're automatically going into the moderation queue.

And that's it! That's the sum total of the conspiracy against you, you poor lamb!

Doubtlessly you think it's a crying shame that abusive nutters and serial sock-puppeteers aren't allowed the run of this place indefinitely. Nice fellow-travellers you have there!...

Adelady....."Perhaps someone should point out to these clowns"
The clown you're pointing out is the looney old pommie wacko, Lionel .....comment #47.

If you are referring to me Bill, that would be incorrect. I am not new and at the start my comments were always accepted. I appeared here when Tim last posted on SLR, which I believe is approximately 12 months ago. The post was recommended to me by a friend but at the time I was unaware that said friend had tongue in cheek.
After much whining and accusation about me being a sock, I was put into permanent moderation. It was quite ironic because at that point I was fairly new to commenting on blogs and I didn't know what a sock was.
It was in the same timeframe that Brad Keyes was corralled to his own thread, again apparently, because of constant whinging by the usual suspects.
But, it doesn't really bother me. I come back on the odd occasion to see what's happening, which is very little BTW, and I sometimes feel inspired to comment.
Because there is almost no traffic here these days, on rare occasions my comments are let out of moderation before the page changes.
The behaviour of whoever moderates this site would be a major reason why this blog is turning into a sad little ghost town IMO :-)

By chameleon (not verified) on 17 Nov 2013 #permalink

Oooooh - black hole chastises kettle! Bugger off, SunSpam...

Nah , hell Billbaby. I've got plenty of popcorn, so enjoy every now and again popping in to read the rants and blatherings of you AGW brainwashed numbskulls here. For entertainment value you're pretty good yourself . For a fuckwitted believer you've got heaps of talent .

Mackspotspam is a real hoot. Given the overwhelming empirical evidence, the only 'brainwashing' in favor of AGW is purely scientific. On the other hand, the deniers have been immensely brainwashed by a veritable sea of corporate media and blog propaganda based entirely on profit.

As Bill said, bugger off Spammy and stick to your delusions.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 17 Nov 2013 #permalink

Ah! Mack the Yack strikes again with vacuous blatherings sprayed around like he/she/it is wielding an Uzi, but with loads of soft brown smelly stuff as ammo. One day that fan will get him.

He has a fan?

chek @ #70

Taking the retro-nautical theme of some recent posts into account, Lawson, Watts and their whole scummy crew should be hung from the highest yard arm for what they’ve tried to achieve in the period.

Nah! That is to easy for them considering the mass suffering that is, and will further, ensue. keelhauling is the ticket , GWPF say hello to Barnacle Bill and if you survive meet him again next week.

I can hear the howls of faux-disgust from the denier/delayer camp now.

I hear that Matt Ridley lectured in Australia recently H/T Sou . Now somebody clever enough to write about the 'Genome' is clever enough to know what he is about - propaganda dangerous to life as we know it.

Fancy that, that wonderful 'Genome' endangered thanks partly to he who wrote about it.

From a discussion below Tamino's 'Fire Down Below' article I picked up on this clip:

Outback Australia "fire tornado" . I noticed asimilar clip from Brazil in the right hand column.

This is probably what the fire storms raised by concentrated bombing in WW2, notably Hamburg, resembled. The fires took hold with such force that fire-storms were created where every object not anchored down, including humans, from a many mile radius were pulled into the centre by the strong winds to further fuel the fire.

Adapt to that Abbott!

The physics-denying troll is back I see.

Hello Sunspot's sockpuppet! Just reminding you that you are in breach of your conditions here! You shouldn't be running a sock and you shouldn't be commenting except on the Sunspot thread! Tut, tut!

Anyway, since you are here, what fundamental aspects of physics would you like to deny today? Gravity? Electromagnetic radiation? Conservation of energy? What takes your fancy?

Or how about broadening the field a bit? Do you deny the moon landings, do you think Oswald was alone, where do you stand on Roswell and alien abductions etc? Come on over and share your crankery with us. We know your views on climate change so let's hear your unhinged discourse on some fresh topics for a change.

* * *

Clearly one thing we are never going to get out of you is a description of a physical mechanism by which Snowball Earth states terminate that doesn't require substantial forcing from CO2. Because you weren't up to that, were you, my little troll? You just imploded and scuttled away.

Lawson, Watts and their whole scummy crew should be hung from the highest yard arm for what they’ve tried to achieve in the period.

Nuh. What I wish for these people is that one day they wake up to the appalling reality of their behaviour. They'll calm themselves down and get on with their day. Then, every day thereafter, they'll awake to the shock of realising just how awful they've been as people and just how responsible they are for the consequences. Every. Single. Day.

They'll learn coping strategies from their therapists and they may, eventually, get over their stomach churning thoughts.

Eventually.

Indeed. As dear old Grandma used to say: hanging's too good for some.

The old fib repeated by Peiser:

Dr Benny Peiser, GWPF’s director firmly rebutted Mr Ward’s claims.

“The GWPF has never participated in any campaigning and does not promote any particular line of opinion. In fact, the GWPF does not have an official or shared view about the science or politics of global warming – although we are of course aware that these issues are not settled,” said Dr Peiser, a former senior lecturer in sports science at Liverpool John Moores University.

This is simply not true, as the Carbon Brief demonstrated back in 2011.

Peiser's "firm rebuttal" is transparently dishonest. Since it's the work of seconds to demonstrate that the GWPF is a disinformation machine, it would be nice to see its abuse of charitable status terminated. But I won't hold my breath.

Bloody good on Bob Ward though. Hats off. In the unlikely event I ever run into him, he will not pay for a drink that night.

Indeed, it would be spectacularly karmic to see the GWPF board taken down - AND - even replaced by sane people, or disbanded. Here's hoping, and wishing on a star for luck.

But didn't some tame judge rule not that long ago (a search just dredges up a lot of denier shit (mostly of the Dr. Benny authored variety, so I'm relying on memory) that the GWPF were too inconsequential to divest of their tax-payer rip-off wolf-in-sheep's-clothing schtick? Which was novel, if on the face of it demeaning, but nevertheless allowed them to continue on as if nothing had happened, which presumably was a 'win' for them.
Maybe Bob will have better luck.
I'll stand him the chasers and shots, BBD.

Oh, hai. That "hiatus" since 1998? Yeah, umm, actually, not so much:
http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/11/impacts-of-climate-change-observ…
(No deniers are even disputing this, in the comments there or in here -- must be that the talking points haven't been composed yet... well, there was Curry's feeble flailing, but that was too pathetic for even the average troglodyte.)

Also, better rev up that prime land in Canada:
http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/11/impacts-of-climate-change-observ…

chek

You remember correctly. A miserable day for British justice. Details here:

Judge McKenna said in her ruling: “We are not satisfied that the charity is so influential as to make the disclosure of its financial affairs a matter of legitimate public interest outweighing the privacy rights of the data subject.”

Brendan Montague, the director of the Request Initiative, made the original request to the Charity Commission and argued that because the think tank has board members from across the House of Lords and sets out to influence newspapers and policy makers the public should know where its funding has come from. Montague will seek legal advice before deciding whether to appeal.

He said: “Judge Alison McKenna has found against me on the grounds that Lord Lawson’s climate sceptic thinktank is simply not as influential as the former chancellor has made out in his own company accounts. We provided evidence of Lawson enjoying private lunches with the current chancellor, George Osborne, and so I only wish I shared her view.”

“The tribunal has found the claims of influence over policymakers by Lord Lawson ‘surprising’ in light of the fact the Global Warming Policy Foundation is registered as an educational charity. The judge states this is ‘a matter for the Charity Commission’ and I hope the regulator will now properly investigate this highly-connected lobbying machine.”

Climate scientist professor James Hansen, climate historian professor Naomi Oreskes and professor of ethics Clive Hamilton submitted witness statement to the tribunal to say the public interest would be served by naming the donor. The Poles Apart report published by James Painter of the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism was also presented in evidence of the influence of the GWPF.

They won't get away with it forever.

To add the last paragraph from that article quoted by BBD above:

Lord Lawson told the Guardian before the tribunal hearing that he had “no intention of responding to Mr Montague’s political attack on me and on the GWPF”. The GWPF states that it does not accept donations from the energy industry, or anyone with a “significant interest” in the energy industry.

Maybe all this should be brought to the attention of any investigation into the workings of the GWPF:

the DeSmogBlog GWPF roll. Does not Peter Lilley being a a director with Tethys Petroleum count as “significant interest” ? I am sure that Lilley is not counted amongst the to make up the numbers, note his recent post over at Real Climate mentioned above in this thread.

Do judges go out of their way to not see the evidence which would damn most others?

From the Lilley page at DeSmog:

Mr Lilley racked up 228 hours of work for Tethys, FACOR and IDOX plc, a document management company where he is also a director.

Now what does a 'document management company' do?

Teach people how to use shredders perhaps. There's handy for you.

At that DeSmog roll of GWPF dishonour note the doings of one The Guardian Reveals Key Funder of Global Warming Policy Foundation Is Michael Hintzeand as commenter 'HengistMcStone' notes:

The GWPF claims to eschew donations from the Oil Industry or those with a significant interest in the Oil Industry. Hintze is the Big Fish behind CQS Hedge Fund. They're big in financing oil risks, for my money thats significant

http://twitpic.com/92izum

Is that not enough to hang the GWPF out to dry.

Of course Chris Huhne, one time energy secretary, described the GWPF as "misinformed, wrong and perverse."

Well they made sure hew was hung out - convenient eh?

"Significant interest" is meaningless. Just weasel words. It doesn't come close to defining indirect energy industry funding via "think tanks" directly or indirectly funded by energy companies, nor does it preclude energy industry funding via anonymising fronts like Donors Trust.

If the GWPF has nothing to hide, why is it refusing to disclose the sources of its funding?

Indeed, 'significant' is a word that can mean 'just what Lawson wishes it to mean, nothing more nothing less' , (apologies to Charles Lutwidge [1] Dodgson), a point which I had intended to make.

The GWPF should be given the choice, reveal source of funding or relinquish charity status and be find for duplicity tantamount to fraud pay any back taxes thus due. Should not any doners be revealed by virtue of tax avoidance filings?

[1] To echo another recent topic one of Horatio Nelosn's early mentors, and life long friend was Captain Skeffington Lutwidge captain of the converted bomb vessel HMS Carcass (name from one form of ballista missile) which took Nelson to the Arctic and his encounter with a polar bear, as the story goes.

Hi Bernard

Thanks. I am glad someone responded. Regarding the idea of asking Tim if a couple of regulars here could take up posting. I will send an e-mail to Tim. You will need to recommend your regulars though.

Duckster

By ducksterr (not verified) on 19 Nov 2013 #permalink

http://joannenova.com.au/2013/11/monckton-bada/

His royal nuttiness, Lord Screaming Monckton, puts his journalism background to good use and re-writes history:

When I’ve talked to Monckton about this, he says they are waiting results from clinical trials, and the BBC fished and edited his remark to hide that.
” The [BBC] creep who made the programme had visited me in Scotland and asked me, on camera, about the medical invention that cured me of 25 years’ crippling illness four years ago. I had said it showed promise against various infections, but until we had done the clinical trials that are now in preparation we were not making any claims.

The creep said my answer was too long and complicated. He asked me simply to list the diseases the invention might be effective against. I said, “We have had some promising indications and, subject to clinicial trials, it is possible that we can cure [followed by a list of infections]”. The clip was edited dishonestly. What was broadcast was “We can cure the list of infections]”.

In no time an Australian climate extremist at Melbourne “University” had complained to the medical regulators in the UK that I was conducting unauthorized clinical trials. The complaint failed when I pointed out that the BBC programme had evilly tampered with what I had said, the extremist had lied in correspondence and, in any event, he had no standing to interfere.”

I'd be interested to know the facts behind this so-called complaint from somebody at Melbourne University. Based on Monckton's previous nonsenses, the truth will be significantly different from his account.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 19 Nov 2013 #permalink

bill

I always said it was a slow-down in the rate of surface/tropospheric warming rather than a pause or hiatus, and so it proves. All bollocks anyway, when we consider OHC and the climate system as a whole, not just surface/troposphere. As someone said recently, the "satellites show no warming" poppycock de nos jours.

Onward, ever onward.

Australia was accused of not taking the negotiations seriously. "They wore T-shirts and gorged on snacks throughout the negotiation. That gives some indication of the manner they are behaving in," said a spokeswoman for Climate Action Network.

Is there some kind of government decree that we are now supposed to emulate the delicate, diplomatic touch of a reborn Crocodile Dundee on every possible occasion?

Regulars here will know that I never say anything rude about Australia or Australians. Why should I, after all? But the behaviour of the delegates (if accurately reported) is embarrassing. If the UK delegation had behaved like this, I would join in the condemnation. Letters would be written. Ears bent.

BBD.

Please feel free to express yourself. The last thing the world needs now is any pandering to the delicate sensibilities of those Australians who support the Coalition's approach to global cooperation.

Let us have it with both barrels. Intelligent Australians want the rest of the country to know just what the world thinks of our behaviour on the international stage.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 21 Nov 2013 #permalink

Good Lord Marco - d'you mean to say Monckton lied?

No, BBD. Monckton never lies. He may be a bit economical with the truth, but lying...?

Keep up BBD. It was a lying journalist that made the claim.

The fact that the lying journalist was Monckton himself in no way challenges the veracity or accuracy of his statement.

"Monckton never lies. He may be a bit economical with the truth,"

No, he aspires to a GREATER reality than the one shared by worthless "watermelons" and those villainous rationalists.

