More thread.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
By popular request. Comments from Brent and folks arguing with him are cluttering up more useful discussions. All comments by Brent and responses to comments by Brent should go in this thread. I can't move comments in MT, so I'll just delete comments that appear in the wrong thread.
By popular request. Comments from El Gordo and folks arguing with him are cluttering up more useful discussions. All comments by El Gordo and responses to comments by El Gordo should go in this thread. I can't move comments in MT, so I'll just delete comments that appear in the wrong thread.
This thread is for people who wish to engage Ray in discussion.
Ray, please do not post comments to any other thread.
Everyone else, please do not respond to Ray in any other thread.
By popular request, here is the Jonas thread. All comments by Jonas and replies to his comments belong in this thread.
Look, my little Deltoids, you know that am on your side because there is nothing I would like more than some serious global warming and I don't much care how it comes about. So I am sorry to bring you bad news. Apparently, Bloombergs have reported a 10.6% *DROP* in international, er, 'investment' into renewable energy schemes.
What I'm trying to tell you, gently, is that no-one believes you any more and in my usual spirit of friendship may I suggest that you try chanting LOUDER. Well done and, er, good luck!
That 10.6% is a very suspicious figure which brings up many unassociated references.
Are you dropping bubkas again? You wouldn't do that now would you?
Any fall in renewable viability is more down to the irresponsible activities of Osborne & Co or Delingtroll and his ilk in the media and their cheerleaders like you.
Why would Bloomberg lie, they've probably made plenty of dosh out of it over the last few years and they would be all in favour of any business in receipt of government money - or *MY* money as I fondly think of it!?
And one of the main contributors to the decline, I gather, is Frau Merkel who has suddenly realised just how stupendously expensive it is and has turned Germany back to coal-produced energy - SHLOCK-HORROR!
Oh, and anyway, shale is cheaper and more profitable!
Look! A talking sock!
Duffer the red nose clown is despicable:
Why don't you go to Somerset and other areas which have recently had serious floods greatly amplified by global warming and shout that rubbish to anyone who will listen. There are many places where you would be thrown into the floods if you were so despicable in person rather than sitting in your comfortable armchair spewing your dishonest nonsense. Global warming is causing untold hardship, both financially and physically, to many many people around the earth.
My local area suffered $6 billion in damages last June due to floods amplified by global warming. Guess who has to pay, it's not the people producing and encouraging us to use excess fossil fuels but the average tax payer.
You are a despicable person.
Listem everyone, Duffer is an old codger who once said that Obama is a Marxist... does anyone except even a nanogram of logic out of someone who claims that a president whose policies would make Goldwater and Nixon appear left is a Marxist?
Duff is a clot pure and simple.
Ian, when there are a fee snow flakes in November Duffer the old reliable wades in here with his vacuous sarcastic quips about warming.... but when conditions occur that verify predictions borne from a warming climate (e.g. extreme events such as those in the UK this winter) he steers away from his usual quips about the weather to other memes. Not only did the UK have by far its wettest winter, it was also the 5th warmest; here in the low countries it comes in at # 2 in terms of temperature (in over 300 years); the 10 warmest winters have all occurred in the past 25 years.
As I said, Duffer is a clot.
Duffer puffed some more:
Anyone interested in the facts rather than second-hand spin from a drooling idiot like El Duffo's dubious sources can get them here.
It will be found that 2012 was still the second highest year for investment in renewables, that the Euro crisis which hit Spain particularly badly and doubt about whether commitments to subsidise renewable energy deployment would continue beyond scheduled expiry dates in countries like the US, the UK and Germany, together with sharp falls in technology costs were major contributing factors.
And only gloating cretins, spoon-fed with selective factoids, (such as Dumbo Duffer) would cheer the premature death of clean energy.
Which of course you know is so ridiculous that it cannot possibly be true, unless of course wiping out water courses, destroying wildlife, displacing people from their homes or crops is totally ignored.
One day some big company, if they have been allowed from negligent or complicit government, may come and frack under you and then you may find your property disappearing into a sink hole. Although recent sink holes have been triggered by copious amounts of rain, maybe you have your head up seventh rock from the sun and didn't notice, the root cause of some of this could well be forgotten underground workings, or building to soon on poorly stabilised landfill.
I recall in the early 1980s desperately (there was much gazumping going on at the time, looking for a larger property to house a growing family, four children, and thus interested in any reasonable priced 4 bedroom or one with planning permission for a bedroom including extension, or suitable for such.
One we looked at was by a reputable builder in the area, its worth finding out about such stuff, and the estate agent noted that permission was granted for an upstairs extension including over an attached garage. On inspection, the owner having shown us the plans for the new build, the garage external was single skinned and we knew that because the house was on a raft their was no chance of the building being passed. Then we happened top mention it to a local builder we knew, who had built the ground floor extension on the current property, and off his own bat he decided to go digging out information. It was quickly discovered that there was the site of an old well at one corner of the house. This and the fact that the property was at the end of the development patch with a drop down into the adjacent arable fields caused us to walk away.
I thought about that well when I saw the images of a huge hole under the corner of a newish property which the owner was given fifteen minuets to grab what ever he wished to rescue as emergency crews looked on.
Look, don't give me a hard time, I'm just taking a lead from the founder of Green War, oops, sorry, Green Peace who stated categorically that: “There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years.” Well, given that CO2 emissions have gone through the roof in the past 20 years and warming hasn't happened, it looks like he has a point, wouldn't you say? Er, take that as a 'no', shall I?
Then there was that climate swot from the Met Office/Exeter Uni who told us last week that global warming had nothing to do with the jet stream being stuck so far south which was the cause of all the recent rain in the UK. I mean, what can old duffer like me do in the face of such expert scientific opinion?
And, Chek, how delightful to see you produce a prime example of selective stats. Yes, indeed, 2012 was the second "highest" year for 'investment' in renewables because total international 'investment' was dropping like a stone and 2013 sank lower than 2010. Oh dear, what a pity, never mind!
Patrick Moore was not a founder of Greenpeace, Duff.
Nor did Mat Collins say what you claim you said.
Duff, stop reading your standard sources. It should by now be clear that you are not learning any facts, but fake talking points.
You deserve that, and more, for selective misquoting and not acknowledging the primary source of quotes.
You are nothing but a time wasting, scoundrel. To think taxpayers wasted money on educating the likes of you, one who clearly didn't take full advantage of that education. Thus a double waste of money.
Lionel
It's always possible that Duff went to public school and it's only his parents that didn't get a great return on their investment.
The rate of surface warming is modulated by the rate of ocean heat uptake, TSI and volcanism. Energy is accumulating rapidly in the climate system as a whole, which is mostly ocean. So the claim you make is too narrow and in terms of physical climatology, false.
Pay attention to what you have already been told and that was that Mat Collins has been misquoted, or maybe disquoted - a quote taken out of context with intent to dis-inform.
Now are you still so ignorant that you didn't understand that or are you deliberately engaging disinformation - i.e. lying just to get a rise out of us.
Well thank you for keeping this up for every chance we get to bat back at you provides one more opportunity for a lurker to discover what a weasel of a toe-rag you are.
This sock stinks.
+1 to what BBD wrote at #16.
As for Public School, yes, looking at the performance of Owen Patterson & Co on climate, fracking and badger culling then there may be something in that. Twits the lot of 'em.
We can't just ignore the top curve:
OHC, GAT and total net forcings
Even if you dispute the accuracy of OHC reconstructions before, say 1980, the data since show a strong upward trend. The most recent (ARGO) data for the 0 - 2000m layer (red line) are unequivocal: energy continues to accumulate in the climate system. "Global" warming has not stopped or even slowed down.
I missed anthropogenic SO2 aerosols from the list of forcings modulating surface temperature at #16.
So to recap, when the CMIP5 models are run with revised forcings based on an improved quantification of TSI, anthropogenic SO2 aerosols and volcanic SO2 aerosols, agreement with observations improves. If the models were fundamentally flawed, their emergent sensitivity would be wrong, and they would not come into better agreement with observations when forcings are altered in this way.
Heh,what El Duffer's fossil fuel shill sources don't tell him is that the effects of the 2008 financial crash are still biting, to the extent that the most fabulously rich industry on Earth (the aforementioned fossil fuel industry) were sucking off the global taxpayer's teat in 2012 to the tune of over half a trillion dollars.
