December 2013 Open thread

Now, here you have some really interresting to read. Pay especially attention to the 42000 year long reconstruction and reflect what it tells you.

http://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm#Recent%20global%20sat…

http://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm#An%20overview%20to%20…

As expected, our scientifically illiterate right wing munchkin starts off the December thread with links to a climate change denial blog - not a peer-reviewed scientific study.

And he expects us to stoop to his puddle-deep level of discussion on the link. My advice is to send him a box of crayons and a coloring book next.

It tells us that the orbital dynamics responsible for previous interglacials were different to those that triggered the Holocene. This is utterly uncontentious. What is your point, Pentax?

And pentax, there is a typo in your #1 - the temperature record shown is 420,000y (420ka) reconstruction from the Vostok core (Petit et al. 2001). Are you perhaps confused?

But Pentup needs that other Zero (point) for his perpetual motion machine...

+ My capacity to 'reflect' things is rather limited. Then again, human speech, and all that...

Troll inaugurates thread with semi-digested link-spamming effort. Now, there's a surprise!

Perhaps Pentup would care to enlighten us as to the date of the 'present' depicted in that GISP chart, for a start.

Not forgetting that the top of the Greenland Ice Sheet isn't a proxy for global temperature...

But carry on in context and ... oops.

And what does all this dramatic variability tell us about climate sensitivity? Does this look like an insensitive climate system? One where feedbacks net negative and damp down the response to changes in forcing?

Surely all that variability wouldn't be possible?

Congratulations!
You figured out it was December.
Nothing else has changed :-)
Still arguing over the same stuff.
The world has moved on deltoids.

Dana in trouble... :-)

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/05/the-self-induced-implosion-of-dan…

Portentologist unite!

A storm in a teacup that has exactly nothing to do with the scientific basis for emissions-forced climate change.

Deniers do love their distractions from the core issue, I know, but then distractions are all they've got.

In order to challenge the evidence-based scientific consensus on AGW you need an evidence-based, robust scientific argument. None such exists, so all this flapping and fussing and handbagging and rhetoric and lying is presented instead.

How anyone can imagine that all the posturing and grandstanding and lies amounts to a robust, evidentially-supported scientific argument is a mystery.

The best explanation for the behaviour available is that it is akin to religion. Personal convictions give rise to a faith-based belief system at odds with physical reality.

While you are here, Olaus, what is your response to #8?

Whistling tunes,
He hides in the fumes
In the jungle.

BBD, I'm not the one claiming that the temp is rising faster and faster....

:-)

Olaus has the gall to paste a comment about character assassination from WUWT?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Talk about pot calling the kettle black. The climate change denial and broader anti-environmental lobby have mastered the art of 'character assassination' and 'smears'. Its a topic I discuss in many of my lectures, and instead of the one puny example Olaus cites, I give many much better examples.

What a bunch of slimy hypocrites the anti-science army of deniers are.....

" I’m not the one claiming that the temp is rising faster and faster"

Indeed you're not.

What, however, is your response to #8, which doesn't rely on you having claimed the temp is rising faster and faster?

As Wow notes, you have avoided the question, which was "what does paleoclimate variability tell us about climate sensitivity?"

Do try, Olaus. Otherwise people will think you are a featherweight clown.

Same old same old...

BBD @ # 8
That was actually a good question even though I'm guessing that you believe there is only one answer.
You're arguing that CO2 is a major forcing agent and that the climate is highly sensitive to changes in CO2 levels. Further, you argue that the extra CO2ppm that is contributed by human activity is alarming and dangerous. Your attempted bullying of me at the last thread was based primarily on that argument, even though the Abbot et al papers that were put up point out that ppm CO2 levels need to be very high (at least 10,000ppm) and be accompanied by layers of dust or clay drapes before CO2 plays a role, which also does mean BBD that deglaciation can and does occur without CO2 playing a *forcing* role.
Here is one answer to your question I have recently seen from Dr Martin Hertzberg, PhD
But before I quote that comment, here are a couple of links that explain involvement and qualifications:
http://www.explosionexpert.com/pages/1/index.htm
http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/hertzberg.pdf
I'm reasonably confident that people here will respond with personal abuse, sneering and attempts to slur rather than dealing with the actual point that is being made, but anyway, it does provide one answer to your question but it is not necessarily the only answer or even the totally right answer.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Our common experience with hurricanes, tornadoes thunderstorms, blizzards, floods, tsunamis, and volcanic eruptions should lead to the common sense conclusion that weather and climate are controlled by natural laws on an enormous scale that dwarfs human activity. Those laws engender forces and motions in our atmosphere and oceans that are beyond human control. Weather and climate existed long before humans appeared on Earth, and will continue to exist in the same way long after we are gone.
Those forces and motions are driven by the following: First, the motions of the Earth relative to the Sun: the periodic changes in its elliptical orbit, its rotation about its polar axis, changes in the tilt of that axis, and the precession of that axis. Second, the variation in solar activity that influences the radiant energy reaching the Earth and modulates cosmic ray activity which controls cloudiness. Third, the distribution of land and water on the Earth’s surface; which controls its temperature distribution, moisture availability, monsoon effects, hurricanes, and other storm tracks. Fourth, the topography of the Earth’s surface which causes copious precipitation on the windward side of mountains and aridity on the leeward side. Fifth, the fluid motions within the Earth’s oceans that determine moisture availability and ocean surface temperatures (El Nino and La Nina cycles). Sixth, volcanic eruptions that throw large amounts of dust into the atmosphere, increasing the Earth’s albedo and periodically blocking portions of solar radiation from reaching the Earth’s surface.
Water in all of its forms is a main agent through which those forces operate. It provides vapor in the atmosphere, heat transport by evaporation and condensation, and the enormous, circulating mass of the ocean whose heat capacity dominates. And finally it provides the cloud, snow, and ice cover that control the radiative balance between the Sun, the Earth, and free space.
While the presence of 0.04 % of CO2 in our atmosphere is essential for life in the biosphere, the notion that such a minor constituent of the atmosphere can control the above forces and motions, is absurd"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And Pentax, that Climate 4 You site that you have linked is an interesting site.
I was quite shocked by the venom and the hubris in Jeff Harvey's comment about that link. The qualifications and experience of the blog owner look OK:
http://www.climate4you.com/Text/BIBLIOGRAPHY%20OLE%20HUMLUM.pdf
He has even been published in peer reviewed journals.

Nice posting Stu 2 #18.

I agree Mack. I suspect that Stu 2 is correct and the knifing is about to ensue :-)
And it will probably happen while my comment languishes in moderation.

Wow, a Slayer! Gains the admiration of sockpuppets!

And playing the pre-emptive tone-troll card again, the poor lamb.

deglaciation can and does occur without CO2 playing a *forcing* role

What, for snowball earth, the point in discussion?! Give me a break! Even you don't believe you...

I knew moons ago that Stu 2 was a climate change denier. he tried to veil his anti-scientific musings with what he thought was reasoning, but in the end his true colors bleed out.

Here he's trying to dismiss the views of a huge body of empirical literature with the views of a couple of scientists on the academic fringe. I yawn when I read this kind of thing. Stu 2 also makes a fatal error: he tries to positon someone as simple and vile as Pentax in the 'middle', when if he's read many of P's posts over the years he'd find that the guy routinely smears scientists (including me), makes utterly preposterous comments about socialist political agendas and the like.

Stu 2, now take this the right way: you are almost equally as vacuous as Pentax so I will forgive you for your utterly simple stupidity. Like Lomborg, you are discussing topics well over your head, leaving nothing except alternate agendas that drive your arguments. To suggest that a guy who runs a blog downplaying AGW and who has some published papers in journals must, by definition be a good scientist whose views matter is farcical in the extreme. Of course, as I said above, there are outliers. Not many of them, of course, but a few. I could list a number of others who have some papers in the peer-reviewed literature but whose arguments with respect to GW are well out of the mainstream. I even know of one or two scientists in my own field (population ecology) who have written articles either downplaying human threats to biodiversity or current extinction rates. A couple of these people actually write a paper arguing that predation (I assume they meant via trophic cascades) is the biggest threat. I laugh out loud when I read this kind of crap, but then again one of the authors has published a number of papers in the empirical literature.

Its also known that some allegedly qualified scientists have also defended the use of tobacco or have repeatedly downplayed the health risks of smoking. According to your rather myopic views these scientists should be taken seriously. Or should they? You decide.

Before you spout off about the merits of certain theories and then cite one or two fringe academics to support your arguments I want to say that I've encountered lots of people like you during my scientific career. They are all big in appealing to authority when citing arguments by one or two contrarians like Singer, Lindzen, Baliunas, Soon, Carter, Plimer, et al. but then routinely deride the qualifications of scientists with much better pedigrees - meaning people who have many more publications and citations. And the bottom line is that the people you mention, most of whom as I said are on the academic fringe, are vastly outnumbered by those on the other side. It just so happens that as a working scientist with 136 publications so far and over 3300 citations I take the views of the majority on climate change very seriously. Any anyone who dismisses C02 as a 'trace gas', given the inescapable link between historical concentrations of this gas and climate in my view does not deserve a platform.

And how many peer-reviewed papers has Martin Herzberg written that contradict AGW?

0

http://www.skepticalscience.com/peerreviewedskeptics.php?s=201

Stu2: if this is one of the best of the experts that you can 'scrape up' then your side really is in deep, deep trouble.

Z z z zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Gee, among the intellectual midgets I'd have picked him as Dopey rather than Sleepy!

If only any of these clowns was capable of being Bashful...

More science fun with twister-Dana:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Uif1NwcUgMU

:-)

I reckon Oily's got a crush!

Stu 2

You’re arguing that CO2 is a major forcing agent and that the climate is highly sensitive to changes in CO2 levels. Further, you argue that the extra CO2ppm that is contributed by human activity is alarming and dangerous. Your attempted bullying of me at the last thread was based primarily on that argument, even though the Abbot et al papers that were put up point out that ppm CO2 levels need to be very high (at least 10,000ppm) and be accompanied by layers of dust or clay drapes before CO2 plays a role, which also does mean BBD that deglaciation can and does occur without CO2 playing a *forcing* role.

I didn't bully you. You lied and I called you out over it. And still you pretend that the fault is mine. As I said to you previously, you can fuck off with that. It will not stand.

You are either a cretin or you are still desperately misrepresenting Abbot. What those studies hypothesise is that CO2 forcing can overcome the massive albedo-driven cooling of a fully-glaciated SNOWBALL EARTH when partial pressure exceeds ~10,000ppm. This is the special case for SNOWBALL EARTH. It does not apply to Quaternary glaciations when the NH ice sheets only reach ~40 degrees north latitude. Here, orbital forcing (increased summer insolation at 65 degrees north latitude) is sufficient to trigger a cascade of positive feedbacks - including GHGs (CO2 and CH4) - sufficient to terminate the glacial.

You appear to have absolutely zero understanding of this topic so why you persist in arguing it and making an arse out of yourself in public is a mystery to me.

To be absolutely clear - CO2 is *required* to terminate both SE states and Quaternary glaciations. In SE, CO2 is the primary driver. Quaternary deglaciations are triggered by orbital (Milankovitch) forcing but GHG positive feedback is still *required* as part of the cascade of feedbacks necessary for full deglaciation.

If you respond, can you indicate whether or not you understand this?

Oh, and Stu 2, the clay drapes are the deposits left *after* deglaciation. They are the remnants of the surface dust deposits hypothesised to have reduced equatorial albedo.

You haven't got a fucking clue.

The massive albedo-driven cooling of the Snowball Earth was overcome by the huge and powerful greenhouse forcing of CO2. Yep, if you say so BBD. It's volcanoes, bugs and snow-mobiles wot done it.

Stuck my nose in here after many months to see if the boys of the continuous loop thread are maintaining status quo.
Just as I thought, same old same old, Barney Fife and lying Hardley spewing the same old crap...verbatim.
Hope you Deltoidians are keeping warm, we're freezing our arses off over here in the U.S...

http://news.yahoo.com/massive-winter-storm-wallops-texas--much-of-the-m…

http://vortex.plymouth.edu/uschill.gif

Merry Christmas.

Betula feels the need to tell us that in winter, some places get winter storms?

Well, fuck me drunk - I'd never have guessed that. What other revelations do you have for us, Bircher? No, let me guess - water is wet?

"Betula feels the need to tell us that in winter, some places get winter storms?"

Actually, it's still Fall, as Winter starts December 21st...but that's as irrelevant as your comment.
There's a chill in the air over here Franky, and I was simply hoping you and yours were staying warm....and wishing you a Merry Christmas.

Thought you were dead Betty. Oh well.

SunSock:

The massive albedo-driven cooling of the Snowball Earth was overcome by the huge and powerful greenhouse forcing of CO2. Yep, if you say so BBD. It’s volcanoes, bugs and snow-mobiles wot done it.

Sigh.

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).

Let's look at recent jet stream activity:

http://vortex.accuweather.com/adc2004/pub/includes/columns/newsstory/20…

What are we beginning to learn about warming and changes in jet stream activity?

http://climatecrocks.com/2013/06/19/kevin-trenberth-and-jennifer-franci…

Here's some recent research on Greenland temps:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.186/full

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1002/wcc.186/asset/image_n/nfig…

"Thought you were dead Betty. Oh well."

Nah, all those indiscriminate beatings you have been hoping for haven't occurred yet, besides, it's been too cold to stand around and watch.
And unlike you Barney, I don't plan my day around a dying (open thread) blog...I can walk away anytime knowing you will still be here to laugh at months and years down the road.
It's comforting.

Actually, it’s still Fall, as Winter starts December 21st…but that’s as irrelevant as your comment.

Wrong, as usual. Meteorological winter starts 01 Dec.

Rubbish Betty. You got hammered on here so hard you ran away. And it will happen again.

luminous beauty

Thanks for the link to Masson-Delmotte et al. whose fig. 3 panel (b) neatly illustrates that modern GIS SAT has now reached or surpassed temperatures during the Holocene Climatic Optimum. Early/mid Holocene warmth was the consequence of higher NH insolation (orbital forcing).

@38...

Barney...
I reread Frankies comment @32 and noticed it looked different than the first time I read it....??

"Betula feels the need to tell us that in "meteorological" winter, some places get "meteorological" winter storms"

And this is why you are stuck on this site Barney, the impertinent, irrelevant minutia that you spew gives you a much needed inflated self worth....

Laughable.

Meanwhile, just outside the Deltoid zone...in the real world:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2519364/Death-toll-rises-Americ…

Betty

You were wrong. Stop being silly prat about it.

Re the rest of your stuff about cold NH winters, why not get off your lazy arse and read the second link luminous beauty posted at #36? There are only a few words, the bulk is two video clips, so you won't even have to break sweat. And you will learn something that you won't like but which will improve your lamentable topic knowledge considerably.

BTW, what's this "Barney" thing? Can you explain? When I call you Betty-John it's a simple play on your screen name and the right-wing nutters of the John Birch society, but it makes sense. There is a reason. Can you fill in the blanks here?

The link @ 36 is irrelevant. This is just normal winter weather...jeez Barney, didn't you read Frankie @32?

“Betula feels the need to tell us that in “meteorological” winter, some places get “meteorological” winter storms”....and water is wet etc.

"BTW, what’s this “Barney” thing?"

Because Barney, you are the deputy of Deltoid....the overseer of the law, the protector of the local alarmists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9HDSQJdudM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uif1NwcUgMU#t=142

The link @ 36 is irrelevant.

Argument from assertion is a logical fallacy, Betty. You are also retreating into evidence denial.

WRT Barney, I have nothing to do with our esteemed host. We have never communicated. I'm no more than any other commenter - certainly not a "deputy" in any conceivable sense of the word. I think you need to try for something else. Be witty.

Pentax

#4?

#5?

#8?

I would welcome your responses and views.

the protector of the local alarmists.

I can't really leave this unremarked either. None of the sane regulars here need me to protect them from anything. You don't come to an effectively unmoderated climate blog if you are a shrinking violet.

Barney,

The link @36 is irrelevant. It's irrelevant to the post at #31, based on the comment by fellow alarmist Frankie @ 32....

According to Frankie, there is no big revelation here with these "meteorological" winter storms....none whatsoever. And water is wet...

Barney....

"I have nothing to do with our esteemed host"......I didn't say you did. you are self assigned in your mind.

"I’m no more than any other commenter".....you're practically the only commenter.

"certainly not a “deputy” in any conceivable sense".....Not true, you are in the bungling sense. Bungling Barney...Deputy.

"I think you need to try for something else".....spoken like a true deputy.

PentaxZ @ 46...

That was hysterical.

I notice Stootoo hasn't reappeared since outing himself as a Slayer.

I remind you that your position is so ludicrously extreme even Watts and Monckton denounce it.

And Pentup's crush video is the same one being exposed here.

Tell us about those melded graph's scales and termination dates, Penty?! And the 'Greenland is the whole world, no really' thing?! Well, you won't, and, in fact, you simply can't, because you're an organic spambot, having mastered only 'copy/paste'. You simply cannot discern the content of your regurgitations!

Let's just point out that someone who actually pointed out the obvious (to thinking people, that is) over at Watts' got their comment snipped and replaced with '[it is humor, get over yourself - mod]'.

So, it's only 'sciencey' to the credulous, petal: i.e. it's just a joke, Penty! As are you...

And Batty's rest cure clearly didn't work...

Bill. This may come as a shock to you but I don't spend much time on blogs. I haven't returned here since my comment @ # 27.
I'm finding the responses to my comment amusing and, as I guessed earlier, entirely predictable.
Abuse, sneering, name calling and slurring with no attempt to actually objectively address the issue.
In short, meaningless drivel that focuses on irrelevant nit picking and unsubstantiated personal comments.
If you're wondering why this once interesting site has lost its mojo, look no further than the style of comments made by JH, BBD and yourself.
Vapid, unsubstantiated, sweeping statements that purport to show expertise about another commenter's character, affiliations, politics and education.
It reveals or proves virtually nothing about the accused but plenty about the accusers.

That was hysterical.

Yes, you are.
And neither is 'context' a word that's ever bothered your fake, fantasy riven head. In a remarkable symmetry with your Scandinavian collaborators here.

Vapid, unsubstantiated, sweeping statements that purport to show expertise about another commenter’s character, affiliations, politics and education.
It reveals or proves virtually nothing about the accused but plenty about the accusers. accuser.

Self awareness isn't one of your areas of interest, is it Stu-hypocrite-2?

Chek.
What an incredibly ironic and predictable comment from you.
'Self awareness isn’t one of your areas of interest, is it Stu-hypocrite-2?'

Remains a fact, though, doesn't it?

Slayers are crazy, Stuart. You're with the Creationists and astrologers now...

Vapid, unsubstantiated, sweeping statements

To be absolutely clear – CO2 is *required* to terminate both SE states and Quaternary glaciations. In SE, CO2 is the primary driver. Quaternary deglaciations are triggered by orbital (Milankovitch) forcing but GHG positive feedback is still *required* as part of the cascade of feedbacks necessary for full deglaciation.

If you respond, can you indicate whether or not you understand this?

BBD,
Maybe the info posted below will help?
It is not established that CO2 is the primary driver in deglaciation but of course CO2 has been present in the atmosphere at variable ppm.
The GHG feedbacks are mostly due to the water cycle.
Deglaciation, even of the Snowball Earth probably occurred when CO2 ppm were not as high as Abbot et al establish as a requirement for it to be a primary driver.
As you said at the earlier thread, the Abbot et al studies hypothesised CO2ppm levels that were plausible, but the minimum was 10,000ppm as long as there were thick layers of dust, and clay drapes from volcanic activity and previous glacial activity.
:
The Quaternary Period follows the Neogene Period and extends to the present. The Quaternary covers the time span of glaciations classified as the Pleistocene, and includes the present interglacial period, the Holocene.

This places the start of the Quaternary at the onset of Northern Hemisphere glaciation approximately 2.6 million years ago. Prior to 2009, the Pleistocene was defined to be from 1.805 million years ago to the present, so the current definition of the Pleistocene includes a portion of what was, prior to 2009, defined as the Pliocene

https://notendur.hi.is//~oi/quaternary_glacial_history_of_antarctica.htm
http://www.clim-past.net/6/245/2010/cp-6-245-2010.pdf

What does the word 'required' mean, muppet?

So: do you understand this: yes or bloody no? is the question. And you're saying 'no'. Just not directly, because that would never do.

The rest is just so much 'sciencey' gibberish... love the definitions of the ages; yeah, thanks for that. Padding and obfuscation, much?

And don't bother with any further tone-trolling; anybody who makes up their mind on this issue on the basis of squeamishness is a lost cause anyway.

here you go Bill,
Hope this helps?
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/require
I assumed because you can use words like sophistry that you would have known the meaning of require?

stu 2. when did they repeal the laws of physics. if more energy from the sun enters a system (like the biosphere) than leaves, it will inevitably warm. and we know that atm, it does. wtf are you arguing about. are you an imbecile?

" the protector of the local alarmists."

You'll notice, BBD, that anyone who doesn't let them get away with it is called this at some point in their posting history.

It really means "PLEASE STOP POSTING SO I CAN HAVE FREE REIN!".

After all, in their diseased minds, free speech is only for goodfact from solid respectable people like them.

It is not established that CO2 is the primary driver in deglaciation but of course CO2 has been present in the atmosphere at variable ppm.

Read. The. Words:

CO2 is *required* to terminate both Snowball Earth (SE) states and Quaternary glaciations. In SE, CO2 is the primary driver while Quaternary deglaciations are triggered by orbital (Milankovitch) forcing but GHG positive feedback is still *required* as part of the cascade of feedbacks necessary for full deglaciation.

Try to understand this before responding.

* * *

I know what the Quaternary is. Why are you posting totally redundant definitions?

You need to concentrate on understanding what this conversation is about. Notably that Snowball Earth deglaciation and Quaternary deglaciations are completely different things.

You are still clueless. Why are you continuing this? You have been absolutely discredited and yet you keep on and on and on with more hopeless nonsense. Are you one of these tedious little nutters who simply cannot admit error? That's the feeling I've been getting for - oh, the last week or so.

Deglaciation, even of the Snowball Earth probably occurred when CO2 ppm were not as high as Abbot et al establish as a requirement for it to be a primary driver.

NO! This is completely WRONG. Go back and read the Abbot studies properly. Both studies explore factors that reduced the threshold for radiatively-forced deglaciation of SE from 300,000ppm CO2 to below 100,000ppm but not below 10,000ppm.