It's not lying, all you need to do is see that GREATER reality where it can be seen as TRUTH!

You may have to swivel your eyes to see it.

Let us have it with both barrels. Intelligent Australians want the rest of the country to know just what the world thinks of our behaviour on the international stage.

As somebody remarked, hanging is too good for those climate criminals who have usurped Australian government by spreading propaganda.

What is Norfolk Island being used for these days? Any chance that it could revert back to a penal colony for the coalition retards and their backers - Desert [1] Island Discs of Gina Rinehart anyone?

[1] In the sense of otherwise deserted not a sandy waste.

Our international friends might be interested to know that the Australian media has been almost universally quiet on the G77+ walk-out at Warsaw. The only piece that I've seen was an apologist one for the Australian negotiators, written unsurprisingly by the Australian newspaper.

It seems that in Australia at the moment the whole notion of being a good internatioal citizen has evaporated, even from the supposedly leftist ABC.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 23 Nov 2013 #permalink

Hey you guys,
have you bothered to check the stats re nations who have/have not signed up?

By chameleon (not verified) on 23 Nov 2013 #permalink

Yeah ,nah, hang em high, looney Lionel et al.

Wow yes, the walkout. Wasn't that a self-destruct.! These AGW brainwashed kids give new meaning to the phrase..."cut off your nose to spite your face". I was looking at a few pictures of these placard holding protesters and these folk are smiling and appear happy. Obviously school's out , and they were getting fed up with sitting on their butts in the conference room listening to the same old "serious" AGW tripe blathered on and on to them.
They are, after all ,only a bunch of attention seekers and nobody was paying any attention to them at the non-event blabfest.
The ABC and msm are keeping quiet about this because it a) vindicates Abbotts decision not to bother to send any ministers or anybody of any importance to this extravagant waste of time bun-fight ....and b) spells out that the wheels are really falling off the crap that is called AGW., and this is rather an embarrassment considering all the belief stories these gullible, lefty, msm AGW brainwashed twats have printed in their govt. funded newspapers.and witlessly blathered on govt. funded TV.

Do you imagine, SunSpam, that anyone gives a shit what you think? About anything?

Now, back on your thread, or we'll get you deleted altogether.

Oh yes! Mack the Yack & co. is always projection with these twerps and this one has the gall to call me loony and then follow that by missing his barf bag with the effluent ending up here @ #11.

He needs specialist help.

I remember where I was when that came out in 66, mixing it with Sea Vixens at an air station in Somerset. Just what one needed to hear after a night on the 'scrumpy' or draught sherry. Turning too to operate the Sea Vixen line for Saturday morning flying.

Sunspot

How do we get hyperthermals like the PETM unless GHGs are efficacious and powerful climate forcings?

You never did say.

But it matters. GHG forcing produce paleoclimate hyperthermals. Unless the laws of physics have changed, it will do so now. Won't it, Sunny?

Yep, when these clowns manage to vote in new laws of physics, and not just the Black Abbott, they'll truly have saved the world.

Until then; turkeys.

".....unless GHGs are efficatious and powerful climate forcings?" parrots this fuckwitted AGW brainwashed pommie prat BBD. What "FORCING?". This "forcing" is a word conjured up by you wacko AGW science fraudsters and spouted out in a know all, authoritative fashion when you really don't know WTF you're talking about. .
Gotta luv that word "Forcing" ..."greenhouse forcing" .."greenhouse gas forcing" ..."climate forcing of greenhouse gases" Yeah , The Forcing. The force is strong in this one Obi wan. You haven't got a brother called Luke Skywalker have you BBD? He's also fucked in the head with AGW. .

Mackulus.

The concept of a 'forcing' is a very concrete and particular one, based in solid physics.

Your ignorance and antiscience is showing.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 24 Nov 2013 #permalink

OK Bernerd ..you explain to me, in simple terms, how the "radiative forcing" of a "greenhouse gas" works. No links allowed.

Mackulus.

There's a thread somewhere on Deltoid where I actually bothered a while back to play this exact "pretend that I'm as stupid as I pretend to be (except that I'm not pretending)" game of yours, or of one of your denialist comrades. However, if you will admit that you don't understand even the very basics of 'greenhouse' gas radiative forcing I might actually deign to repeat myself.

Oh, and about that stupidity thing... you've slipped into using one of the monikers that used to be turned by your Sunspot sock - do try to maintain at least a semblance of the pretence.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 24 Nov 2013 #permalink

You have been warned, turkey.

MackaYack

OK Bernerd ..you explain to me, in simple terms,...

That you have to ask such a question after such a long, long time means that there are no terms simple enough for you to understand.

“This is a significantly lower bar than Arthur C Clarke had in mind for the inability of some to distinguish science”

See my #55 here for full reference.

Sunspot seems freaked:

this fuckwitted AGW brainwashed pommie prat BBD.

Woo!

This is what deniers do when confronted with questions they cannot handle because they are powerful illustrations of the fact that GHG forcing * causes the climate system to heat up.

Sunny cannot explain the PETM without admitting that its very existence is empirical evidence that GHG forcing is real and powerful.

Poor Sunny. All he can do is implode into an abusive rant and pretend that he doesn't know what forcings are. Pitiful.

* * *

* Look it up you lazy arse.

Aye! MacksYack is as transparent as a Pack-a-Mac.

As for forcings, I'll wager that he could not correctly categorise a number of forcing types as either positive or negative.

Just to remind everybody, not that the regulars here need such, about those who have corrupted the dialogue over global warming and climate change:

Greedy Lying Bastards - Trailer (GLB).

I am watching the full programme on DVD at the moment.

I will follow this with Chasing Ice by James Balog.

I watched the first few minutes last evening and have to admire Balog for his tenacity, perseverance, photography skills and ability to conceptualise what is happening. Recommended. Note the positioning of this in the UK by the co-operative.

Now I wonder who paid for the appointment of an incompetent to head the Co-operative Bank and thus make it fail, IOW sabotage. Can't have people supporting an ethical organisation can we now Downing Street.

Find a copy of this book Fracking The UK and find out why there is a dreadful stink emanating from Whitehall, and many district councils, right now.

Discover how devious an organisation Cuadrilla is, how incompetent have been their operations thus far, and how coy they are about their operation of fracking by stealth. Do not take any statement about exploratory wells only at face value.

Find out how many wells will have to be drilled (and people moan about wind turbines - have they really no idea) across the UK to gain a fraction of what they are bragging about and then they frack the wells again where more wells will fail and leak than during initial drilling.

There is a segment in GLB (at about 0:15:00) where a smug, well fed, ignorant Morano bullshits loads followed by Balog telling it straight. Morano is not worthy of cleaning Balog's ice-boots.

Shorter Mackspot: Please inform me, but don't use any of your government funded or government approved educational sources. Crank bilgespew and, if different, corporately-sponsored disinformation only please.

Now that's a worry. My post about the spuriousness of Monckton's alleged 'clinical trials' has disappeared. What's going on Tim?

rhwombat, I thought something was missing...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 24 Nov 2013 #permalink

Maybe somebody has been "interfering unlawfuly on the internet"?

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 24 Nov 2013 #permalink

I doubt it, Craig. I probably exceeded my split infinitive quota, or possibly rendered Tim too vulnerable to a little legal larceny launched by the loony lord for my vituperative vexatiousness and pusillanimous prose. I should be done for Grand Theft Alliteration. Such is life.

OK then, Bernerd just rabbits on with crap about Sunspot socks etc. as the nutty stuffy academic he is. comment #24
Zero content , zero input, zero effort . Just one big fat zero for you teach.

Now this AGW brainwashed BBD sends me to wiki for some wiki-science, and wiki says.....for " Radiative Forcing"...." In climate science radiative forcing is defined as the difference of radiant energy received by the earth and energy radiated back to space. Typically, radiative forcing is quantified at the tropopause?? in units of watts/sq.m. of earth's surface??".
This second sentence from wiki. is in contradiction to the first and is purely confusing double dutch. The earth's surface is the earth's surface, space is space. I understand that the earth's surface is what we stand on, and that space begins at the TOA (top of atmosphere) ie at about the exosphere. That's REALITY when considering RADIATION from the sun , radiation at earth's surface, or any radiation balance or imbalance.
Incoming radiation at the TOA ,and radiation at the earth's surface., for your edification BBD.
And of course wiki says that what the "radiative forcing" is quantified as ... watts/sq.m. eh BBD
So here we are once again with you, BBD, the AGW brainwashed fuckwit, not able to come up with the numbers in watts/sq,m. to support your quack "greenhouse theory."
BBD the believer....he who says that "it's obvious" the atmosphere is stopping the oceans from becoming a frozen ball. What's life like in your padded cell?

I think it's doing the chicken dance, but one is never quite sure with socks, like Spammy McSpot, worrying about the corruption of their precious bodily fluids by the evil soshulists at the ABC.

Sunny

It's not my fault if you cannot understand the words!

Instead of rolling around in your ignorance like a pig in shit, why not just explain all the strange facts? Like why huge increases in atmospheric GHGs and climate hyperthermals go together? And how the climate system propels itself out of albedo-locked Snowball states?

These are the questions that you dodged.

I think you have a mighty problem with this because events like Snowball terminations, the PETM and ETM-2 and the Mid-Eocene Climatic Optimum are empirical evidence that GHGs are indeed powerful climate forcings. And you can't handle that because you are sunk to the ears in denial, aren't you Sunny? So far gone it's pretty well indistinguishable from mental illness.

So here we are once again with you, BBD, the AGW brainwashed fuckwit, not able to come up with the numbers in watts/sq,m. to support your quack “greenhouse theory.”

Even linking this muppet to the information he claims he wants isn't enough. Even with the numbers right in front of him, he still moans that he hasn't been answered. What is wrong with his brain?

What is wrong with his brain?

It has been disabled by fossil fuel funded propaganda just like the brains of this family:

Australian family sets Christmas lights world record.

I wonder what those with homes and other property destroyed or family killed or injured, by early onset wild-fires will think?

Season of good will or wilful misuse of energy?

Sometimes Lionel, I am at a loss. I simply do not know how to deal with the Sunspots of this world. People who elevate bad faith to a way of life. People who reject the facts, the evidence, the truth with a fervour akin to religious zeal. People who will not fucking learn no matter how often you put the information they need to improve their understanding right under their noses.

People who are paranoid and so warped by their own sense of inadequacy that they hate, fear and mistrust scientists and science - which really means "intelligent people and knowledge". Hate instead of curiosity. Seeing conspiracies where there are none. Aggressively rejecting any and every opportunity to learn.

It's outside the realm of my experience. I literally cannot imagine what it must be like to be Sunny and the rest of the climate clowns. They aren't in the same mental space most of us inhabit, which is why I've increasingly come to regard them as mentally ill.

...mentally ill.

Certainly mentally defective and sociopathic.

It is the 'Me Me Mine' syndrome and demonstrates a lack of evolutionary development away from the bludgeon of the hunter gatherer life style (have to kill, capture, grab everything in sight in spite of need) to the more co-operative survival skills which are now required.

From the ideas of Jared Diamond (and I note attempts of late to deprecate his work) these, the Macksorwhatevers, are the 'Easter Islanders'.

BTW I have just added the new SkS widget which is best with FireFox as IE mungs it. Yes it is IE not the web page, that from BobS.

The important thing about cranks theories from crank theorists like Mackspot are that they're never tested (to destruction).

As soon as a challenge is mounted the Mackspot style theorist disappears and lays low until the coast seems clear to re-iterate their nonsense again until challenged. At which point the cycle repeats, again and again ad nauseam.

Which is one reason mainstream peer-reviewed science as used by governments (or any other would-be rational body) is held up to crank ridicule.

A crank can't be persuaded to rationality. They can only be left to abandon crankdom of their own volition, most likely when chickens come home to roost if at all..

Multisock at #37. I think you've misunderstood Typically, radiative forcing is quantified at the tropopause in units of watts per square meter of earth's surface. as
... watts per square metre at the earth's surface.

By turboblocke (not verified) on 25 Nov 2013 #permalink

Sorry turboblocke at # 45, the thermosphere is also part of the Earth's atmosphere and for radiative calculations of energy gain or loss from this planet...must also be considered....much to the chagrin of the concocters of this quack "greenhouse" theory. Hence this tropopause cloak of nonsense.

Hence this tropopause cloak of nonsense.

You are the one hiding behind a cloak of nonsense. Stop the transparently diversionary bollocks and address the questions you are desperately trying to evade. See #39.

Let's see you demonstrate some intellectual honesty, for the first time ever at Deltoid.

@ BBD # 39 It's the SUN stupid . What part of "sticking a snowball in front of a heat -lamp and it melts " don't you understand, you clueless, gullible, myopic, indoctrinated twat.

@ BBD # 40..." Even with the numbers right in front of him"
Well what I read is..."Radiative forcing for doubling of CO2 as calculated by radiative transfer code Modtran" Modtran is just model formulae with built in huge assumtions, all unreal and all wrong. ie. crap in..bullshit out. Hi-tran , Modtran, whatever, the numbers in front of me BBD, are all bullshit and fantasy. Next.

Oh, and to pre-empt any more diversionary bollocks on the height of the TOA, it is not explicitly defined and will vary depending on sub-discipline. The range is tropopause to mid-stratosphere. Deniers have previously attempted to twist this into an anti-science argument but it fails when you point out that so long as studies are internally consistent - and they generally are - there is no problem.