"The IEA’s latest estimates indicate that fossil-fuel consumption subsidies worldwide amounted to $544 billion in 2012, slightly up from 2011 as moderately higher international prices and increased consumption offset some notable progress that is being made to rein in subsidies. Subsidies to oil products represented over half of the total."
But Duffer crows about a global $35 billion drop in renewable investment as if he has a point not covered in my initial reply. Please tell us (with references, for once) what your point is Dufferissimus - if you ever had one.
I realise now that what I posted @#20 probably went over El Duffer's head.
That more than half a trillion dollar subsidy to the fossil fuel industry was in lieu of "investment" by those able to afford it but didn't, and so passed it on to taxpayers.
Chek, yes AGW deniers were involved in both the 2008 crash and sucking billions of pounds from governments.
A prime example is Matt Ridley who has sucked at both teats since he gets most of his wealth from coal mines on his estate and his shoddy bank had to be bailed out by the government.
Duff is really scraping the bottom of the barrel with dorks like Patrick Moore. This is the same Moore who once claimed that "No family of birds, mammals or Insects has become extinct due to human actions". But of course, extinction is not measured at such a massively broad taxonomic scale as a family; it is measured at the level of genetically distinct populations or (at most) species. Moore's ignorant remark was like saying every species in the cat family (Felidae) is extinct except the common tabby, and thus there is no problem because the family itself is technically still extant.
I am not sure if Moore made his remark because he is plainly ignorant of phylogeny and taxonomy, or if it was a deliberate attempt to mislead the public, many of whom (like old Duffer probably) cannot tell a species from a tribe from a genus from a family from an order. Heck, I often see the term 'breed' mistakenly applied to describe species on television.
Given Moore's links with a range of environmentally destructive industries over the past 20 years, by now he is considered a running joke, except of course among those desperate to downplay a range of anthropogenic threats to the environment. They'll promote anyone they think has even the most marginal of professional qualifications. That Moore has been a poster boy for them shows how utterly few scientists they can recruit,. Anyone who says that a 'clear cut is a temporary meadow' does not deserve to be taken seriously. Oh, except by people like Duff, of course.
"Oh, and anyway, shale is cheaper and more profitable!"
If true, why did they need tax breaks?
PS given denier hate for politicians taking tax money for nefarious purposes, please check the father in law of the PM in the UK and connect with the tax breaks.
"I’m just taking a lead from the founder of Green War, oops, sorry, Green Peace"
Moore wasn't the founder of Greenpeace, duffer. If he's lying about that, what else is he lying about?
Duffer has built, or rather had built for him, this distorted cognitive framework that is so insular that no information that conflicts with elements of same has a chance of sticking. It is the classic creationist-climate change denier little Englander ideology. I would not be surprised if he believes everything he reads in his copies of This England.
My wife has brought the occasional copy of This England home from an artist painting group she attends. Some of it is quite interesting but most is coloured by a nostalgia for a past England that never quite existed.
OH, no, Wow, I am so, so, sorry, of course you are right he was not actually a founder just :
""as Greenpeace co-founder Bob Hunter wrote, “Moore was quickly accepted into the inner circle on the basis of his **scientific background**, his reputation [as **an environmental activist**], and his ability to inject **practical, no-nonsense insights** into the discussions.”" [My emphases]
Nobody picks nits like Wow!
And nobody distorts like those who feed Duff his distortions.
Your point being?
"of course you are right he was not actually a founder"
But you think that somehow spreading lies should be ignored because you think "co-founder" is right?
Nope, he wasn't a co-founder either. Just an early entrant.
But if you believe founders of Greenpeace, why not read their statement on AGW and the problem it is?
Oh, that's right: you don't care who says it, you'll only care what they say.
Socks still talking, I see.
But not about global warming and OHC...
This Moore was a dentist, right? Or what was he? A grave digger? Deserves respect, too!
#idiots
This Sourcewatch article on Moore says everything we need to know about him. Whether it will shut old right wing Duffer is anyone's guess, but my bet is on no...
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Patrick_Moore
Ha! He's peddling renewable energy! Duff! Oh Duff! He's the enemy you buffoon! A renewables scammer!
:-)
This bears repeating too:
Careful Jeff, they may get Burson-Marsteller to point death squads in your direction. From that Sourcewatch article:
In 1991 Moore was appointed as Director of the British Columbia Forest Alliance which was described by O'Dwyer's PR Services Report, as "a Burson-Marsteller created group, bankrolled by large timber companies," which "is waging a PR war with environmentalists upset with the logging of rainforests in western Canada." (4)
...
Burson-Marsteller had worked for the Argentinian junta to "improve [its] international image" and boost investment. [Joyce Nelson, interview with Harold Burson (founder of Burson Marsteller) fall 1981, New York]. B-M's work for the Argentinian government occurred at the time that 35,000 people were disappeared by death squads.
But then Burson-Marsteller are used to being involved with death squads having worked for the tobacco industry.
Now as for Fluffy and the idiotic mention of Moore having been a Greenpeace co-founder it is instructional to enter the following string into Google:
to discover who is pushing this meme at the moment.
Oh, Look who is top of my list! None other than Faux News. Well I'll be .....!
Darn it, blockquote got swallowed again.
From that Sourcewatch article:
My dear little Deltoids, have no fear, I think he's a total tit, too, but he's your 'total tit', or at least he was, but then he dared to demur and the animals turned on him and devoured him. Serves him right for going anywhere near a bunch of vicious ingrates like you lot.
Anyway, quick, back to the chant :
WE BELIEEEEEEVE, WE BELIEEEEEVE -
Nope. You, Duff, are the one clinging to a counterfactual belief system. You "BELIEEEEEEVE". The rest of us simply accept the mainstream scientific position.
You are the fringe nutter denying the validity of decades of scientific investigation into radiative physics, atmospheric physics, physical climatology and palaeoclimatology.
You are the guy out in the dark with his nose pressed up against the window making silly faces. You should keep that simple truth always in mind.
"Anyway, quick, back to the chant :
WE BELIEEEEEEVE, WE BELIEEEEEVE -"
Yup, you BELIEEEEEVE that it's all a hoax, that it doesn't happen (meanwhile other deniers are denying you even exist, if it suits their purpose). They BELIEEEEVE it doesn't matter.
Ian's is disgusting to libel skeptics as Holocaust deniers,
http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/02/skeptics-smeared-as-holocaust-…
Getting MASSIVE web traffic thanks to JoNova! (Never seen anything like this before)
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/03/climate-change-denial-and-the-holocaus…
"Ian’s is disgusting to libel skeptics as Holocaust deniers"
Just as well he doesn't, eh?
He just did,
"Chek, yes AGW deniers were involved..."
Disgusting.
WTF is that Poptech buffoon trolling on about now? All he needs to focus on is that contrarianism requires a well-supported and coherent scientific counter-argument to the mainstream scientific position and his list of papers ain't it. Pointing out - as he does - that he acknowledges this isn't addressing the core problem at all. No scientific argument = no "sceptic" case. End of.
Either PT is extremely stupid or he's pretending not to notice that he's touting a great big pile of nothing.
What's disgusting to me, PT is the way scum like you play the victim and assume some kind of parity with the dead and the survivors of the Shoah and their families.
Just fuck off.
No, he didn't.
“Ian’s is disgusting to libel skeptics as Holocaust deniers” is your claim. “Chek, yes AGW deniers were involved…” isn't evidence of your claim.
"Either PT is extremely stupid"
That's the one.
BBD, you and your ilk have been libeling us skeptics as Holocaust deniers long enough, now the evidence has been exposed and this disgusting practice will come to an end. The ADL and like organizations have been contacted to denounce your trivilization of the Holocaust and these disgusting smears.
Which bit of "just fuck off" didn't you understand, PT?
Fluffy Duffy get your head around this:
No pause in the increase of hot temperature extremes
And now WRT that article I'll link to Sou because she has demonstrated why your fake sceptics, in this case nutty Nova, are septic:
Almost everything we know about fake sceptics like "Joanne Nova" is spot on... .
This is a heads up for Redarse too!
"BBD, you and your ilk have been libeling us skeptics as Holocaust deniers long enough"
So "Zero seconds" is "long enough" for you moronic deniers?