I am absolutely fed up with your incessant misrepresentation of these papers. I can't determine if you are doing this because you are an idiot or because you are a liar. But either way, it needs to stop. Go and read. Properly this time. If you need a clue, I provided the relevant quotes on the previous thread. Read the words.

Deglaciation, even of the Snowball Earth probably occurred when CO2 ppm were not as high as Abbot et al establish as a requirement for it to be a primary driver.

Reference required.

as long as there were thick layers of dust, and clay drapes from volcanic activity and previous glacial activity

Why won't you just read the words? Are you doing this on purpose?

Oh FFS.

It is not established that CO2 is the primary driver in deglaciation but of course CO2 has been present in the atmosphere at variable ppm.
The GHG feedbacks are mostly due to the water cycle.
Deglaciation, even of the Snowball Earth probably occurred when CO2 ppm were not as high as Abbot et al establish as a requirement for it to be a primary driver.

That's three bald assertions. Backed up by 0 evidence and contradicted by all available evidence.

Why do you think you can get away with this? Again, you suck at this. You look like a moron because you are one. What earthly good do you think you are accomplishing by continuously embarrassing yourself this way?

I reckon it's because he is indeed 'one of these tedious little nutters who simply cannot admit error'.

Slayers are boring. It's like arguing with creationists, anti-vaxxers, homeopaths, and astrologers - because they're all species in the same genus. And not being able to understand anything you don't want to when - allegedly - 'reading' really helps...

I mean, StuartToo, what are the odds? You're right (and I'm including your entire motley tribe here), or more than 150 years of physics? You're right, or 97% of the world actual climate scientists? You're right, or all the world's academies of science?

I'll end with my favourite quote from Damon Runyon: 'The race may not be to the swift, nor yet the battle to the strong, but that's how the smart money bets!'

It's interesting that nobody on the contrarian side wants to talk about how we get hyperthermals *without* GHG forcing.

But no doubt that's why we are having all this trouble with the requirement for CO2 forcing to get us out of an albedo-locked icehouse.

If you admit one bit of physical climatology is correct, then everything else must follow. And that would never do. Oh no, no, no, no, noes, not at all.

BBD,
" Both studies explore factors that reduced the threshold for radiatively-forced deglaciation of SE from 300,000ppm CO2 to below 100,000ppm but not below 10,000ppm. "
Yes that is correct. I have not disagreed with this.
Your use of swearing, words like nutter, clueless etc and obsessing and nit picking over comments and words that you appear to be wilfully misinterpreting is totally irrelevant.
You may be a really nice bloke and I realise that you are passionate about this topic, but your behaviour at present makes you appear to be some type of strange combination of teacher's pet and schoolyard bully.
I am questioning what appears to be your key assertion that CO2 is the major evil culprit and that we are all doomed if it rises above an unspecified ppm. The Abbot et al papers do not support that assertion.
But as I have already said, it is possible I have misinterpreted you.

Though I'd argue for 90% of those we encounter the obtuseness is genuinely organic.

I admit I was wrong about Stootoo being a sophist - that requires a level of sophistication (yes, it's the same root) that it's transpired is completely lacking. He's just thick.

Regulars may recall previous 'greatest hits' in perverse insistence in the face of all evidence and reason. Chebbie and the 'James Delingpole agrees with me about Flannery and the snow' incident? Our old friend and the 'nitrogen and oxygen are the real greenhouse gases' thing?

Stu 2

Yes that is correct. I have not disagreed with this.

Yes you did:

Deglaciation, even of the Snowball Earth probably occurred when CO2 ppm were not as high as Abbot et al establish as a requirement for it to be a primary driver.

How can you keep this up?

* * *

1/ CO2-forced deglaciation of Snowball Earth states is a splendidly extreme example from Earth's climate history of the efficacy of CO2 as a climate forcing.

2/ Hyperthermals, eg the PETM, ETM-2 and the Mid-Eocene Climatic Optimum are both associated with high levels of GHGs (CO2; CH4) and apparently inexplicable without them. Further demonstration of the efficacy of GHG forcing.

3/ This brings us to the present, where a demonstrably efficient climate forcing is steadily increasing.

Your use of swearing, words like nutter, clueless etc

Is a response to your sustained display of intellectual dishonesty.

Speaking of Flannery - The Climate Council's new bushfire report is out.

Stu 2: your pathetic attempt at diversion through tone trolling is duly noted. It also makes you even more pathetic.

Just. Go. Away. You are to stupid to engage on this topic.

@78...

"The Climate Council’s new bushfire report is out"

http://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/snow-falling-in-australia…

BBD,
It is these sort of statements by you that I am questioning:
BBD Nov 12th
CO2 is demonstrably and efficacious climate forcing, as demonstrated by the termination of Snowball Earth states
BBD Nov 16th
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'm wondering if you can see the flaw in your assertions and why the Abbot et al research does not support your "only plausible" assertions?
But as I said, perhaps I have misinterpreted you?

Question why? BACK UP YOUR BALD ASSERTIONS, YOU LYING SACK OF SHIT.

Batty, your ability in argumentation hasn't improved! Perhaps you'd care to look up 'hottest spring, Australia', hottest 12 months, Australia', hottest summer, Australia'?

Well you won't, of course. So you just cling to your weather, pet...

Arguing with Slayers only leads to frustration and hypertension. They are impervious to your mere reality. You might just as well conduct a debate with yeast, or teach the cat to play the grand piano...

Bill, the difference is that that a cat can actually learn to play some rudimentary piano, but the chance of a Denialatus learning even a whisker of some rudimentary science is vanishingly small.

Oi, bill, cat's definitely can play the piano!
http://norathepianocat.com/
They're smarter than a slayer...

Well, live and learn! I just tried to show the tabby hulk some of that footage to demonstrate to him that some other cats might be a bit less, well, crap, but he just seemed bored and then demanded more biscuits...

Still smarter than a Slayer, mind!

I am questioning what appears to be your key assertion that CO2 is the major evil culprit and that we are all doomed if it rises above an unspecified ppm.

You aren't questioning it, you are a priori committed to believing it is false -- you are absolutely certain of that, as made clear by your mocking terms like "evil culprit" and "we are all doomed". That make you, like all deniers, a pathetic intellectually dishonest coward.

Because you enter the discussion from an ideological, not scientific, stance, with an a priori commitment to denying the role of human industry, your comments are predictable and irrelevant.

From Betula's link:

Snow is not a freak event in southern Australia in the warmer months. A small dusting usually appears on the higher parts of the Australian Alps at least once each summer.

Hey Betula, do you have any idea why they're called the Alps, you fucking cretin?

Ianam.

This exact subject came up last year, although I don't recall if it was Betula or another numpty such as Mackulatus.

I responded then by pointing out something to the effect that snow in summer was not especially unusual in Australia, and most especially in the southern states. Indeed, we've had snow at Christmas. Having said that it's not nearly as frequent these days as it used to be.

It seems that the difference between weather and climate still eludes the denialist numpties here - who, by the way, have some bizarre point to prove that means that they can't keep away, not matter how many months and years of humiliation to which they are exposed...

I’m wondering if you can see the flaw in your assertions and why the Abbot et al research does not support your “only plausible” assertions?

These are not "my assertions" but the state of knowledge. You have spent two weeks failing to understand this and failing to demonstrate any flaws in it. You are now just wasting everybody's time.

* * *

I notice that as usual, you fail to acknowledge being caught in a lie:

I said that both the Abbot studies explore factors that reduced the threshold for radiatively-forced deglaciation of SE from 300,000ppm CO2 to below 100,000ppm but not below 10,000ppm.

You claimed:

Yes that is correct. I have not disagreed with this.

But you were lying again:

Deglaciation, even of the Snowball Earth probably occurred when CO2 ppm were not as high as Abbot et al establish as a requirement for it to be a primary driver.

I have already asked you for a reference supporting this assertion. Please provide it.

* * *

1/ CO2-forced deglaciation of Snowball Earth states is a splendidly extreme example from Earth’s climate history of the efficacy of CO2 as a climate forcing.

2/ Hyperthermals, eg the PETM, ETM-2 and the Mid-Eocene Climatic Optimum are both associated with high levels of GHGs (CO2; CH4) and apparently inexplicable without them. Further demonstration of the efficacy of GHG forcing.

3/ This brings us to the present, where a demonstrably efficient climate forcing is steadily increasing.

ianam...
Jeez, somehow posted the wrong link, not sure how that happened. Let's try again....

@78.....“The Climate Council’s new bushfire report is out”:
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/bush-fuel-is-to-blame-for-nsw…

"...that the guy routinely smears scientists (including me),"

Wrong, jeffie. I only smear crazy alarmists, never real, honest scientists!

Now jeffie, I wonder if you can help me with a question? Untill two days ago we had a cosy 5-6 deg c here in middle sweden. Then, suddenly there was a drop in temperature to -8 deg c and a blizzard. Now to my question: If, as you claim, nature can't cope with a 0,8 /100 year rise in temperature, how are nature to survive a 13 deg c drop over night?

If, as you claim, nature can’t cope with a 0,8 /100 year rise in temperature, how are nature to survive a 13 deg c drop over night?

Are you really this dumb? One factor is duration. If YOU were to fall into water at 5C after what time would your body be picked up lifeless?

Here to give you some idea Hypothermia: How long can someone survive in frigid water?.

You could also research on the survivors from HMS Glorious after she was sunk by gunfire from Scharnhorst and Gneisenau in 1940.

But of course, as Jeff would quickly point out, there is far more to this than that noted above. Not only is duration important but also intensity (as in the Glorious episode) and timing with respect to reproductive and symbiotic processes of diverse organisms especially those separated by geographic, geological or other natural phenomena factors.

"If, as you claim, nature can’t cope with a 0,8 /100 year rise in temperature, how are nature to survive a 13 deg c drop over night?"

Because it goes to sleep under warm blankies.

Sleeping for 100 years would be very bad for the human body, and civilisation as a whole.

Unless you believe in the fairy story of a prick who sent a princess to sleep...

pentaxZ...

Don't you get it?
Nature can't hypothetically survive a speculative slow rise in what would be considered an average world temperature over an assumed period of time because we know for a fact that Rumplestiltskin can get hypothermia when exposed to cold water.

a speculative slow rise

The CO2-forced warming is not "speculative". It is a consequence of the laws of physics and clearly demonstrated in paleoclimate behaviour. The effects will not be "slow" - they will occur effectively instantaneously on the timescales on which natural adaptation occurs.

Your comment is a stupid, mendacious misrepresentation.

Isn't a common root of speculative and its synonyms "observed in the future", i.e. prediction? Therefore, under that root, speculative could be right.

But according to deniers, this year should have been nearly a full degree cooler. Wasn't that speculation by the "science" of deniers wrong? Indeed. Well beyond the limits of accuracy.

Now, how has the speculation of the climatologists gone? Any trend proposed has, since around the 1960's, never been shown false. Because of the limits of accuracy.

But it now appears that betty really just doesn't believe it's a problem because THEY are not going to be harmed by it.

Rather psychopathic of them, isn't it.

Let's summarize what we've learned so far this month from our resident Deltoidians:

1. @34 FrankD speculates that the severe cold in the U.S is as normal as water being wet...

2. @38 Lumy links us to an article while speculating that this cold is actually due to a change in the jet stream...

3. @95 and 96 we have Lionel and Wow combining their brain power to tell us that, in the long run, they can speculate that nature is in trouble because a person can die if left in cold water for a given time or covered with a blanket for 100 years...

4. @98, We have Barney telling us that a continued slow rise in temperature is not speculative...

5. And finally @99 we have Wow, in referring to Barney's post @98, tell us that perhaps speculative is the right word after all...

And that is why every so often it is fun to come back....for the laughs.

And that is why every so often it is fun to come back….for the laughs.

We don't find the lies and misrepresentations of a politicised gardener even vaguely amusing, Betty. Your dishonesty and stupidity got tedious long ago.

What you have to remember is that Betty's intellectually stimulated sufficiently just by the scraping sounds his knuckles make.

Attempting to explain anything more complex than that and ... well, the (stupefying) results are there in his own words.

"Your dishonesty and stupidity got tedious long ago"

C'mon Deadeye, you can't even be honest with yourself. Calling someone dishonest and stupid for exposing the hypocrisy of the Deltoidians is what you live for...it's obvious. All one needs to do is just scroll through the comments day after day, month after month to see this is true...you never go away. Tedious? What would you do outside the confines of your fantasy Deltoid world? How would you cope? Besides hoping to get a glimpse of an indiscriminate beating of course...
The least you can do is be honest to yourself about your dishonesty.

You lie, Betty. You just accused us of hypocrisy.

Here are a few facts to calibrate your take on reality:

- We know what we are talking about because we have taken the trouble - the considerable trouble - to find out

- We know the contrarian narrative on climate change is horse-shit from end to end

- We are not dishonest.

- You are.

And Betty, based on your own commenting history and that of others here, I now have two working assumptions:

- You are (all) all mentally ill (see previous thread)

- Your absence was due to institutionalisation and was involuntary.

Betty's clear inability to grasp even the basics is illustrated when he wades back in here claiming the AGW is unsupported on the basis of a short cold weather snap in the eastern US. This coming after it has been explained time and time again that weather and climate cannot be conflated. I might as well say its been very mild over here in Europe the past few weeks with no sings of winter in much of the continent.

Betty tries to give the impression of being clever, this AFTER once arguing that North American ecosystems were doing well on the basis of three utterly absurd examples. I am still waiting for him to publish his massive wisdom on the state of North American ecosystems somewhere. Like in a three page pamphlet.

oopss - now I am singing... signs for all.

If, as you claim, nature can’t cope with a 0,8 /100 year rise in temperature, how are nature to survive a 13 deg c drop over night?

Nature knows the difference between 'mean' and 'variance'.

After years of the provision of education, you still do not.

Batty is stultifyingly dull. In fact, the entire Denier 'brains trust' here ought to be under administration...

Climate Bogans!

Bernard: mean/variance? The clod doesn't know weather from climate.

Do you think that somewhere there's a think tank PhD going - OMFG (or equivalent) that diurnal versus climatic difference is actually getting legs? Some clod named Betyhula is actually fucking running with it!!!
How stupid do you have to be, etc. etc. Crank it down another two notches for the next meme, guys.

BBD @ # 91 previous page.
If I sift through the irrelevant accusations, I think your answer to my questions are:
* No; you can't see a flaw in your "only plausible" assertions and why those assertions are not in the research and;
* No; I did not perhaps misinterpret you and you are indeed saying that CO2 is the major controller of and major player in climate and weather ?

Ianam @ # 88 previous page; your comment about human industry here:
" denying the role of human industry".
What does that mean?
Do you perhaps mean that human activity produces CO2? Why would anyone deny that?
Also, considering the bulk of the commenting was related to the research of SE and deglaciation, what role does the supposed denying of human industry play in that?

Name the assertions that are not in the literature, 2. Right now.

Liberal senator Ian MacDonald says that human-caused climate change is like the Y2K problem, and in so doing demonstrates that he understands nothing about either subject:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/12/10/climate_change_is_like_y2k_oz_s…

In the corporate sphere this sort of ignorance would surely be an example of criminal negligence, and probably criminal recklessness.

And of course MacDonald seems to know nothing about acidification…

Maximum tidal variation in my section of the coast already ranges some 2-3 m, and nothing bad happens. So what difference could an average sea-level increase of 1m make?

Also, they keep telling us sea-level is rising, but we had a really low tide last week. How do you explain that, eh?

Yes, Batty, you really are that stupid. Next.

Brrr...new record - Coldest temperature ever recorded:

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/cold-dis-comfort-antarctica-set-record-1…

"It does speak to the range of conditions on this Earth, some of which we haven't been able to observe,"

BBD @5....is there a thought in your head that's not assumed?

I will refer your assumptions to bill @15 who is currently having an imaginary conversation with himself while believing he is me...

Stu @ # 13:
Already done; previous page.

More 'real science' just out in Nature Climate Change to vanquish the deniers on Deltoid...

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2065…

Note the reference to unprecedented extreme weather events. This ties in with the Insurance Industries, NONE of which doubt the actuality nor seriousness of climate change (its costing them big bucks in compensation). And note how when I posted that article up a couple of weeks back not a single denier on Deltoid- Pentax Z, Mack or Stu 2 - made a peep about it. That's because they cannot counter it, so their best strategy is to avoid the topic. AGW is a happening folks. There's no two ways about it. And the prognosis of business-as-usual is dire.

In the comments to the post Bernard J. @#14 linked to at The Register (an astonishing hive of denialism which I wouldn't go near if it didn't have IT reporting relevant to me...) there's a link to this publication by "Australasian Power Technologies Publications" that has a hefty dose of flat-out rubbish.
http://www.powertrans.com.au/UserFiles//file//PDFs//EG-4-13.pdf

Be interesting to know how influential this publication is. It looks like one of those that's merely there to act as a vehicle to sell advertising and the content is filler. I wonder who backs it...?

Wow.

Antartica cold? Say it ain't so? Where will I go for my summer hols now???

Batty, you get a little more daft every day. Stick to the Bahco pole-saw, eh?

Stu 2

What is wrong with your reading comprehension? Why are you asking *me* about statements not supported by the literature? The problem here is that *you* have been making unsupported claims and serially refusing to reference them. Once again:

I said that both the Abbot studies explore factors that reduced the threshold for radiatively-forced deglaciation of SE from 300,000ppm CO2 to below 100,000ppm but not below 10,000ppm.

Your claim was:

Deglaciation, even of the Snowball Earth probably occurred when CO2 ppm were not as high as Abbot et al establish as a requirement for it to be a primary driver.

I have already asked you for a reference supporting this assertion at least twice. Please provide it.

You are either a cretin or you are still desperately misrepresenting Abbot. What those studies hypothesise is that CO2 forcing can overcome the massive albedo-driven cooling of a fully-glaciated SNOWBALL EARTH when partial pressure exceeds ~10,000ppm. This is the special case for SNOWBALL EARTH. It does not apply to Quaternary glaciations when the NH ice sheets only reach ~40 degrees north latitude. Here, orbital forcing (increased summer insolation at 65 degrees north latitude) is sufficient to trigger a cascade of positive feedbacks – including GHGs (CO2 and CH4) – sufficient to terminate the glacial.

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).

bill

Batty, you get a little more daft every day. Stick to the Bahco pole-saw, eh?

As noted on the previous thread, the "sceptics" here are all demonstrably mentally ill.

And just to rub in how pole-axingly dim you really are, dummy, here's the NASA press release.

"We had a suspicion this Antarctic ridge was likely to be extremely cold, and colder than Vostok because it's higher up the hill," Scambos said. "With the launch of Landsat 8, we finally had a sensor capable of really investigating this area in more detail."
...
"By causing the air to be stationary for extended periods, while continuing to radiate more heat away into space, you get the absolute lowest temperatures we're able to find," Scambos said. "We suspected that we would be looking for one magical site that got extremely cold, but what we found was a large strip of Antarctica at high altitude that regularly reached these record low temperatures."

The study is an example of some of the intriguing science possible with Landsat 8 and the TIRS instrument, which was built at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. Since its launch Feb. 11, Landsat 8 has captured approximately 550 scenes per day of Earth's land surface. USGS processes, archives and distributes the images free of charge over the Internet.

But don't just take their word for it - read the University of Colorado's release (just ask a grownup for help with the big words!)

And switch off Fox, eh?

Goose.

*It's actually very interesting science, and it must be sad for you clowns to be cut off from this world because it's not ideologically correct enough for you.

Betty doesn't understand the adiabatic lapse rate. Nor does he know why RSS doesn't use the satellite data ~70 degrees south latitude in its TLT product (hint, Betty, it's supposed to be an *atmospheric* product, not measuring surface T). Mean elevation of most of Antarctica is ~2000m above the datum.

How anyone with the intellect to clean his own teeth in the morning can think that low temperature at high altitude in Antarctica has the slightest imaginable bearing on AGW is beyond me. As I said, mentally ill.
By a happy coincidence, RSS's Carl Mears commented on this very topic just recently here.

Why are the poles so cold? Could it be that the sun just does this for a week in midsummer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZcafg-meJA
Not exactly beating down from above like Whyalla eh Bullshit for brains Bill. Oh yeah , that's right ,we're in the land of looneys here where CO2 drives climate.

"Why are the poles so cold?"

Was that rhetorical, or do you REALLY not know, spots?

Sunspot running the "Mack" sock

Why can't you answer the questions I have asked you at least half a dozen times now? You deny that CO2 is an important driver of climate and state that it is lunatic to claim that it is. But you can't defend your assertion when it is directly questioned with relevance to known paleoclimate behaviour.

That makes you guilty of the most blatant intellectual dishonesty imaginable.

Either that or you are mentally ill.

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).

..."land of looneys here where CO2 drives climate"

Given that about 95% of the scientific community agree that C02 is a very important climate driver, then Mack is saying that he and a few other illiterates have got it right whereas most of the qualified experts have got it wrong.

This is the kind of insidious ignorance which characterizes so many in the climate change denial community.

SunSpam, you're denser than Batty.

And that's really, really, reaaaaaaaaaalllyy dense.

"How anyone with the intellect to clean his own teeth in the morning can think that low temperature at high altitude in Antarctica has the slightest imaginable bearing on AGW is beyond me."

Yet, here you are Barney, imagining that I mentioned AGW somewhere on my post @16...

So now, along with Bill talking to himself while imagining he's me @15, we have Barney imagining I wrote something that is beyond him @26...

These are the sad stragglers of a dwindling Deltoid blog.

Hardley's link @19...

Titled: "Extreme summer weather in northern mid-latitudes linked to a vanishing cryosphere"

Three lines into the abstract: "The underlying mechanisms that link the shrinking cryosphere with summer extreme weather, however, remain unclear"

Same old Hardley, the nutty professor.

Batty,

Glad that you, who've never published a paper in your life, can dismiss a study in a major journal in a single sentence. Its great that you don't do science; I'd be scared to death to see the crap you'd produce. As it is, you think that the status of white-tailed deer populations, wild turkey re-introductions and coyote range expansions are all indicative of healthy, functioning ecosystems in eastern North America.

Its this kind of kindergarten level understanding of science and ecology that makes you such a daft brush. So easy to ridicule. Keep it up bats; I am waiting for more pearls of wisdom gleaned from your day job.