The fake argument about observational - model comparisons being invalidated by TOA definitional uncertainty is dealt with in Loeb et al. (2009).

Now back to hyperthermals as evidence for the efficacy of GHG forcing.

How can they *not* be, Sunny?

The sun wasn't hot enough to overcome the albedo effect in the first place, or the Snowball Earth could not have happened you clueless, gullible, myopic, indoctrinated twat.

* * *

the numbers in front of me BBD, are all bullshit and fantasy. Next.

Denying evidence isn't even an argument, Sunny. It's just the crudest form of denial. Doesn't even merit a response. You lose by default.

You are mentally ill, Sunspot. Really. You need to stop this stupidity and get yourself medical help. Ranting at me on the Internet isn't going to do you any good at all, in fact I think being confronted with your illness actually forces you to retreat deeper into denial.

Gotta luv the verbal crap from this BBD ignorant fool.
" The fake arguement about observational - model comparisons being invalidated by TOA definitional uncertainty is dealt with in Loeb et al 2009"
Nah BBD, it reads like this...."The real arguement about observational - model comparisons is highlighted by the fake definition of the atmosphere chosen as 20km by Loeb et al 2009"

"@ BBD # 39 It’s the SUN stupid "

what? Do you believe only you have ever spotted that glowy ball thing that comes up during the day, Spots?

No wonder you fail so hard "explaining" your points: your gauge of how dumb people are is well out of kilter.

PS "Gotta luv the verbal crap" and " ignorant fool." from Spots is LOL-worthy to the max.

There you go again. First you dismiss the AGGI (greenhouse gas forcing data) as "all bullshit and fantasy" and now Loeb et al. 2009 is "fake".

You can't simply dismiss everything you don't like as lies, Sunny. That's symptomatic of mental illness - pathological denial.

Go and see your doctor and get referred to a mental health specialist. Now.

Mackulus.

Before we chip away again at your 'understanding' of the greenhouse effect, would you care to explain to the world how a sun with flat-to-decreasing output over the last few decades can simultaneously warm a planet, and do so by especially causing disproportionate warming in winter and at night?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 26 Nov 2013 #permalink

Some variation on "GCR!", but ask how GCRs will do that and you get "Whooosh!" as the goalposts are shifted and a link that doesn't answer the query is pushed as an answer to the query.

If "it's the sun", then how the BF did the climate system first enter a Snowball state? This is what Spots overlooked.

It's really that simple to demonstrate that it's not the sun. The albedo cooling has to outweigh solar forcing for the Snowball to happen in the first place. Once that has happened, albedo will always outweigh solar forcing in the planetary energy balance unless solar output is cranked up by a significant percentage - much greater than the slight increase due to stellar evolution over ~10Ma. Or unless another forcing is turned up instead.

Poor Spots is in a very tight corner here, which is why he's turned nasty and retreated into worryingly pathological denial.

Oh, I can answer that for Mack, BBD.

Snowball Earth occurred because the sun was cool at the time. When it het back up, the earth defrosted. No CO2 needed. See, it's all just sun cycles that the commie pommie climate scientists are hiding just so they can keep researching. But they are wrong, so there needs to be more research. Just different research, that produces different results. You know, real science that tells us nothing is wrong and even if there were there is nothing we can do.

That's how it goes, right?

Oh crap, I totally forgot.

Also, VOLCANOES! Which totally just warm the atmosphere by being space heaters. That they also emit massive amounts of greenhouse gasses is totes not the point because there's no such thing as greenhouse gasses, and also, forcings are just a commie pommie term that have no real thermometer at 2m in my back yard consequences.

How am I doing, MackKarenSunspot?

It's early work. If you want to see where Pierrehumbert went with that, have a look at Abbot & Pierrehumbert (2010) and Abbot et al. (2012). The first deals with hypothesised reduction in equatorial surface albedo and the second with cloud forcing. In each case the amount of CO2 required to force deglaciation falls from unfeasibly high to somewhere between 10,000ppmv and 100,000ppmv - a geophysically plausible range. These came up a while back, btw.

Yes they did come up a while back BBD but are definitely relevant to many of your posts at this thread.
The next 2 papers rely heavily on the first one, they have mostly updated and used the foam experiments.
The major finding is that the snowball earth & deglaciation doesn't need CO2 to occur.
The current CO2 ppm is not anywhere near the lowest required estimate for it to make any significant contribution.
The water cycle is the likely major player according to these studies.

Bernerd,
You are now refering to me as Mackulus, so seem to have exorcised some personality as a "multiple sock" from your head. On the strength of that and because it looks like you've asked me a genuine question...comment # 56. I'll respond if you promise to keep it clean without reference to assholes.
'.....especially causing disproportionate warming in winter and at night ?"
At this point you were going to send me to Sceptical Science where John Cook pulls out some strawman statistics (you know..lies and statistics) saying that the nights are warming faster than the days (over time) This, of course, is evidence of your "greenhouse effect".
But the thing is Bernerd, you like all the other gullible believers here have been sucked into a "greenhouse effect" by the compelling illusion of cloud cover at night. (and winter, in your case) keeping things warm.
Here's my explanation to Dr Roy Spencer.....
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/direct-evidence-of-earths-greenhous…

Stu 2

The major finding is that the snowball earth & deglaciation doesn’t need CO2 to occur.

Utter bollocks. You clearly have not read either paper. Who the fuck do you think you are dealing with?

This is why 'discussion' with fake sceptics is such a frustration and a waste of time. They just say stuff. Not having a sodding clue and not doing any reading never gets in the way of saying stuff. And the stuff they say is self-serving lies. Every time. And then they whine that they aren't taken seriously and everybody hates them. Well what do they expect? High praise and buttered muffins?

FFS.

Abbot & Pierrehumbert (2010):

Recent modeling results have raised doubts about the ability to deglaciate from a global glaciation at atmospheric carbon dioxide levels that are realistic for a
Neoproterozoic Snowball Earth. Here we argue that over the lifetime of a Snowball event, ice dynamics should lead to the development of a layer of continental and volcanic dust at
the ice surface in the tropics that would significantly lower the tropical surface albedo and encourage deglaciation. This idea leads to the prediction that clay drapes found on top of Neoproterozoic glaciations should be thicker in tropical than extratropical regions. We test this idea by running the FOAM general circulation model (GCM) with an added tropical dust layer of different sizes and albedos and find that the tropical dust layer causes Snowball deglaciation at pCO2 = 0.01–0.1 bar in a reasonable regime of these parameters. We find similar, though more nuanced, results from a limited number of test casesusing National Center for Atmospheric Research’s CAM GCM.

* * *

Abbot et al. (2012):

According to the Snowball Earth hypothesis,
the entire ocean was covered with ice during these events for a few million years, during which time volcanic CO2 increased enough to cause deglaciation. Geochemical proxy data and model calculations suggest that the maximum CO2 was 0.01–0.1 by volume, but early climate modeling suggested that deglaciation was not possible at CO2 = 0.2. We use results from six different general circulation models (GCMs) to show that clouds could warm a Snowball enough to reduce the CO2 required for deglaciation by a factor of 10–100. Although more work is required to rigorously validate cloud schemes in Snowball-like conditions, our results suggest that Snowball deglaciation is consistent with observations.

This means that deglaciation occurs in the range CO2 = 0.01 - 0.1 bar (10,000 ppm - 100,000 ppm). This is the range consistent with geochemical proxies. This range is consistent with earlier work (see above).

BTW neither of these papers discusses the role of CO2 vs albedo in the events leading up to Snowball Earth glaciations. That's just gratuitous crap you added in either out of dishonesty or ignorance.

Yes they did come up a while back BBD but are definitely relevant to many of your posts at this thread.

They came up because I referenced them you blithering idiot. Try reading the sodding thread - and the references *you* post. Or by God I'll show you up for the posturing little buffoon you are.

Here’s my explanation to Dr Roy Spencer…..

Regardless of the content, I would never venture so far as to explain anything to Dr Roy Spencer.

I might, just, dare to ask a question in a leading fashion if it was a topic I felt confident on. Normally I'd leave it to the folks with the credible credentials.

adelady

To cap this staggering hubris, the SunSock self-describes in that comment as:

an internet trained armchair climatologist

I mean WTF? Words just bloody fail me sometimes.

It's called humour you sad-assed fuckwit.

BBD there's no need to show what a blundering moron Spots is, they're doing a sterling job themselves of proving THAT case.

Use the shit-flinging fuckwit as a psychological punching bag and vent the frustration of dealing with the less moronic, but still incapable of changing their mind morons you meat IRL and on more sane locations on this deserving thundering moron.

Because apparently Spots gets off on this sort of thing. Thrives on it, apparently. No other explanation can cover it: they either benefit or enjoy displaying such rank and obvious ignorance.

I.e. they're a troll.

You're not feeding the troll, you're using it.

meat == meet.

Auto-correction on fingertips is uninstallable.

No it isn't. I read your comment at Spencer's. You were serious. And now, called out for your ludicrous arrogance, you are lying to cover your embarrassment. There's nothing humorous about liars, especially ignorant, mentally ill climate liars.

Really, spots, humour?

It needs to have some possibility of being funny to be that.

It's about as "funny" as a threat to kill your dog.

"Oh, I was only JOKING!".

Wow - we crossed.

I do use Socks as a punchbag. I thought that was obvious. The pressure-valve helps keep me civil and sane elsewhere. IOW, it is as you suggest.

'As I was explaining to Jim Hansen only the other day...'

Keriste on a bike, the Stupid is bottomless!

You are now refering to me as Mackulus, so seem to have exorcised some personality as a “multiple sock” from your head.

Not really, but perhaps if I'd stuck to "Mackula", or even less subtlely to "Macula", it would have been more apparent.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 27 Nov 2013 #permalink

"I thought that was obvious."

It's not to some, however, BBD. You will get some going "Don't feed the trolls".

In the words of Bill Withers, "It all depends on what you do.". Use him up.

It’s called humour you sad-assed fuckwit.

And there you just double down on the ignorant stupid. If that is your sense of humour then there is little hope that any explanation of anything will make an impression on that tortured thing that passes for your brain.

But the thing is Bernerd, you like all the other gullible believers here have been sucked into a “greenhouse effect” by the compelling illusion of cloud cover at night. (and winter, in your case) keeping things warm.

Oh you twerp, the reduction of diurnal temperature differences demonstrates that it is not the sun causing warming but all the heat building up in Earth's systems because heat is accumulating faster than escaping thanks to the properties of GHG molecules and how they respond to specific wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum.

Here you are learn some stuff .

But fat chance of that latter happening for you have been pointed to that and other sources previously. So, if you conti9nue refusing to study the subject at hand then you have no grope with any rough dealings you get here.

Another thing check out the film 'Chasing Ice' by James Balog a guy who has put his health and finances on the line to show the world what is happening to the cryosphere, and happening so fast that rapid geological change is under way thanks to that warming. It is partly due to the melting of all that ice that the surface temperatures have not gone up in tune with the increase in energy imbalance.

When all that ice is gone, displacing billions of people from the rising seas (the film is a stunning representation of how the meltwater drains through moulins and runs out between the overlaying ice and the bedrock, causing further instability.

I mean, heck, the shit is now hitting the fan and we are getting it back.

WTF can you not understand this!

And another thing for the clueless intransigent barstewards here,

just up at Coby's place , study it closely and meld with information that you will gain if you follow the advice to study in the post above.

All SunSock's silly physics denial and gross misunderstandings of the basics (see his Spencer links - put down your coffee first) has not equipped him to answer two simple questions:

1/ How do we explain hyperthermals *without* CO2 forcing?

2/ How did the climate system get out of the albedo-locked icehouse state of Snowball Earth *without* CO2 forcing?

* * *

Hey, Sunny, if CO2 has a cooling effect and there is no positive WV feedback, why was it so hot ~50Ma (Eocene Climatic Optimum)? CO2 was ~1500ppm then and only ~280ppm in the pre-industrial Holocene but the climate system has slowly cooled for the last fifty million years. This appears to falsify both your hypotheses. Care to explain?

PS - it wasn't the sun. Solar output has increased slightly (~1W/m^2) since then as a result of stellar evolution. But we got *cooler*, remember. Much cooler.

Cenozoic surface temperature (after Zachos et al. 2008).

Fracking in the UK.

The ugly side of police activity around an area being 'processed' without planning permission, and some would say we have democracy!

Fracking the UK, Latest Digest, Week Ending 1st December 2013

Watch the included video.

There are Australian companies, if you can call them that, involved in the UK scenario as well as with the Coal Bed Methane (CBM) and allied processes where underground coal seams are ignited and driven off hydrocarbons collected. Also driven out are millions of gallons of water that has been marinading the coal seams for millennia and thus contains many toxic nasties including radioactive materials.

This nonsense will have to be stopped.

Maybe when those police thugs start seeing their property values undercut, and the properties uninsurable because the ground upon which they are built has been fracked or CBMed beneath.

@Stu 2:

The major finding is that the snowball earth & deglaciation doesn’t need CO2 to occur.

Obvious and stupid lie. You suck at this. Stop embarrassing yourself.

@KarenMackSunspot:

You are now refering to me as Mackulus, so seem to have exorcised some personality as a “multiple sock” from your head.

So you are attempting to imply that if at any time anyone fails to refer to you with more than one of your many, many sockpuppets, they are suddenly oblivious of you committing the most pathetic act on a comment thread -- sockpuppetry -- and that you are now being respected, and because of that you will suddenly deign to answer a question?

Fuck you and the horse you rode in on, you pathetic lying weasel.