Wow, do YOU have short fuses!
Alarmist, much, are we?
Wow, do you have a problem with Jews that you make light of such a historic tragic event? Sick.
Its always projection ain't it PopTart. Now go away and study that post by Sou and also the other one here:
Roy Spencer's Dummy Spit shows his lack of education.
Charles Lutwidge [1] Dodgson's characters come over as sane compared to you and Nova.
[1] Extra marbles if you can indicate the Nelson connection.
" that you make light of such a historic tragic event? "
No.
However, you wish to use their tragedy to protect yourself and have zero qualm about using their plight.
Why?
Hatred of Jews, or is this just another form of "Human Shield" like other historically evil regimes have used to hide their atrocities behind?
Why no harsh words for Spencer, scum?
Explain yourself.
Poppy doesn't explain.
Ever.
It only ends in tragedy for denier morons like pops here: they can't keep track of all the lies they have to keep spinning.
Wow, you are one sick puppy. You will not even admit to your crimes and use a historic tragedy for cheap political attacks.
I have Jewish family members you bastard. How dare you!
OH dear, Mr Simpleton (Poptech) is back, patting himself on the back for having an army of deadheads visiting his comic-book level blog.
I wanted to say its a bit rich for any of the CC deniers to accuse their opponents of using Nazi analogies, given that they are masters of the art. I have seen the term 'brownshirts' used many times by anti-environmentalists to describe activists and campaigners. I could give plenty of examples too....
I am making the ADL and such groups aware of this sick behavior on this blog. You have no shame and continue to smear skeptics as Holocaust deniers. This blog should be shut down for hate crimes!
Are you going to argue that the Oxford English Dictionary is wrong and you are right?
You are even crazier than I thought.
Or perhaps not. Perhaps you are the sort of scum that would use the Shoah for rhetorical effect. For playing the victim. For trolling blog comments.
"You will not even admit to your crimes and use a historic tragedy for cheap political attacks."
Yup, just like you won't admit to being the Son of God, right? And for the same reason: they're lies. I've never done that and you've never been the Son of God.
But you'll damn well abuse the holocaust if you can "score points" and shout down the freedom of expression of others because you cannot read a damn dictionary, nor work out that the 14th Century was long before WW2.
"I am making the ADL and such groups aware of this sick behavior on this blog."
Aye, pops, and they'll take you to task for your abuse of the holocaust for your personal gain.
http://www.desmogblog.com/christopher-monckton-copenhagen-i-will-not-sh…
Where was your outrage, pops?
No remorse, disgusting.
By all means involve the ADL. Poptech. They will skin you for what you are doing here. And I will be happy to be part of that process.
I hope for your sake that your claim to have Jewish family member is true, Poptech. These things take on a life of their own once started.
"No remorse, disgusting."
Yup, no remorse from you, since you can use it to attack or defend, and hang the Jews.
You guys think it is a big joke to gain cheap political poinbts but over 40 of your buddies let slip how they REALLY feel and this behavior will no longer be tolerated.
"You guys think it is a big joke"
No, we take your abuse of the factual history of the holocaust to permit a new era of "human shield" as you propogate your religion of denial is anything but a joke.
YOU, however, ARE a joke.
I think what you will shortly find out, Poptech, is that *your* behaviour will no longer be tolerated.
" this behavior will no longer be tolerated."
And so we see the jackboot of the rightwing thugs of the Neo-Nazis aspirers like poppy here.
Now you are comparing me to Neo-Nazis! Unreal, these posts are being screen captured.
Good luck with that PT.
You are the one puking all over this blog.
"Now you are comparing me to Neo-Nazis!"
Yes.
Evidence abounds:
1) Abuse of the Jewish people
2) A threat from authority
3) "this behavior will no longer be tolerated.”
Yes. Plenty of evidence that you are acting exactly as they would do in your shoes.
The above entity will self destruct in
1
2
3
4
5
...
You are a very sick, sick individual, smearing me as now abusing the Jewish people. Disgusting.
Ah! Never mind the tart, let us remind these cranks of the real message so far this year:
January 2014's extreme weather worldwide - interactive map.
So, go play marbles with your hand grenades PT.
Time to expose the hate crimes of this blog.
"smearing me as now abusing the Jewish people. "
Uhm, if that's a crime, then call yourself Mr Criminal:
#51 Poptech
March 3, 2014
Wow, do you have a problem with Jews that you make light of such a historic tragic event? Sick.
"Time to expose the hate crimes of this blog."
I see, destroying free speech now.
What next? Burning books of science?
Poptart, all you're doing is diddling yourself off and using denial of your lack of proficiency with presumably your first language and your own internal word association to do it.
You certainly are one sick puppy, as well as monumentally stupid, too stupid to check that the word 'denier' roots back to the 14th Century - long, long before your first war film or comic formed your limited knowledge of history.
But you go right ahead and pull on your fake victim suit. It'll match perfectly with your fake campaign.
Oxford English Dictionary.
Every time the troll makes the false claim, let's post a link to the world's most authoritative dictionary and the definition of "denier" therein.
There's nothing like the spectacle of deniers trying to pretend that they are victims instead of perpetrators, is there? It's a pity most of them won't live long enough to be held publicly accountable for their actions.
What a dull life Poptart must lead.
The ADL FFS!.
Moron.
I also couldn't help wondering that - God forbid - the situation in the Crimea ramps up and Gazprom reduce what's available for distribution to the Euro interconnectors, how soonit would be until Duffus et al are begging for a wind turbine to be built in their gardens..
Hey Deltoidians,
Haven't been around much. Just wanted to let you know Warren Buffet says Hi...
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/no-climate-change-impact-insurance-150023…
... in Buffett's current USA insurance portfolio.
No doubt those with interests in, say, the South China Sea, for example might have a different view.
Or perhaps you can make some point with an even narrower focus Betty?
Globally, weather related disasters have risen at a very high rate. See here;
http://www.preventionweb.net/files/20120613_ClimateDisaster1980-2011.pdf
On all the other hands, other than Buffett's (seems a sandwich short of a picnic there does he) that is:
Climate Change is a subject that concerns us all.
But you can always climb back into your tree on planet Zog Betula Bark skin.
Lionel..
Thanks for the Munich Re link.
"In February 2010, U.S. investor Warren Buffett became Munich Re's largest single shareholder with 11.2 percent of the company"
From a picnic on planet Zog:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Re
@Lionel
Come on Lionel, I'm sure you can work it out by yourself, the one thing the insurance industry has never been adverse to is a bit of "risk awareness". They're Munich Climate Insurance initiative,
http://www.climate-insurance.org/upload/pdf/20131120_Global_Insurance_I…
"Global insurance industry statement -Building climate and disaster-resilient communities and economies: How the insurance industry and governments can work together more effectively"
"both public and private actors need to engage in a broader
societal discussion about the use of insurance and the role of the global insurance industry in partnership with governments, in forging climate and disaster-resilient development pathways"
"Identifying and developing incentives to reduce climate risk by promoting risk awareness, risk prevention and risk reduction solutions that contribute to building adaptation to the effects of climate change including disaster resilience"
The wording sounds more of a scoping out a business opportunity than unbiased weighing of historical evidence. Insurance people are nice though aren't they? They're there for you when you need them.
;)
@Betula
#89 nice!
You gotta love it when deniers scrabble to find some crumb of comfort in stupid metrics.
Metrics which cheerfully ignore the damage to the uninsured and uninsurable, the infrastructure damage, the economic damage, the damage to human lives and the damage to the environment, in an attempt to maker some stupid non point that AGW hasn't been and won't be so bad.
Betula azleep on planet Zog.
Buffet is misleading you. But then we know you are a dupe.
Now GSW, do you really think that insurance companies are going to keep paying out on e.g. flooded properties without a massive hike in prices effectively placing most out of reach of insurance?
Are you so fucking asleep that you have not noticed the increase in weather related disasters.
Of course they could use this as a business opportunity unless their feet are put to the fire and their heads ducked under the water filth lapping around peoples homes.
I am just waiting for the signs of diseases such as cholera, dysentery and worse as access to health measures as well as insurance becomes harder. The plagues that have stalked Africa, Asia and the Middle East will start up where not seen before, especially given the impetus of mass migration whether governments want it or not.