Just for Batty:

I know this stuff is over his head, but I keep trying. Is it warming? Yes, it certainly is.

http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/sowb/casestudy/287
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2009.01610.x/full
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3298949/
http://www.ace-eco.org/vol5/iss2/art1/
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.1525/auk.2012.12061?uid=30902&uid=3738…
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2571031/
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/06/130621-threats-against-…
http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/15945846-scientists-blame-cli…
http://www.theinformationdaily.com/2013/11/13/climate-change-responsibl…

Watch Batty skim cursorily through this body of research to desperately downplay the findings. Most importantly, North American passerines are most certainly NOT doing well. Climate change of course is only one causal factor, but the fact remains that Batty's examples are appalling and more importantly his understanding of the field is virtually non-existent.

Species that were once ubiquitous have undergone demographic meltdowns: Rufous Sided Towhees, Eastern Meadowlarks, Loggerhead Shrikes, Bewick's Wrens, Cerulean Warblers, Rusty Blackbirds, Bachman's Sparrows Bobwhites and many others have seen populations fall precipitously since the 1980s. Mean body sizes of tropical migrants are falling, and it is many of these species which are udner the greatest threat.

But old Barmy Batty will tell us that in his business he can tell us all about the population trends of various native North American mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians and birds and that they're all thriving. Heck I am sure he'll tell us he heard some leopard frogs and spring peepers in his pond this past spring, evidence that nature is doing very well in the Nearctic realm.

This is the intellectual level we are dealing with here, folks.

A laugh a minute Hardley....the nutty professor who claims to have witnessed climate change first hand while his friend was getting frostbite...only to later claim that "of course he couldn't" witness climate change first hand because the ground was frozen, then, when called out on his lie, backtracked to say he did witness climate change first hand because he saw......wait for it......a spider.

Now, @19, we have the nutty professor posting a link to "vanquish the deniers".
This deserves a second posting it's so comical...

Titled: “Extreme summer weather in northern mid-latitudes linked to a vanishing cryosphere”

Three lines into the abstract: “The underlying mechanisms that link the shrinking cryosphere with summer extreme weather, however, remain unclear”

And Poof!, just like that....vanquished.

Yet, here you are Barney, imagining that I mentioned AGW somewhere on my post @16…

Oh, pretending that the underpinning of your discourse isn't AGW denial now Betty?

And Betty, denying your denial is the end of the line. Where do you go from there?

Betty

Just because the exact mechanisms by which Arctic sea ice loss is intensifying NH mid-latitude winters are still being explored does not mean that there is no causal connection. This is - or should be - obvious.

If you want to find out more about the proposed mechanisms then I suggest you read Cohen et al. (2012) Arctic warming, increasing snow cover and widespread boreal winter cooling.

Denying stuff you don't even begin to understand is infantile stupidity.

Hardley @19...

"This ties in with the Insurance Industries, NONE of which doubt the actuality nor seriousness of climate change (its costing them big bucks in compensation)"

Wow Hardley, all of a sudden you're a big capitalist taking the side of greedy corporations and clinging to the scientific consensus of insurance agents. You're like some sort of cross between a Capitalistic Pig and a Chameleon....a Pigmeleon. Completely different from the mythical Pygmalion, in part because in this case you would fall in love with a statue of yourself.

Anyway, here is a little blurb from your link explaining the big bucks the insurance companies are doling out....

"In 2011, the costliest year ever for loss claims thanks to floods in Thailand and the earthquake that caused the Fukushima disaster, the 40 largest reinsurers made pretax profits of $5.4 billion (U.S.)"

Ouch.

And here's another part from your link you seem to have overlooked:

"That said, anthropogenic climate change doesn’t explain everything. Roger Pielke Jr., professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder, argues that there is no meaningful trend in insured losses from extreme weather events. “The accumulation of wealth in disaster-prone areas is and will always remain by far the most important driver of future economic disaster damage,” he wrote in his blog, quoting a scientific paper."

"Indeed, building in low-lying coastal and riverine areas is asking for trouble. More construction, more economic losses, end of story. (Lloyd’s notes that more than three billion people live within 200 kilometres of a coastline, a number that is likely to double by 2025.) “In the last 20 years, losses have gone up, but GDP and population have gone up too,” says Paul Kovacs, executive director for Western University’s Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction"

Look! ̶A̶ ̶S̶q̶u̶i̶r̶r̶e̶l̶!̶ A Spider!

Barney...
"Oh, pretending that the underpinning of your discourse isn’t AGW denial now Betty?"

"And Betty, denying your denial is the end of the line."

I love it. Spoken like the true Deputy of Deltoid...."the end of the line".

Do you see what's going on here Barney? You are now at the point where you are imagining that I denied what you consider to be an underpinning of denial...

Wouldn't it be easier and less embarrassing for you to just show us the comment # you are referring to, with the denial text, so then the denial you imagined is available for all to see?

Just saying.

Betula, be gentle with Litlle Napoleon and his scientific reading disabilities. :-D

Betty

You know you are a denier. We know you are a denier. Don't be such a wretched little disputant. Own your denial like a man. Wear it like a loincloth. With pride and with passion.

Or we will be forced to conclude that underneath it all, you are simply a worm.

Wear it like Clownshoes, more like...

Wear it like Clownshoes, more like…

Betty and Olly have always been size 30 clownshoes. Except when they're attempting condescension, when they slip on the size 50s for extra comic effect.

Betula @ # 39
I was also wondering why Jeff appears to believe that insurance companies would be a trustworthy and authoritarian source.
In the last few days it has been all over the news how very poorly the insurance company for the Catholic Church behaved in Australia.
Insurance companies sell products and make profits. Jeff doesn't appear to understand that insurance companies steer well clear of any products that lose them money and promote products that make them (repeat them!) money. They look for reasons why premiums might need to go up, not down.
The main reason we are getting more storm damage in terms of current dollars is because we have more things for storms to damage and not because storms are behaving remarkably differently. People like to live and work on the coastal fringes, despite the fact that it is well known that coastlines erode, land sinks and that destructive storms form over the oceans and wallop coastlines.
Jeff appears to be avoiding the obvious here. It is far more lucrative for insurance companies to blame the weather instead of being involved in the management and rebuilding of real estate.
Blaming the weather means many more areas will not (repeat not!) be able to access affordable insurance.
Go ask anyone who lives near a flood zone about their flood insurance.
Go ask any farmer about their weather insurance :-)
Managing industrial, commercial and residential property development means actually having to do something that can be measured and accountable which is not the MO for insurance companies.
They profit nicely by that 'act of God' clause.

Apology to the moderator. I mistyped my email address:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Betula @ # 39
I was also wondering why Jeff appears to believe that insurance companies would be a trustworthy and authoritarian source.
In the last few days it has been all over the news how very poorly the insurance company for the Catholic Church behaved in Australia.
Insurance companies sell products and make profits. Jeff doesn’t appear to understand that insurance companies steer well clear of any products that lose them money and promote products that make them (repeat them!) money. They look for reasons why premiums might need to go up, not down.
The main reason we are getting more storm damage in terms of current dollars is because we have more things for storms to damage and not because storms are behaving remarkably differently. People like to live and work on the coastal fringes, despite the fact that it is well known that coastlines erode, land sinks and that destructive storms form over the oceans and wallop coastlines.
Jeff appears to be avoiding the obvious here. It is far more lucrative for insurance companies to blame the weather instead of being involved in the management and rebuilding of real estate.
Blaming the weather means many more areas will not (repeat not!) be able to access affordable insurance.
Go ask anyone who lives near a flood zone about their flood insurance.
Go ask any farmer about their weather insurance :-)
Managing industrial, commercial and residential property development means actually having to do something that can be measured and accountable which is not the MO for insurance companies.
They profit nicely by that ‘act of God’ clause.

Stu2,

Enough of your patronizing waffle. As I said before, and as has been explained by James Hansen, only 0.1% of the planet's surface experienced extreme weather conditions annually in the early 1960s; that is now almost 10%. Climate change does effect changes in the number of extreme events - storms, heat waves and the like. And as I explained above, it is warming. Biotic proxies don't lie: they respond. By now we have enough evidence that species and populations are moving to higher elevations or polewards to prove that. The question is: how much of this is due to human activities and what is the prognosis? Well, the bulk of the scientific community agrees that the human fingerprint is all over the current warming episode, and predictions - however fraught with uncertainty - argue that business-as-usual scenarios could have dire results. As a scientist that s more than enough evidence for me to say that we should be doing everything in our power to counter the effects of warming. Natural ecosystems sustain humanity in a myriad of ways and yet we seem content to continue experimenting on them in ways that both simplify them and will potentially lead to their collapse. This is not at all prudent in my view.

Lastly, insurance companies are a reliable source because their profits depend to a large extent on the payouts they make in response to claims. Large claims eat into their profits and force them to put up their premiums.

One last point: note how Batty didn't even try to counter a single study I pasted up yesterday providing definitive proof of declines of passerines in North America - several of which where climate change have been implicated. I could paste many, many more, but unlike the rest of the deniers here I am a professional scientist who does scientific research. Batty's the only one here who has said what his day job is and in that he does nothing remotely scientific (managing a tree shearing operation does not suffice). Olaus, Pentax, Mack, Stu2 all shy away from answering what it is they do professionally. Yet they do not hesitate to try and suggest that they are qualified to comment on areas of immense complexity. Well at least except Olaus, who has not provided a single snippet of anything remotely scientific since he began posting here a couple of years ago. He's not even original: he just copies smears from his acolytes.

One final point I wish to make to Batty and Stu 2: both are so closed minded that they don't understand the point I made about insurance companies. That is that they don't deny it. Read that again: not a single insurance company denies the reality of AGW. This has nix to do with their ability to profit from it or not; just whether it is happening. There's a difference, of course. Batty and Stu2 are climate change deniers, or at eh very least 'skeptics' (being polite). I've argued that one industry - the insurance industry - is almost complete agreement over AGW. The I provide several scientific studies and articles showing how AGW s affecting biodiversity, focusing on North American passerines.

So how do they respond? Of course, ignore the scientific studies, for one thing. Then attack my argument about the insurance industries NOT on the basis of whether they believe that AGW is real but on the basis of whether they profit or not from it.

Talk about losing an argument.

http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/science/2013/09/how-the-insurance-indus…

Stu 2

So the sea level rise data are faked?

The West Antarctic Ice Sheet, the Greenland Ice Sheet and world glaciers aren't losing ice mass?

An ever-warmer climate won't melt ever-more ice and warm the ocean and so increase sea level rise, increasing general coastal inundation and storm surge flooding?

Are you seriously denying all this?

This sanctimonious,boring, academic asshole Jeff Harvey, who's spent his life sucking on the Canadian govts.tit, has got a lot to lose here, hence his persistant, stultifying, ivory-tower clad, head in the sand, AGW bullshit prattle here. He's still quoting Jimmy Hansen !! I feel sorry for the Canadian kids who've had the ignorance of this toffee-nosed total tosser foisted upon them.
You could water-board this fuckwit in the fount of knowledge but he still wouldn't drink.

This sanctimonious,boring, academic asshole Jeff Harvey, who’s spent his life sucking on the Canadian govts.tit, has got a lot to lose here, hence his persistant, stultifying, ivory-tower clad, head in the sand, AGW bullshit prattle here. He’s still quoting Jimmy Hansen !! I feel sorry for the Canadian kids who’ve had the ignorance of this toffee-nosed total tosser foisted upon them.
You could water-board this fuckwit in the fount of knowledge but he still wouldn’t drink.

We could waterboard you at the found of knowledge and you still wouldn't be able to justify your denialism. You can't even begin. Your pathetic avoidance of some very basic questions demonstrates that unequivocally.

And Hansen is right, you bozo:

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.

Mack, you exemplify exactly what I am saying. You routinely smear some of the most esteemed scientists you don't like and bolster the reputations of those on the academic fringe whom you do. Clots like you forever try to give the impression that you are 'defending science' when the vast majority of scientists disagree vehemently with you and are in broad agreement over the causes of GW and of the serious repercussions of inaction. You almost appear to believe that the scientific community by-and-large is made up of AGW deniers. But then again on blogs you can say any shit and expect the readers to believe it.

As it turns out, Mack, I was educated at university and live and work in Europe. I have nix to do with Canada and haven't since the early 1980s. Furthermore, to reiterate, you must loathe 95% of the scientific community, because that's how many of us believe the evidence for AGW is beyond reasonable doubt. So why don't you write a long winded message to every Academy of Science in every country on Earth - all of which agree that humans are driving climate change - telling them that their members have their "stultifying, ivory-tower clad, heads in the sand".

But of course you wouldn't do that because you are a spineless coward and in doing so you'd have to admit that science and scientists are against you.

Know what Mack? You are a bonafide idiot. But then again, you already knew that. Why you write into Deltoid is anyone's guess - certainly not to educate anyone. By the way, what are your scientific qualifications? Oh, yeh, sorry, you don't have any. My bad.

SunSpam, you are dreck.

Well Jeff Harvey it turns out that indeed yes, all (or 95% or whatever) of the acadamies of science have got it wrong... I'm not going to bother to explain it to you here, and I'll just let you wallow in your own DK induced ignorance.
Btw being a scientist or having a university degree doesn't preclude you from false and wacko theorising, nor does it preclude wacko group-think among a number of qualified "experts". You go right ahead and cling to every word your "esteemed" scientists tell you . That's how science works for you gullible believers. Years of parroted institutionalised ignorance.

Jeff, it's more than 95%. Quite a bit more. There's likely less than 1% that *disagree* with the evidence for AGW. Most of the "around 5%" that "don't agree" actually aren't disagreeing with the evidence, just aren't convinced that it concludes most of the warming is human caused.

And to a degree, that may be right: if the feedbacks make a 1.2C per doubling of CO2 3C of total change, then most of that is not from anthropogenic CO2.

However, it would hardly be correct to claim it was not a result of the CO2.

But a dislike of the consequence of the conclusions and that little bit of wiggle room for self justification and you can get people who will say it's mostly natural for that reason and think themselves "reasoned".

But most of that "about 5%" don't disagree with the evidence, they are not as convinced or have a different conclusion from it.

Spots, meanwhile, is in deep denial.

Spots, you're a clueless moron with a completely undeserved egotistical bent to self-aggrandisement and a pathological hatred of anyone better educated than you.

Christ, look at that clown rabbit on: every irony meter on the planet just shorted out.

About Nature and Science. Bitchslap big time! Hillarious!

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/09/nobel-winner-boycott-sci…

Anyone give a damn about Pentie's posts? Didn't think so...

Nah, only panties cares.

The rest of the deniers will swallow any shit if it smells like denial, mind.

Bazhinga! Hahaha.

And jeffie still is going on about the 98% meme! Hillarious! What a wacko.

Sunsock

Well Jeff Harvey it turns out that indeed yes, all (or 95% or whatever) of the acadamies of science have got it wrong… I’m not going to bother to explain it to you here, and I’ll just let you wallow in your own DK induced ignorance.

But as we've already exhaustively established, you cannot even answer three basic questions about the role of CO2 in paleoclimate behaviour.

Yet you seem to believe that all the world's scientists and academies are flat-out wrong.

This is as clear a demonstration of delusional behaviour from you as we have yet seen. You really do need to seek help, because these conditions deteriorate unless treated. I don't know if you have dependants, but if you do, think of their welfare.

Get help.

Pentax

For once, I half-agree with you. Scientific publishing needs a hefty kick up the arse and it needs it now. Where we part company is in the absurd implication that climate science is distorted by the scientific publishing sector.

To illustrate the cosmic daftness of that claim, let us try a simple test:

Please answer the following three questions with direct reference to the influence of the scientific publishing sector on the laws of physics over long time-scales:

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.

NB – 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).

* * *

I do hope this clarifies for you just how incontinently daft your argument is.

"Yet you seem to believe that all the world’s scientists and academies are flat-out wrong. "

Even more amusingly, spots thinks that the proof of this is that they were educated and he wasn't...!

"Mack shows how utterly out of touch when he writes, "Well Jeff Harvey it turns out that indeed yes, all (or 95% or whatever) of the acadamies of science have got it wrong… I’m not going to bother to explain it to you here, and I’ll just let you wallow in your own DK induced ignorance"

So, in other words, a guy with no scientific pedigree whatsoever (meaning Mack, who refuses to tell us his day job, proof positive of my assertion) confidently claims that all of the scientific academies have got it wrong, as well as the vast majority of the scientific community (meaning those with professional training in the relevant fields) WHEREAS HE, WITH NO QUALIFICATIONS HAS IT RIGHT. THEN HE CLAIMS THAT I (AND BY ASSOCIATION MOST SCIENTISTS) ARE AFFLICTED WITH THE D-K SYNDROME..

Now I don't know whether this is just pure insanity on Mack's part, or whether he really believes what he writes. One thing for sure: its bullshit.

What really annoys the real D-K acolytes here (meaning those who have no training in science whatsoever but who have inflated opinions of their knowledge - meaning Mack, Betula, Pentax etc) is that they cannot come to grips with the views of most scientists. They try and smear me as if my views fall outside the academic mainstream, but none of them are academics and they do not interact with scientists. In my scientific career spanning more than 20 years I have met very few climate change skeptics at work, conferences, universities, workshops, or elsewhere where scientists meet. AGW is taken as a 'given' by the vast majority of my peers. On the other hand, the deniers on Deltoid and other blogs for the most part don't go anywhere near any of the venues I listed above. Their opinions are gleaned almost wholsale from denier blogs and the people who write into them, as well as from climate change skeptics who write for the corporate media.

On this basis they think they are 'informed' and that they can lecture me on the views of scientists. Trouble is, I am one and I work with scientists. I meet them every day at work and elsewhere. And like it or not, very few are AGW deniers. As I said, in my career, I've met maybe 3 or 4. Against that the number of peers I have met who acknowledge AGW runs into the many hundreds, if not thousands.

They can't debate the science (biotic proxies prove its warming) and thus they have to try and isolate my opinions as if they fall outside the mainstream. They don't.

End of story. Try harder guys.

One last thing: I'd trust the views of 95% or more of the experts in a scientific field over some clueless morons writing into blogs. All Mack can do is to claim - with nary a shred of evidence - that the experts must be wrong because of 'group think'. This is it. Thus, we are supposed to believe a tiny handful of skeptics, most on the academic fringe, and their army of untrained followers.

My gosh, if this is the level of their debating' skills' then no wonder they are laughingstocks.

Jeff

Now I don’t know whether this is just pure insanity on Mack’s part, or whether he really believes what he writes. One thing for sure: its bullshit.

All these possibilities are mutually compatible...

pentaxZ...

That's an interesting link you posted at #57...

Schekman (a Nobel Price winner)..." said pressure to publish in "luxury" journals encouraged researchers to cut corners and pursue trendy fields of science instead of doing more important work. The problem was exacerbated, he said, by editors who were not active scientists but professionals who favoured studies that were likely to make a splash"

Wasn't Hardley an editor of one such Journal? Can you imagine someone with his ideological biases being an editor?

There may be something to what Schekman says...in any case, it certainly can't be argued by Hardley, since Schekman's credentials are so much better...

Hardley @46....

"note how Batty didn’t even try to counter a single study I pasted up yesterday providing definitive proof of declines of passerines in North America – several of which where climate change have been implicated"

Where did you post this?

Hardley @51...

"the serious repercussions of inaction"

Which actions over what time frame will correct which repercussions at which specific location on earth? Please be specific. (where's the deputy when you need him)

I'm just curious, because I was reminded of this quote from Australia's former Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery:

"If the world as a whole cut all emissions tomorrow the average temperature of the planet is not going to drop in several hundred years, perhaps as much as a thousand years because the system is overburdened with CO2 that has to be absorbed and that only happens slowly"

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comme…

I thought it might be relevant since his credentials also appear to be much better than yours...

Which actions over what time frame will correct which repercussions at which specific location on earth? Please be specific.

Oh, please fuck off you tedious dolt.
Why are you even here if you're not aware of the global effect of on-going rising temperatures that have been published and presented in venues such as the 4 degrees Climate Conference

Denial does not stop simple physics in its tracks, no matter how many fossil fuel and billionaire funded blogs declare it to be so..

And Tim Flannery's observation (in light of no as yet unforeseen techno-superfix that will remove and sequestrate CO2 making itself available anytime soon) is readily understood by the simple analogy of ceasing to pour yet more petrol on a fire. The fire still burns and will still take time to extinguish, but it's not getting any worse.

And what's with this new denial of your denial? You've quiacked, waddled and shat like a denier for so long now have you forgotten you're a fucking duck?

Oh, check, you don't realise!

Betty Boo is doin' the do.
And you are through.
And there's nothing you can do.
Betty Boo.
Betty Boo is doin' the do.

Betty

That’s an interesting link you posted at #57…

See response at # 63, which you bizarrely ignored.

Have a go. Or is it a wee bit to hard for you?

#70 Frack me, that Flannery quote is from March 2011. Has it only just sunk in?

Hehe...spot on, JoNova!

"We also won’t mention that many of the records depend entirely on our adjustments. All those old thermometers kept reading too high. We had to fix that. Strange how it took 70 years to “correct” those readings. (Measuring temperatures wasn’t too rigorous back in the days of the Atomic Bomb and Moon Landing, scientists couldn’t be expected to do something as complex as measuring air temperature accurately without a computer model.)"

http://joannenova.com.au/2013/12/ipcc-spin-translated-between-the-lines…

Are we faking Arctic sea ice extent too, Pentax?

And sea level data from satellite altimetry? And ice mass loss data from GRACE and volumetric change data from Cryosat? Etc. Etc. Etc.

You are off with the conspiracy fairies again, aren't you? Get a grip.

Why is all this ice melting and why is sea level rising Pentax?

Ice melts because it is getting warmer. Sea level rises because the ice is melting and the sea is warming and expanding.

Etc. Etc. Etc.

This is what is actually happening in reality - in the real physical world - and you are denying it. That's diagnostic of mental illness, Pentax.

Get help.

Betty "....a Nobel Price winner"

Priceless.

Turdblock @74...

" Frack me, that Flannery quote is from March 2011"

Which is why I said... "I was reminded of this quote"

Consider yourself fracked.

So Schekman won't publish in - or should I more correctly say submit papers to - Nature, Science or Cell any more, and this is supposed the be the 'bottom line' according to the deniers on this blog. They are happy to espouse the merits of papers is journals like Energy and Environment.

The man is entitled to his opinions. But I am sure that many other acclaimed scientists would disagree with him. I would have liked him to provide examples. And he is incorrect that the editors of Nature are not scientists. They most certainly are.