@ Stu

Fuck you and the horse you rode in on, you pathetic lying weasel.

Stop pussyfooting around! SunSock needs a firm hand.

;-)

Stu. Well said. Odds that Stu2 is another sock of the antipodean version of the swiss psychopath?

BBD.
@ # 65 to #67.
" Who the fuck do you think you are dealing with?"
Is this a question that you need me to answer?
If it is, I have no idea who you are and further I find your question completely irrelevant, including much of the rest of your comments to me that have resorted to petty name calling and rather ironically some posturing on your part.
And here:
"BTW neither of these papers discusses the role of CO2 vs albedo in the events leading up to Snowball Earth glaciations"
I am wondering why that is your assumption from my comment above?
The papers were researching the possible influence of CO2 using a number of different GCMs and switching different variables on and off.
They conclude that anything under 10,000ppm of CO2 would not play a significant role in deglaciation.
That does mean that deglaciation can occur without CO2 playing a role.
Considering levels are at approx. 400ppm currently the bulk of your assertions at this thread are not really supported by this research but neither are they disproved.
I note earlier in this thread that you dismiss any influence of volcanism via heat and particles other than C02 as inconsequential (I think you called them tiny flickers?).

These studies further conclude that, the accumulation of dust and cloud formations and therefore the well known physical relationship between the sun and H20 (including the albedo effect) is the most likely contributor.
Here:
"Snowball by the mechanisms discussed in section 2. It
seems highly probably that 1–10 m of dust would have a significant effect on the surface albedo and potentially other
important processes such as evaporation" (page 5)

These papers are relevant to what is being discussed at this thread and whether you linked them first or not doesn't mean anything.

They conclude that anything under 10,000ppm of CO2 would not play a significant role in deglaciation.

That does mean that deglaciation can occur without CO2 playing a role.

Woah! You have it arse backwards.

The quotes that BBD provided indicate that in their model deglaciation requires AT LEAST 10,000ppm CO2 in the presence of a dust layer in order to occur. Without the dust layer CO2 concentrations of about 200,000ppm would be required.

I note that in both cases a significant amount of CO2 is required for deglaciation. A requirement that must be satisfied for an event to occur is generally considered to "play a significant role" in that event.

You appear to be arguing that because certain minimum threshold CO2 levels are a requirement in their models (those thresholds being quite high without the dust layer and merely high with the dust layer) that below those threshold CO2 levels deglaciation can occur.

I do not think you understand what "required" means.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 27 Nov 2013 #permalink

Stu 2

Oh come on. At least try. Read Lotharsson's comment, then re-read what I have said to you so far, then read the papers properly with your brain switched on. You are making a comically horrible mess out of this.

* * *

And inter alia, cut out the shite. Eg. this sort of thing:

“BTW neither of these papers discusses the role of CO2 vs albedo in the events leading up to Snowball Earth glaciations”

I am wondering why that is your assumption from my comment above?

At #63 you wrote:

The major finding is that the snowball earth & deglaciation doesn’t need CO2 to occur.

That is you saying that the "major finding" of these papers was that CO2 had no influence either on the inception or termination of SE climate states.

I'm not posturing - I am pointing out that you are making stuff up and that everything you say is rubbish. Now you are denying this, which is deeply stupid of you given the evidence before our eyes.

Stop wasting everyone's time.

And since you seem incapable of understanding the depths of your transgression at #63 and consequently my reaction to your apparent mendacity at #65, I suppose I'd better go over that as well.

Is this a question that you need me to answer?

No, you are being as literal minded as a bucket. It was a rhetorical question prompted by your astonishing misrepresentation of the Abbot papers. It was a near-involuntary reaction. How could you *possibly* expect to get away with this factual inversion - however confidently delivered - when you are discussing these studies with someone who has actually read them? WTF was going through your head?

If you aren't simply lying then you are desperately floundering out of your depth and it's well past time you let this go and avoid similar forays into the unknown in future. I've had to warn others not to misrepresent paleoclimate studies here and now I'm warning you.

OMG!
No wonder this place has turned into a sad and bitter little backwater!
BBD et al are in overdrive!
There really is no point Stu 2. Unless you bow and scrape and non conditionally agree with the meme, you will be either:
a) Personally attacked and/or accused as a conspiratal 'sock' or:
b) They will sook and whine to the moderator and you will be moderated out of the discussion or:
c) Even put into a separate thread.

By chameleon (not verified) on 28 Nov 2013 #permalink

Christopher Monckton on climate modellers asked in a rather garbled question and here teased out:

Q

“What do you think about the climate scientists who actually do, hum ??? find that in their research 'inaudible' one hundred percent up, no doubt man-made, climate change is upon us and something we 'should stop?'. So, you know, what about that science.”

A Monckton

'The only scientists who are capable of coming to a conclusion as barking mad as that are computer modellers. These are typically zitty teenagers sitting in dark rooms with a can of Coca-Cola and too many doughnuts and playing on their X-Box 360s.'

Brought to you from ExposeTheBastards

Who is barking mad here?

I wonder if MS realise that their X-Box users are portrayed in this way? I'll bet they are pleased.
:

BBD,
I don't have a single problem with Lotharrson's comment other that the fixation on the word *required* and some irrelevant personal comments about what I *appear* to be arguing. Lotharrson clearly notes that:
in both cases a significant amount of CO2 is required for deglaciation.
Which is not particularly different to my comment other than the fact that these papers also point out that the water cycle is most probably the key player.
All 3 papers very clearly point out that much more needs to be done to better understand the role of CO2 in deglaciation.
Your comment on the other hand looks more like a strange combination of teacher's pet and schoolyard bully. Both being rather childish and not really worth taking seriously.

Which is not particularly different to my comment

Um, no, you have reversed yourself. You have gone from:

The major finding is that the snowball earth & deglaciation doesn’t need CO2 to occur.

To:

in both cases a significant amount of CO2 is required for deglaciation.

And *still* you misrepresent the studies:

the fact that these papers also point out that the water cycle is most probably the key player.

No, they deal with factors that may have reduced the amount of CO2 - the requirement that must be satisfied - necessary to trigger deglaciation.

You are still mixing dishonesty and incomprehension while trying to make out that the faults lie elsewhere.

I could easily dismiss what you are doing here as rather childish and not worth taking seriously.

Before we go any further, please indicate which one of these mutually exclusive positions you accept:

1/

The major finding is that the snowball earth & deglaciation doesn’t need CO2 to occur.

Or:

2/

in both cases a significant amount of CO2 is required for deglaciation.

Smoke and mirrors BBD.
Those comments are not mutually exclusive. But if you want to argue that they are you go right ahead.

Please pick one, as requested.

They're not 'mutually exclusive'? What planet are you on?

I believe I live on a planet that experiences deglaciation at CO2 ppm way below the minimum *required* ppm discussed in these papers Bill.
That's according to paleo evidence as well as deglaciation in modern times.

I believe I live on a planet that experiences deglaciation at CO2 ppm way below the minimum *required* ppm discussed in these papers Bill.

Well, deglaciation is occurring with the present rising levels of CO2. Perhaps the fact that we've warmed well past SE conditions may have something to do with that continuing effect.
Or are you attempting (but failing) to imply something else?

I believe I live on a planet that experiences deglaciation at CO2 ppm way below the minimum *required* ppm discussed in these papers Bill.
That’s according to paleo evidence as well as deglaciation in modern times.

And Stu2's equivalency is valid because, just like in the studies we are deglaciating from Snowball Earth conditions.

"Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
Wolfgang Pauli

'Not even wrong' indeed! If you imagine you're making a point, Stootoo, you're not.

Explicate or surrender!

Stu 2 is not even honest, never mind not even wrong.

Why hasn't he picked one of the two mutually exclusive statements yet?

1/

The major finding is that the snowball earth & deglaciation doesn’t need CO2 to occur.

Or:

2/

in both cases a significant amount of CO2 is required for deglaciation.

Come on, Stu 2. Pick one. And no more stupid lies about them not being mutually exclusive please. Even you must have felt a bit sick about that one.

* * *

That’s according to paleo evidence as well as deglaciation in modern times.

What paleo evidence for SE deglaciation below 10,000ppm CO2, Stu 2? I'm moderately familiar with this topic and I don't know what you are referring to. Please be specific.

As for Quaternary deglaciations, chek and FrankD are correct: there is no valid comparison. NH glaciations to ~30 degrees latitude are minor affairs compared to the SE 'white planet' albedo. Your attempted comparison is meaningless (and desperate).

* * *

As this couldn't really be much worse, Stu 2, why don't you do what any reasonable person acting in good faith would do and concede the point? Admit that you are wrong and accept that Snowball Earth deglaciation is triggered once CO2 increases beyond a threshold value >10,000ppm but probably not higher than 100,000ppm. Why is is so difficult for you to admit that CO2 is required to terminate SE states?

Typo - should be:

NH glaciations to ~40 degrees latitude

...in both cases a significant amount of CO2 is required for deglaciation.
Which is not particularly different to my comment...

It's the precise opposite of your comment.

I'm quite happy for you to say you misspoke or were misinterpreted, and then to clarify the matter. That's what reasonable people do. But pretending that black is white is simply not reasonable.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 29 Nov 2013 #permalink

The water cycle is the likely major player according to these studies.

OK. the water cycle is a lever now tell me what is applying the force.

" OK the water cycle is a lever now tell me what is applying the force." Looney Lionel applies his brain to some high school fizzics. Like carbonated water fizz- icks. .

” OK the water cycle is a lever now tell me what is applying the force.” Looney Lionel applies his brain to some high school fizzics. Like carbonated water fizz- icks. .

Oh no you don't. You have too many outstanding questions to answer. You can't just scuttle away and then pop up a few days later demanding that others jump through your hoops.

Start here:

1/ How do we explain hyperthermals *without* CO2 forcing?

2/ How did the climate system get out of the albedo-locked icehouse state of Snowball Earth *without* CO2 forcing?

3/ If, as you claim, CO2 has a cooling effect and there is no positive WV feedback, why was it so hot ~50Ma (Eocene Climatic Optimum)? CO2 was ~1000 - 1500ppm then and only ~280ppm in the pre-industrial Holocene but the climate system has slowly cooled for the last fifty million years. This appears to falsify both your hypotheses.

PS – it wasn’t the sun. Solar output has increased slightly (F=~1W/m^2) since then as a result of stellar evolution. But we got *cooler*, remember. Much cooler.

Cenozoic surface temperature (after Zachos et al. 2008).

Cue further physics denial, aka pathological denial aka mental illness.

"OK. the water cycle is a lever now tell me what is applying the force."

Pedals, obviously.

God is pedalling a water cycle and that causes warming from God's body and the rain is His sweat.

Actually, if this were spots' assertion, it would be one of the most coherent one it has tried.

Isn't a Divine Blowtorch involved somewhere? Or perhaps the Divine Flatus (arf, arf) get's torched somewhere along the line?

Eh? "gets". FFS.

HA! Apostrophe in the wrong place!

THAT PROVES AGW is a conspiracy!!!!

(pants on head, pencils up nostrils, "Wibble Wibble!")

Isn’t a Divine Blowtorch involved somewhere?

Ha! Yes. Something like that. :-)

If awake lacklustre MackaYack you would have first seen that suggestion here, is that what happens?

I did first write "OK. the hydrological cycle is a lever now tell me what is applying the force. but thought that big word would go over MackaYack's head and get lost, when in the event the simpleton's version went straight through it 'cause there was nothing to stop it.

I see that the Mackspotty finger is firmly back in the 'Karen' sock - or what my 14 year old daughter refers to as the creepy old man hiding behind the sock of a twittery adolescent girl.

According to the local climate skeptic (denier) Paul Murray in the West,The American meteorological Society has poo pooed the idea that 90% of climate scientists agree with anthropological climate change so he says.
They say 52% and a lot of that is political views,Murray also has a go at Flannery and Steffen also Karoly who he says is making it up.
In WA which is a one newspaper town The West who Murray worked for as editor before being removed he now writes opinion pieces for the West,now on 6PR as shlock jock talk back in Mornings.
Now shifted to Afternoons as the paper is owned by K Stokes,I looked for article online at American meteorological Society but no joy.
Maybe some other WA people on here can read it and clarify things as this kind of thing does nobody any favors
hope some one can help,

John

The AMS survey was of meteorologists and not climate scientists - there's some overlap, but not enough for conflation. So the claim that "the American meteorological Society has poo pooed the idea that 90% of climate scientists agree with anthropological climate change" is simply false.

Second, it's important to read the abstract to the AMS survey closely. Meteorologists are asked their views on climate change and a clear pattern emerges. Poor topic knowledge and political orientation are strongly correlated with rejection of the scientific consensus and a contrarian view:

In this paper we tested four hypotheses: (1) perceived conflict about global warming will be negatively associated - and (2) climate expertise, (3) liberal political ideology, and (4) perceived scientific consensus will be positively associated - with (a) higher personal certainty that global warming is happening, (b) viewing the global warming observed over the past 150 years as mostly human-caused, and (c) perception of global warming as harmful. All four hypotheses were confirmed. Expertise, ideology, perceived consensus and perceived conflict were all independently related to respondents' views on climate, with perceived consensus and political ideology being most strongly related.

No surprise at all there: politics and contrarianism, as ever, as always.

More from Media Matters here.

Hope this helps.

Notice that those with the least credentials exhibit the most Denial.