But in your insular bubble, with Betula on planet Zog this is all outside of your understanding.
"Buffet is misleading you"
Yes, that's what it is Lionel, you figured it out. Warren Buffet has made it his personal goal to mislead me, because I am his biggest threat. You see, I am the only thing standing between him and his ability to purchase planet Zog...and we all know that planet Zog will be the last place to run when planet Earth is destroyed.
You're a damn genius Lionel.... keep up the good work!
One I forgot in my last is the disease that has plagued humans for the longest and which killed more people last year than in any previous year. Can you duffers on Zog name it?
Clue, with lots of tepid water standing around in places where not normal this disease could take off big time. Besides the extra filth spread will be a breeding ground for new strains of many diseases in a population not familiar with the ravages of such and thus without acquired immunity.
Oh how simple some of you are?
@Lionel
"Now GSW, do you really think that insurance companies are going to keep paying out on e.g. flooded properties without a massive hike in prices effectively placing most out of reach of insurance?"
Well no Lionel I don't. They'll just designate a class of property as being all but uninsurable and leave it to central government to make everyone whole. (underwrite the risk in exchange for affordable premiums)
Which, from the insurance company point of view, is a win.
Totally unsurprising that Betty takes the phrase absolutely personally, likely because morons have conceptual difficulties with the abstract.
More accurate is that Betty's and Griselda have been fed some link via their customary stink sewers and misunderstand the limitations (outlined by Lionel and myself above) of what Buffet's statements mean other than his business view of weather disasters.
Like you'd know, Griselda.
Perhaps you could explain to those quoted excesses of £100k for re-insurance on their modest houses after the recent SWE England floods how they've been 'made whole'.
So what you want to see is more taxes so that government can afford to pay out where insurers wont.
Hum! I can see that being popular in certain quarters.
@Lionel
"So what you want to see is more taxes so that government can afford to pay out where insurers wont."
I'm hoping you're just being thick on purpose Lionel.
Before old brainless Poppy goes off after Deltoid for 'hate crimes', he should look a lot closer to home at one of his own groups, Wise Use. They've been smearing activists and environmentalists for years using terms like 'Eco-Nazi' and 'Eco-Fascist'.
http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v07n2/wiseuse.html
But of course, my guess is that Poppy shares the same political ideology of Ron Arnold, Alan Gottlieb and other Wise-Users, so he'll give them a free pass.
Griserlda @ #99 on page one, a tip:
Always assume that it's you yourself that's "being thick".
You're far more likely to be correct.
Sheesh, you're really struggling with this "logic" thing, aren't you? It's like you haven't actually got any facts to support your argument so this is the best smear you can come up with.
Sad.
So, you appear to be implicitly admitting that the risks are there...small signs of progress, but progress nevertheless.
@Loth
You're too late Loth, Lionel already played the 'thick' card in #98. I'm sure he'll appreciate you making it more of a group effort though.
I’m hoping you’re just being thick on purpose Loth.
There's deja vu here, didn't Lionel play the 'thick' card in #98? with
"So what you want to see is more taxes"
My ironic point appears to have sailed right over your head, as expected.
@Loth
Indeed it did Loth, you just came across as being thick.
GSW
Have you actually got anything to say? If so, please get on and say it.
"My ironic point appears to have sailed right over your head"
Be fair, it IS very small and pointy.
And it's always in a dark, warm place.
That is priceless projection.
Not good with irony then eh you old boiler! Never mind keep taking the tablets.
So we have it on record that when you don't understand something you view the person saying it as "thick".
Explains a lot. And noted for future reference.
It's quite common in the denier mentality, poptart's little display of lexicographical ignorance yesterday, Duffus getting all superior with Julia Slingo a day or two before that and Griselda's woefully undeserved hubris - given his long catalogue of inadequacies - on this occasion.
One might speculate it's some kind of projection.
Or just a coping mechanism: if EVERYONE ELSE is as thick as a mile of pigshit, then they don't feel as though they're too dumb in comparison. A mile and a half.
Getting away from the Beavis & Butthead (GSW+Betty) double act for a moment a reminder of why we know that there has been no pause in warming, ISTR citing this one last month but it seems to be getting a little more traction now:
Watch 27 Years of ‘Old’ Arctic Ice Melt Away in Seconds.
And another thing, it seems that Dorset is not the only place where restaurant windows have been smashed by higher waves as in California a Wave crashes through restaurant window, Santa Barbara .
Another heads up for Beavis & Butthead a timely article on climate change and risk management:
Cartoon: the climate contrarian guide to managing risk which, among other things, shows how Curry is letting things become too hot to handle.
Do visit the Guardian link to:
Is climate change humanity's greatest-ever risk management failure?.
Over to B&B, zleeping on planet Zog.
Svalbard smashed the February record, which dated from ages ago (2012!!) by a margin of near 4° C.
February 2014 averaged -1.7° C there.
Two minutes of silence, please.
For those based in the Netherlands, you may be interested in attending the GWPF event in The Hague tomorrow.
http://www.nieuwspoort.nl/
Andrew Montford and Nick Lewis will be speaking/presenting their new report
"A Sensitive Matter: How the IPCC buried evidence showing good news about global warming"
Should be interesting. ;)
They need the money and attention.
Interesting that nieuwspoort refers to them as a think tank, rather than a charity.
#16, went to see some usual suspects at the NIPCC symp in The Hague, October last year. Once was quite enough.
A bunch of retarded old white men led on by some smirking cult leaders amounting to a total public of maybe four dozen. How interesting.
The tragedy of #15 is that -1.7° C is still cold. Gawd how I wish for the Moscow '10 summer translated to Holland - it will get rid of all our forests and imagine zeven weeks of peat fires from the Ardennes smoking all that time across the Netherlands :)
No-one here believes it's possible, even when you show the analysis with normals and standard deviations to translate the Rus inferno to Dutch numbers.
When I ask around here 'suppose it's 2009, would you believe a summer like '10 in Russia were possible at all' guess what answer I get?
Right.
Silence.
#18, 'zeven', I mean 7, seven, 'zeven' is 7, seven in Dutch : )
Griselda @ #16
Oh dear" - ... if you're interested in how showboating, self-promoting, grifting nobodies try to keep their profile up and some money trickling in. somehow seems to have been omitted.
I got that without prompt cRR, being interested in maritime history I have come across mention of Dutch warships with that word in the name De Zeven Provinciën with one of that name being involved in The Four Days' Battle of 1666: The Greatest Sea Fight of the Age of Sail , the severity of that battle may come as a surprise to those that thought Trafalgar was the biggest such.
As for that event of 1666 (which happened to be the year my old school was founded) I will not hold the result against you cRR.
Now back on topic GSW do you really think any of us have the slightest interest in what the mealy mouthed dragon slayers have to say about climate science and those scientists doing valuable research, many risking life and limb in hostile environments? Here is a pointer to some recent developments It never rains but it pause.
As you can see there is plenty to study without worrying about the barrel scraping of the dragon slayers by which those sad jerks are collecting splinters in their heads and chips on their shoulders. Which latter brings us back to wooden warships.
"A bunch of retarded old white men"
That is being too kind. There won't be a bonafide climate scientist in sight, either. The event will of course be totally ignored.
And from the blog, one of the oldest in this field, that rarely gets a mention here, Ross Gelbspan's 'The Heat is Online' is a post that highlights the problems that ecosystems have in coping with unseasonable weather of any kind: Why You Shouldn’t Hope for an Early Spring.
The source of that article, ENSIA is worth a visit in its own right..
... and another Griselda error:
“A Sensitive Matter: How the IPCC buried evidence showing good news about global warming” Nic Lewis cobbled together a method to give an answer deniers liked.
The Scandinavian trolls seem to have a fixation on "good news", but not a lot of discrimination on its provenance.
What's worse is that it is co-organized by the Groene Rekenkamer (The Green Reasoning Room). The actual name should be the Brown Shill Room.
It doesn't get much more absurd than this.
#22 Jeff, the kindness depends, I took the phrase from writings by dr Timothy Leary who meant something by that (except I substituted 'retarded' for 'whiskey drinking').