As for having 'better credentials' than me, well that is utterly hilarious. In his field of research he most certainly does. But in mine he most certainly doesn't. And, most importantly Betty, you have no credentials at all. Zero publications and zero citations. I at least have 136 and 3,300 respectively. My guess is that Schekman would take my comments a lot more seriously than yours.

Hehe…spot on

... sayeth the PantieZ, not realising that Codlers has said nothing specific whatsoever, but only thrown out the suggestion of juicy chum to the bottom feeders who can fill in their own gaps according to their own taste, wishful thinking and (lack of) intelligence.

Maybe she'll do a NZCSET, say something actually substantial, and thus end up paying a shitload of costs like Treadgold's sorry crew who ended up believing their own cobblers from the very same vein, were tested and found to be miserable, incompetent and misguided failures.

Studies on avian declines in North America and elsewhere (below). There are many, many more. Climate change and other factors are implicated. Most importantly, they utterly rebuke Betty's assertion that North American ecosystems and their biodiversity are doing well. And remember that these declines relate to birds only; the story is equally grim for other vertebrate groups.

ttp://missoulian.com/news/local/um-study-links-climate-change-decline-in-songbird-populations/article_5ed6a08e-464f-11e1-8d5e-0019bb2963f4.html

http://www.ace-eco.org/vol5/iss2/art1/

http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/sowb/casestudy/64

http://www.pnas.org/content/105/42/16195.short

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/277/1685/1259.short

http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1650/7131

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000632070600070X

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s001140050514?LI=true

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2008.01751.x/abs…

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2486.2003.00575.x/abs…

http://www.stanford.edu/group/stanfordbirds/text/essays/Eastern_Songbir…

http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/2257/20130604/songbird-populati…

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/06/130621-threats-against-…

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v447/n7145/abs/nature05829.html

http://birds.audubon.org/common-birds-decline

http://www.pnas.org/content/101/52/18042.long

http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/sowb/casestudy/63

http://www.ec.gc.ca/indicateurs-indicators/default.asp?lang=en&n=F2BDAA…

http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/sowb/pressure?gclid=CIXn5LiuqbsCFcNF3g…

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1202/p13s01-sten.html

Hardley...

"I at least have 136 and 3,300 respectively."

Which further proves Schekman's point.... the system is flawed.

Which further proves Schekman’s point…. the system is flawed.

Seriously? Do you understand what you're saying?

I've been spending a considerable time lately wading in publication processes and statistics and I can tell you that Jeff's are absolutely credible, as is the work with which he is associated.

You have absolutely no understanding of what really happens in science do you? Just as you have no effective capacity to be able to judge the import of the content and implications of scientific output.

I think I've told this story before in response to your drek, but it's worth repeating again. Back in the 80s one of my social circle tried to tell us that she was a computer programmer, when all she did was type letters for her boss using Windows 2.X. She couldn't understand why she wasn't a computer programmer - just as you can't understand why your tree surgery is not a passport to scientific acumen.

Grow a brain Betula. You're a part of society that will be regarded by the future as biocidal criminals, and you don't have a clue why.

Let's face it, about 80% of Denial is 'The Revenge of the Dumb Kids'.

(And the other 20% is 'Truly Ruthless Bastards Exploit the Terminally Dumb to Further Their Agenda.')

Try and defend Hardley all you want Bernard (again), but after years of viewing his comments along with off and on conversing... it wouldn't take an acclaimed scientist to figure out that he is an egotistical ideologue who's biases consume his every thought.
I can't imagine it would be possible for him to attack a research project or give a lecture without these traits affecting his conclusions in some preconceived way.

It is what it is.

he is an egotistical ideologue who’s biases consume his every thought

It is, indeed, always projection with the muppets. In this case, black hole chastises kettle. Get back to your ARS extension pole, Bircher Boy, it's the greatest height you're ever likely to achieve...

It must seem inconceivable to Betty that someone, having studied and researched a subject for years, and to have acquired sufficient understanding that the effect of the wrecking ball that is global consumer civilisation's impact on whole ranges of natural systems are unwise, unsustainable and yet by and large unintended consequences.

To then dismiss those drawing attention to those consequences and the remedies those effects demand as non-existent problems and merely some ideology shows yet another facet of the mental illness that is denial at its most nihilistic and ignorant.

"Why is all the ice melting bla bla bla..."

In the west Antarctic? Shifting focus now because the Arctic won't comply? And what about the ice on the rest of Antarctic? Grows like never before. You alarmiztas really are the experts of cherry picking, or perhaps more accurate, you are in panic grabbing the last straw. Dumbass!

And yes, sea level is rising, as it has since the last glacial, at a more or less steady rate of about 1,5 mm/year. What's the problem, idiot?

"...I can tell you that Jeff’s are absolutely credible..."

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!! Get out of here, bernie! We should just take your word for it? Because you said so? What a joke! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!

Apologies for calling you an asshole at # 49 Jeff Harvey. I must have unthinkingly lapsed into Deltoid venacular.
Your typical content free, self agrandious, boring prattle @# 65 was your usual long, sleep inducing diatribe. You can talk the hind leg off a dog. Hopefully your students might fall asleep, avoiding all the AGW bullshit you inject in your lectures.

Pentax et al. Since you've never read a scientific study I have done, and wouldn't understand the science even if you did, since when are you able to judge on my abilities as a scientist? That's a bit like asking a guy who shovels manure for a living to judge the work of a scientist who does biomedical research. None of you understand basic science or (with the exception of Betula who has admitted his science comes from sticking s finger to the wind) have told us here what you do for a living. Which means that none of the deniers have any scientific qualifications. If they did, oh yes, we'd hear all about it. They do not hesitate to blow out of all proportion the bonafides of a few deniers who run blogs or who have published half a dozen papers, but note how the smears come out for the scientists they hate (me, and any number of climate scientists like Hansen, Mann, Trenberth, Santer, Ramsdorff, etc). Mack called Hansen 'Jimmy' in a post yesterday, a clear vernacular attempt to denigrate him.

The snide comments here from the usual band of deniers is because they hate scientists who deviate from the views they hold on AGW. And since none of the usual suspects has any qualifications remotely scientific, its even more indicative of the D-K state of things that they all never hesitate to claim that AGW is bullshit even when they don't understand the basics of atmospheric science.

The more vile they become, the more desperate they are. All of them claim the Deltoid is a dead blog, yet they all write in here time and time again. And Mack actually brought up D-K yesterday. Oh the irony........

Batty clearly did not understand the gist of Schekman's article, which was aimed at scientists, and not birch tree pruners. In fact, reading the article, I pretty much agree with everything Schekman says, But his article was not attacking the reputations f other scientists at all but the pressure of young scientists to publish to top tier (or high impact) journals at the expense of sound science.

But since Batty is not an insider and wouldn't know an impact factor from birch bark and doesn't understand the way in which journals operate, its clearly ridiculous for him to comment on my qualifications as if this is what Schekman was talking about. His article was not at all an attack on fellow scientists but on the pressure to publish in certain journals and their practice of rejecting most submissions. That was it.

Its amazing how utterly ludicrous some of the comments are from the likes of Batty, Muck, Pantie etc here when none of them understand the basics of how science operates.

Pentax

In the west Antarctic? Shifting focus now because the Arctic won’t comply? And what about the ice on the rest of Antarctic? Grows like never before. You alarmiztas really are the experts of cherry picking, or perhaps more accurate, you are in panic grabbing the last straw. Dumbass!

And yes, sea level is rising, as it has since the last glacial, at a more or less steady rate of about 1,5 mm/year. What’s the problem, idiot?

So much rubbish in so few words! Bravo, clown!

West Antarctic ice mass loss rate is increasing. Artcic summer sea ice extent is accelerating (you are the idiot if you try to make claims based on a single year instead of the full time-series).

Sea level has *not* risen steadily since the beginning of the Holocene as you claim. You trot off and find me a reference or five for that, eh? Good luck.

You are cherry-picking and grabbing a straws - and projecting like a poisoned dog.

* * *

So, back to the facts.

December 11, 2013

Why is all this ice melting and why is sea level rising Pentax? Answer the fucking question this time.

Ice melts because it is getting warmer. Sea level rises because the ice is melting and the sea is warming and expanding.

Are you denying these basic facts? Seriously?

That would be crazy, Pentax. Loony tunes. Are you a nutter, Pentax?

Oops. Missed a bit of your rubbish, Pentax.

And what about the ice on the rest of Antarctic? Grows like never before.

I linked to this at #48 and again at #77 but you clearly didn't bother to look at the latest scientific measurements, preferring blabbering denial instead.

Here is what we now know about West and East Antarctica and Greenland:

Examining the ice sheet regions individually we show that the Greenland, West Antarctic and Antarctic ice sheets have all lost mass over the past two decades, whilst the East Antarctic ice sheet has undergone a slight snowfall-driven growth. The Greenland ice sheet has lost the largest mass and accounts for about two-thirds of the combined ice sheet loss over the study period. In Antarctica, the largest mass losses have occurred in the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. However, despite occupying just 4% of the total ice sheet area, the Antarctic Peninsula has accounted for around 25% of the Antarctic mass losses.

We created charts of mass change (see figure below) for each geographical region, and these confirm known signals of imbalance. Mass loss from the Greenland, West Antarctic and Antarctic Peninsula Ice Sheets has increase over time. In Greenland, rates of mass loss were modest during the 1990’s but have sharply accelerated since then due to episodes of ice acceleration (Rignot and Kanagaratnam, 2006; Joughin et al.,2004) and decreased surface mass balance (van den Broeke et al.,2009; Ettema et al., 2009). The rate of mass loss from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet increased substantially over the study period, with losses occurring mainly due to glacier acceleration in the Amundsen Sea Sector. The Antarctic Peninsula Ice Sheet was close to balance in the 1990’s, but since then significant mass losses have occurred as a result of ice shelf collapse (Rott et al., 1996;De Angelis and Skvarca, 2003) and calving front retreat (Cook et al., 2005; Pritchard et al.,2009). Overall our time series of mass change show that the combined losses from Greenland and Antarctica have increased over time and the ice sheets are now losing almost three times as much ice as they were in the early 1990’s.

And yes, sea level is rising, as it has since the last glacial, at a more or less steady rate of about 1,5 mm/year. What’s the problem, idiot?

How about we put the straw man aside.

What is the contemporary rate of sea level rise, and what will it be for the next few centuries?

And what are the consequences of the ansers to the previous question?

...answers...

...the Abbot et al papers that were put up point out that ppm CO2 levels need to be very high (at least 10,000ppm) and be accompanied by layers of dust or clay drapes before CO2 plays a role, which also does mean BBD that deglaciation can and does occur without CO2 playing a *forcing* role.

The paper clearly says the opposite of what you claim. It says you have to have quite a lot of CO2 in order to get out of Snowball Earth. It does not say that you get out of Snowball Earth purely by other ways if you don't have a certain amount of CO2. It most certainly does not say that there's a magic CO2 level below which CO2 does not act as one of the factors that gets out of Snowball Earth, and above which it does.

Understanding this only requires grade 9 English comprehension and a whole bunch of people have pointed it out. Now maybe grade 9 English is beyond you, but your writing suggests otherwise so it seems like you have other issues. For example, you appear to suffer from black-and-white-thinking syndrome which will lead one to all sorts of erroneous conclusions. There is no CO2 "role" that magically switches on at 10,000ppm (or at any other level above zero). The forcing from atmospheric CO2 increases and decreases with concentration increases and decreases. But even though it's a very small forcing at very low levels the small forcing is still taking place.

What the paper says is that given what we know about other factors, there must be AT LEAST the amount of forcing you get from 10,000ppm of CO2 IN ADDITION TO those other factors to get out of Snowball Earth.

This is a bit like my mate telling me he obtained a big screen TV from a retailer which I know costs $650. I also know that one can get a $50 discount due to a motoring club membership, and that the retailer will accept frequent flyer points in lieu of dollars - for every 100 points up to a maximum of 1,000 points they will give you $10 off. There are no other known discounts.

So, totting up all the non-dollar "discount forces" affecting the purchase, that means my mate MUST have provided at least $500 in actual dollars. And he might have had to cough up even more if he couldn't come up with the full 1000 frequent flyer points.

Knowing this, if someone told you "well, that means he could have bought the TV without using dollars at all" or "dollars played no role in the purchase until there were 500 of them" you'd look at them like they were slightly barmy. Suppose I then pointed out that my mate actually does have the TV and therefore MUST have paid at least $500 because the maximum possible discount is $150. If that someone said "I never disagreed with that" you'd think they were more than slightly barmy, you'd think they were having a lend - or suffering from serious cognitive issues.

That's essentially how people are looking at you, Stu 2, because that's precisely the kind of illogic that you are advancing here. If you don't want to be looked at that way, the ball is entirely in your court.

While the presence of 0.04 % of CO2 in our atmosphere is essential for life in the biosphere, the notion that such a minor constituent of the atmosphere can control the above forces and motions, is absurd”

It is indeed absurd, because that's not what climate science says about CO2. Herzberg is either incompetent or a liar. The fact that you find his argument persuasive means that you are incompetent or mendacious. If you don't want to appear thus, and you are unwilling or incapable of becoming personally competent, the only recourse is to find more reliable sources.

The qualifications and experience of the blog owner look OK.

They aren't terrible, but as we carefully explained to Chameleon many months ago when she tried to cite some of his more ... interesting ... claims, you'll note if you care to check that the kinds of claims that he promotes on his website and people cite as "evidence" against the scientific consensus don't make it into his peer reviewed papers. Any guesses as to why not?

And any guesses as to why you rely on the ones he doesn't publish in the peer reviewed literature?

Regulars may recall previous ‘greatest hits’ in perverse insistence in the face of all evidence and reason. Chebbie and the ‘James Delingpole agrees with me about Flannery and the snow’ incident? Our old friend and the ‘nitrogen and oxygen are the real greenhouse gases’ thing?

I've noticed a number of similarities between Chameleon and Stu 2, quite apart from their willingness to cite Humlum's non-academic and deliberately misleading site...

Lotharsson #97 previous page

Thanks for continuing to clarify this. I have tried - to the edge of my patience - but there remains the possibility that my explanations were simply not clear enough for Stu2 (chammie?) to follow.

(S)He has no excuse now.

Yes, and that about accelerating sea levels. Or shall we say deaccelerating:

The constant stream of alarm reports of supposedly dramatic sea level rise at present and in the future cannot be confirmed by observations. Rather, the data as a whole contradict it. Worldwide neither tide gauges nor satellite data indicate an acceleration in sea level rise. Rather they show a weakening. There is a glaring contradiction between earlier and current statements from a number of institutes, climate models and the IPCC. Moreover there are strong indications that the satellite data showing higher values were “over-corrected”.

http://notrickszone.com/2013/12/12/veteran-meteorologist-old-and-new-da…

Do you never get tired of being shown your sources are rubbish that play on your bottomless ignorance, PantieZ?
In the real world, sea level rise is an urgent problem.

The Science Panel reviewed data from several studies of sea level in North Carolina and found that the rate of sea level rise on the North Carolina coast increased significantly in the 20th century. The Science Panel’s N.C. Sea Level Rise Assessment Report concluded that the data pointed to a likely 1 meter (39 inch) increase in sea level by 2100.

Of course not!

You know those weirdos who like being vilified?

That's panties for ya!

No tricks zone should be more appropriately called the 'No brains zone'. Or how about 'No science zone'.

This is the virtual world inhabited by the likes of Pentax, one that is thankfully avoided like the plague by most scientists. It also explains why so many scientifically uneducated bloggers espouse the nonsense that they do, when they source such abominable sites.

And the story goes on ....Mr Head Clown Himself, Pachauri Insists No Acceleration “Is An Acceleration”. Good grief, what a moron...I mean, what a Deltoidian.

http://notrickszone.com/2013/12/12/top-swedish-climate-scientist-also-c…

Hey, Stupidcheck. For your information, North Carolina isn't the whole world. In fact, neither is USA. 1,5, 1,7 whatewer mm/year at least the last 150 years. And you call that alarming, boot scrape? The same steady rate as before the industrial revolution, you know, before we started fertilize the atmosphere with CO2.

Great link @3 chek...

It starts with a disclaimer and ends by stating they need more tidal observation stations and gauges and more long term observations.....sounds like they are looking for funding.

Everything between is just filler....sea level rise varies depending on many factors, but SLR is expected to accelerate in the future....because maybe it might.

The same steady rate as before the industrial revolution

This is the second time I have asked you to reference this claim. Not from bollockszone, from the published, reviewed literature.

So where are those references? Come on, back up your claims, Pentax.

So the ice mass loss from Antarctica, Greenland and the world's glaciers will just stop as it gets warmer?

This is craaayyyzzziieeee.

...."before we started fertilize the atmosphere with CO2"

Yup, indeed, this is the pre-school level of scientific acumen brought to us by the deniers on Deltoid....

This argument has been shot down more times than one can count, and yet our right wing fanatic still dredges it up...

"...only 0.1% of the planet’s surface experienced extreme weather conditions annually in the early 1960s; that is now almost 10%."

Ah, yes of course, jeffieboy. And, in the sixties we of course had the same instrumental and satellite coverage as today. Or wait, we didn't. Darn, accidently you forgot to mention that. Or didn't you, Mr CV?

"This argument has been shot down more times than one can count"

Yes indeed. I would reckon, exactly 0 times. Correckt, jeffiejoke?

Those references, Pentax?

Lotharsson,
As I pointed out several times I have no argument with this:
"What the paper says is that given what we know about other factors, there must be AT LEAST the amount of forcing you get from 10,000ppm of CO2 IN ADDITION TO those other factors to get out of Snowball Earth."
The research was specifically looking at CO2 by using several different GCMs and several different runs.
You may also notice, if you have read the papers, that they clearly state that this work is not conclusive and that they have hypothesised how the other factors combined will reduce the *required* amount of CO2 as a *forcing* role down to 10,000ppm, based on what is known.
You and BBD have continuously obsessed over one sentence and then used that one sentence as a basis for personal attacks and rather inappropriate questions.
I agree that my sentence was not well constructed and could be misinterpreted, but BBD's response and his aggressive questions was ridiculous.

What the papers do not say is :
*CO2 is demonstrably and efficacious climate forcing, as demonstrated by the termination of Snowball Earth states or:

*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.

Plus several other CO2 comments made here in relation to this research.
Your attempts at psychoanalysis are totally irrelevant.
I am finding BBD's and your either/or questions and unsubstantiated personal comments amusing.
BTW. I followed someone else's link to the Climate4You site. I did not link it. I also noticed that the owner of the site possesses good qualifications and experience and has been published in reputable journals.
While you are correct that everything on that site has not been published, the same can be said about this site and in fact every blog site that discusses science, environment and politics.
When you consider that it is really only academics and scientists employed by the tax payer who need to publish as part of their job description, I do wonder why some here think that others who have not chosen those particular career paths are somehow less credible, just because they don't focus on being published?

BabyBoyDumbass"

Why is all this ice melting and why is sea level rising Pentax? Answer the fucking question this time."

Why bother answer when you (think) you answer it your self a centence later? But ok, dumbass. Who do you mean claims that ice isn't melting due to heat? Are you fucking brain dead? Ice is melting, as it has for the entire time since the last glaciation. Do you understand that, dumbass? The question here is is the sea level rize accelerating (due to ice melt), as the very expensive computer games suggests? No, no instruments nor satellites can detect an ACCELERATING sea level rize. None! (unless a climate activist tampers with data that is)So, who is nocking down strawmen, dumbass? Isn't it time for you to change your diaper and go to bed?

” denying the role of human industry”.
What does that mean?
Do you perhaps mean that human activity produces CO2?

You can't really be that stupid. That's as if someone referred to the role of the tobacco industry in cancer deaths and you asked whether they perhaps meant that cigarettes contain nicotine and why would anyone deny that. What they are denying are the implications and consequences. I do not believe that you are too stupid to understand that, but I do believe that you are so dishonest as to refuse to acknowledge my obvious meaning.

Why would anyone deny that?

Because they're ideologues who don't want any limits put on human industry. At some point they all explicitly acknowledge this consideration.

And they grasp desperately to deny anything that human industry is having deleterious consequences that need to be curbed, even such contradictory claims that CO2 is both "a trace gas" and "fertilizer".

Glad you envy my CV Pantie. All of you deniers here can't stop talking about it. I guess its because none of you have one that is anything close to scientific. As I have said, you all loathe scientists who disagree with you (meaning the vast majority of us). But whenever a scientist - any for that matter - spouts something questioning AGW, they instantly become 'bonafide experts' and 'leaders in their field' to you jokers. You clowns are so predictable.

What's clear from all of your zany posts is that not a single one of you understands the basics of science or life in an academic environment. Since you're all on the outside, you try and placate your spurious views by convincing yourselves that the vast majority of us downplay AGW or even don't believe it at all. That's what I glean from your comments. Mack chastises me claiming that I brainwash my students on AGW theory when in fact I don't lecture on it because it is not my field - instead I lecture on extinctions and factors which caused past extinction events and the current extinction episode, of which climate change is one factor. But in pretty well every university in the world AGW is taught in climate science courses as the main factor for the recent increase in temperatures. In ecology lectures we discuss its effects on biodiversity. We don't say its a controversial theory unless challenged when we respond by saying that most climate scientists agree over the major forcing - which is anthropogenic.

And yes, the C02 fertilization argument has been demolished here there any everywhere numerous times. If you understood anything remotely even basic about plant ecophysiology, then you'd realize what a load of cobblers it is. Researchers working with plants rarely touch it. That's because a myriad of biotic and abiotic processes affect plant phenotype and ultimately influence plant fitness. But since you haven't even got a basic understanding of the field (you clearly have not been to relevant university courses) you can spout any such bilge you like and think you can get away with it. Well, you can't. If I asked you to write an essay on the subject my guess is that it would stink. That is hardly surprising, since any information you have on plant ecophysiology is probably gleaned from denier blogs arguing that 'C02 is plant food'. And not surprisingly these blogs are run by the sort of people who also don't have a clue about the field.

BabyBoyDumbass

What about this graph? From Colorado. Do you spot any acceleration, dumbass?

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

#16

When PentaxZ isn't just providing and quoting bogus links, and actually writes an entire paragraph of his own words, he demonstrates his sub-90 IQ.

Hehe, in your wet dreams I envy you, jeffieboy. If you actually where a real scientist, that would perhaps be true. But as we all now, you are a joke, a poor excuse for a scientist. So no, sorry, I don't envy you a bit. Not even a tiny one.

Now, I have asked you before without getting an answer. Can you even point out one single animal or plant that has wanished due to the supposed AGW or rised CO2 levels, in the industrial era? One? Please, with sugar on top? And I do NOT mean migration. I mean extinction.