DK.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 01 Dec 2013 #permalink

BBD and Lotharrson,
It was not necessary for me to pick a statement because I disagree that
a) In context , they are mutually exclusive or
b) that it is the exact opposite.
Further BBD; I am not arguing that these studies show that CO2 needs to be at least 10,000ppm (as long as there is a thick dust layer and clay drapes) before it would play a *significant* role in deglaciation.
The observation remains that deglaciation occurs with CO2 ppm way under these levels.
You are attempting to lay smoke and mirrors or construct an odd type of chicken and egg argument.
Read your comments through this thread and notice how you discount any other likely triggers and levers in favour of CO2.
These studies do not conclude that CO2 is the only or even necessarily the most likely *significant* forcing that predicated deglaciation.
Perhaps I have misinterpreted you?
Lionel.
As well as being a lever, the *hydrological* cycle (also well known as the water cycle) creates a *forcing*. This also gets assisted by the inclusion of dust and particulates on the surface of the ice and snow which then includes the albedo effect.

Schnooooooorrrrreeee, whoooooooo.... Schnooooooorrrrrrreee, whoooooooo.... sorry, must have dropped off... you're still here, Stootoo?

What it is Bill, I don't think it's sunk in that the cretin level of anything-but-CO2 argument is analogous to insisting that automobiles require a pedestrian with a red flag to walk ahead to warn the unsuspecting populace lest they take an attack of the vapours.

The world has moved on from S2's level of comprehension decades ago - cranks, paid liars and their stooges excepted of course..

Whoops, trooooooeeeeee.....

Wait wait wait, 2.... I might have missed a few comments here.

Are you saying that the hydrological cycle ended snowball earth?

Yes. Yes he is.

No. I mean, seriously, no. REALLY?

Actually that is a strange question Stu.
I was merely pointing out to Lionel that the water cycle does not simply behave as a lever, it too creates *forcings* in the climate.
Are you now perhaps suggesting that the water cycle has nothing to do with deglaciation and the unlocking of snowball earth?

That was not the question. Christ, do you all have to be such transparent, ignorant, pathetic weasels?

You have implied, so far, that it was NOT CO2, and from there have implied it was the hydrological cycle. You got called on it. Now you've already backpedaled to a sad "something to do with it". You're no longer allowed to use the word "forcing" until you take the twenty seconds to look it up.

You should have taken my advice and cut your losses. You SUCK at this. You are ignorant. You wouldn't know a logical argument if it teabagged you for a fortnight, physics if it donkey punched you or climate science if you married it.

Nope Stu, you asked a stupid question and got exactly what you deserved.
Chucking a tantrum doesn't change that :-)

By chameleon (not verified) on 02 Dec 2013 #permalink

Stu,
Your question was simply ridiculous.
I answered with a similarly structured question.
Clearly, you don't like that any better than I do!
I was simply pointing out to Lionel that the water cycle is both a lever and a *forcing*.
Maybe you should go back and reread the thread?
I linked the Abbot et al paper as relevant research.
Maybe you could read that as well?
BBD is obsessing over one sentence that has been taken out of context.
I don't regard that as my problem, but if you want to argue that it is, you go right ahead.
It doesn't mean anything and doesn't prove anything but maybe it makes you feel better somehow?

Maybe the deniers' anthem ought to be "I'm walking back wards, for Christmas"...

Christ, you're a stupid liar.

In case you got confused, you entered the topic with

The major finding is that the snowball earth & deglaciation doesn’t need CO2 to occur.

Which is idiotic, not backed by current research, yet after being corrected you doubled down with this (glaring non sequitur aside, since you're wrong in either era)

The current CO2 ppm is not anywhere near the lowest required estimate for it to make any significant contribution. The water cycle is the likely major player according to these studies.

These are from your first two comments on the subject.... so either this was a different "Stu 2", or you're full of it.

Friendly advice: your pathetic waffling and frantic backpedaling does not work when people can look up what you actually said.

Stu 2's nonsense isn't worth further bother. He's yet another dishonest denier ignoramus who is either too stupid or too mendacious (or both) to concede that his 'argument' is junk.

Instead of disappearing - which would have been wiser - he's just making an irritating noise. It's all he has left. Actually, it's all he started with.

BBD is obsessing over one sentence that has been taken out of context.
I don’t regard that as my problem, but if you want to argue that it is, you go right ahead.

You are a liar many times over.

And a measure of your craven dishonesty is that you still haven't answered the original question. A pitiful, unpleasant spectacle. Where is your shame? Have you not one shred of integrity?

As well as being a lever, the *hydrological* cycle (also well known as the water cycle) creates a *forcing*.

So in an ice locked world, with not water vapour in the atmosphere, what supplies the force(ing)?

The hydrological cycle is a feedback to solar forcing.

BBD

Yes I know. I was wondering if the troll would wake up and see that.

The typo here may have made you think that I was confused:

'So in an ice locked world, with not water vapour....'

should be 'no water vapour'.

I wonder if Stu 2 is so desperate because he knows that if he accepts the fact that CO2 forcing is required to break out of the albedo-locked icehouse, the remorseless nature of physics compels him to accept a lot more besides.

For instance that GHG forcing is required to explain hyperthermals and has emerged as the best explanation for the slow cooling over the last ~50Ma. All of which neatly sets the stage for some more standard climate science: ECS/2xCO2 is about 3C and we have a very serious problem on our hands.

Our little CO2 deniers can't stand the thought of that, can they? Hence the endless outpouring of utterly mediocre 'reasoning' and pig-stupid physics denial, eg. this thread.

BBD,
It's not necessary to answer your question because it was a question that obsessed over a single sentence that you have taken out of context.
You have chosen to ignore any other comment or observation by me in favour of that single obsession. You have also structured your questioning in a similar manner to Stu.
So ironically, you are correct, it isn't worth bothering about.
Your assumptions about my character and intelligence are at best, very amusing to read but, again ironically, actually reveal more about you than anything else.

Ah, why is it no denier can ever admit they're wrong, mo matter how blatantly obvious the case?

Shorter StooToo: I am as dim as a sack of coal. And I am full of myself, as well as of it.

Snap - I was just about to link to that! Sometimes the Crikey! subscription isn't just about FDotM...

On a less hopeful note, Australia's Peter Christoff is not exactly optimistic about the future:

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2013/s3903815.htm

Christoff's comments are measured and informed, and his observations on the effect of late action should have any genuine leader sitting up in his or her seat.

In light of these comments I cannot believe the obstinate idiocy of the Coalition, who are willing to destroy their grandchildren's world for whatever passes as thought in their minds. And they can't ever say that they weren't told, because we're telling them over and over and over again.

And for those trolls who would shout "alarmist!", it's only alarmist if the warnings are overblown. The warnings from science are certainly alarming but they are also conservative and that means that they are most definitely not alarmist.

What is alarmist is the nonsense that we "can't afford to act". Humanity cannot afford to not act, and it cannot afford to not act immediately.

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

Dang, missed a closing tag...

On a less hopeful note, Australia's Peter Christoff is not exactly optimistic about the future:

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2013/s3903815.htm

Christoff's comments are measured and informed, and his observations on the effect of late action should have any genuine leader sitting up in his or her seat.

In light of these comments I cannot believe the obstinate idiocy of the Coalition, who are willing to destroy their grandchildren's world for whatever passes as thought in their minds. And they can't ever say that they weren't told, because we're telling them over and over and over again.

And for those trolls who would shout "alarmist!", it's only alarmist if the warnings are overblown. The warnings from science are certainly alarming but they are also conservative and that means that they are most definitely not alarmist.

What is alarmist is the nonsense that we "can't afford to act". Humanity cannot afford to not act, and it cannot afford to not act immediately.

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

More desperate and risible lies from Stu 2.

That's hilarious BBD! :-) :-) :-)
Stu 2 is not the one who looks desperate.
That would be you :-) :-) :-).

By chameleon (not verified) on 03 Dec 2013 #permalink

BBD,
In the interest of restoring a genuine discussion, can I suggest that you try asking a different and better question?

In the interest of a genuine discussion, can you please answer my original question*s* (all of them) and demonstrate some good faith?

Because what you are doing here is vile. You are trapped by your own lies, and now try to present this as a failing on my part.

Fuck off with that, Stu 2. It will not stand.

It was not necessary for me to pick a statement because I disagree that
a) In context , they are mutually exclusive or
b) that it is the exact opposite.

Sigh. We know.

I have indicated out that it's very very difficult to honestly interpret the two statements as not being mutually exclusive. You have utterly failed to show how a plausible reading could render them not mutually exclusive. You've done a bit of waffling and hand waving in your own inimitable style, complete with some red herrings about the water cycle, but you simply haven't shown why everyone but you is wrong about the mutual exclusivity of the statements in question.

I can only hope that in your own mind you think you have actually shown this so the failure is one of miscommunication or misinterpretation rather than mendacity.

The observation remains that deglaciation occurs with CO2 ppm way under these levels.

Which observation? If you're referring to the papers in question, then the quotes BBD gave from those papers say the opposite.

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

If you've ever wondered why you remain in moderation, Chameleon, you need only read your last half-dozen "contributions" here.

BBD et al.
You have apparently misinterpreted and then obsessed over one sentence.
Considering your continuing obsessive behaviour I would be inclined to guess that it is a wilful misinterpretation.
You are now resorting to personal attacks and abuse that include making completely unsupported statements that have absolutely nothing to do with establishing anything other than your own opinions.
There is a name for this type of behaviour:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubris
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/h/hubris.asp

You have apparently misinterpreted and then obsessed over one sentence.

No we haven't, you lying clown. You flat-out denied that CO2 plays any role in Snowball deglaciations and you were wrong. You said this:

The major finding is that the snowball earth & deglaciation doesn’t need CO2 to occur.

That is the exact opposite of what the references say. You might initially have made this error because you are stupid but persisting in it for so long proves that you are also a liar.

* * *

What paleo evidence is there for Snowball Earth deglaciation below 10,000ppm CO2? I don’t know what you are referring to. Please be specific. Link to papers. Or admit that you have no evidence and admit that you are wrong.

* * *

Finally, there is no valid comparison between Snowball Earth and Quaternary NH glaciations to ~30 degrees latitude. The latter are minor affairs compared to the Snowball Earth ‘white planet’ with its massively dominant and hyper-chilling albedo. Once again, you are simply wrong.

* * *

Why don’t you do what any reasonable person acting in good faith would do and concede the point? Admit that you are wrong and accept that the evidence suggests that Snowball Earth deglaciation is triggered once CO2 increases above 10,000ppm but probably not higher than 100,000ppm. Why is is so difficult for you to admit that CO2 is required to terminate SE states?

Why do you deny this with such ludicrous, credibility-annihilating tenacity and desperation?

What the fuck is wrong with these people?

Stootoo, when your only ally is Chebbie, even you must know you're toast. Face up to being wrong, or sod off. Or both.

Flatly denied BBD?
Where have I denied that the minimum figure of CO2 according to these papers is 10,000ppm?
Where have I exhibited that I am a CO2 'denier'?
I concede I may have misinterpreted you and you may not be claiming (as you have appeared to do at this thread) that CO2 ppm is the ONLY plausible explanation for deglaciation.
The papers find that CO2 can contribute at those hypothesised levels ALONG with other well known contributors.
They do not conclude, as you appear to be arguing, that it is ALL because of CO2.

Following on from my post at #44, Matthew England also talks about "Four Degrees of Global Warming: Australia in a Hot World" and about the consequences of the warming that are in train... and about which we're currently not only not doing anything, but about which the Coalition government is actively seeking to avoid any genuine action at all:

http://www.abc.net.au/newsradio/content/s3904315.htm

Listen and weep for your children and grandchildren.

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

what do you mean, can contribute? jeebus wept! are we talking historical events here, or what?

it's not hard: Q what ended snowball earth?

A: this didn't require CO2 to occur

B: this required a significant amount of CO2

pick one

claims of 'squirrel' and 'look, something shiny' will not be accepted

Yet another open thread. A dead blog populated by CAGW ghosts. Hillarious, dead people who don't realize they're dead.

Now the attempted backdown:

They do not conclude, as you appear to be arguing, that it is ALL because of CO2.

This is a stupid, blatant lie. Just go back and read my comments. I *never* made this argument - on the contrary I was at pains to point out that other factors modulate the amount of CO2 required to trigger SE deglaciations.

That is why I referenced the Abbot studies in the first place.

You are either unbelievably stupid with the reading comprehension of a child or a liar.

Either way I am sick of your nonsense. Time you took a hike.

Where have I denied that the minimum figure of CO2 according to these papers is 10,000ppm?

Where have I exhibited that I am a CO2 ‘denier’?

This is you, liar:

The major finding is that the snowball earth & deglaciation doesn’t need CO2 to occur.

And that has been your underlying stance all the painful way through this ridiculous exchange. And now you try to deny it.

Pathetic.

Bernard J #57

Yes, I read that last night. Just wonderful news. And whiny little Stu 2 wonders why he gets zero tolerance these days. Another deluded imbecile thinks that those of us who understand enough science to realise what is happening are the walking dead. He is quite terribly mistaken. As I have said before, the voluble deniers are the ones digging their own graves with their bare hands.

What uneducated lay denier wingnuts like Pentax cannot get though their thick heads is that the evidence for AGW as well as the weight of scientific opinion behind it is very far from being 'dead'. The recent IPCC report reinforces this; now read what the Insurance companies believe:

http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/msg/1385712193.html

Essentially, it boils down to the fact that the AGW deniers are shrinking in terms of number and their only recourse is to cover their eyes and ears and to bleat like Pentax.