#23 Lionel, thanks for that, excellent timing as Holland (with about ALL of Europe, North-Africa AND the Middle-East) looks like up for just that event. Boy am I fighting colleagues, friends & family over this one.
cRR
Yes and WRT #23 I suppose the natural world should listen to Rex Tillerson and learn to adapt. Of course the Tillerson types, airheads such as drop by here usually as a gang, have no idea as to how long that adaptation will take nor the causalities along the way.
Jeff/all
Isn't it interesting watching the co-ordination emerge? Never forgetting that a certain R. Tol is on the academic advisory board of GWPF and of DGR.
Nic "just a retired financier" Lewis is a fascinating character. The man from nowhere - literally no background available - and suddenly the darling of denialism thanks to his charmingly bijou sensitivity estimates. And now fully-fledged conspiracy-theorising. He's made his bones.
Report co-authored by Marcel Crok.
#27, of course, that's what those terrorists and totalitarians want - adapt or disappear. Incredible egocentric people those with far too much money gained from walking over hecatombs.
The reality is, of course, that Exxon has no dimension to look for but down.
It's clever marketing BBD - just look at the calibre of numbskull that rushed here to tell us all about it.
How the IPCC buried evidence
They're like wasps to jam.
More like flies.... well, you know the apposite for jam, here...
Rex Tillerson is a real hypocrite. He claims that fracking is safe in that Guardian piece but wants to stop fracking when it is near his own home and may affect his own property values:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/02/21/3316881/exxon-ceo-protests-…
IIUC "rekenkamer" means "auditors".
I couldn't help but think of Professor "I saw a spider" Hardley when I came across this:
"The moment a person forms a theory they begin to see in every object only the traits which favor that theory."
Thomas Jefferson
Betula is probably referring to the fact that Jefferson owned slaves and didn't like those who theorized that white rich males were not necessarily 'a better set of men'.
But since Betula is a right wingnut, this little fact would probably sail over his indoctrinated little head. But heck, this is the idiot who think that one can asses the health of NA ecosystems on the basis of three appallingly bad examples. Or that variation i seasonal aphid outbreaks disproves AGW. Its comic-level book science.
By the way John (Birch), I saw a lot more than a spider on that winter crossing. In addition to seeing inverts in several orders I saw huge numbers of collemboles that normally are active a month later - pretty significant in terms of a 23 day one winter trek. We've just had the second warmest winter in the NL in 308 years, and many plants and animals are up to 6-8 weeks ahead of schedule in terms of seasonal phenology. This pattern is illustrated in dozens of studies in peer-reviewed journals examining similar changes over many years. But since you don't appear to read anything other than the Washington Times, I guess this sails right over your head as well.
Some advice John: get lost.
@Betula
Good one. Which of the posited theories do you mean though? The C02 warmageddon, or the paranoia about transnational elites being out to get him thru Barack Obama?
;)
Must be like trying to explain algebra to a dog, Jeff.
Or calculus to a cow, in Griselda's case.
This is the hottest decade since records began, Betty.
Surely - surely - you aren't denying that? I mean I know you are a bit of a physics-denier and a paleoclimate denier but surely not the instrumental record? That's so nineties.
#21, wooden warships including pre-sailing era (mod the Polynesians), Salamis, anyone? Something about slavery and reason.
It's more like slaves to conspiracy crankery for the denier coterie here, cRR. But only they - and their oil-funded story writers - have brought it to light.
To quote Griselda @#16, "Should be interesting".
And it is, mildly.
But just not for the reasons the galootbrains think.
It matters not a jot for Betty and you Butthead, or are you Beavis, never bother to comprehend information in any of the links we provide.
And yet you keep posting to known dis-info sites when we keep providing evidence as to why they are so bad.
Cue OP, RN and DD ere too long.
Oh! Don't be too hard on them chek - they confused the bidet for a face-wash and flushed their brains out round the S. After all Cardinal Puff told them it would work as a way of getting rid of bum-fluff (juvenile facial hair) and they took him at his word.
"I saw a lot more than a spider on that winter crossing. In addition to seeing inverts in several orders I saw huge numbers of collemboles that normally are active a month later – pretty significant in terms of a 23 day one winter trek"
Yes, that 23 day timescale where you witnessed climate change first hand and frostbite ensued, Good thing you didn't go this winter eh Hardly?
http://iceagenow.info/2014/01/record-snow-cold-canada/
Bitter batty Betty's bitchy bolshie bullshit.
Just lke trying to teach a dog algebra.
Hardley in Algonquin!
http://tinyurl.com/l6mrwvh
Betty - you ignored my question, so I will have to repeat it:
This *is* the hottest decade since records began, Betty.
Surely – surely – you aren’t denying that? I mean I know you are a bit of a physics-denier and a paleoclimate denier but surely not the instrumental record? That’s so nineties.
Betty doesn't answer questions, BBD - look what happened when he bowed out after being cornered a few weeks back.
But then, neither does he have the least inkling of how dark matter is observed.
That's Jeffie all right Betula! :-)
In his own little lala-land he witness a lot, all of it true. :-)
Denial 101: If you can't attack the science, attack the scientists.
Always stuck like glue to the playbook, Olap. Shame (for you) your hero Bjornieboy turned out to be such a soaked squib.
"This *is* the hottest decade since records began"
"since records began" being the key words there...
Actually, while you're here Olap - why is Lomborg so incompetent at his mission?
Do share your magick data, Betty. Y'know, the stuff that fuels your fantasies that your smarter than all the world's scientists.
Given how utterly stupid Batty is, its so easy to bait him. There is such a thing as TRENDS Batty. Ever hear of that word? TRENDS. Look it up. Its probably a bit long for you (all of 6 letters) but it has significance. And then link it with the word regression. Ever hear of a simple statistic called linear regression Batty? Or is this way, way out of your comic-book level understanding of data analysis?
Trends show that winters in North America are warmer now than they were several decades ago. Ditto Eurasia. This winter has been exceptional for much of the continent. And records show that the 3 warmest summers over much of Australia have occurred since 2009.
And biota are responding. Its those pesky hundreds of published studies showing range and elevational shifts that you don't read or understand. One of your online poodles, Olaus, may actually be dumber than you (if that is indeed possible). At least you are wiling to throw comic book level science at us. Old Olly isn't even out of his diapers yet.
#50
We can go way past the instrumental record, Betty. Take the PAGES-2K Consortium results for example:
And most likely the hottest since the end of the Holocene Climatic Optimum ~6ky ago. The HCO was orbitally-forced, so there's a radiative cause there too. Now it's ever-increasing GHG forcing.
Which is why the last decade was the hottest in the instrumental record and probably since the end of the HCO. Denying all this is beyond stupid, Betty. It's into the territory of mental illness.
Olaus: "In his own little lala-land he witness a lot, all of it true"
My gosh Olaus, you not only think like a child, you write like one. What utter puerile crap. Terrible grammar. And you actually think that you are witty. The mind boggles.
Nic Lewis is wasted on these clowns. At least he's clever.
Note that by implication, Betty continues either to deny the greenhouse effect or the efficacity of CO2 as a forcing, which amounts to the same thing really: solidly-established radiative physics is denied. Tinfoil time.
Right little Sky Dragon, aren't you Betty? Not just a conspiracy theorist, after all.
"efficacity"? I like it, but sadly, "efficacy" it should be...
Anybody else getting as sick and tired of toe-rag, knee-jerk, denialist-shit non-talking points as I am?
Well, I'll predict now that they'll be hiding under a rock and keeping schtum when the next El Nino hits later this year and the effects grow worse into 2015. The Betty's and the Griselda's and the Joans or their analogues may make a re-appearance in about 2027 to claim flattened temperatures, but I doubt it as the funding of their current info-wells will have been long withdrawn, bar the odd old coot unable to accept the facts have beaten them long ago, just like those Nipponese holdouts on those god-forsaken Pacific islands up until the 1970s.
That denier-disputed deep ocean heat reservoir will be back to bitec soon.
“A strong El Niño event in late 2014 can make 2015 a record year for global temperatures.” says the latest research paper from the PNAS, a far more reliable source than retired ex-US regional TV weathermen, amateur Canadian mining consultants and conspiracy driven accountants domiciled in Scotland, and washed-up Euro political apparatchicks (the spelling is carefully chosen for our visiting Scandinavian chickens) and accountants put together
The only shame is that many more will suffer the effects before they do.
chek
If - and EN is a tricky beast - if we get on this Christmas or whenever, the deniers will probably just say "it's hot because it's and EN year" - and then start up with the old Tisdaleian drone that EN is somehow driving the warming - decade after decade after decade. Never you mind that old conservation of energy nonsense...