Well, I Am Nannys Asshole Moron, then I at least have 80 points more than you.

Frigging imbecile deniers who don't even understand what acceleration is ... no one other than BraindeadZ's strawman is claiming that the rate of sea level rise is accelerating -- the word appears in his posts and no one else's. And if one were to note that the rate is constant, this imbecile would claim that "even alarmists say that sea level is constant".

#22

Typical example of the Dunning Kruger effect.

Pentax

What the papers do not say is :
*CO2 is demonstrably and efficacious climate forcing, as demonstrated by the termination of Snowball Earth states or:

Yes, they do. You just don't appear to be able to understand the words.

*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.

Don't take my word for it! But to save you the trouble of actually checking for yourself, I've found you a
straightforward summary of the topic.

What is lacking here is some referenced support for your... views.

Your attempts at psychoanalysis are totally irrelevant.

You leave me no choice :-)

Sorry! The above is of course for Stu 2.

That’s as if someone referred to the role of the tobacco industry in cancer deaths and you asked whether they perhaps meant that cigarettes contain nicotine and why would anyone deny that

QFT.

It's how deniers, when cornered roll.

Pretend something else was said, then go all faux-puzzled: "Why do you think there's no such thing as water vapour?".

Pentax

Who do you mean claims that ice isn’t melting due to heat? Are you fucking brain dead? Ice is melting, as it has for the entire time since the last glaciation. Do you understand that, dumbass?

I understand that it is incorrect ;-)

Continual cryosphere melt across the entire Holocene... bollocks on stilts! Go on, find me a reference for that too. And where are the refs for this:

And yes, sea level is rising, as it has since the last glacial, at a more or less steady rate of about 1,5 mm/year. What’s the problem, idiot?

SLR hasn't risen 1.5mm/y "since the last glacial". Think about it: Holocene begins ~11.5ka, so that's 1.5 x 11,500 = 17,250mm... Come on!

no one other than BraindeadZ’s strawman is claiming that the rate of sea level rise is accelerating

Just to be clear, no one is saying that it has been accelerating over the last 20 years, the period of the graph BraindeadZ linked to (and non-deniers here had already linked to). Of course we can count on imbecilic deniers to draw invalid and dishonest extrapolations from that. 1 ... 2 ... 3 ...

For your information, North Carolina isn’t the whole world.

For your information PantieZ, I'll guarantee that everybody sane here knows that SLR isn't uniform across the globe.

But what yours and Betty's hand waving and brainless brush-offs both fail to acknowledge is that some areas across the globe will be hit first, then the next, then the next and so on.

We do however, I'm sure, appreciate that you're too mentally feeble to understand the concept of ongoing consequences. Or any other rational concept, come to that.

Holocene begins ~11.5ka, so that’s 1.5 x 11,500 = 17,250mm… Come on!

The correct number is about 120 meters, but averages aren't very useful for non-linear properties over long periods:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level_png

ianam

Don't confuse the poor chap ;-)

Oops, sorry, it's about 60 meters for -11.5ka, but as I said it's not linear so the number is highly sensitive to when you take the Holocene to begin ... 8000 years ago the sea level was about 15 meters lower than today.

I consider Bjorn Lomborg to be evil incarnate, and he outdid himself in his Dec 3 NYT "opinion" piece, but one of the comments nails him to the spot:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/04/opinion/the-poor-need-cheap-fossil-fu…

This argument is right out of the PR play-book for muddying policy issues. Let's imagine Lomborg's PR recipe applied to Tobacco policy:

1. Grant opponent's position halfway so as to damn with faint praise:
"True, smoking may to some degree be harmful to your health."

2. Obfuscate the science:
"But the exact long-term effects await further study."

3. Feign concern for a victim with strong public appeal:
"But right now many thousands of tobacco workers and their families depend on the industry."

4. Cast opponents as utopian social engineers and pampered intellectuals:
"Of course we all eventually want to reduce the harmful consequences that smoking may entail, but for now we have to think about the practical effects on real people."

5. Establish pragmatist credentials with an intimidating display of economic data interspersed with graphic human interest vignettes that show all the negative human consequences of Utopian regulation.

6. Propose a pragmatist solution allegedly concerned about the victim, but which conveniently favours the interests of one's true backers, i.e. the tobacco industry:
"So by all means let's regulate tobacco, but do so gradually in a way that does not harm workers and their families."

7. Finally, get piece in authoritative newspaper that gives it the stamp of expert authority, and hide one's own ties to the industry behind an NGO with a disinterested sounding name.

ianam

And just look at that lagged response to forcing change in SLR across the Holocene ;-)

I consider Bjorn Lomborg to be evil incarnate, ...

I don't rate him THAT highly - "failed mediocrity incarnate" I'd go with. Of course, over-promoted mediocrity itself opens the door to many other evils so maybe you're right after all.

Lomborg has had a huge effect on delaying policy. And I have personally had progressives who had read and been swayed by Lomborg's books accuse me of not caring about poor Africans when I pushed back at their arguments.

As I pointed out several times I have no argument with this:

Your "pointing out" remains false, as my TV analogy illustrates. You refuse to acknowledge that or withdraw the other statement you made that is incompatible with it, and thus you continue to argue with yourself.

What the papers do not say is ...

Red herring.

No-one claimed that the papers contain those words. They claimed that the papers - as with many other papers - provide one part of the evidence that demonstrates those words to be accurate, to the best of our knowledge.

If you are really objecting that you can't find that quote in the papers, then you are being mendacious by falsely implying that the claim was that those words were a quote. And if not, you are being either mendacious or incompetent by failing to acknowledge that that's exactly what those papers imply*.

* Not psychoanalysis.

While you are correct that everything on that site has not been published, the same can be said about this site and in fact every blog site that discusses science, environment and politics.

And no-one said it was or had to be on a blog that discusses science. But when it comes to discussing scientific claims, then it is crucial to discuss whether they are supported by the literature or not.

If not, then at best they have unknown scientific credibility unless it's obvious that they are supported by existing literature. And if they go against the claims that ARE supported by the literature, then they have zero credibility - regardless of the credentials of those making them. The credibility comes not from WHO said it, but from being made and successfully defended in the scientific literature.

It's quite common for someone who can't demonstrate their claim is supported by the literature to start talking about who said it and what their credentials are, but that doesn't change the fact that their claim is not supported by the literature and hence has no credibility.

When you consider that it is really only academics and scientists employed by the tax payer who need to publish as part of their job description, I do wonder why some here think that others who have not chosen those particular career paths are somehow less credible, just because they don’t focus on being published?

We've had that discussion before, and your argument didn't stack up then either. I'm not going to reiterate it.

But interestingly, this argument does not apply to Humlum...did you think that it did?

For those who might be interested, I've taken the liberty of extending the Wikipedia global paleo-temperature graph - the images are posted here:

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/12/medieval-anthony-watts-reveals.html?…

Well Asshole Moron, the CAGW high priest himself is claming sea levels is rising. How can you as a true CAGW believer say othervise? Watch it, you may be labelled as herretic.

Whereas you are known by all as an emetic...

Aw gee Lotharsson, it sounds like you're missing me :-) :-)
Unfortunately I can't come and play because I am heavily moderated due to incessant sooking by some of your regular playmates. :-(

Well Asshole Moron, the CAGW high priest himself is claming sea levels is rising at a accelerating rate. How can you as a true CAGW believer say othervise? Watch it, you may be labelled as herretic.

BBD,
I did ask a couple of times if I had perhaps misinterpreted you?
You keep asking for a cite:
I find it a bit odd that you claim to have some experience in this field yet you seem to argue that there is no other literature available other than what's available at the snowball earth site you linked earlier?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111012083450.htm
So here is one of many papers (published and peer reviewed) that show that perhaps after all, there is not one 'only plausible' explanation.
There are others of course but this one is in the same timeframe as the Abbot et al research.
I guess we may have to agree to disagree about the Abbot et al research. I think it is open to interpretation because it is not conclusive and it does not focus exclusively on CO2 and you don't appear to think so.

"But as we all now, you are a joke, a poor excuse for a scientist"

Please rephrase that, laddie (PentaxZ). What you mean is that a bunch of uneducated right wing hypocrites who have no scientific qualifications whatsoever call me a poor excuse for a scientist.

Which suits me just fine. I take that as a compliment. If you twits praised me, I would certainly be concerned.

With respect to Lomborg, I gave a lecture in Amsterdam last week in which I drew a link between global environmental change, the massive division in resource consumption between rich and poor, and the political and economic factors driving global policy. I presented three slides in which I essentially demolished Lomborg's nonsense with respect to priorities to alleviate poverty and hunger in Africa. In 2006, his project, the Copenhagen Consensus, came up with the hypothetical amount of 50 billion dollars that, if available, would be used to prioritize human welfare in the south. In the 2012 conference, he and his team of essentially neoclassical economics up the ante to 75 billion dollars. The truth of the matter is that this amount of money is a pittance, pocket change for the ruling elite. The banks alone were bailed out to the tune of 4.6 trillion dollars after 2008, and this year the US spent close to a trillion dollars on 'defense'.

The Congo - officially considered the poorest nation on Earth in terms of per capita income - has an estimated worth in terms of mineral resources of 20-30 trillion dollars, but all of its resources are 'owned' by corporations based in the G-8. If one reconciles the massive ecological debts maintained in the developed world and how we depend on resources based in poor countries, one should easily realize that the elimination of poverty not only is not a priority of the western elites; indeed it conflicts with their agendas of capital repatriation. I have read enough declassified UK planning documents from the 1960s and early 1970s through the books of British historian Mark Curtis to fully realize that our governments routinely undermine nationalist movements if they threaten our corporate interests. In fact, if one goes through these files, they realize that the promotion of democracy, human rights and poverty elimination are rarely if ever mentioned, for the simple reason that these more often than not conflict with the profit making motives of our corporations. So, in other words, Lomborg's conferences are totally devoid of political and economic reality. Its also telling that he shared the stage with infamous neocon John Bolton at the 2006 shindig. My guess is that he will reassemble his 'team' in 2018 with the amount of money upped to 100 billion dollars - money that of course will never ever be invested in eliminating poverty for the reasons that I outlined above.

Well, lookee here. PimpTax will have to wait for a big denier to read it so he can download what he thinks...

“So by all means let’s regulate tobacco, but do so gradually in a way that does not harm workers and their families.”

Heh.

Just thought what would be thought of Saddam's defence lawyer saying of his appearance before the court:

If we stop Saddam using his army as he wishes, then the army has no or little use and all those people and their families will be thrown onto the street to starve or enter a life of crime.

So by all means, lets regulate what my client can do to independent indigenous people, but do so gradually, in a way that does not harm the soldiers and their families.

And, of course, certain nations and regions in history have been extremely reliant on concentration camps as employers, and they're a tremendous boost to the construction, barbed-wire, trained-attack dog, and floodlight industries...

So here is one of many papers (published and peer reviewed) that show that perhaps after all, there is not one ‘only plausible’ explanation.

Nope. That's *one* study, singular - and nobody's validated their carbon isotope analysis. There's a substantial body of evidence pointing to a planetary glaciation and Sansjofre et al. doesn't provide any alternative explanation for any of it. Therefore the most likely explanation is that Sansjofre et al.'s conclusions are mistaken.

More recent work only adds to the substantial body of evidence supporting the primary role of CO2 in SE deglaciation. You only have to look...

I guess we may have to agree to disagree about the Abbot et al research.

You have not understood the Abbot studies. We can agree on that.

Hardley...

"one should easily realize that the elimination of poverty not only is not a priority of the western elites; indeed it conflicts with their agendas of capital repatriation"

And therein lies the rub....this is all about anti capitalism and the redistribution of wealth....no big secrets there.

The problem with Hardley lies with the fact that he mixes his scientific work with his ideology, making it difficult, if not impossible, to be impartial in his research.

It appears that he uses his work with hyperparasitoids as a tool to increase the number of hyperparanoids in order to advance his advocacy...

Correction....in order to advance the cause he advocates.

Jeff's work has no more to do with the physics that produce the greenhouse effect than your gardening does, Betty.

This is all about physics. Until it meets politically-motivated denial, of course. Then it gets more complex.

Since when did a gardener know more about radiative physics and physical climatology that the world's foremost researchers into these fields? Because that is what you are effectively claiming to do, and it is absurd. Just step back for a moment and ask yourself one simple question:

"Who the hell do I think I am?"

Seriously. Can you not see the silliness of pretending to be more knowledgeable that the world's experts? It's only marginally dafter than entertaining the conspiracy theory that researchers in all areas of Earth system science are conspiring to misrepresent the seriousness of AGW for political reasons. That would be you lot projecting again.

Dodging the question, jeffieboy? I didn't ask for a world economy lecture, which by the way isn't your line of expertise I pressume?

I asked for you to name one single speices, animal or plant, that has been extinct due to AGW. Extinct, not migrated. I suppose your non-answer is a kind of answer. Let me guess, you can't because there isn't one. Correct?

this is all about anti capitalism and the redistribution of wealth

That's your perception based on your narrow political beliefs.

Others might point to the intricate networks (requiring expert understanding in biology, physics and chemistry) that combine to make life on Earth as we know it possible, and draw attention to the unsustainable damage being wrought on those networks by industrial scale human enterprises.

For you it's all about you and your taxes. Others might have a more serious interest in survival in the longer term.

"this is all about anti capitalism and the redistribution of wealth"

Uh, captialism is all about redistribution of wealth.

Capital is wealth.

God, what a moron.

Pentax

This is a particularly irritating form of argument. What you have done is say: look at the C20th - a period when the signal of anthropogenic warming was barely discernable until the last two decades, and then only the very beginning is seen. So, look at the C20th and where are the extinctions?

That is naked sophistry because the ecological science indicates that the mass extinctions will occur later in the 21st century and thereafter.

If you had the remotest interest in discussing this in good faith, you would not resort to cheap tricks like this.

This RCP/warming projection viewing tool is the antidote to Pentax' rhetorical trickery. It provides the centennial context Pentax does not want you to see.

Pick a realistic scenario - 6.0 or 8.5 - and see the C20th in its proper context.

name one single speices (sic)

Instead of being disinformed by your preferred science by jizzbrains for jizzbrains, try reading what the IPCC expert groups say in WG2.

The AR4 version is due to be superceded shortly by AR5, but will properly inform you of the situation more than your currently preferred jizzbrain sources ever will.

Interesting weather...

"In Cairo, where local news reports said the last recorded snowfall was more than 100 years ago"

"In Israel, where the storm was described as the heaviest December snowfall since 1953"

http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-snow-israel-egypt-201312…

"name one single speices"

Chek - You are being "disinformed" so I'll, um, I'll make sure someone gets back to you on that situation in the near future to, um, help you be better informed. Thanks.

...while temperatures in western Europe remain well above normal...

Ah.. weather. Too bad Betty can't separate weather and climate....

"....And therein lies the rub….this is all about anti capitalism and the redistribution of wealth"

Kindergarten level bilge from Betty. Barely worthy of a response. Its this kind of gumbified understanding of the world that makes me think that we are destined to go to hell in a handbasket. The resource wealth of countries in the south is being looted you silly twit - the entire global economic system is primed to ensure capital flows remain largely uni-directional from the south to the north. Technologies are not shared - they are also intellectual property. And if one reads planning documents it becomes patently clear that our governments are not interested in promoting democracy but in ensuring that the interests of our corporations come first. Of course there are enormous social and environmental consequences of free market absolutism and the concentration of wealth and capital to benefit the privileged few. I am not afraid to call, it as it see it.

As I have said before, I might as well be discussing this with a poodle. Betty is a waste of time.

Me at #66...."Interesting weather"

Hardley response at #68...."Too bad Betty can’t separate weather and climate"

PHD.

Hardley @69...

Thanks for the confirmation.

I might as well be discussing this with a poodle..

But you are Jeff.
We just don't know whose poodle.

BBD @ # 55 & 56.
You do need to look, but you might consider looking with your 'efficacious CO2 only plausible' blinkers off.

I don't know why you think there is a difference between "here is one" and "that's one" other than your propensity to obsess over single sentences and words and then apparently wilfully misinterpret them.
There are other studies by such as Hoffman et al and several other paleoclimate model runs published by paleoclimate modellers such as William Hyde, Kerr, Sohl, Chandler to name just a few.
Unlike you apparently, I understand that the Abbot et al studies are inconclusive and that they don't support your assertion that CO2 is the major and "only plausible" forcing mechanism that unfroze the theoretical 'snowball earth'.
And talking about the efficacy of modelling:
There is some newly published research by Marohasy and Abbot (different Abbot) in the journal, Atmospheric Research, Volume 138, Pages 166-178
Some information here:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169809513003141

Hoffman lost the debate on Snowball Earth. You need to place his work in context. This is left to the interested reader.

But if you wish to deny the existence of Snowball Earth states, we can and will move on.

Take the PETM. How do we account for this hyperthermal? What forcing change caused it? Have a read around. You are the interested reader.

Unlike you apparently, I understand that the Abbot et al studies are inconclusive and that they don’t support your assertion that CO2 is the major and “only plausible” forcing mechanism that unfroze the theoretical ‘snowball earth’.

Nope. Still wrong. Please stop.

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.

The problem with Hardley lies with the fact that he mixes his scientific work with his ideology, making it difficult, if not impossible, to be impartial in his research.

Fortunately, the scientific method doesn't require scientists to be "impartial in their research", and most scientists would say that while it's a lovely and naive goal to hold they don't actually know anyone who is - given that all scientists to date have been human and all.

The scientific method pits competing explanations against one another in a brutal intellectual competition amongst some of the smartest people on earth, and those explanations that are less useful at describing reality are discarded. Scientists get career brownie points for showing that an explanation isn't as good as another, so the motivation to find the best one is built into the system.

If a scientist promotes an explanation that they made (deliberately or unintentionally) less effective at describing reality due to "lack of impartiality" or some other reason, then other explanations will eventually beat it out because they will be a better match to reality.

This is the problem with Betula. He doesn't or won't understand the scientific method and therefore reaches false conclusions about which explanations should be paid attention to or ignored.

Also from the Abbot et al paper 2010:
Which points out that these results are inconclusive and open to interpretation:
We define a deglaciation as occurring if the
tropical sea ice melts through to ocean, which in FOAM
always leads to the loss of all sea ice globally. This
definition of a deglaciation event is a reasonable way to
proceed, but we note that there are many assumptions in the
sea ice parameterizations of FOAM, and other GCMs, that
may limit their applicability to Snowball deglaciation.
And :
Most importantly, the main result of Pierrehumbert [2004] and
Pierrehumbert [2005], that large increases in the CO2 (up to
0.1 bar) are not sufficient to cause Snowball deglaciation in
FOAM, still holds.
And:
It is somewhat disturbing how different simulations
of the Snowball in FOAM and the different configurations
of CAM are from each other. The major causes of these
differences are different surface albedos, all of which are
within the range that could potentially be relevant for
Snowball sea glaciers [Warren et al., 2002], and different
cloud parameterizations, which should be viewed extremely
skeptically when applied to the Snowball climate. All of this reflects the fact that we should imbue no climate model with
undue respect and reverence and must be particularly
careful when using such models to simulate a climate so
vastly different from our own.
AND:
Given the challenges of accurately representing solar penetration effects [Warren et al., 2002], we cannot be sure that the parameterizations in CAM and FOAM accurately represent the behavior of Snowball ice. In contrast, when we parameterizeSnowball ice as glacial ice, we assume deglaciationoccurs when the annual-mean surface air temperature reaches0C, which we can view as a hard limit at which deglaciationmust occur. More study is needed to determine what tropical surface air temperatures would be required to trigger a Snowball deglaciation. Finally, we note that in both ice cases we neglect the glacial dynamical effects
considered by Goodman and Pierrehumbert [2003] that
could potentially be important for the thick sea glaciers of
a Snowball Earth.
AND:
We intend to investigate this process and the effect it could
have on the ideas presented in this paper more thoroughly in
the future; however, we feel that the model results presented
here represent a strong argument that the development of a
tropical dust strip during a Snowball Earth event is a
plausible mechanism for promoting Snowball deglaciation.
[44] We did not explicitly consider the potential for wind
transport of dust in our analysis. Wind could transport dust
into continental valleys, ice crevasses, and other protected
hollows, or could concentrate dust in loess deposits covering
a small percentage of the tropical surface. Furthermore,
if global-scale dust transport occurred, as it does on Mars,
dust could be blown to higher latitudes and covered with
snow quicker than it flows back to lower latitudes with the
sea glaciers. To a certain extent we have dealt with this issue
by establishing the parameter range of dust strip widths and
albedos for which deglaciation is possible. Additionally, we
are considering the radiative effects of dust aerosols on
Snowball Earth in ongoing work. That said, the adhesiveness
of the dust to the ice surface in the tropics under
Snowball conditions is an issue that deserves further
thought.
AND in Conclusion:
In this work we have hypothesized that the Snowball
hydrological cycle would likely drive glacial flow in such a way that over the lifetime of the Snowball a dust layer
composed of volcanic and continental dust would develop
at the surface in the tropics that would significantly lower
the tropical albedo and enable Snowball deglaciation, which
has heretofore been difficult to produce in global climate
models, for pCO2 = 0.01–0.1 bar.
[46] We predict that if this hypothesis is true, clay drapes
found at the top of the 635 Ma glacial deposits should be
thicker in tropical than extratropical regions.

Stu 2...

Inconclusive?

̶N̶o̶p̶e̶.̶ ̶S̶t̶i̶l̶l̶ ̶w̶r̶o̶n̶g̶

̶W̶a̶i̶t̶,̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶r̶e̶ ̶m̶a̶y̶ ̶b̶e̶ ̶a̶ ̶h̶i̶n̶t̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶s̶o̶m̶e̶t̶h̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶r̶e̶.̶.̶.̶

̶W̶e̶l̶l̶,̶ ̶m̶a̶y̶b̶e̶ ̶i̶t̶'̶s̶ ̶s̶o̶m̶e̶w̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶i̶n̶c̶o̶n̶c̶l̶u̶s̶i̶v̶e̶

̶O̶k̶,̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶r̶e̶'̶s̶ ̶a̶ ̶p̶o̶s̶s̶i̶b̶i̶l̶i̶t̶y̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶i̶t̶'̶s̶ ̶l̶i̶k̶e̶l̶y̶ ̶i̶n̶c̶o̶n̶c̶l̶u̶s̶i̶v̶e̶

A̶t̶ ̶l̶e̶a̶s̶t̶ ̶i̶t̶'̶s̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶ ̶d̶e̶f̶i̶n̶i̶t̶e̶l̶y̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶ ̶n̶o̶n̶ ̶c̶o̶n̶c̶l̶u̶s̶i̶v̶e̶

̶T̶h̶i̶s̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶e̶n̶d̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶l̶i̶n̶e̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶S̶t̶u̶ ̶2̶

̶I̶'̶m̶ ̶B̶B̶D̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶I̶ ̶c̶a̶n̶'̶t̶ ̶s̶t̶o̶p̶

What's your point?