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

Yes , the living dead here Pentax. Time for some more open thread for the zombies, particularly the one blubbing for the children.

Geeze you lot.
To quote Bill, what planet. . .?

By chameleon (not verified) on 04 Dec 2013 #permalink

Yes jeffie. Nowadays ipcc is 95% sure that man is responsible for the warming that hasn't occoured for the last 17 years. Clown.

And BTW it's DECEMBER!

By chameleon (not verified) on 04 Dec 2013 #permalink

jeffie dear, how would you say the VIP party went in Warsaw? What did they agree on? What did they accomplish beside a substantial amount of CO2? Which countries committed to exactly what? You know, cry wolf long enough without any wolf to be seen, people eventually stop taking you seriously. And they become, like you, a joke.

Yes jeffie. Nowadays ipcc is 95% sure that man is responsible for the warming that hasn’t occoured for the last 17 years. Clown.

Not this lie *again*. How can you be so dishonest?

Even the incomplete surface temperature record disproves your claim.

The recently enhanced surface temperature record confirms that your claim is false.

It was always rubbish anyway because the troposphere isn't the climate system, just ~2% of it. The vast majority is ocean and the ocean is heating up as predicted - see OHC 0 - 2000m.

You have been told this again and again and again and still you lie.

What kind of immoral refuse does that make you?

Sunspot

Yes , the living dead here Pentax. Time for some more open thread for the zombies, particularly the one blubbing for the children.

You have questions to answer. Get on with it.

1/ How do we explain hyperthermals *without* CO2 forcing?

2/ How did the climate system get out of the albedo-locked icehouse state of Snowball Earth *without* CO2 forcing?

3/ If, as you claim, CO2 has a cooling effect why was it so hot ~50Ma during the Eocene Climatic Optimum? CO2 was ~1000 – 1500ppm then and only ~280ppm in the pre-industrial Holocene but the climate system has slowly cooled for the last fifty million years. Explain this.

PS – it wasn’t the sun. Solar output has increased slightly (F=~1W/m^2) across the Cenozoic as a result of stellar evolution. But we got *cooler*, remember. Much cooler.

Cenozoic surface temperature (after Zachos et al. 2001; 2008).

BBD, you hit the nail on the head when you say, "You (Pentax) have been told this again and again and again and still you lie".

But of course they lie. This is because they aren't remotely interested in science, but in bolstering a political and economic agenda. None of the deniers who have written into Deltoid have anything remotely resembling a basic scientific education or relevant qualifications. Yet they spew forth their bilge here as if they are veritable experts.

And of course, they avoid links like the one I put up, showing that the insurance industry takes AGW very seriously because they are the ones underwriting the costs. They are well aware that climate related disasters are indeed rising and they are the ones who are having to cough up the money to compensate those who suffer losses because of it. But those benefiting from the status quo - the fossil fuel and automobile lobbies by and large - are the ones expending most efforts in denial.

Pentax, Mack (and Stu 2) are just simpletons stuck in their own myopic political mindsets. I am still waiting for an AGW denier to show up on Deltoid with a reasonable scientific pedigree. I can tell you one thing: its gonna be a long, long wait.

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

"The recently enhanced surface temperature record" meaning tampered with to promote CAGW. What a joke.

And again jeffie, what did the coctail party in Warsaw come up with? What committments did they reach?

Open threads after open threads on Deltoid, nothing substantial at all populated by walking dead regulars. Hillarious!

Then there's this "educated" lycra clad cycling zombie Jeff Harvey who says you've not got enough scientific pedigree , Pentax. What scientist with any "pedigree" would come to this lunatic asylum (no offence Tim) and face a DK afflicted fuckwit like you Jeff Harvey.

“The recently enhanced surface temperature record” meaning tampered with to promote CAGW. What a joke.

The scientific evidence proves you are a liar many times over - and your only response is denial.

This is mental illness.

Then there’s this “educated” lycra clad cycling zombie Jeff Harvey who says you’ve not got enough scientific pedigree , Pentax. What scientist with any “pedigree” would come to this lunatic asylum (no offence Tim) and face a DK afflicted fuckwit like you Jeff Harvey.

Answers please. Stop the pathetic evasions, man up and engage like an adult.

If you can't then leave.

"But of course they lie. This is because they aren’t remotely interested in science, but in bolstering a political and economic agenda."

Oh, they'd tell the truth.

If it had any aid to their cause.

Or could recognise it.

Actually, I mis-spoke. Pentax isn't just indulging in denial, he is advancing a conspiracy theory. So, yes, he is mentally ill, but it's not simply pathological denial. He's a tinfoil-hatted conspiracy crank who actually believes that the global scientific community is engaged in a conspiracy to fool the world's politicians about climate change.

This is swivel-eyed lunacy. But at least we are getting down to the basic truths. Sunspot is mentally ill, Pentax is mentally ill, Stu 2 is probably mentally ill...

A pattern is emerging here.

Mack, the Deltoid regulars are nothing else than the scrape of the booth. They actually think hand waving, (maked up) concensus and manipulated data is science. Clowns.

"This is swivel-eyed lunacy."

Yeah, you've understood panties.

The reason know-nothings like Mack and Pentax deride academic qualifications is simple: because they haven't got any. Note also their sheer hypocrisy: when they try and exaggerate the importance of a lone study questioning the 97%+ of published studies that support AGW, they will use big words like 'peer-reviewed' to try and give the study some credibility, and to describe the author as a 'leading scientist' or that he has a 'PhD'or some such similar argument. But when its pointed out to them that the vast majority of researchers publishing in the field of climate science support the AGW theory and that many of them have very excellent pedigrees (e.g. Mann, Trenberth, Hansen, Mahlmann, Santer etc), then the smear knives come out.

Note also how they come out with their knives when I post here. Given their scientific arguments are vacuous and intellectually bankrupt, only a few deniers occasionally trickle through here these days - most have had to be banned because they are outright lunatics. But clearly Pantie and Mack and his numerous sock puppets loathe the fact that I am a qualified scientist. Expect some witless comment from Olaus any time, followed by Jonas and his brainless admirers over in the asylum thread to chirp in with their worthless musings.

I have repeatedly asked every denier who has ever written in here what qualifications they possess in any field of science that has endowed them with some strange mystical wisdom that has eluded the majority of trained professionals in climate research. And I get the same response every time: silence. A refusal to answer a simple question, generally followed by witless smears. Since these clots are anonymous, they won't be giving away their identities by saying what their day jobs (if any) are. But they never do. Which is an answer all in itself. It means that all of them have no formal training in anything remotely scientific. That's fine, but then to come on weblogs ranting as if they are renowned experts who know more than those working in the field for years really does take a remarkable amount of hubris.

Note again that neither Pantie not Mack et al. have dared to question why the insurance industry is strongly converted to the scientific fact of AGW. Why are insurers not denying its existence either? The reason is simple: because they are well aware of AGW and of its consequences for their industry in terms of costs.

Yet, despite being repeatedly debunked, and several recent studies which have been published showing that, far from a hiatus, when the data from more stations is incorporated, it is warming as rapidly as ever, we still have dingbats like Pantie writing in here with their 'it stopped warming in 1996' crap. What's worse is that they don't provide any scientific basis to support it; instead, the rest of us are supposed to believe a non-entity with no scientific training without hesitation and then to just shut up.

This has been one of their many strategies all along. Say something without a hint of empirical support and then to ridicule any one who dares question it.

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

BBD: they are ALL mentally ill. I am still waiting - after more than 10 years - for someone questioning the veracity of AGW theory to come on Deltoid and to put forward solid theoretical and empirical arguments.

I am still waiting. Pretty well every denier who has come on here is a far-right libertarian wack job who never hesitates to smear scientists they don't like whilst putting forward some of the most appallingly simple arguments one can imagine. Its clear that every AGW denier - without exception - falls into the category of arguing on the basis of their own pre-determined political/economic world views. The fact that they don't see a connect between the fossil fuel industries and lobbying as an important factor is just one piece of evidence for this. They won't even try and explain why the insurance industry has a very different view. That is because they can't. So its back to the same puerile arguments; a few years ago it was a doomsday myth, then it was due to the sun, and now the warming has stopped (which acknowledges that it was warming after all, something the same people denied during the time that is apparently was warming).

For deniers, the goalposts are forever mobile. If they are forced to admit that its warming again, then it will be due to the sun again. Or water vapor. Or the gravitational pull of Ganymede. Or a supernova towards the middle of the galaxy. There will always be some reason to excuse humanity. And as long as they can do that the status quo is retained and the fossil fuel industries will continue to determine our relationship with ecosystems across the biosphere. And in the end, it will drag our civilization down the drain.

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

"...and that many of them have very excellent pedigrees (e.g. Mann, Trenberth, Hansen, Mahlmann, Santer etc), then the smear knives come out."

Priceless, absolutely priceless! Pedigree of what? Cheating, distorting data, lying, alarming? What a usefil idiot you are, jeffieboy.

"only a few deniers occasionally trickle through here these days"

Propably because there really isn't any need for it any longer and people just don't care about unsupported alarmism. As said, you are walking dead. Like the japanese soldiers who didn't know the war was over. It,s quite funny to pop in from time to time and check for the regular loons here. The world is changing away from alarmism, but the deltoids persist. To the last drop I presume.

And by the way jeffieboy, repeating pure nonsens and puking words doesn't by any means help your case. It just shows that you are completely out of real world arguments. Beware, dead man walking, dead man walking!

Pentax, you can't argue your way out of a wet paper bag. But that is hardly surprising. You are sick. There is no alternative explanation. Its pathological.

For my information please provide proof of your allegations against any or all of the scientists I listed above. These are serious allegations indeed. None of them have any substance, of course. If they did, then we'd have seen the fossil fuel lobby - who ostensibly determine policy in the USA - having their allegations tried in a court of law, But of course, they are baseless. So its left up to a pathologically twisted army of morons to repeat them ad libitum. Its all you have left, as I said. No science. No arguments. Just this kind of infantile behavior.

But no need to worry. Again, we have Pentax, with his sandbox level discourse, making things up and expecting the rest of us to swallow it. He doesn't like these exceptional scientists, so they are, in his opinion, liars frauds etc. But to be fair to Panty, he is not alone in doing it. They ALL do it. By 'all' I do not even refer to the very few qualified scientists who deny AGW. I mean their army of uneducated acolytes. They leave this sordid lot to make the smears because their are no repercussions for them. Pantax is an anonymous nothing. So he can get away with it. Nobody gives a damn what he things or says, so he can say the moon is made of cheese and that any scientist who disagrees is a liar, a fraud, a cheater. And nobody will care.

Panty, it doesn't work that way. Try harder. Because you proclaim something does not make it remotely true. In fact, given your track record, one should consider anything you say to be an actual reversal of the truth. But if this is the best you can do, then keep at it. You look more and more like a complete idiot with each post. I enjoy watching you squirm and writhe and sink further into the mud of your won making. Its amusing.

And it makes some of my university lectures more amusing when I anonymously quote some of the stuff people like you write. It gets good laughs out of my students. Its only when i tell them that there are real people who write and think like you and other deniers that they go quiet. They then begin to realize what a mess we are in when there are those who actually think and believe the stuff you write.

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

Addendum: please excuse typos in my last message. I am dividing time between answering Panty's witless histrionics and having a scientific meeting with colleagues in the US by phone. Talk about a contrast. Serious science versus kindergarten science with Panty.

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

It just shows that you are completely out of real world arguments.

No, that's another lie.

When presented with scientific evidence, you are reduced to conspiracy theories and pathological denial. These are both indicative of mental illness.

You haven't produced a single "real world argument" yet. Just the crazy and the old, long-debunked lies.

It is a marvel how absolutely detached from reality you are. But then, you are clearly mentally ill, so this goes with the territory.

Jeff

Its only when i tell them that there are real people who write and think like you and other deniers that they go quiet. They then begin to realize what a mess we are in when there are those who actually think and believe the stuff you write.</blockquote.

I have had broadly similar experiences when attempting to convey the flavour and in some cases the detail of the lunatic discourse of deniers. Most people are incredulous - as well they might be. I wouldn't believe it myself if I hadn't witnessed so much at first hand.

Still, as you say, your students went quiet. Most people can't believe their ears. That's good. This lunacy is the frothings of a minority of people who are ill, not a majority position. It is not a reflection on the general human condition.

jeffieboy, it must be a real important "science"meeting since you at the same time are surfing an alarmistic blog. Really proffessional I must say. And you want to be taken for serious? What a joke you are.

Now, let's hear, what countries committed to exactly what at the expensive coctailparty in Warsaw? And how is it going to battle the alledged CAGW? And can you do so without an plethora of nonsens word diarrhea?

Panty, I am senior editor of a new journal, hence the phone meeting. My writing in here was to just amuse myself with your vacuous waffling. Your grammar is utterly appalling, but your logic is comedy gold. You've never put forth a single scientific argument for anything on this blog, except to express your own opinions, which sadly are benthic and made up on the spot. You actually think that you can spar with me on an equal footing. That in itself is quite utterly hilarious.

As for Warsaw, its hardly surprising when most countries are wholly owned subsidiaries of the corporations that 'own' them. I don't deny that corporations have won. They determine our relationship with nature, and in the US at least both parties are totally beholden to them, effectively rendering their citizens impotent.

However, as I discussed above, the insurance industries have quote a different view because they are the ones whose profits are being eaten away by the symptoms of warming. of course you do not address this because it is quite far above your shallow head. What is your profession again by the way? Oh... of course... we are not allowed to know because it will be a huge embarrassment for you. Just like it would be for Mack, Jonas, and your other ' allies' on here.