You're probably right BBD.
Chickens have been known to run around for a while without their heads attached.
You should have been unable to think of yourself, but it's no surprise that you did not.
Er..."unable to help thinking of yourself..."
Those interested in the problems with the Crok & Lewis GWPF report may find this discussion by Piers Forster at Climate Lab Book interesting.
"“since records began” being the key words there…"
Indeed.
It indicates that this is weather we've never experienced in recorded history.
You know, global warming, proven.
Crok, Lewis and GWPF exposed as obfuscaters at best:
Lord Lawson climate sceptic thintank's report rebuked by scientists.
Clearly and something that has been apparent for years, well since it was set up suspiciously at Climategate time, the GWPF has outlived its status as a charity.
All other legitimate charities should be concerned that the regulatory system for charities is so broken that the GWPF think they can get away with this.
This needs to change. One way is to raise awareness of this to a more general audience by highlighting that the GWPF is hindering substantive political action to tackle the climate change which is already having a bad impact on their lives. Now a petition set up through 38 Degrees may be one small step in achieving this. What does the team think.
The other issue currently is the skewed attitude to planning rules for wind farms v fracking as indicated by this article:
Eric Pickles guilty of 'double standards' over energy planning applications, maybe more pressure could be applied on this too.
There were segments on fracking in last evenings BBC One Show (I only pay attention to for items of particular interest for IMHO this programme is padded out with much fluff) unfortunately my wife came home, from heavy duty babysitting, during the segment so I didn't finish watching it to appreciate what the slant of the reporting was.
Uh! Oh!
What some of us have feared about a warming world, one that was echoed by climate contrarian dis-informer Michael Chrichton in 'The Andromeda Strain':
Add Newly Discovered Ancient Giant Viruses To List Of Pathogens Benefiting From Climate Change>
Now can the Beavis & Butthead brigade tell me what disease I had in mind upthread when writing about the spread of diseases?
See, they had supercomputers back then, too.
For anyone with ecological understanding this is most concerning:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.12554/abstract
and not just for the studied species, but for the underlying process(es) occurring.
"It indicates that this is weather we’ve never experienced in recorded history"
Yes, it would be hard for us to never experience it in unrecorded history. Of course, the mere fact it was experienced, can only means that the experience will continue, since the future often repeats the present.
Global Warming causes flooding from m̶e̶l̶t̶i̶n̶g̶ too much ice!
http://tinyurl.com/nxm9jjx
Some concepts are just to complex for your brain to cope with, aren't they Betula?
Even relatively simple ones.
...too complex...
Betty
You are skipping again. See #54 and #57.
Evidence that there really is something rather odd going on, and a fundamental observation about your physics denial.
#71
Evidence of climate *change* Betty. The planet as a whole slowly warms, but at regional scale, climate *changes* are more noticeable than the gradual overall warming. SSTs and Arctic summer ice melt derange the Polar jet, which gives NH mid-latitudes extreme winters but the fundamental underlying cause is the anthropogenic forcing. Scientists argue about the mechanisms and deniers deny, meanwhile, the process continues.
"Global Warming causes flooding from m̶e̶l̶t̶i̶n̶g̶ too much ice!"
Melting ice causes flooding, Betty.
Flooding isn't ONLY caused by melting ice, though.
You appear stuck on the Xtian myth that "there can be only ONE Prime Mover". You'll never understand reality while you labour under that "idea".
#70 is not the strongest display of a double digit intelligence I've ever seen.
Betula, melting ice eh!
Go find a copy of 'Chasing Ice' by James Balog, see the 'Extreme Ice Survey' website.
Ponder on the breakdowns, problems and agonies that Balog overcame to continue with his quest, also documented in the DVD set of 'Chasing Ice'.
As indicated in that set James Balog was intent on continuing his photography records in Antarctica.
Now watch the video here and pay attention to James Balog's comments WRT the reality of climate change:
Capturing Melting Ice Glaciers in Antarctica.
Maybe those who peddle for the GWPF etc. should go and push their survival skills and give up the comforts of armchair positing and me real men like James.
But of course you will ignore all this Betula, (and GSW, OP etc) for out of sight is out of mind.
For those ballyhooing about the Crok & Lewis non peer reviewed I have just had a look into Real Climate using 'Forster & Gregory' as a search string and turned up this interesting article:
A Bit More Sensitive…
and links for others.
#79, the crock was presented in The Hague before the usual tiny group of old white retards, a number of members of the local proto-fascist eh 'populist' party, a free lance journalist and one or two normal people who came to take a peek at the scam (from which I present this reporting not worded in their words).
cRR btw had rather a laugh at Lewis' 'objective Bayesian school' as Lewis dismissed himself as a statistician. Look what he did to the concept of 'high quality data' - he takes it to mean 'data with a loud & clear signal'. That is, he knows better but wants us to become ignorant, much like Carter's system of talking everyone out of the concept of 'average'.
Who do these speakers remind you of, from Climate Crocks:
Australian Coal Producers Roll Out New Climate Policy?
What a bizarre response. Do you have a cognitive defect, a problem understanding English, or simply can't think of a better way to try and respond to the point being made without changing your position other than by deliberately missing it?
Well, no.
Basic logic - it's a foreign concept for you, isn't it?
Intellectual honesty is the foreign concept, Lotharsson.
What a bizarre response.
Well that whole post was bizarre displaying the characteristics of a simple mind where this:
is total tosh. The future never faithfully repeats the present or the past for that matter.
Sloth and Lionel, good to see nothing gets by you two. Expecting you to pick up on sarcasm is something I blame myself for...
Betty, if you were half as clever as you think you are, you'd still be twice as dumb as a box of spanners.
There was no 'sarcasm' there, just you struggling with abstract concepts. And losing.
Sarcasm! Sarcasm only works when it is correctly framed. If you have paid for a correspondence course in sarcasm then you should ask for your money back.
Sarcasm? Really?
@Comrades,
Article that will resonate here I'd have thought,
"Not even climate change will kill off capitalism"
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/06/not-even-climate-c…
"But the left would be better off learning from its past mistakes. Capitalism might well be capable not only of adapting to climate change but of profiting from it."
PS It's a Guardian piece obviously.
;)
Of course GooSe W it may seem like a paradox to you that we don't agree with everything written in even the Guardian. I could find many a rogue article if I wanted to.
Now this is the face of capitalism that needs exposing and chopping off at the knees:
Incompetence Is No Obstacle To Incredible Wealth For CEOs,
Executive Excess 2013: Bailed Out, Booted, and Busted
they will probably not learn until the tumbrels start to roll again, by which time life is going to be hell for most.
But of course you cannot think your way to such considerations can you, not bright enough.
The problem with Griselda's attempted provocation is that it suits it to conflate the definition with the current experience, so I'll put this in kindergarten terms..
I'd posit that most people on Earth believe that if they provide goods or services that they are not being unfair to charge an extra percentage of the cost to them in order to provide for further development of their product, some insurance against slack times and, at the end of the day, some reasonable provision towards a better life.
The problem we face today is from crony and corporate capitalism which seeks to extinguish any threats to its existence, and the creation of ever more dangerous financial instruments to achieve those aims.
"Too big to fail" is just the modern vernacular for "over a barrel" and the game "chicken".
Comrade GSW
Thank you for bringing this to the attention of the Committee. The journalist responsible for this counter-revolutionary propaganda is already on his way to the re-education camps in a cattle truck.
Unblinking vigilance such as you have displayed here is a necessary part of the progress towards World Socialism. Together, we can root out incorrect thought.
The people salute your diligence!
Komrad BBD, do not be remiss and think that Komrad Griselda is - or indeed can be - anything other than a conduit for Astroturf Central. Just look at Komrad Griselda's sterling work recently in promoting .... er... the thoughts of Komrad Lawson.
Comrade Chek
No fear, dude!