Oh, you're so dumb, betty.

Oh FFS Stu 2. FFS.

Read the words:

In this work we have hypothesized that the Snowball hydrological cycle would likely drive glacial flow in such a way that over the lifetime of the Snowball a dust layer
composed of volcanic and continental dust would develop
at the surface in the tropics that would significantly lower
the tropical albedo and enable Snowball deglaciation, which has heretofore been difficult to produce in global climate
models, for pCO2 = 0.01–0.1 bar.

Previous results required CO2 at 0.2 bar (200,000ppm) to as high as 0.3 bar (300,000 ppm) to trigger deglaciation. A&P hypothesise that reduced tropical albedo might have lowered the threshold CO2 forcing considerably, and deglaciation could have occurred in the range 0.01 - 0.1 bar (10,000ppm - 100,000ppm).

So A&P suggests that an unfeasibly high CO2 concentration and concomitant forcing may not have been required after all - merely a very, very high but physically plausible atmospheric fraction of CO2 delivering a huge radiative forcing.

Why can't you grasp this? It isn't complex or challenging so what is the cognitive block all about?

Can you please, please just read what I have written (for the umpteenth time) until you grasp its meaning.

Moving on, Stu 2:

Take the PETM. How do we account for this hyperthermal? What forcing change caused it? Have a read around. You are the interested reader.

Oh dear. I've only just spotted this:

Hoffman lost [won] the debate on Snowball Earth. You need to place his work in context. This is left to the interested reader.

Post in haste, repent in leisure. Apologies to anyone wondering WTF?

Last year they brought us the fear of climate change...

“It’s worrisome for the start of the season,” said Ms. Williams, 18, a member of the ski team at nearby Colby-Sawyer College. “The winter is obviously having issues deciding whether it wants to be cold or warm.”........."Her angst is well founded"

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/13/us/climate-change-threatens-ski-indus…

This year I bring you the hope of weather...

"The recent cold weather, this storm, and others will translate to plenty of snow on the ski slopes"

http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/snowstorm-to-impact-more-tha…

Betty, why are you posting a stream of weather reports? Seriously, why? Do you actually think regional weather invalidates AGW? Can you be that stupid or am I judging you harshly here?

Barney..

"Do you actually think regional weather invalidates AGW?"

Of course not, It only validates it.

Don't dodge the question please Betty. Are you attempting to argue that regional weather invalidates AGW?

Of course not, It only validates it.

So when it's unusually warm in some regions and unusually cold in others, but global average temperatures are the highest in the instrumental record why are you obsessing about instances of cold regional weather?

There's a graph doing the rounds at the moment which I think is NOAA global November but WfT doesn't do NOAA so I reproduced it with GISTEMP, with near-identical results:

November-only global average temperature 1880 - Nov 2013

Betty's just making the usual williwattsian type non-point for himself and his fellow clickbrains.

His NYT link actually did have a point relevant to climate: "Even in the Rockies,...snowpack levels stand at 41 percent of their historical average".

But then understanding trends, the scientific method of prediction, all can be ignored if your basic ability to comprehend is governed by visceral hatred of lefty commie fascist academics.

Betula. Always with those alarming zealots it's weather when it gets cooler and AGW to blame when it gets warmer. jeffieboy blame us for not knowing the difference between weather and climate. Think about last year, when there was a bit less ice in the Arctic than usual because a storm. But no, that wastn't weather. IT WAS CLIMATECHANGE! (Now leys see what this bozos will kome up for an excuse for this. ;-) )

And jeffie still dodges my question. A screaming answer it is!

chek

This is where it all gets so strange. Look at Stu 2. Complete mind-block over the role of CO2 in SE deglaciation despite endless explanatory hand-holding. It's as if there's an internal mechanism that actively prevents comprehension at work. The alternative universe interpretations of the A&P stuff are Poe-like, but I think he's for real.

Pentax

Always with those alarming zealots it’s weather when it gets cooler and AGW to blame when it gets warmer.

November-only global average temperature Nov 1880 – Nov 2013

And jeffie still dodges my question. A screaming answer it is!

I answered your question at #63 and #64.

Why are you ignoring my response to you if you are interested in a good faith discussion?

You continue to achieve stunning levels of fuckwittedness PantieZ.
The loss of ice in the Arctic has been an ongoing trend for decades. Your bollock-brained 'bit less an usual' reference to the 2012 minimum attempts to belittle a drop from around 8.5million sq km in 1979 to around 4.5 in 2012. And despite what your jizzbrain sites tell you, only heat melts ice, not storms - although storms are a by-product of heat too.

Likewise your zeal to cuddle up to Betty's 'no snow last year, oh look snow this year' - his usual crap in other words put out just for suckers like you - misses the 41% drop in snow pack (accumulated snow) reported in the story. To spell it out for your damaged brain, the 59 missing per cent were eaten by heat that didn't used to be there.

Pantie,

I am not dodging your question. I don't want to answer it because its bloody inarticulate and unscientific... I have also answered it before and yet it hasn't sunk into your dense skull. Most population ecologists I know would laugh at the gist of your question because it is a no-brainer. At least to those who understand the basics of the field anyway. I am giving you far to much credit when I say you don't understand the most elementary basics. But then again, why would you? Its clear you've never read anything remotely relevant in your entire life.

For the umpteenth time:

Extinction is NOT an instantaneous process. You don't change an environmental parameter on one day and expect instantaneous extinction the next day. Given that one often starts with large populations exhibiting considerable genetic variation, the effects of local and global changes lead to a decline in abundance that make play out over decades or even centuries.

What happens is that populations begin to decline with time meaning to a loss of genetic variation and certainly the loss of genotypic diversity. Even the loss of tropical forests a century ago is still leading to a reduction in the abundance of species and genotypes across vast swathes of the tropics - many years after the original disturbance. Tilman and May wrote a seminal paper in 1994 in Nature in which they alluded to this process, calling it the 'extinction debt'. They convincingly argued that the extirpation of species at the terminal end of the food chain - such as gray wolves and mountain lions - in the 19th century and even earlier was probably still rippling through ecological communities 100-200 years later through what are known as trophic cascades. In this they argue that meso-predators - such as raccoons, opossums and foxes had increased in abundance as a result, again affecting the demographics of smaller birds and mammals on which they prey. In 1989 ecologist John Terborgh wrote the book, "Where have all the birds gone?" in which he expressed concern over the decline of many songbird species (ongoing to the current day) in the 20th century. What is clear is that the number of North American songbirds in population free fall is large and increasing. Even once abundant species like Red Eyed Vireos and Rufous Sided Towhees have seen population declines of > 80% since the 1970s. They didn't decline overnight this is a process that may have been kick started more than a century ago as a result of several factors: habitat loss, the increase in brood parasitism by cowbirds (which spread east from the great plains as the forests were cleared) and the loss of top level predators.

Climate change has been directly implicated as a major factor influencing the decline of birds in North America, probably exacerbated by habitat loss. Many migrants that overwinter in the tropics have seen their habitat destroyed by deforestation, but also increased droughts as a result of climate change are affecting the quality of overwintering habitat. At the same time, due to warmer springs, some tropical migrants are mistiming their reproduction with the peak of insect food supply or because the main prey has become phenologically desynchronized with the optimum breeding cycle of the birds (we have proof positive of this in Europe with a migrant that winters in Africa, the Pied Flycatcher). There is no doubt that the recent declines of many songbirds can be attributed to this. Of course climate change only became really noticeable in the 1980s and one would not expect conditions to fall outside of the thermo-neutral or phenological requirements of birds or their prey instantaneously. It takes time, and the population trends for many vertebrates - not just birds - is going in the wrong direction. When the native forests of the Hawaiian Islands were cleared, extinctions of the island endemic birds did not occur right away. many of them lingered for decades, and some are still heading for extinction more than a century later. Similarly, the draining of the great bottomland forests in the United States in the 19th century took many decades to wipe out populations of Bachman's Warblers and Ivory-Billed Woodpeckers that depended on these forests. The birds did not disappear in 20-30 years; it took a century or more.

So your attempt at a clever argument, as always, falls flat. You can't help but act like a numbskull, and that'e the reason I don't always respond to your questions. They are patently ignorant. But since you persist with asking the same ignorant question, it was time that I put it to bed.

End of story.

BBD,
Yes, it seems their faculties are totally compromised.
But then if you get your contrarian data and intellectual method from think-tank spin operatives, then it's little wonder really.

#93
"... misses the 41% drop"
should be :
" misses the drop to 41%"

It's the implication that the entire mainstream scientific position is exaggerated for political motives that beggars belief. Pretty much every contrarian I've ever come across fundamentally argues from distrust. They are frequently evasive on this point but at heart, their position is: "They're lying to us about this".

Now that does indeed suggest that their faculties are compromised, specifically by mild paranoia manifesting as conspiracist ideation.

As I alluded to with my reference to think tanks, I don't find it that surprising when you consider that deniers spend their days wallowing in the output of morally bankrupt spivs and their distortions.

Chek @93...

" misses the 41% drop in snow pack (accumulated snow) reported in the story. To spell it out for your damaged brain, the 59 missing per cent were eaten by heat that didn’t used to be there"

Exactly the point cheky, thanks for agreeing with me.

As you so elegantly pointed out, at this time last year, the below average snowpack had to be due to global warming (a result of "heat that didn’t used to be there")...

Of course, this would mean that this years above normal snow water equivalent (amount of water contained in the snowpack) is a result of the weather...

http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/ftpref/data/water/wcs/gis/maps/co_swepctno…

Funny how that works...

“They’re lying to us about this”.

No....just blinded by ideology. Though Hardley actually did lie about it.

Radiative physics and paleoclimate is "ideology"?

News to me.

Funny how that works…

No,what's funny is how your dysfunctional though processes work. Nowhere do either the article or I suggest that 60% of the snow pack disappeared this year during this years weather.

That's just your own stupid in action refusing to admit that AGW is well established and has beenh taking its toll for quite some time now. Your denial notwithstanding..

Means to a goal. The goal is based on ideology.

No news there.

though processes

should be "thought processes ",
Although it remains an open question whether Betty actually has any, or if they're just an illusion caused by knee-jerk denial.

BBD @ # 80
I have read the words, but unlike you apparently, I don't wear a set of "efficacious CO2 only plausible explanation" blinkers.
For example:
"It is somewhat disturbing how different simulations
of the Snowball in FOAM and the different configurations
of CAM are from each other. The major causes of these
differences are different surface albedos, all of which are
within the range that could potentially be relevant for
Snowball sea glaciers [Warren et al., 2002], and different
cloud parameterizations, which should be viewed extremely
skeptically when applied to the Snowball climate. All of this reflects the fact that we should imbue no climate model with
undue respect and reverence and must be particularly
careful when using such models to simulate a climate so
vastly different from our own."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The " Complete mind-block over the role of CO2 in SE deglaciation " from you @ # 91 is possibly your own "efficacious CO2 only plausible explanation" blinkers in operation again as Abbot et al very clearly states that the modelling is inconclusive and that at this point it is still a developing hypothesis and will remain open to interpretation and other influences.
At @ #97 you claim this:
"It’s the implication that the entire mainstream scientific position is exaggerated for political motives that beggars belief."
Who is exaggerating BBD?
It certainly isn't Abbot et al. They are careful to point out that their work is far from conclusive.
A good example of exaggeration is people who claim that the entire mainstream science is saying that human emissions, human behaviour and particularly human CO2 ppm is the 'only plausible' explanation for all the woes of our natural world.
Another good example of exaggeration is when celebrity scientists make claims about causal links in the media which are not supported in the scientific literature.

As if your goal - unenlightened self-interest - isn't an ideology, eh Betty? Remind us what it is you do here again?

"Nowhere do either the article or I suggest that 60% of the snow pack disappeared this year during this years weather"

Right. You suggest that LAST YEARS low snowpack was the result of AGW....not weather....because it was low. Yet, when I post the heavy snow they are receiving this year (that has created an above normal SWE) I am reminded that it is weather, not AGW.....even though I said it was weather when I posted it.

Still funny how that works,

"Remind us what it is you do here again?"

Highlight your hypocrisy.

A good example of exaggeration is people who claim that the entire mainstream science is saying that human emissions, human behaviour and particularly human CO2 ppm is the ‘only plausible’ explanation for all the woes of our natural world.

Oh, just fuck off with your dumb strawmen, Chebbie.

Highlight your hypocrisy

Well considering you invariably end up shining a searchlight on you and your fellow traveller's depths of stupidity and lack of comprehension, that doesn't seem to be the way it works in practice.
Time for another 90 day disappearance, Betty.

Chek...

The searchlight is on #7.

#5 Stu 2

You have not understood these papers.

Betty

Means to a goal. The goal is based on ideology.

So radiative physics and paleoclimate are means to a goal based on ideology.

Right.

Well, if the United Nations Millennium Development Goals are to be achieved, they need to redistribute the world wealth to do it....that's a given. But how?

You have the same goals Barney...what do you suggest they do?

Betty - yes it is, and your poor comprehension is highlighted.

The snowpack is the result of multiple years of accumulated snow. The majority has disappeared. This year's - one single year's - snowfall does not make up for that.

Why you pretend otherwise is what the spotlight is on, and the stupid victim pleading doesn't work either.

Perhaps you.ve been freaked by some imaginary bogeyman version you've heard from some paranoid pinhead on the radio or with an obscure website Betty, because not all Americans see it the way you appear to..

"In the United States, over 528 cities are members of ICLEI, an international sustainability organization that helps to implement the Agenda 21 and Local Agenda 21 concepts across the world. The United States has nearly half of the ICLEI's global membership of 1,200 cities promoting sustainable development at a local level. The United States also has one of the most comprehensively documented Agenda 21 status reports. In response to the opposition, Don Knapp, U.S. spokesman for the ICLEI, has said "Sustainable development is not a top-down conspiracy from the U.N., but a bottom-up push from local governments".

"A June 2012 poll of 1,300 United States voters by the American Planning Association found that 9% supported Agenda 21, 6% opposed it, and 85% thought they didn't have enough information to form an opinion" according to Wiki.

The SWE is a common snowpack measurement cheky. The more snowpack, the more SWE...

And to say a single years snowfall doesn't make up for snowpack is ludicrous..

http://www.powelltribune.com/news/item/9164-storms-improve-mountain-sno…

Of course, none of this is distracting me from reminding you of your hypocrisy on the subject of AGW and weather...see #7.

And to say a single years snowfall doesn’t make up for snowpack is ludicrous

Not if you understand trends Betty, which of course you don't.
Just as you can't comprehend the difference between weather and climate, just like your dimwit denier ally PantieZ.

Well, if the United Nations Millennium Development Goals are to be achieved, they need to redistribute the world wealth to do it….that’s a given. But how?

Oh dear! We are well into the reds-under-the-bed, boogeyman-in-the-closet territory here, aren't we? Are we to expect that the next batch of secret documents to be revealed will be super-secret, never to be revealed even under pain of death, e-mails from the UN to all climatologists instructing them to pretend that climates are changing? What puzzles me is that any moderately competent observer can see that various species are extending their ranges to higher altitudes and latitudes. How does the UN manage to do this?

"Just as you can’t comprehend the difference between weather and climate"

Sure I can....you taught me. If snowpack is below average it's due to AGW, if snowpack is at average or above average, it's due to weather.

"Historic average" Betty. "Historic".
The "historic" is important, which is the whole point of this extended exercise in lying that you're currently engaging in. To no avail, I should add.

Richard Simons..

It's called the IPCC.....established by two U.N organizations.

And Climate change and the MDG's go hand in hand...once again, the question is, how to get the funds from rich nations to achieve them?

"Neither the impacts of climate change nor strategies for achieving the MDGs can be addressed adequately without greater recognition of the disproportionate burden of environmental changes in developing countries. The concept of climate justice seeks to highlight this recognition and provide guidance on a better way forward. A climate justice approach acknowledges that the burdens arising from climate change and the costs of climate change adaptation and mitigation must be shared equitably, taking into account the vastly different levels of greenhouse gases (GHGs) emitted historically and currently by rich and poor nations."

http://www.realizingrights.org/pdf/Climate_Change_and_the_MDGs_-_Realiz…

Here you go chek...

If snowpack is below it's historic average it’s due to AGW, if snowpack is at or above it's historic average, it’s due to weather.

You don't seem to understand what the word "average" means Betty.

"......just blinded by ideology."

No one is more ' blinded by ideology' than Betty, but he's not going to admit it. He thinks he's rational and those who disagree with him are the blind ones. The stupidity of some of his comments beggars belief.

chec, that's because betty thinks they're average, and hence an average has, like, 90% of the events on one side and 10% on the other.

This skews the definition of average a little if you daren't look at the assumption made.

I don't understand this diatribe predicated on "distribution of wealth" being bad.

Capitalism is predicated on the distribution of wealth.

Trickle-down economics is entirely about the distribution of wealth.

Civil liability is about distribution of wealth.

Are these morons saying that capitalism is bad because it talks about the distribution of wealth to those who deserve it and those who don't?

Betty

You have the same goals Barney…what do you suggest they do?

Confiscate all assets owned by right-wing ideologues, sell same, scatter the proceeds from low-flying aircraft over rural villages in developing nations.

Richard Simons asks:

What puzzles me is that any moderately competent observer can see that various species are extending their ranges to higher altitudes and latitudes. How does the UN manage to do this?

Mind control, Richard. Same as used on people. The animals don't wear tinfoil hats and so are susceptible to the vibrations in the ether.

I really had thought this was obvious, but always happy to help with the detail. .

The animals don’t wear tinfoil hats and so are susceptible to the vibrations in the ether.

Faaaaark, now you've gone and given it away. Betula is obviously in the know because he was much more circumspect. Note that the question about the animals' ranges was cunningly ignored in favour of - oh, look, over there, a squir...er, make that a global wealth redistribution conspiracy!

Should anyone doubt the truth of what I reveal at #29 there is corroborating evidence. Only look to the domestic pets of those-in-the-know. Note that this one has also acquired a firearm and is probably a regular Internet user too.

Of course, BBD! I guess I need to wear my tinfoil hat more often.

Shhhh.

Don't mention the HAARP.

Oh, now I've said it..!

Hah! This mind control conspiracy is just a trap by the Alco company to push everyone to buying their products!

FOLLOW THE MONEY, PEOPLE!!!

bbd, i didn't ask you, did I? I asked jeffie. And now he admits he will not answer. As I said, that in it self is a screaming answer. What a bozo.

Oh, panties, complains when your petulant whines are answered, complains when they aren't.

Why you so stupid, stupid?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1c261dxGWQ

The source of the answer is irrelevant - the answer is the thing. Well, it would be if you were here in good faith, but you have now confirmed that you are not by *once again* failing to acknowledge that there is a problem with the framing of your question. Even if you did this out of ignorance rather than by design, now it has been pointed out the only response demonstrating good faith would be an acknowledgement of the problem with your question itself.

Instead you prefer to call Jeff names. This speaks volumes about you, none of it complimentary.

Pentax

I really shouldn't have let this slip either. You are lying again:

And now he admits he will not answer. As I said, that in it self is a screaming answer. What a bozo.

In fact although he began by *saying* he wasn't going to answer you, Jeff then wrote a very long comment answering you in considerable detail.

Jeff #94 previous page:

I am not dodging your question. I don’t want to answer it because its bloody inarticulate and unscientific… I have also answered it before and yet it hasn’t sunk into your dense skull.

[...]

For the umpteenth time:

Extinction is NOT an instantaneous process. You don’t change an environmental parameter on one day and expect instantaneous extinction the next day. Given that one often starts with large populations exhibiting considerable genetic variation, the effects of local and global changes lead to a decline in abundance that make play out over decades or even centuries.

Which is exactly what I said only using more words. So you have in fact ignored both of us and capped it off by making a dishonest claim about Jeff. Too bad they don't award points for this stuff.

"make that a global wealth redistribution conspiracy!"

How can it be a conspiracy if they say that's what they want to do?

"You don’t seem to understand what the word “average” means Betty"

Sure I do, it's like Global Average Temperature....by the way, what is the average temperature?

Simons....

"various species are extending their ranges to higher altitudes and latitudes"

New revelation....various species extend their ranges.

"I don’t understand this diatribe predicated on “distribution of wealth” being bad"

A comprehension problem on your part.

Sure I do, it’s like Global Average Temperature….by the way, what is the average temperature?

This is.

* * *

@ #41 Are you actually claiming that this has nothing to do with AGW?

@ #42

A comprehension problem on your part.

So fuck 'em, eh? Deny our role and responsibility and walk off whistling?

BBD...

Were various species extending their ranges before AGW?

What is the correct GAT to get various species to stay put?

Fuck who?

Were various species extending their ranges before AGW?

This is both irrelevant and evasive. Please answer the question: are you claiming that this has nothing to do with AGW?

What is the correct GAT to get various species to stay put?

Late Holocene pre-industrial norms.

Fuck who?

Don't be disingenuous, Betty; it looks awful. As you knew perfectly well, the inhabitants of the developing world.

I can see why you might want to avoid this though. What you argue is selfishly vile and inhumane.

"Don’t be disingenuous, Betty; it looks awful. As you knew perfectly well, the inhabitants of the developing world"

So this is about redistribution of wealth....I thought it was a conspiracy?

Please answer the question: are you claiming that species range expansion to higher latitudes has nothing to do with AGW?

So this is about redistribution of wealth….I thought it was a conspiracy?

No, Betty, it's about the planetary human response to a planetary-scale problem. The UN MDGs are suggestions, pointers towards a possible, humane, equitable global future response to AGW. Something you apparently object to but seemingly not without a degree of shame since you are obfuscating.

"Please answer the question: are you claiming that species range expansion to higher latitudes has nothing to do with AGW?"

The statement was "various species range expansion". That's a pretty broad statement, so which species are you referring to Barney?

"The UN MDGs are suggestions, pointers towards a possible, humane, equitable global future response to AGW."