Pentax, take some advice. You couldn't spar intellectually with a child in grade 1. You are bereft of anything remotely resembling an argument. And you appear to be happy to see humanity sending the planet's life support systems down the drain. I am sure that future generations will admire your contribution to the predicament.

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

What a joke you are.

Amusing coming from a conspiracy theorising nutter who actually believes all the scientists are plotting to usher in world socialism or whatever lunacy it is you endorse.

Get to a mirror, you fool.

What’s worse is that they don’t provide any scientific basis to support it; instead, the rest of us are supposed to believe a non-entity with no scientific training without hesitation and then to just shut up.

You'd have to be mentally ill to do that.

Hahaha, you're so funny jeffie. I suppose the stone age people also had future generations in mind when they decided to stop using stone in their daily life. Just in case, so future generations wouldn't ran out of it.

Where is the catastrophe? Nobody seems able to find it. Even the infamous IPCC admits that there hasn't been any warming the last decade and a half. Bogger, catastrophe, where are you?

That's right, look back over a decade instead of forward to the end of the century and pretend that the climate system isn't warming up. Even though I showed you the evidence that it is just upthread and you are *still* lying about this.

Which bit of "the troposphere is only ~2% of the climate system" don't you understand?

Or put another way, how can you be this stupid and operate a computer?

Gee, I guess the crippling heat waves that gripped Russia in 2010 and the USA in 2012, the unprecedented droughts that have hit the Amazon basin, hurricane Sandy and the scale 6 typhoon that battered much of the Philippines don't count in Pentax's science illiteracy handbook. Not to mention the old problem of temporal lags in cause and effect relationships when studying processes encompassing very large scales.

But, given Pentax and the other brainless denialist twerps on Deltoid haven't been to a science class outside of school, its a small wonder they don't understand what the vast majority of trained scientists do. Not to mention the insurance industries that I linked to earlier but which Panty doesn't dare try and counter.

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

My friends on Media Lens (UK) have a pretty simple but graphic series of figures to illustrate the scale of the current predicament. Humans are pushing systems towards critical tipping points. We cannot say that society has not been warned. But since Pentax is a good example of one of societies 'mindless sheep' whose consent has been 'manufactured' (with kudos to Walter Lippman), its no small wonder that he sees a left wing conspiracy under every rock.

http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/msg/1380791888.top

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

Jeff

Thanks for the MediaLens graphic. Allow me to return the favour.

You often speak of perspective and scale. Here we have Pentax using a very crude strawman based on the wrong time-scale: "What, no catastrophe *yet*? Then it must all be rubbish!"

Here is a visualisation tool that provides a centennial perspective on various emissions scenarios and their effects on GAT. Pick one, eg RCP 6.0, and see the present in centennial context.

If only Pentax could stop lying to himself for the few seconds it takes to use this tool, he might finally grasp why his previous comment was so horribly self-deluding and foolish.

Apologies if you have seen this before.

I'm not sure why I'm bothering (as I will no doubt set of another cacophony of obsessive abuse) but anyway:
Pentax:
Although I think you're overly harsh in your criticism of Jeff Harvey, I do essentially agree with your observation that Deltoid has lost its way and that the political agenda that is still being advocated here is probably a failing 'grand experiment'.
Professor Aynsley Kellow, in ‘Science and Public Policy: The virtuous corruption of virtual environmental science’ uses examples, including climate change science, that show how a fascination with computer models and an over arching set of values has resulted in a preference and a focus for virtual data over observational data.
Despite the pretence otherwise, academia is a ruthless environment because fragile egos and research grants are on the line. Affiliations help academics survive and thrive in publish-or-perish university milieus.
Apparently Jeff believes that employed academics who are published and cited are the only trustworthy sources of information.
Anyone else, even if they possess excellent qualifications and experience are suspect.
Perhaps Jeff could look up those definitions of hubris that I posted for BBD and consider his comments in light of those?

You are still a liar, Stu 2. Nothing can change that, certainly not whining and belatedly pretending that it was all a misunderstanding. Your accusing of hubris is truly silly. I don't think you have a clue what the term means.

Nor are self-serving ideologues like Kellow of the least relevance here. His book - which I have read - is clever but hollow propaganda. The old lie about models subverting the empirical is a fine example of Kellow's misrepresentation of climate science. You should read climate scientists instead of polemicists like Kellow. You might learn something important and true.

Here is well-known climate model sceptic James Hansen on the way it really is:

TH: A lot of these metrics that we develop come from computer models. How should people treat the kind of info that comes from computer climate models?

Hansen: I think you would have to treat it with a great deal of skepticism. Because if computer models were in fact the principal basis for our concern, then you have to admit that there are still substantial uncertainties as to whether we have all the physics in there, and how accurate we have it. But, in fact, that's not the principal basis for our concern. It's the Earth's history-how the Earth responded in the past to changes in boundary conditions, such as atmospheric composition. Climate models are helpful in interpreting that data, but they're not the primary source of our understanding.

TH: Do you think that gets misinterpreted in the media?

Hansen: Oh, yeah, that's intentional. The contrarians, the deniers who prefer to continue business as usual, easily recognize that the computer models are our weak point. So they jump all over them and they try to make the people, the public, believe that that's the source of our knowledge. But, in fact, it's supplementary. It's not the basic source of knowledge. We know, for example, from looking at the Earth's history, that the last time the planet was two degrees Celsius warmer, sea level was 25 meters higher.

And we have a lot of different examples in the Earth's history of how climate has changed as the atmospheric composition has changed. So it's misleading to claim that the climate models are the primary basis of understanding.

Lies will haunt you on the internet, Stu 2.

The major finding is that the snowball earth & deglaciation doesn’t need CO2 to occur.

Everybody can see what you really said.

BBD,
Although you're being entirely predictable, you're not doing yourself any favours.
I don't consider myself your enemy and I am not interested in your personal abuse. It is completely meaningless and irrelevant.
You also continue to obsess over one single sentence that you have taken out context.
That isn't my problem BBD.
If you would like to ask a contextual question about that sentence, rather than a presumptive, abusive question, I may consider answering.
Until then however, as you ironically commented earlier, it's not worth bothering about.
Hansen's commentary above resorts to name calling and is advancing a political agenda:
"The contrarians, the deniers who prefer to continue business as usual, easily recognize that the computer models are our weak point. So they jump all over them and they try to make the people, the public, believe that that’s the source of our knowledge."
BTW:
I saw this comment earlier today.
" Hansen has retired from NASA, after reaping in more than 1 million USD over the years, from his extracurricular activities (in violation of the Hatch Act). Here’s a link to a pic of Hansen in his heyday. "
http://tinyurl.com/kwcyjo8
I don't have an opinion either way BBD but, as you can see, it is common behaviour to resort to personal attacks and smearing.

*Urp-What?!* Sorry, must have dropped off again. Ah, no wonder: it's Stootoo. Still.

Sophistry classes going well, I see?

Speaking of sophistry (well, some of us are just speaking sophistry, full stop!), this -

“Reputable scientists disagree,” said the journalist. “There is a debate. The question is far from settled. The truth probably lies between the two extremes of duck and not-duck.”

Feel free to scroll back through the threads to see the 'not duck' strategy in action (you won't have to go far! right, Stootoo?! ;-) )

Open any paper to see the 2+2=4.5 strategy in action.

One day The Stupid's gonna end... there will be scores to settle.

You also continue to obsess over one single sentence that you have taken out context.

You have been given ample opportunity to either clarify your position or demonstrate that it was taken out of context. You have not demonstrated that it was out of context, but rather simply repeated your assertion that it was. Your attempted clarification was incompatible with a plain reading of your original statement, and you have failed to demonstrate why the plain reading should be discarded.

Feel free to keep digging though.

...has resulted in a preference and a focus for virtual data over observational data.

Er, no. The observational data, especially when one includes paleo, is enough to give a competent scientist the willies, regardless of any computer models. (Never mind that the false presumption in that claim: computer models RELY on observational data for validation assessments, amongst other things, and validation based on observational data implies a preference for observational data.)

Hansen’s commentary above resorts to name calling ...

Er, no.

1) There's no "resorting" here. Claiming so is simply a tactic to assert without evidence - again, your modus operandi - that his position is not based on evidence and reason and therefore must be argued on fallacious grounds. One who seeks to dismiss another's argument by claiming they are "resorting" typically does so because they can't rebut the position based on evidence and reason. Why, it's almost like you yourself are "resorting" to red herrings in order to redirect attention from your inability to argue the case...

2) Even disregarding the evidence that supports his position, when using the words you allude to he's accurately labelling the behaviour of the people in question. If you want to argue that applying accurate labels is "name calling" be my guest, as it strongly suggests that you can't rebut the claim the labels carry - that the people they are applied to are engaged in the behaviour in question.

In addition your objection here and the other quote you supplied about Hansen both appear designed to, well, engage in exactly the kind of "personal attacks and smearing" you mention, presumably due to the lack of evidence and reason based rebuttals of Hansen's evidence-based position.

Are you aware that you appear to be engaging in flaming hypocrisy, and if you don't actually think you are would you care to restate your argument in a fashion that doesn't give that appearance?

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 04 Dec 2013 #permalink

BBD asked on the previous page:

Or put another way, how can you be this stupid and operate a computer?

The answer is simple - it's the triumph of software over wetware.

And in the Denialati's case, it's the triumph of software over particularly buggy wetware.

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

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/sophistry

"Sophistry is tricking someone by making a seemingly clever argument, such as telling your mom you must have candy before dinner because if you don't you'll die and then the protein and vitamins won't get eaten at all.

Sophistry is a word that you hear very little in contemporary life, perhaps because it makes anyone who uses it sound like a Puritanical fanatic insisting that something like gum-chewing is the path to the devil "

Not amongst the educated classes, pet.

Ahh, jeffie, you know, perfectly normal weather events has nothing to do with climate. What an utter joke you are. Statistics shows, contrary to your claims, that hurricanes has become fewer and weaker. Yet you continue to use this huge strawman. But what's to be expected from someone with nill knowledge in atmospheric physics.

perfectly normal weather events has[sic] nothing to do with climate

Priceless.

However, we must acknowledge that Pentup is labouring in a second language: human speech.

So funny, as real science slowly makes its way back in climatology the level of portentology increases at Deltoid. Hilarious, and little Napoleon is best in class, as usual. :-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 04 Dec 2013 #permalink

Ah, and now another visitor from the happy land of magical ponies! It's true that sometimes we members of the RC* can only envy your blissful ignorance...

*Reality-based Community

It's hilarious to see the Denialati who were bounced a while back suddenly all come rushing back after Mackulatus tested the water.

For all their talk about how Deltoid is dead, they've been lurking in the background here obsessively waiting to spread their crud.

One wonders why they are so preoccupied by the very fact of Deltoid's existence, and why they are as illogical about the blog as they are about the climatology that they persist in demonstrating that they cannot understand...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 05 Dec 2013 #permalink

You also continue to obsess over one single sentence that you have taken out context.
That isn’t my problem BBD.

Yes it is, and this was a lie the first time you said it. As Lotharsson points out with customary precision, you have *not* demonstrated that you were taken out of context, merely asserted it over and over again. In other words, you are lying. Try demonstrating that I took you out of context. This I have to see. Just remember that all your original statements are there for us all to review together. Every lie you tell will come back and bite you. There's no way out of this now. You should have conceded the point as I suggested at the time.

Since you are still lying about being taken out of context, let's return to the beginning for a taster. I asked you to pick which of these mutually exclusive statements you agreed with and you refused:

The major finding is that the snowball earth & deglaciation doesn’t need CO2 to occur.

Or:

in both cases a significant amount of CO2 is required for deglaciation.

Pick one.

"Science isn’t settled by majority vote, and invoking “consensus” to shut off debate is authoritarian and anti-scientific. There are always inconvenient truths to challenge what the majority thinks it knows. Ninety-seven percent of experts may be impressed with the emperor’s new clothes. That’s no reason to silence those who insist the emperor is naked."

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.se/?m=1

Not this tripe again. In reality:

- Scientific evidence comes first

- then scientific consensus *arises* from the scientific evidence

Contrarians make a dishonest claim. The scientific consensus exists because there is no evidence contradicting it. The scientific consensus is of course provisional but arises from that which has not been falsified.

Those who insist that the emperor is naked are arguing from assertion, which is a logical fallacy. They must make a robust scientific case based on solid scientific evidence if they wish to challenge the evidence-based scientific consensus. They have been absolutely unable to do this, and so resort to mendacious rhetoric of the sort quoted above.

Nobody is "shutting down debate". The current situation is that there is no scientifically robust case challenging the scientific consensus.

Notice that all the contrarians here rely absolutely on argument from assertion and misrepresentations of the scientific evidence. They bring no robust, evidence-based scientific argument to the table, just noise.

When this is pointed out, they whine.

"...they’ve been lurking in the background here obsessively waiting to spread their crud."

Hahaha, not quite so in my case. I just pop in now and then to check if you regulars has caught up with reality yet. But no, same old story. The religious CAGW belief is still here.

The religious CAGW belief is still here.

Are you blind? Read the above. You - all of you - have *never* advanced a coherent, evidence-based scientific argument in support of your rejection of the scientific consensus.

You are the ones making faith-based claims. You are relying on a 'religion' of evidence denial. Can't you see that? How is it possible to be so bereft of self-awareness?