:-)
From the other side, link to Fox News piece, "Senate Dems to urge climate change action with 'all-nighter'"
http://video.foxnews.com/v/3309508232001/senate-dems-to-urge-climate-ch…
Warning: Marxists may find some scenes distressing,
(H/T ClimateDepot)
PS Good luck with the Class Struggle.
;)
Class struggle? You have no idea. I had a posh mum from the southern counties and my dad was the son of a coal miner from the Midlands. Although he did have a PhD by the time they met.
They got along fine.
You have the political awareness of a blancmange.
Luckily for Komrad Griselda, over-production of clichés means it still has a ready, if increasingly ineffectual, supply to hand. For a limited period only.
And so you should!
Sarcasm only works in a response when it connects with what was actually said rather than mangling it.
Not news for me you twerp, but then you have no idea do you, being a half awake zombie.
WRT my #90 above, and so it continues:
While BP Stalled On Gulf Oil Spill Payments, CEO’s Pay Tripled Last Year
Co-op Group to boost executive pay and bonuses this despite,
.
Proof that Delingpole at Breitbart knows not what he is writing about, H/T for the link Sou in the NASA has-beens post:
.
James, why do you think CO2 is used in fire extinguishers if it burns? Do firefighters want to make a blaze worse?
There is Jeffie's first hand climate change spider and there is climate change of Lake Superior from 2013:
‘Lake Superior, the largest of North America’s Great Lakes, is on its way to becoming the world’s biggest hot tub. According to scientists, climate change is causing the lake to heat up faster than any other lake on the planet."
:-)
http://www.ibtimes.com/climate-change-causing-lake-superior-warm-faster…
Come on OP, tell us what you find so amusing about that, or are you to be labelled 'The Grinning Idiot' ? A village somewhere is missing you.
C'mon Lionel, isn't it funny that Lake S has record ice one year after it was claimed to be heating up faster than any other lake on the planet? ;-)
Olap, if measurements have shown the lake to be warming, would you kindly provide your research figures to dispute that. Oh, and in addition define 'record ice'.
Impressing idiots is easily done, but surely you have more than a two word phrase to crow about.
S'funny. A post didn't appear and so thinking it had misfired I tried again, same result. Was there a link it didn't like?
How many links were there? This blog auto-moderates at four, IIRC.
Chek dear, I'm sure there are a lot of missing heat in the deapth of Lake S that will bite the record ice in the ass in April or so.
Record ice on the lake that is heating up faster than any other lake on the planet is of course consistent with what the science says. Silly me. :-)
Olaus
So you don't dispute the scientific evidence that Lake S is warming up rapidly. You do find it implausible that the surface of a cold body of water that is warming (but is still a cold body of water) might freeze during an exceptionally cold winter.
Not only are you confused about what happens when the surface of a lake cools to 0C, you are arguing from personal incredulity on the back of it. It's a dog's breakfast of an argument.
How many links were there?
Only the one and I was under the impression the magic number was three.
But then for OP all numbers are magic, maybe that is the cause of the problem.
I'll try that link again, on its own, next post.
Aha! Failed again! Hum!
So Olap, you're argument is that as an idiot, you personally can't comprehend it, therefore it proves the science wrong.
Unfortunately, to the rest of the world it demonstrates why we don't go to idiots for answers, since time immemorial.
Nor is that ever likely to change.
Dear BBD, I'm sure the fact that Lake s is heating up faster than any other lake on the planet is a very robust one, like the settled science that says global surface temp is accelarating faster and faster. So far though its only Jeffie's first hand proxie-spinder that cofirms the latter with any scientific accuracy :-)
Aha! including the .org after econnexus and then the specific page ident failed too. Curious.
Hello, my Holy Brethren of the United Chapel of Deltoid, I'm sorry to interrupt your evening chant but being a very well brought up chap I thought it only right to thank you all for the last two days of global warming. After all this rain I never thought to see the sun again and so I increased my chant of "I belieeeeeve, I belieeeeeve" to even greater lengths and, lo, the sun shone!
Of course, as we know, some 'sillies' have been doing you down by claiming that all this rain is exceptional and the result of global warming but, of course, we know, just as the Met Office knows, that it is not at all exceptional. Every few decades we get a 'damp patch' - and they have the rainfall records to prove it!
Anyway, thanks again for a bit of global warming and I promise to produce all the CO2 I can to help things along!
Page ident:
/the-weather-report-from-soggy-south-west-england/
Pay attention to this Duffer:
Climatologist Who Predicted California Drought 10 Years Ago Says It May Soon Be ‘Even More Dire’.
Read past the California references to understand the mechanisms at work and how they impact our here and now, and future, in the UK.
Mark well:
Oh look El Duffus is back to tell us he doesn't know the difference between an irrational belief system and science.
While demonstrating an irrational belief in some nugget from some other irrational idiot blogger.
You're always a clown Duffus, but the same joke repeated over again and again indicates your material isn't renewable.
Olaus
The mainstream scientific position is that warming will accelerate during the course of this century if CO2 concentrations continue to rise. The mainstream scientific position is that warming will not be monotonic because natural variability has not magically ceased. There will be periods when warming slows down and periods when it speeds up, imposed on the increasing centennial trend.
Why don't you know this stuff? You comment on climate but are - apparently - completely ignorant of the actual scientific position. Consequently, you come across as an idiot.
Duff
Indeed they do:
Posting nonsense makes you look like an idiot.
BBD, tell that to the guys looking for the missing heat. :-) They seek it here, they seek it there, they seek it every where...
You are something extra BBD. :-) It's uncritcal tent-shakers like you and Jeffie that came up with the meme in the first place, ergo that every little heat wave was a proof of an accelerating surface temp. But hey, during the very same time the temp was on a stand still, remember? :-)
And now CO2 can cause cold as well, in a robust way, mind you.
By the way, the sceptics knew all along that it was weather, not climate.
But it wasn't. That's just cherry picked fantasy you choose to believe. In the real world, the cryosphere is collapsing (with spectacular drops in 2007 and more so in 2012) and the last ten warmest years on record during your fantasy "hiatus". You might recall that your bezzie mate Jonarse quit his visits here when he had no answer to those facts.
Chek, you are so mentally challenged that it's very difficult to communicate with you. Listen carefully, I say this only once: When the heat goes up, like it did between ca 1975-ca1998, and it hasn't got colder (or warmer) since, it means that there is a hiatus (call it wahtever you want choirboy). Your drivel about "wamest years" has no bearing on the topic, ergo the existance of a hiatus. Of course the years on the hiatus must be among the warmest. Why shouldn't they? Nobody claims that the temp has gone down, you braniac.
Get it, cheek? (I guess not)
Olap, you'd be better served denying reality and logic by going back to your blogs that pander to liars, charlatans, the idiotic and the ignorant where you'll feel more at home and less challenged in your stupidity. There has been no hiatus, as innumerable past links have demonstrated. You'll likely ignore this one too, with your beloved stupid being such a fragile thing.
I guess the stupid and insane like Olap et al can only bang on about their imaginary hiatus until their think-tank providers can devise something even more stupid and reality defying for them to parrot.
Stupid because it defies the data, and reality defying because nothing has occurred to change the basic problem of more energy entering than leaving the Earth system. But then one can't expect a rational response because of the stupidity and insanity.
Olaus
You haven't understood #19.
Read the words.
Olap has neither the intelligence nor courage to answer, BBD. You might as well ask a parrot what it meant.
It hasn't warmed since 1998, huh. So did I dream the record that shows the first decade of this century - pay attention at the back there! all ten years being since 1998, got that? - was the hottest ever?
OK. It looks as though the World Meteorological Organisation remembers that too. So it wasn't a dream after all. https://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_976_en.html
The reality chek, is that while you sooth-sayers claimed that the temp was accelerating there was a stand still for ca 15 years :-)
But you favor Jeff's first hand spider before thermometers and satellite records, and it speaks volumes about you, not the climate. :-)
you sooth-sayers claimed measurements showed that the temp temperature was accelerating there was a no stand still for ca 15 years.
I've corrected your stupid, worn-out meme so that you can at least parrot words that are correct. You'll find that the data doesn't support your position, but then it never has which is why you're classified as an idiiot. And a wilful idiot at that.
Dutch country record for 1-10 March was +20.9° C is +21.9° C as of yesterday. After no winter, already ffing summer.