They are goals. The question is, how will they get the financing to achieve them. Please answer the question Barney.

so which species are you referring to Barney?

The ones whose ranges are expanding to higher latitudes, moron.

Why is this Betula gollum such a coward? Why is it so reluctant to state that species ranges expansion has nothing to do with AGW? Could it retain some vestigial sense of ethics, some deep primitive reluctance to lie?

They are goals.

But immediately previously, you claimed that the goal was redistribution of wealth. Thanks for conceding that was a lie.

A good example of exaggeration is people who claim that the entire mainstream science is saying that human emissions, human behaviour and particularly human CO2 ppm is the ‘only plausible’ explanation for all the woes of our natural world.

A good example of exaggeration is this exaggeration of yours. Actually, it isn't an exaggeration, its just fabrication and a complete abdication of rationality. But it is still the sort of blatant radical hypocrisy so common with deniers.

The statement was “various species range expansion”. That’s a pretty broad statement, so which species are you referring to Barney?

You need someone familiar with the fieldwork to tell you that. The effects appear to be widespread and sufficiently uncontroversial for studies like this to pass peer review. Are you implying that you don't trust ecological scientists?

Given that the effect appears to be real (unless we believe the researchers are falsifying their results), we are back to the still-unanswered question:

Are you claiming that species range expansion to higher latitudes has nothing to do with AGW?

They are goals. The question is, how will they get the financing to achieve them. Please answer the question Barney.

By tax, obviously. You appear to object to tax and I do not, so long as the level of taxation does not become problematic. But at least we are clarifying the reason behind your rejection of physical climatology.

ianam, we crossed.

the CAGW high priest himself is claming sea levels is rising. How can you as a true CAGW believer say othervise?
...

the CAGW high priest himself is claming sea levels is rising at a accelerating rate. How can you as a true CAGW believer say othervise?

BWAHAHAH!

As I said, the imbecile doesn't even know what acceleration is ... and is also oblivious to the fact that a rate can be constant over one period of time while also accelerating over a longer period. There's just no bottom to the depths of stupidity of deniers.

But at least we are clarifying the reason behind your rejection of physical climatology.

It's not as if it had ever been unclear for Betula or any other denier.

Nannys Asshole: "As I said, the imbecile doesn’t even know what acceleration is …"

Why post this here? Tell your imbecile high preast directly.

pentaxZ, you stupid dishonest sack of shit, I quoted you. No where on these pages is there any quote from Pachauri. But again, not that you are capable of understanding simple English or basic concepts, " a rate can be constant over one period of time while also accelerating over a longer period". Your graph is only for 20 years ... and yet even then you wrote the the rate is decelerating. Why? Because you're the sort of thing one would scrape off the bottom of their shoe.

Here is something on sea level rise that pantywad won't understand a bit of: http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=365

See how futile it is to debate denier scum, folks? I regret it every time I do. Time to go do something productive.

"“As I said, the imbecile doesn’t even know what acceleration is …”

Why post this here?"

Because you're clueless about the intense lack of any comprehesnion on your part, panties.

Duh.

"Are you implying that you don’t trust ecological scientists?"

Oh, someone with a title...well why didn't you say so earlier?

"By tax, obviously"

You mean they're going to tax the middle class and poor? Isn't that going to put more of a burden on them?

"You need someone familiar with the fieldwork to tell you that"

You mean you've been talking out of your ass?

"But immediately previously, you claimed that the goal was redistribution of wealth"

Um, wouldn't financing your goals be part of the goal?

Just saying.

Ianam @ 59

From your link...

"Their impact could be tremendous, it could be sudden, and it could be horrible"

Didn't they already make this movie?

The very next line...

"The relatively modest acceleration in sea level so far is not a cause for great concern"

Sorry, gave away the ending.

Betty

Are you claiming that species range expansion to higher latitudes has nothing to do with AGW?

Betty claims nothing.

JAQing off over the internet has a long history with Betty.

Betty has no time for commie concepts such as "the greater good".

Note how the normally Mr Pars-O-Matic takes the comment "The relatively modest acceleration in sea level so far is not a cause for great concern” without teasing out how long should 'concern' be suspended for: a day? A week? A month? A decade? Never? - to axiomatically mean the last option.

Betty's only 'concern' - like a dumbed-down, camper version of the Strangelove character - is that Agenda 21 is coming to steal away his precious bodily fluids, despite the fact that the USA is the foremost implementer as the link in a previous post shows.

So there's that, and the never-ending gigatonnes of ill-thought out fuck-all that comprise Betty's horizons.

Chek visits the middle east....

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=408_1387133659

... and Mr Betty Fuck-all still obsesses about spot weather as if it's a self-evident point.
Unbelievable.

Why is this Betula gollum such a coward?

Betula's policy always seems to have been to make cowardly innuendos and accusations of bad faith, without ever saying anything substantial.

Oh, someone with a title...

Nope, more lies - or maybe insufficient cognitive abilities. The reference was to someone with expertise AND the evidence to back their claims up, not to someone with a title.

Which, entirely coincidentally I'm sure, is essentially the opposite of you in these matters.

Dishonest sack of shit: The goal of the Joneses is to go into debt.
Decent person: No, their goal is to buy a house.
Dishonest sack of shit: Well, if their goal to buy a house is to be achieved, they are going to have to go into debt ... that's a given, but how? laterSo this is about going into debt.
Decent person: No, it's about buying a house.
Dishonest sack of shit: That's a goal. The question is, how will they get the financing to achieve it. Please answer the question, decent person.
me: But immediately previously, you claimed that the goal was going into debt. Thanks for conceding that was a lie.
Dishonest sack of shit: Um, wouldn’t financing your goals be part of the goal? Just being a dishonest sack of shit and moron.

[Sorry for the tag fail. Worth repeating]

Dishonest sack of shit: The goal of the Joneses is to go into debt.
Decent person: No, their goal is to buy a house.
Dishonest sack of shit: Well, if their goal to buy a house is to be achieved, they are going to have to go into debt … that’s a given, but how? later So this is about going into debt.
Decent person: No, it’s about buying a house.
Dishonest sack of shit: That’s a goal. The question is, how will they get the financing to achieve it. Please answer the question, decent person.
me: But immediately previously, you claimed that the goal was going into debt. Thanks for conceding that was a lie.
Dishonest sack of shit: Um, wouldn’t financing your goals be part of the goal? Just being a dishonest sack of shit and moron.

Betula’s policy

The policy of all these scum is to deny the obvious or claim the absurd, and when refuted to respond by denying the obvious or claiming the absurd, and when refuted to respond by denying the obvious or claiming the absurd, ... ∞

Betula's question @ # 39 is valid.
There is no conspiracy, it is well and truly publicly documented.
No need for tin foil hats :-)
Much public money has been invested .
In Australia, the ANU has been given a very hefty Federal Government Grant.
Here are a few examples but there are many more:
http://deldem.weblogs.anu.edu.au/
http://www.southampton.ac.uk/C2G2/media/Stockholm-Soton/Dryzek%20NW-Har…
http://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/journals/index.php/portal/article/view/1734

There is no conspiracy,...

I didn't say there was about the goals of the Millenium Development Goals. (Apparently satire goes over some heads...)

But Betula does rather appear to be claiming that climate science concerns are indeed a conspiracy created in order to meet the goal of redistributing wealth, as ianam capably satirises. Care to comment on that larger (and apparently unsatirical) claim by Betula? No?

In Australia, the ANU has been given a very hefty Federal Government Grant.

So you're apparently saying government funding of universities - or your other term, "public investment" - is ... only done because someone in power has a goal to "redistribute wealth" and thinks this is an appropriate way to achieve it (quite apart from all the other far more effective ways they have of achieving that goal)? (It's a bit hard to tell - your links don't appear at all relevant to Betula's claims about wealth redistribution, so you'll have to explain why you think they are.)

If you actually think that about government funding or public investment, that really is tinfoil hat territory and ianam's illustrative dialogue involving a dishonest sack of shit applies. If not, you might care to clarify.

Worth repeating

Seconded.

"If contradictory evidences -like record cold vs. rising global temperatures- can be sited as equally proving the same hypothesis, can it really be called science? "

"The peer review process itself has come under a lot of scrutiny lately, as well. Traditionally, in order to eliminate potential bias which might be caused by personal friendships or philosophical differences, an editor would remove an author’s name, then send the article to peers who would review and comment. A “double blind” peer review process, kept everyone honest. Unfortunately, in today’s politically charged, grant-hungry world of “climate science” where billions of dollars in research money influence trillions of dollars in policy, peer review has become something far less than honest. There is simply no “double blind” practiced anymore. All of the major climate journal editors have taken to leaving the authors’ names on the documents sent out for review so the “in crowd” reviewers can rubber stamp one another’s papers."

Oh bogger!

http://guardianlv.com/2013/12/antarctica-record-cold-and-growing-ice-ch…

If contradictory evidences -like record cold vs. rising global temperatures- can be sited as equally proving the same hypothesis, can it really be called science?

Except that it's not contradictory evidence, and it is not cited by scientists as "equally proving the same hypothesis". (And even if you don't have any scientific understanding yourself you might twig that the writer appears to have no clue about science because he doesn't know to spell cite".)

Were you fooled by the writer or were you trying to fool readers here?

But you do play a useful role. If there were a solid case against the scientific conclusions, one would expect it to be made. The very fact that you rotate through an impressive circular list of very poor arguments strongly suggests that no such solid case exists. Do keep up the good work ;-)

"What, then, is actually behind the widespread obsession – with so little evidence – with global warming, and the resulting desire to implement massive new governmental policies? The answer, says Robinson, is not complicated: “Power and money.”

http://wnd.com/2013/12/global-warming-iced-by-coldest-days-ever/

Betula’s question @ # 39 is valid.
There is no conspiracy, it is well and truly publicly documented.

That's just like saying that it is well and truly publicly documented that Obama wants to turn the U.S. in a Socialist country and take away everyone's freedoms because his Affordable Care Act isn't a secret. I've found that the right wing cretins (funny how predictable it is that AGW deniers will be such) who say these sorts of things are genuinely too stupid to understand what is wrong with their logic: If A wants to do X and some conspiratorial moron thinks that X implies Y, it isn't valid to conclude that A wants to do Y. It isn't even valid if X truly does imply Y rather than that just being some harebrained imbecile's imagining. A classic example: Oedipus wanted to screw Jocasta, and Jocasta was Oedipus's mother, but Oedipus did not want to screw his mother ... inferring that he did commits an epistemic or intensional fallacy, an invalid application of Leibniz's Law.

Now PentaxZ is citing World's Nuttiest Deniers.

Lotharsson and ianam
Betula's question at 39 was this:
“make that a global wealth redistribution conspiracy!”
"How can it be a conspiracy if they say that’s what they want to do?"
I was merely pointing out, it is a valid question.
Betula didn't introduce the word "conspiracy" or make references to tin foil hats etc.
ianam, you could perhaps read the links that were posted before you make comments such as this:
" That’s just like saying that it is well and truly publicly documented that Obama wants to turn the U.S. in a Socialist country and take away everyone’s freedoms because his Affordable Care Act isn’t a secret."
You would discover that it is nothing like that at all.
Lotharsson, you could perhaps just read the words (as BBD says often) rather than make an unsubstantiated comment like this :
"So you’re apparently saying government funding of universities – or your other term, “public investment” – is … only done because someone in power has a goal to “redistribute wealth” and thinks this is an appropriate way to achieve it "
There was no 'apparently'.

After reading http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/bkgd.shtml and considering the unassailable logic of Betula and Stu2, I just realized that the goal of the Salvation Army, Toys for Tots, The American Lung Association, and all similar nefarious organizations is the redistribution of wealth, and they're doing it in plain sight -- so you can't complain that I'm conspiracy mongering!

You would discover that it is nothing like that at all.

It's exactyl like that, you fucking imbecile.

There was no ‘apparently’

FUCK but you are stupid! It appears to Lotharsson that you were saying that, so you were apparently saying that. Your "there was no 'apparently'" seems to be intended to confirm how things appeared to him ... that you really are so stupid and demented as to think of public investment in education as having the goal of redistributing wealth.

I was merely pointing out, it is a valid question.

No, you lying sack of putrid garbage, you asserted that it is publicly documented that wealth distribution is one of the Millenium Development Goals, rather than the goals that actually are published. Betula's idiotic question is only valid if the MDG were actually publicly documented as being equivalent to his harebrained conspiracy mongering.

“How can it be a conspiracy if they say that’s what they want to do?”
I was merely pointing out, it is a valid question.

Where do they say they want to do that?

Betula didn’t introduce the word “conspiracy” or make references to tin foil hats etc.

So if I say (and demonstrate) that you are stupid lying piece of garbage, you will retort that you didn't introduce the words "stupid", "lying", or "garbage", and consider that to be some sort of rebuttal?

As I've said, there is no bottom to the stupidity of deniers.

The policy of all these scum is to deny the obvious or claim the absurd, and when refuted to respond by denying the obvious or claiming the absurd, and when refuted to respond by denying the obvious or claiming the absurd, … ∞

Notice that that is exactly what Stu2 has done in each and every one of his posts and, one can safely predict, will continue to do. The end.

The policy of all these scum is to deny the obvious or claim the absurd, and when refuted to respond by denying the obvious or claiming the absurd, and when refuted to respond by denying the obvious or claiming the absurd, … ∞

Notice that that is exactly what Stu2 has done in each and every one of his posts and, one can safely predict, will continue to do. The end.

The policy of all these scum is to deny the obvious or claim the absurd, and when refuted to respond by denying the obvious or claiming the absurd, and when refuted to respond by denying the obvious or claiming the absurd, … ∞

Notice that that is exactly what Stu2 has done in each and every one of his posts and, one can safely predict, will continue to do. The end.

A picture speaks a thousand words. Unprecedented? Yeah right!

http://www.paulmacrae.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/warming-in-cycles-…

Lotharsson, you could perhaps just read the words (as BBD says often) rather than make an unsubstantiated comment like this:

Don't be (apparently) supremely stupid. My comments came about precisely because I had "read the words".

Furthermore, don't be (apparently) supremely obtuse. My use of "apparently" cannot be reasonably interpreted as claiming that you wrote the word "apparently" in your comment - as ianam capably points out. "Apparently" as I used it indicates that the writer is providing their own interpretation of what someone else wrote and allowing that their interpretation might be incorrect - and is inviting clarification if their interpretation is incorrect. (I further note that to date you have provided no such clarification.)

Please, please, please tell me that the explanation for this apparent obtuseness is that English is your third language, or you have a documented difficulty comprehending high school English, or some such, rather than trolling or attempted distraction from your complete (and fairly typical) inability to argue your point...

If I'm not mistaken, PentaxZ has been fooled again, probably by one of Bob Carter's carefully edited graphs that mistakes local for global and conveniently shears off the last half dozen decades. If not that, it is probably one of the other common sources of misleading material for those who are highly gullible - but deeply proud of how well they reckon they can see through other people's gullibility.

As I said earlier it's so good of PentaxZ to demonstrate that the only arguments against the scientific case vary in quality between unsubstantiated, through to crap, complete crap and complete and utter crap. Do carry on, excellent work thus far. Every single post seems to reinforce that message...

#93

That's NGRIP or GISP. Only an idiot would take the top of the Greenland Ice Sheet as a proxy for the whole world. Give me a global reconstruction that even *shows* these supposed "Minoan" and "Roman" "Warm Periods".

Here's a little test for you: google them. All you get is a mass of denier rubbish. What is conspicuously absent is any reference in the reviewed paleoclimate literature.

Go on, you unsceptical numpty. Do your homework for once. Get me a reference showing that these multiple "warm periods" were synchronous and global - or even existed at all - or admit that you've been fooled again by liars. And when you have established that yes, you have been tricked by liars, be angry with them like any normal person would be.

Pentax

I am still waiting for you either to support your claim that SLR has been ~1.5mm/y across the Holocene or admit that you were wrong.

You seem to think you can make absurdly incorrect claims (repeatedly) then skip away when asked either to substantiate them or admit error.

I say you are wrong and worse, you know it but refuse to admit it. Thus both wrong and dishonest.

Prove me wrong. Provide supporting references for your 1.5mm claim. I'm fed up with asking and with waiting. Get on with it.

Ohhh, dealing with reallity really hurts, that's obvious.

"...that mistakes local for global and conveniently shears off the last half dozen decades."

Now, I wonder, how many trees did the lyer mann use for his infamous hockey stick? Was it 1000? 100? No, wait, it was one. What a joke!

Yes, it is obvious that even being asked to deal with reality gives you genuine physical pain, panties.

"Now, I wonder, how many trees did the lyer mann use for his infamous hockey stick? Was it 1000? 100? No, wait, it was one"

You're lying again, panties.

So panties, Carter is a fully paid up shill for the fossil fuel industry, monckton is not only barking mad but a con artist who targets the gullible, watts is selling his site to big industry, ignores the rampant criminality of wegman, the paid-for incompetence of mcintyre, and the banal contradiction from religious mania of inholfe and instead wishes to make up lies about people working out the truth from the facts available to ensure that panties will not have to pay one jot of compensation for the damage and destruction he is causing, for purely ideological and personally financing reasons.

Ohhh, dealing with reallity really hurts, that’s obvious.

Congratulations! The first step is admitting it. Now you can proceed to starting to deal with reality. This will be tough and may take some time but the results will be worth it.

Now, I wonder, how many trees did the lyer mann use for his infamous hockey stick?

So, I take that as an admission that you either didn't know that your graph pretended the local temperature reconstruction was representative of global, and that it conveniently left off the last few decades - or you were quite happy to knowingly use it to make misleading claims.

Keep digging. You're doing an admirable job of demonstrating that arguing the "case" against the scientific position can only be done by misrepresenting the facts and making bogus arguments. I'm starting to think your strategy for demonstrating the scientific case is robust is more effective in certain circles than mine.

Iaam...

Moron: The goal is to buy a house for all the poor people
Reason: How are you going to finance that?
Moron: Finance what?

I see Betula's got nothing in response to ianam's skewering.

More idiot slime from Pentax and Betty.

And *still*No references from Pentax. Nor an admission that he was wrong. Repeatedly and insistently wrong.

No response to his gullibility over the GISP graph from Pentax. Not even anger at those who made a fool of him with their lies. What a spineless chump. You can lie to this boy and make a monkey out of him and he just shrugs it off. Weird.

Now, I wonder, how many trees did the lyer mann use for his infamous hockey stick?

MBH99 (Mann 1000y hockey stick reconstruction) validated by latest multi-author global collaboration PAGES 2k.

Caption: Green dots show the 30-year average of the new PAGES 2k reconstruction. The red curve shows the global mean temperature, according HadCRUT4 data from 1850 onwards. In blue is the original hockey stick of Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1999 ) with its uncertainty range (light blue).

* * *

Where are those references for a global and synchronous Minoan, Roman and Medieval "warm period" Pentax?

Where are they?

Come on. Back up your claims.

Ohhh, dealing with reallity really hurts, that’s obvious.

These muppets haven't even got close. They hide in a fantasy world constructed for them by liars.

"...Carter is a fully paid up shill for the fossil fuel industry, monckton is not only barking mad but a con artist who targets the gullible, watts is selling his site to big industry, ignores the ram..."

Not many posts ago some moron claimed it's not who says what, but rather what's actually said. But wait, that's only true when alarmistic zealots claims things. Sorry, forgot that. What a bunch of jokes you deltoids are. Hillarious. Bagdad Bobs the lot of you.

But Carter's presentation is deliberately misleading as has just been pointed out to you.

So why the fuck are you still defending the liar who conned you? Where is your self-respect?

Either you post up some references from the published paleoclimate literature documenting the existence of global and synchronous warm periods corresponding to those shown on Carter's graph, or admit that it is dishonest.

Come on. Do it now. Demonstrate good faith.

Minoan.

Roman.

Medieval.

Here - I'll do that one for you:

PAGES 2k Consortium (2013) Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia

Past global climate changes had strong regional expression. To elucidate their spatio-temporal pattern, we reconstructed past temperatures for seven continental-scale regions during the past one to two millennia. The most coherent feature in nearly all of the regional temperature reconstructions is a long-term cooling trend, which ended late in the nineteenth century. At multi-decadal to centennial scales, temperature variability shows distinctly different regional patterns, with more similarity within each hemisphere than between them. There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age, but all reconstructions show generally cold conditions between ad 1580 and 1880, punctuated in some regions by warm decades during the eighteenth century. The transition to these colder conditions occurred earlier in the Arctic, Europe and Asia than in North America or the Southern Hemisphere regions. Recent warming reversed the long-term cooling; during the period ad 1971–2000, the area-weighted average reconstructed temperature was higher than any other time in nearly 1,400 years.

Minoan?

Roman?

Now, Pentax. Right now. Or admit that Carter lied and you were mistaken. There's no shame in that, only in knowing that you were conned and still licking spittle for the disinformer who did it to you. Let's see a little self fucking respect out of you. Come on.

iaam @82...

"If A wants to do X and some conspiratorial moron thinks that X implies Y, it isn’t valid to conclude that A wants to do Y".....and...."Oedipus wanted to screw Jocasta, and Jocasta was Oedipus’s mother"

Try this one...

If A wants to do X and Reason states X is X because A said he wants to do X......yet, Moron assumes Reason implies Y is X....Reason has no choice but to conclude that Moron is an A who wants to XXX his mother.

iaam...

Worth Repeating:

Moron: The goal is to buy a house for all the poor people
Reason: How are you going to finance that?
Moron: Finance what?

Wasdells speach to the Club Of Rome, october 2005:

”Today we recognise that those in possession of the most accurate information share the
greatest responsibility for ensuring its most effective application. Change agency and
the catalysis of social transformation must go hand in hand with the conduct of the most
competent scientific research.

We now face the problematique of the identification of the most appropriate locus of
initiative. It seems to me that the most obvious institutions of the UNFCCC, the UNEP, and
the IPCC are in trouble. The time-scale of their deliberations, the political control of their
decisions, the power of vested interests to which they are exposed, and the absence of
channels for effective implementation combine to make it very difficult for them to act
decisively in the current situation. The national academies of science and other academic
associations are not organised to take the required level of action on an international scale.
The Club of Rome, on the other hand, with its unique constitution, its history, its global
connectivity and its reputation for the highest quality of scientific investigation and
disinterested application, may well be best placed to take up the critical agenda now facing
the global community. It is, however, not clear whether the Club of Rome currently has the
capacity, the resources or the will, to shoulder the responsibility for the required leadership
role.