Or are you just trolling up the thread to try and get liar Stu 2 off the hook? That won't work - his card is marked now, no matter how much garbage you post up here.

"When this is pointed out, they whine."

This would be whine from the gripes of wrath, right?

The gripes of tosh, perhaps...

No, we're whining and dining on the Doltoids done like a dog's dinner.

What's that Skip? Claims of 'victory' from some third-rate 'lol'ing drag-act? Sounds like crap to me, too, Skip!...

Spots can't spell, bill.

No, we’re whining and dining on the Doltoids done like a dog’s dinner.

Sunspot running the "Mack" sock

Why are you still here? I asked you either to respond to the questions you have been cravenly dodging for ~200 comments now, or disappear. You haven't answered the questions yet here you are again. Why?

Either answer, or go back to the thread you have been confined to by the blog owner.

* * *

1/ How do we explain hyperthermals *without* CO2 forcing?

2/ How did the climate system get out of the albedo-locked icehouse state of Snowball Earth *without* CO2 forcing?

3/ If, as you claim, CO2 has a cooling effect why was it so hot ~50Ma during the Eocene Climatic Optimum? CO2 was ~1000 – 1500ppm then and only ~280ppm in the pre-industrial Holocene but the climate system has slowly cooled for the last fifty million years. Explain this.

PS – it wasn’t the sun. Solar output has increased slightly (F=~1W/m^2) across the Cenozoic as a result of stellar evolution. But we got *cooler*, remember. Much cooler.

Cenozoic surface temperature (after Zachos et al. 2001; 2008).

Pantie refers to the extreme events I referred to as being 'perfectly normal'. Well, the global extent of these 'perfectly normal' events has increased dramatically since the 1960s. At that time, only 0.1% of the planet's surface could expect such events to occur with any regularity; now that has increased to 10%. But of course, that depends if one considers a Category 6 typhoon as 'normal'. Most scientists do not. Uneducated boffins might. Pantie falls well into the latter category, As does Mack. As I said yesterday, not a single climate change denier I have encountered on Deltoid in the past 10 years has anything close to resembling relevant scientific qualifications. Few of them have ever read the primary literature. Their world is climate change denial blogs, written in styles that appeal top the lowest common denominator. Pantie sure qualifies there.

On cue, Olaus eventually showed up (I was expecting it, given how he appears to eat, sleep, and breathe blog denial 'science') with his usual brand of insidious stupidity. Two thirds of the Scandinavian troll collective in a few posts. Olaus still envies the fact that my academic qualifications shit all over his, as well as his supine hero, Jonas. This explains why he copy-cats smears from Jonas and clearly loathes the fact that I speak from the inside. He and Jonas are sadly consigned to the outer fringes of the blogosphere.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 05 Dec 2013 #permalink

Dear little Napoleon, I'm sure you are better than me in maggotology, not to mention soothsaying and crystalballing. Oh, and you have no master in making stuff up as well. :-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 05 Dec 2013 #permalink

Olaus

You have *never* advanced a robust, evidence-based scientific argument that challenges the scientific consensus on AGW. To be fair, you are not alone: nobody else has ever done this either, including all the professional working climate scientists that have ever lived.

So WTF are you talking about here? You have no argument yet you are acting as though you are somehow in the right. This is preposterous. Surely you aren't so far adrift from reality that you can't see the grotesque absurdity of your position? Which is that of all contrarians.

You are claiming that the emperor has no clothes but it is *you* that is bollock-naked and waving your knob about. Go and find a mirror and behold the truth.

Just for Olaus: a great critique of the people he worships by Chris Hedges.....

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&…

PS: given that you are scientifically illiterate, Oluas, I will let your little Diptera quip go by. I don't generally work with insects in this order (although they are vitally important critters in many diverse ways and we certainly could not survive very well without them). My research involves plants, insects, and more recently landscapes. Moreover, in my new Professorship I link conservation and advocacy, two words that certainly go well over your head. What was it that you do as a day job again Olaus?.... Oh, of course I forgot! You cannot tell us because you'd be profoundly embarrassed. I understand.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 05 Dec 2013 #permalink

Nice to see the disciples of Jonarse the Equivocal are still wiling to share their Knowledge Reports from the Arse End of Nowhere, whilst somehow simultaneously lamenting another of their puny outreach efforts.

They do not conclude, as you appear to be arguing, that it is ALL because of CO2.

Stu2 appears to be genuinely too stupid to comprehend the notion of a necessary condition.

And, of course, unsurprisingly, his motivations are ideological, not scientific, as his citation of Kellows proves.

a fascination with computer models and an over arching set of values has resulted in a preference and a focus for virtual data over observational data

The observational data for AGW is overwhelming, but a stupid ignorant dishonest ideologue like Stu2 neither knows nor cares.

"perfectly normal weather events has nothing to do with climate"

Ah, so, panties, how do you determine the climate, then?

"Environmental alarmism is by now a well established phenomenon with nearly a four decade long history. In that time, we’ve been on the receiving end of doomsday predictions as diverse as holes in the ozone layer, overpopulation, resource wars, acid rain, a new ice age and the most successful one of all, global warming.

Since there has been no upward change of global temperatures in over the last decade and a half, that scare had become embarrassingly untenable. In response, the alarmists switched from screaming about global warming to hyperventilating about climate change. That was an explicit admission that their specific prediction of a looming thermogeddon was wrong, which is why skeptics should never use the term climate change but keep on sticking it to them with reminders about the global warming us humans were supposed to be causing, which never actually materialised.

The advantage about the rebranding away from a specific threat to a vague umbrella term, was that there are potentially a myriad of things which could be blamed on climate change, because climate does actually change. If it got colder, fine, that’s climate change in action. If it actually got hotter, that’s climate change as well. Whether it got wetter or drier, either could be attributed to climate change. It’s a wonderfully flexible scare.

For example, the by now famous computer models of the UK Meteorological Office (UKMO) predicted a drought for 2012 that might stretch into 2013. Suddenly hose pipe bans were declared and a lockdown of precious water in reservoirs was initiated at the start of the year. After the wettest summer, autumn and winter for years, with attendant flooding and loss of life, what few gullible people left who had any confidence in the UKMO’s predictive powers, finally decided they were totally incompetent. Seemingly believing everyone is suffering from Alzheimers, the escape clause now being used by the UKMO is to blame climate change for one of the wettest years on record. It’s a win win piece of nomenclature.

The really big advantage of the name change is that not having to prove a specific thing – that the world is heating up - you can cherry pick your proofs of climate change occurring. Any change, real or otherwise, will do.

There appear to be five generic types of bogus proof that man-made climate change is occurring.

The first type is studying some really obscure organism, like for instance the South Pacific Snailbat, that nobody has researched in any detail before and concluding their population is in decline because of man-made climate change. It’ll nearly always be a decline, because nobody is interested in population increases, as it wouldn’t gel with their worldview of us humans always damaging the environment. There’s no real longterm data on the species, though usually some sort of historical proxy is found, which indicates a decline. While the layman might think proxy measurements are reliable, they rarely are. It’s all a matter of interpretation, and in some cases, just cherry picking the right hockey stick shaped example which appears to back up the conjecture being made. For lack of a better name, we’ll call that type of proof a Snailbat. We must save the snailbat.

It’s a very versatile sort of proof. You can do a snailbat on pretty much anything organic, from insects right up to sequoia trees.

The second type of proof is the computer model predicting something untoward is going to happen. It’s nearly impossible to get across to someone who’s never tried their hand at computer modelling, how limited a domain of problems are actually amenable to modelling. I had a go at that a few years back and a link to the piece is below. The critical factors in any model are the physical nature of the problem, how complete your understanding of the problem is and the parameters, otherwise knows as guesses, built into the model.

If you don’t really comprehensively understand the problem, no computer, no matter how powerful, is going to help you solve it. Climate is the result of the interactions between an undefined set of systems, many of which would be technically classified as non-linear complex systems. The mathematical reality is that any type of non-linear complex system cannot be modelled for predictive purposes anyway.

Just to illustrate to you how a lot of very clever, motivated, hard-nosed and financially competent people can walk themselves over a cliff by having blind faith in computer models, consider the case of the hedge fund firm Long-Term Capital Management. They had a couple of Nobel Prize winning economists on board, a battalion of financial analysts and another battalion of software developers. They built a shiny computer model of their own business area and started using it to place their bets on the derivatives market. They bet heavy too, confident in how good their models’ predictions were. There was no way they could lose money.

The models were wrong. In less than five years, they went from an enterprise with assets of 130 billion USD and a trading position of 1.25 trillion USD, to going broke. It was so big a disaster, that there were genuine fears it might bring down the whole of the derivatives market, which forced a 4 billion USD bailout by the industry itself. A lot of supposedly very smart people lost a lot of money, because of that insidious idea that if a computer predicts something is going to happen, then it must surely be going to happen.

While no reasonable person would believe anyone can foretell the future for decades ahead, it always amazes me how readily they accept that a silicone chip contraption somehow can. If we don’t know how to predict the future, we can’t program a computer to predict the future. Forget computers, forget science, forget math, it’s actually as simple as that.

Computers can’t predict the future.

If you’re a fan of the director Stanley Kubrick’s work, you’ve probably seen his movie 2001 a space odyssey. Although there are other themes in it, one of them is a supercomputer called HAL predicting things which actually didn’t happen. The crewmen believed HAL and suffered the consequences. Put too much uncritical faith in computer predictions and you’ll inevitably end up pleading with HAL to open the pod bay doors. Just tell the suckers that HAL says we’re heading for an eco-disaster, and they’ll believe it. That variety of proof, we’ll call a HALsays.

The third type of proof is what can only be called a Scarem. Whatever extreme weather event comes along, attribute it straight away to climate change and scare the pants off them. It doesn’t matter if there’s not a single shred of scientific evidence to back up that assertion. The legacy MSM can always be relied on to run with an extreme weather event story and all you have to do is volunteer that opinion to them as a climate expert, irrespective of your qualifications, if any. That’s how tropical storm Sandy magically mutated into a Frankenstorm, as far as the ordinary person was concerned. Scare them, scare them again and keep right on scaring them.

Next up would be the dark side of proofs. Global warming must be real because skeptics of it can’t be right. They have to be wrong because you’ve got some sort of proof they’re all either insane, conspiracy nuts or child molesters. They’re even the sort of people who should be executed. In all good taste and as a tender mercy to you good reader, I won’t dwell too long on this bottom feeding type of so-called science paper, except to lump them all into the general category of LewPapers, as a hat tip to one of their pioneers. Climate science has truly fallen before the onslaught of its own internal post-normal Visigoths. They own its ass.

Finally we have weird sorts of Tammany Hall polls masquerading as a proof. There are simply too many ways of rigging polls or post-processing the numbers to yield the desired result, and every one of those techniques is actively used. The whole thrust of them is to give the impression that the threat is real and people are really weally worried about it. By and large, they’re ignored. In a previous article, I compared them to those elections dictators periodically have, which always come out with a 99% vote in their favour. I suppose the apposite name for this stripe of beastie is a DicPol or perhaps more appropriately a DickPol, when you look at the sort of people behind them.

All of these proofs can be used in various combinations. Just mix and match as required and cook to taste but always take with a pinch of salt. For instance, based on a previous study of them, a new computer model predicts the endangered Snailbat will become extinct in less than a decade unless something is done to mitigate the impact of climate change on them. Of course, when you write it up for your paper, add in a lot of ass-covering caveats but you know the media will skip them all when your sensational research hits the front page. Sure, you’re going to have a squabble with the skeptics but that’ll all happen in the aftermath of the desired headlines and never be reported on anyway.

You follow it up with a DickPol showing how outraged people are at the desperate plight of the poor suffering snailbat and demanding action. The finishing touch would be to get Greenpeace to launch a Save the Snailbat campaign.

If that little lot doesn’t get you more research funding, nothing will.

The Snailbat, HALsays and Scarem proofs rely on the very understandable but very erroneous human perception that the environment not only shouldn’t change, but also something strange is happening if it is. Too much of environmental thinking on all sides is unconsciously based on something I called the steady-state environment delusion in a previous piece. There’s a link to it below, but the following paragraph from it summarises the essence of the idea.

We look at our world and the universe with human eyes and more importantly, with a human lifespan. In terms of the latter, we see an apparently ageless and unchanging view but it’s a false impression. When looked at through the eyes of “deep” time, it is dynamic, violent and forever changing. There is no ideal static harmonious state which must be maintained. There never was and there never will be either.

The reality is that the Earth’s climate, like the entire universe, has always, is, and will always change. The fundamentally dishonest thing about all these proofs, is the insistence that we’re the cause behind any change.

Any real scientific basis for the theory of man-made catastrophic global warming has by this stage been thoroughly shredded. What we’ve got coming at us in the future are; Snailbats, HALsays, Scarems, LewPapers and DickPols, because that’s all they’ve got left to use. Enjoy yourself sorting them into the appropriate categories as they come along.

©Pointman"

http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2013/01/11/the-shape-of-things-to-come…

What it must be to live a pointless life like 'Pointless Pointman' and you.

You have been advised on reading articles, papers and books by those who know their subject unlike Pointman, so go do some reading from those sources and learn something instead of block quoting acres of bilge.

Besides, such research findings are not reliant on polls. Poll results have little to do with the accuracy of any question underpinning being based upon opinion if the poll takes in non-specialists as well as research scientists.

Having said that, how is it you are missing the trends in all manner of markers for changing climate? Must have your head up seventh rock from the sun.