I should like to conclude, if I may, by offering some brief suggestions as to the agenda which
must now be addressed:
1. Recognise that there now exists a state of global emergency.
2. Convene, with the utmost urgency, a global analysis and modelling capacity, in
order to test the conceptual climate feedback model, to quantify the complex
feedback system and to determine the time -frame of its behaviour.
3. Declare excess CO2 to be an eco-toxin with potentially catastrophic impact on the
global biosphere.
4. Develop and operationalise an emergency strategy to move our global society
towards a zero or negative carbon economy within the shortest possible time -
scale.
5. Develop and operationalise the most effective institutional instruments to
manage the transition.
6. Take note of the appropriate developments in:
i. complexity science;
ii. dynamic cellular networking
iii. advanced learning systems
iv. psychodynamics of social systems.
Postscript.
We have all been here before, there is nothing new under the sun! The engagement of limits
to growth, overcrowding, pollution, resource attenuation, rapid transition…. These are the
conditions of full-term pregnancy and normal placental degrade just before birth. What
happened next was traumatic for most of us. Its repetition is to be avoided at all costs!
Restimulation of these deep unconscious anxieties and their associated defences is one of the
most powerful elements in driving the addiction to growth and the resistance to engagement
with the realities of our finite world. The trance state of foetal regression and the defence of
denial, constitute a fertile ground for the emergence of global psychosis! Truly, the survival
of our species demands a psychodynamic renaissance.
You will remember the old communist slogan: “Now is the time for all good men to come to
the aid of the Party”. I have news for you: The Party is over.
Now is the time for all people to come to the aid of the planet.
The future of the world is in our hands."

http://www.meridian.org.uk/menu.htm

It's all about science, duh!

Crackpots!

Well, we see Pentax revealed as the miserable lackey that he truly is. Conned, told about the con, and flatly refusing to acknowledge it or repudiate the liar.

I have rarely beheld a more contemptible display of dishonesty and crawling submissiveness. The lack of self-respect is nauseating.

Not many posts ago some moron claimed it’s not who says what, but rather what’s actually said.

Yep, that's true, except for the "moron" part. And the fact that "what's actually said" needs to be backed up with evidence.

But when someone is as gullible as YOU are, you probably want to check whether you're disseminating the work of an industry shill, because you sure as shit ain't skilled enough to tell when they're lying to you.

And in this case, what is said is a graph that is deliberately engineered to be misleading, for those who are easily misled. There is plenty of evidence that demonstrates that the claims you made using that graph are false. So not only is the who in this case someone whose words on matters of climate science should be treated with very strong scepticism (if you aren't personally bright enough and informed enough to tell when he's deceiving you) but the what is said here is false. Epic Fail Squared.

(And boy, did the attempt to mislead work on you! You followed the intended script almost to the letter. Hook, line and sinker. Those who pay Carter for this kind of shit are laughing all the way to the bank while you pat yourself on the back for your perspicacity.)

Come on Pentax. Admit (we already know, so just admit) that there are no references to support Carter's deliberately misleading presentation. He tricked you and it was done deliberately.

So be angry. Speak up. Call the lying shill a lying shill and FFS stand up for yourself. How can you just bend over for vermin like this? Over and over again. It beggars belief.

"Not many posts ago some moron claimed it’s not who says what, but rather what’s actually said."

So your defence of the criminals you support is that they should be allowed to remain criminals?

Wow.

"it’s not who says what, but rather what’s actually said."

And what's being said is that you've been lied to.

However, you refuse to accept the facts because of who says it.

"And in this case, what is said is a graph that is deliberately engineered to be misleading, for those who are easily misled. "

Talking hockey stick now? Nice of you to admit it's a fraud!

Nice of you to admit Carter's graph is a fraud, panties!

Bagdad Bobs! Payback is a bitch, isn't it.

No PantieZ. Your stupid is just tedious.

Yeah, how are you loving that payback for your idiotic support for that criminal organisation?

Sheesh, Michael Mann really got under their skin and stayed there all these years, didn't he! Impressive.

Must suck to still be exercised about his seminal work, since no-one seems to be able to get a paper published that demonstrates the obvious fraud involved and other people keep publishing results from totally different methods and data sets that kinda look the same and no-one seems to be able to publish effective rebuttals of those either.

Why, it's almost enough to tempt one to think that maybe, just maybe, Mann's seminal work was in the right ballpark after all - but we mustn't let that kind of thinking creep in. That way lies the madness of carefully weighing all the evidence and following it wherever it leads...

Moron: The goal is to buy a house for all the poor people

So again you admit the goal is not to redistribute wealth; that was a lie. You also reconfirm that you are sociopathic scum, no more worthy of admission into civil society than an ebola virus which, like you, has absolutely no concern for the wellbeing of humans.

The goals: eradicate extreme hunger and poverty, achieve universal primary education, promote gender equality and empower women, reduce child mortality, improve maternal health, combat HIV/AIDS malaria and other diseases, ensure environmental sustainability, global partnership for development

ebola virus: How are you going to finance that?
human: Why the fuck am I even talking to an ebola virus?

“If A wants to do X and some conspiratorial moron thinks that X implies Y, it isn’t valid to conclude that A wants to do Y”…..and….”Oedipus wanted to screw Jocasta, and Jocasta was Oedipus’s mother”

Try this one…

If A wants to do X and Reason states X is X because A said he wants to do X……yet, Moron assumes Reason implies Y is X….Reason has no choice but to conclude that Moron is an A who wants to XXX his mother.

Fucking cretinous lying ebola virus. MDG = X, redistributing wealth = Y.

"The goal is to buy a house for all the poor people"

And so the working class are paid to build that house. The upper class owners of the companies making the stuff are paid to produce the materials to build with, and the shareholders get profit share.

Why do you hate profit, dead?

It’s all about science, duh!

The depths of the stupidity of the deniers is boundless.
Imbecile P doesn't even understand what science is for, and denies that we should act on what science tells us.

Why do you hate profit, dead?

It's more like he's still a libertarian cave dweller and has no idea how societies or economic systems function.

Pentax

Talking hockey stick now? Nice of you to admit it’s a fraud!

I am sick of your dishonesty here. You ignore comment after question after comment of mine and continue to spread lies.

So go back and read the fucking words I wrote about the validation of MBH99 at #6. Stop spewing your mendacity all over this thread.

You and all your stupid denier chums are wrong about the Hockey Stick, just like you are wrong about every bloody thing else. Only look at this thread - you bullshitting and lying at every turn - rebutted by me and others at every turn but still you keep on lying.

What kind of vermin behaves like that?

"Stop spewing your mendacity all over this thread."

But that would leave panties with nothing to say!

Oh...

(the chances of getting the other criminals like carter, watts, mcintyre, wegman, inholfe, monkcfish et al to do likewise is too remote to hope for, mind)

"It’s more like he’s still a libertarian cave dweller"

Or pater and mater are well loaded, therefore money comes from the bank and food from the fridge and work is something like "mow my lawn" for which they should be damn well grateful of having something to do in their dull and dreary lives.

And where are my fucking references, you evasive little shit?

SLR at a constant 1.5mm/y throughout the Holocene

Reference?

Constant cryospheric melt throughout Holocene

Reference?

Existence of a global and synchronous Minoan Warm Period, Roman Warm Period, Medieval Warm Period?

Where? Where? Where?

All your claims are lies, Pentax. Everything you say is bullshit. Yet when called on it you just ignore. Well fuck you, matey. No more patience today; we're going to call a spade a spade. You are a lickspittle for the denial industry, a liar and a coward.

"The upper class owners of the companies making the stuff are paid to produce the materials to build with"

Paid by who?

stupid stupid ebola virus hates industry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fordism

All of a sudden iaam is a big proponent of corporations...and the car industry no less....impressive.
So we agree then that in reality, this is all about redistributing the worlds wealth, and you are against that. Correct?

Stop making stuff up, Betty.

ebola virus employs tu quote fallacy, lies some more, and demonstrates depthless stupidity again.

er, tu quoque

Vermin, I calls 'em, ianam.

You're having a hard time admitting it iaam? Why? You do want monies to go from wealthy nations to poor nations don't you? Isn't it the moral and honorable thing to do?

How can suggesting the existence of such an honorable goal be considered a conspiracy? Even if you don't believe it's the goal, don't you hope it happens? Doesn't it have to happen?

If you are for it, just come out and say so. Why the fight? Be honest...embrace it and wear it proud.

You are an enemy of development, Betty? You are against helping the poorest of the world better their lot? Develop markets and generate wealth?

I thought you were a Bircher. Surely this is heresy?

"You are an enemy of development, Betty? You are against helping the poorest of the world better their lot? Develop markets and generate wealth?"

I seem to be the only one suggesting a redistribution of wealth is the goal....you have proven that you are against this by suggesting it's a conspiracy.

Why are you against this?

ebola virus thinks Ford wanted to distribute his wealth to his employees, conceives of economics as zero-sum, doesn't understand concepts like development, clings to walls of precivilization cave.

I seem to be the only one suggesting a redistribution of wealth is the goal….you have proven that you are against this by suggesting it’s a conspiracy.

Where did I do that, Betty? Remind us.

Oh I see, so the goal is really for the poor nations to pay the wealthy nations for a product, that being the development of their nations, in order to create more wealth for the wealthy nations.

Well, there you go. Thanks for the help yaam.

you have proven that you are against this by suggesting it’s a conspiracy.

I dispute this. Where did I say it?

Betty, just because panties dropped in the gutter doesn't mean you have to pick up what they left behind, dear.

"Paid by who?"

Paid by the builders building those houses for the poor, you moronic imbecile.

Or do you not know how houses are made?

I freely admit that I had to check, so here's a reminder of what the UN Millennium Development Goals actually are:

1/. Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger

2/. Achieve universal primary education

3/. Promote gender equality and empower women

4/. Reduce child mortality

5/. Improve maternal health

6/. Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases

7/. Ensure environmental sustainability

8/. Global partnership for development

Woo. World socialism.

The EPA-dragon has been diagnosed “to manipulate those around him through the fabrication of grandiose narratives … that are fueled by his insecurities.”

Sounds like a Deltoid in general and Jeffie in particular. :-)

http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/12/16/21911592-climate-cha…

And this invalidates the laws of physics exactly how, Olaus?

Can we touch on the subject of formal logical fallacies and false equivalence?

Do you understand what you have done here?

Easy,BBD.
Crooked penpusher=No AGW.
QED.
That's how Olap thinks.

Going by Olaus Petri's logic there is no such thing as sign language.

I see Jeffie's arm candy began to cry in chorus. :-) What a surprise! Why don't you seek comfort in that the Arctic sea ice is still out there. But I guess it will be gone next year, right? ;-)

But I guess it will be gone next year, right? </blockquote.

What the Jonarse fanbois Olap guesses about the subject is of even less value than what he knows. Which is nothing.

Don't tell me chek: "It's worse than we thought"

:-)

Arctic summer sea ice volume and extent have decreased much more rapidly than in the models. So yes, it's worse than we thought.

And Olaus, you are skipping...

May we have a response to this, please?

And a dodgy pen-pusher invalidates the laws of physics exactly how, Olaus?

Tip: false equivalence is a logical fallacy.

So, what you are saying BBD, is that the models can't even get the Arctic right. :-)

Exactly my point too, and it goes both ways:

"We didn't expect the greater ice extent left at the end of the summer melt to be reflected in the volume."

:-)

Scratch a denier, find a liar.

Scratch a denier, find a libertarian douche.

Scratch a denier, find a racist.

Scratch a denier, find a conspiracy theorist.

Scratch a denier, find ignorance.

We didn’t expect the greater ice extent left at the end of the summer melt to be reflected in the volume.

Science finds new knowledge and adjusts, ergo science is wrong.

Is that the contention, moron?

So, Olap, how well have your models done on predictions?

What was that? 2013 going to be same as the 1950-80 average? Aaaaw, didn't quite manage it, did you!

What about that arctic ice? Was going to go back to normal, wasn't that your prediction?

Sooo close!

And all those final nails...

Not to mention BEST going to show the hockey stick wrong...

And the investigations going to show CRU were criminals...

And ... well, lets just say you deniers haven't managed any of your predictions, really.

"for..saying he was a CIA spy working in Pakistan so he could avoid doing his real job, say federal prosecutors."

Yeah, there's proof the science is wrong...

Olaus

And a dodgy pen-pusher invalidates the laws of physics exactly how, Olaus?

This is the logical fallacy of false equivalence.

So, what you are saying BBD, is that the models can’t even get the Arctic right.

What I said was that the models under-predict the decline of summer Arctic sea ice volume and extent. Since ice melt is the inevitable consequence of warming this should make you think.

Oh BBD, what's this talk of "volume"? Extent is all that deniers want to talk about. I wonder why.

(In the same vein, I assume they wouldn't mind Denny's making their pancakes half the thickness, as long as the diameter remains the same...)

To elaborate: deniers are essentially reacting to the headline "Denny's making pancakes smaller!" with "what do you mean, the diameter is still the same".

BBD @ # 52.
Those goals are noble goals. Most people would agree they are noble goals. In fact if you look at the goals of most religions, most political groups (including socialism and libertarianism and capitalism and communism and environmentalism and most other isms etc), most corporations, most charity organisations, or even listen to most of the speeches at beauty pageants you will see or hear similar noble goals. They are certainly not new nor unique to the UN or even unique to mainstream science or academia.
The point of contention here is the mechanism that is advocated as the only 'right way' to achieve such noble goals.
It is basically advocating that there is such a thing as a trustworthy and benevolent dictatorship.
While in theory it looks like it should work, in practice, despite the noble goals, and attempts by just about every 'ism' we can think of, it has never been successfully implemented.

I freely admit that I had to check, so here’s a reminder of what the UN Millennium Development Goals actually are

I enumerated them in #27, BBD. Notably, none of them is "redistribute wealth", so ebola virus lies both about what the published goals are and about whether he's a conspiracy monger, along with his sidekick 2Stupid.

Most people would agree they are noble goals.

Yes, but ebola viruses aren't people.

The point of contention here is the mechanism that is advocated as the only ‘right way’ to achieve such noble goals.

No, you lying cretin, that is false in every possible way.

It is basically advocating that there is such a thing as a trustworthy and benevolent dictatorship.

No, imbecile ... see my post #82 on the previous page ... "If A wants to do X and some conspiratorial moron thinks that X implies Y, it isn’t valid to conclude that A wants to do Y". No one has made this claim other than you.

While in theory it looks like it should work

What's "it"? MDG? A trustworthy and benevolent dictatorship? In neither case is there any "theory" that asserts that "it looks like it should work". Your incoherent constructions that string words together in a cargo cult version of English (e.g., "It is basically advocating that there is ...") reveal a head full of mush and stupidity.

attempts by just about every ‘ism’ we can think of

Attempts to do what, exactly? To bring about a trustworthy and benevolent dictatorship? We can think of libertarianism, but it hasn't attempted that, has it? To achieve the MDG? We can think of Nazism and a whole lot of other isms that haven't attempted it. What can we conclude from that? That you're an imbecile.

it has never been successfully implemented

Gee, I wonder if that has something to do with their still being millenial goals, moron.

In fact if you look at the goals of most religions, most political groups (including socialism and libertarianism and capitalism and communism and environmentalism and most other isms etc), most corporations, most charity organisations, or even listen to most of the speeches at beauty pageants you will see or hear similar noble goals.

Again 2Stupid demonstrates that he has no idea what either a fact or a goal is.

http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/12/16/21911592-climate-cha…

Inflammatory crap designed to push the buttons of morons like Olaus. Aside from the complete irrelevance to climate science of some "climate expert" being a slacker, he wasn't one. As noted in the comments

Beale is not a 'climate expert'. He has a degree in Public Administration from Princeton University, and a law degree from New York University. And while he did work on the 1990 Clean Air Act under Bush I, his expertise is in law, not climate.

I enumerated them in #27, BBD.

I noticed, but I had to check all the same. I'm a sceptic.

;-)

BTW have enjoyed your recent commentary, which I read closely.

What climate blogs do people read most, alarmistic or sceptic?

http://scottishsceptic.wordpress.com/2013/12/15/ranking-of-climate-blog…

You deltoids are pissing in the wind.

And Scottish-fake-sceptic is a loon. Why do you pay attention to these ignorant UKIP bozos? They are embarrassingly stupid and wrong. Which makes you... ?

Why are you back here, Pentax?

Have you no sense of what you have done? No inkling of how badly discredited you are? No concept of intellectual honesty at all? Apparently not.

Let's recap.

No references and false claims:

- SLR at a constant 1.5mm/y throughout the Holocene

Reference?

- Constant cryospheric melt throughout Holocene

Reference?

- Existence of a global and synchronous Minoan Warm Period, Roman Warm Period, Medieval Warm Period?

Reference?
Reference?
Reference?

All your claims are lies, Pentax. Everything you say is bullshit and you know it perfectly well as your continued refusal to substantiate your false claims demonstrates. So you are a lying lickspittle for the denial industry.

This was true yesterday and it is true today.

"What climate blogs do people read most, alarmistic (sic) or sceptic?"

So there's more ignorance than enlightenment out there - how surprising. Next up from PantieZ and his self-publicising idiot coterie, a shocking expose that dogs have been known to bite people.

"No inkling of how badly discredited you are?"

Here? On deltoid? Do you really, REALLY think anybody outside this, eh, "scientific" blog gives a tinest shit about what you moron zealots think and say here? What a joke. WHAT A JOKE!!!

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.....!!!

Pentax

Braying like the moron you are. Now just go.

"I dispute this. Where did I say it?"

C'mon Barney, you know you've suggested that the so called deniers "faculties are compromised, specifically by mild paranoia manifesting as conspiracist ideation" (#97 pg3).

But apparently you have changed your mind, and that's a good thing, so let's not dwell....

Of course, Sloth actually came out and said it was a conspiracy and you didn't dispute him....."make that a global wealth redistribution conspiracy!" ( #30 pg 4)...

NOTE: I learned this strategy here at Deltoid....if you don't dispute what someone else says, even if the conversation isn't directed at you, you are guilty of agreeing with whatever it is that you didn't dispute. Thanks for that one Deltoid!

At least now, with your new found honesty, I'm expecting you to come right out and agree that the redistribution of the worlds wealth is a key factor, in fact a necessity, in order to achieve the MGG's.

The question remains Barney, how will they be financed? What can we tax, and how do we justify this tax, in order to spread the wealth? After all, without financing, the whole thing falls apart.
Hmm....this is a tough one. Take your time.

I seem to be the only one suggesting a redistribution of wealth is the goal...

At least you've finally twigged to that much, several days after everyone else did.

Perhaps you might now ponder why every one else says it's not the goal. Hint: consider the bits where several different people said in different ways that "it's not the goal, but it is likely part of the means to achieve the goal".

I doubt you will. Your "position" depends on being immensely stupid about this in order to pretend that there is no distinction between an end and a (part of a) means to that end.

What can we tax, and how do we justify this tax

Given that your familiarity with national and international finance is likely the same zilch you bring to the table with the rest of your garbage ideas, why would anyone play your stupid, and provably uninformed game?

Arguing with deniers who argue from ignorance and bad faith must be the greatest waste of time yet devised.

Betty

This claim about me is false:

I seem to be the only one suggesting a redistribution of wealth is the goal….you have proven that you are against this by suggesting it’s a conspiracy.

Pointing out the the denialiti are mildly paranoid and prone to conspiracist ideation is not the same as the words you attempted to place in my mouth.

Since you are too dishonest and dishonourable to acknowledge what you did I will do it for you:

I seem to be the only one suggesting a redistribution of wealth is the goal….you have proven that you are against this by suggesting it’s a conspiracy.

Stop buggering about and do not misrepresent me in future.

"why would anyone play your stupid, and provably uninformed game?"

You won't, in fact you can't..... because it would require you to give an honest answer.

And Betty, you have also accused me of arguing for regressive taxation (you had the gall to witter about "hurting the poor" somewhere upthread although you have made it perfectly clear that you don't give a fuck about them with every other word you have written here. Or are relatively rich Western poor people different from actually poor brown people to you? I wonder).

I did not argue for a non-means-tested regressive taxation that will hit low-income earners disproportionally. That's just more dishonest framing from you.

Why do you think that the Millennium Development Goals should not be funded, at least initially and in part, by the wealth of developed nations? Do you want all those things not to happen, because that is - apparently - what you are arguing. All because you won't even countenance a slightly higher tax burden on those able to afford it. There's a word for people like you, Betty.

Don't come here talking about honesty, Betty. You are a sly, dishonest fuck and that word doesn't belong in your mouth.

One vote for redistributing the wealth, and that it's not a conspiracy at #87.

Next.

Anyone interested in "honesty" would be required to criticise that lying fuck Pentax for refusing to admit his lies but you emitted not a peep. QED.

One vote for redistributing the wealth, and that it’s not a conspiracy at #87.

Enough misrepresentations from you.

Address what I actually wrote. Your dishonesty is nauseating.

Barney...

"Or are relatively rich Western poor people different from actually poor brown people to you?"

Are you stereotyping "brown people" as being poor?

"There’s a word for people like you" Barney.

"Why do you think that the Millennium Development Goals should not be funded"

I Never said that...."Enough misrepresentations from you" Barney.

I asked how they will be funded...and how will that funding be justified?

You're falling apart Barney.

...Sloth actually came out and said it was a conspiracy...

Shameless lies - which is all too common from you.

Not only does your handwaving comment demonstrate that even you know that BBD didn't say what you said he did, but you introduce a new lie about what I said.

You're not smart enough to lie on a forum like this. You need to do a much better job of remembering who said what, and even then some readers will go back and check...

Are you stereotyping “brown people” as being poor?

Not at all. I was pointing out that I suspect that you are a racist. Wasn't that clear?

I Never said that….

You really expect us to believe that *now* you are arguing in favour of MDGs? Just... fuck off with your evasive nonsense attempts at gotchas, Betty. The childish slyness is just unpleasant.

You’re falling apart Barney.

Another completely gratuitous lie! You just cannot help yourself, can you?

Never understood the rationale behind the denier tax meme. Every once in the while the government announces that it's going to adjust the rates of taxes and goes ahead and does it. Why invent a world wide conspiracy with outstanding production values and special effects (melting sea ice, melting glaciers, rising sea levels, increasing energy content of the Earth system etc) as well?

Sloth...

"some readers will go back and check"

The let me make it easy for all 3 of them (I thought I made it easy at #84)...

# 30, page 4:

"er, make that a global wealth redistribution conspiracy!"