#31 - correction, old record was 'only' +20.6° C. And damn it was old (1989).
Chek, you data is Jeff's first hand spider. :-)
The rest of us (with an inclination for science) wonders where the missing heat is at.
Lake Superior? ;-)
You've been linked to data already, but firstly you're too dumb to understand it and secondly you can't provide any. Which is why you can only repeat yourself like the good little parrot you are.
Chek, the data says there is a hiatus and (sic) that the years within the hiatus (ca 15) are among the warmest. Its still a hiatus though. The warming wasn't going faster and faster despite your beliefs. Plain and simple chek. :-)
I noticed that you mentioned your mentor Jonas and it seems that he has a hard time commenting in his own thread. Do you know why? His educational posts are always welcome, and it would be a pity if they didn't come through, especially for you chek.
You know anything about it?
Olap - if the data said that, you'd be able to show it.
But you can't - it's just something you were told and you believe, because you haven't a clue what any of it means.
And all I know is that Jonarse is just another two-bit denier idiot who's not missed, except by his fellow loonies and olap dogs.
#35, instead some 500-600 cubic kilometers of water equivalent of ice melted this century. The 'hiatus' of cola with ice cubes in the summer.
#37, oi, that melted on average per year this century.
Date record today might hold (0.5° C to go).
#39, oi, only a tenth to go now.
On par (17.9° C in 1997 and today).
Chek, the data says so. The "heat is missing" and it's not a travesty that you can't acount for it, because you are such a mouth frothing religious buff.
Hey, watch out, a spider!
Killed it. 18.0° C. Well done, we want only 21st century temps in our stats, this is the 3rd date record in row (incidentally the 8th was done last year and then smashed this year), fuck 1706 to 1999!
Note again how Olaus is about as original as an old pair of shoes. Jonas called me Jeffie: Olaus calls me Jeffie. GSW calls me Napoleon: Olaus calls me Napoleon. Betula makes some idiotic remark about a spider: Olaus parrots it.
We all know he's as thick as a sack of potatoes, but even with this level of ignorance, he still thinks he is being hilariously funny in copying the inane comments of others.
As I have said many times, our resident Swedish thicko doesn't understand the concept of scale, or that there is no hiatus if one consider biotic responses (in other words, why are species still showing distributional/altitudinal/phenological shifts if there has been a hiatus? Clearly nature itself hasn't been told. Since the Swedish meatball doesn't read the primary literature (and wouldn't understand it if he did) he's stuck on meaningless memes. Oh, and unoriginal insults.
Its also sad how he and GSW frequently go to the asylum thread names after their similarly intellectually challenged idol (Jonas) in a desperate attempt to seek his approval. Olaus is a complete pillock, to use a British term.
Some advice before you open your pathetic little mouth again Olly: the empirical literature has literally hundreds of published studies over the past decade showing a range of biotic (plant, animal) responses to warming. And it is ongoing.
You won't win a debate in a million years claiming that it ain't so, if you've never looked for them. They are there, you brainless twerp. Get off your butt and do some searching and reading. Pleading ignorance may work with some of your equally brain-challenged morons, but ii a scientific arena you are out of your depth.
On the insanity thread Olaus actually asks two ridiculous questions:
Q: "Why is that Jonas’ posts are being delayed?"
A: Umm.. because they are vacuous bullshit?
Q: "Can it be fixed?"
A: It isn't broken sweetheart. The fact that they are blocked means the system is working just fine.
I've linked you to data upthread, and this hiatus denier meme has been ground up and pounded into the dust for over a year now.
So you're a liar.
Most likely a parroting fool who understands nothing and believes any old denier tripe without understanding it, but still a liar. Cue another would-be smart-mouth reply from Olap's prolapsed arse with no credible reference.
I see that Olaus is subscribing to the Church of Pausology.
Perhaps he could hook himself up to an e-meter and ask himself these questions:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/02/10/the-real-difference-between-skep…
'Working' at a Dutch idiot for close to ten years now. He posts the exact same total nonsense ALL the time.
How tF! can someone remain an ignorant troll like that for ten ffing years??
He's one of those typicals... Creationist, check. He thinks tropical everywhere would be the best climate everywhere (of course the stinker does not emigrate to his favoured climate, ever) while at the same time believing the Ice Age Is Nigh (like every ffing one of those ten years, of course).
It's amazing isn't it?
The Swedish troupe troops in here like Manuel the waiter in Fawlty Towers with his even dumber brothers, trolling their reference-free stupidity and then wonder why their assumed 'right' to engage is modified and they're not missed.
Your individual and collective value and credibility?
Not in a million years, sunshine.
Jeffie I know you think your first hand spider trumps thermometers and satellites. I don't though. :-)
Bernie, the paus is there and it is "mysterious" given that "we" knew that the temp was rising faster and faster. As it is only Jeffie's spider is faster and faster...
It's a scale-thing, you know. :-)
Chek, Deltoid carries "enough material for an entire conference", thanks to you and the rest of the fawlty climate scientology bunch barking away here. :-)
Olaus
More rubbish from a liar. Read #19 you fucking dishonest moron.
Then look at the data. Warming over the last 15 years.
It's in the ocean. Look at the data, dishonest, ignorant moron.
So we have ample confirmation that Olas the Petrified (in argument) is a 'Grinning Idiot', aka GIT.
Mr Swedish meatball,
Read the friggin literature! Or do I have to stick every paper in front of you?
I experienced a clot from Canada once who claimed that there was no evidence that acid rain harmed freshwater or forest ecosystems. I replied that there were piles of studies showing that indeed acid rain posed a serious threat to these ecosystems. His reply? "No there isn't, because I haven't read any". I then asked if he'd looked for them, and he said no. Seriously.
So there you have it: Olaus doesn't read the scientific literature, so there is no proof of recent biotic responses to warming. THIS is the comic-book level intelligence I have to face with AGW deniers.
I just typed in the words "Climate change and range expansion" into the Wef of Science Search engine and got 1739 hits (publications). More than 30 of those are in 2014 already.
Lemme guess: our Swedish moron hasn't read a single one of the 1739 papers. And he has the audacity to take about a hiatus.
Bernard @#48 that is an excellent pointer to the faux pause argument which thread contains a pointer to well worth watching Shuckburgh v Lilley exchange at the MPs on the Energy and Climate took evidence on the IPCC's 5th Assessment Review on 11 February 2014. - House of Commons Committee, which I linked to last month as a BBC article which some abroad may not have been able to view so I hope this link works for all. Watch the Lilley melt down, most enjoyable.
Watch and learn Olas Petrified and go look for my posts last month pointing to a three part Met' Office report (of June 2013) on this faux pause. That should fill in any gaps in your understanding, even the large ones exposed by your posts here.
Jeff,
That reminds me of this: Richard Dawkins Interviews Creationist Wendy Wright (Part 1/7) .
He won't though, Lionel. Olap & Co.are conspiracy thrill nutters.
Any attempt to understand what the data are actually saying kills the conspiracy stone dead. Of couse, being dumber than a mule with Alzheimer's, that's never a likely possibility for Olap.
Well you cannot say we don't try to bring light where there is darkness (that for the benefit of lurkers) thus it just happens that New Scientist has an article explaining matters:
How much hotter is the planet going to get?, note no mention of it getting cooler.
One take home is this:
H/T John Hartz on the latest SkS GWPF Lewis/Crock post.
Jeffie dear, your spider isn't a proof that the globe is heating up faster and faster. Why is that so har to understand? Thermometers and satellites are better than your first hand spider.
BBD, yes the yeti only exists in places where its hard to spot tit. Wonder why? ;-) But what happened to the settled cience claiming that the surface temps where rising faster and faster?
After all, there is a mysterious hiatus going on right before our eyes.
Olaus Petrified
Go study at
#48, #54, #58, #61 above
and stop behaving like the brain-dead numbskull that Dawkins had similar trouble with at #59.
Tim, I'd suggest it's time to banish the repetitious kook Olap to the Jonarse thread. Or just delete the drivel. It's no loss to civilisation.
Lionel, you mean where Bernie is talking to himself at Tamino's? Very good stuff! :-)
FFS Olaus
Read my fucking comments
#19 in particular. Then the falsification of your claim that there has been no warming for 15years at # 53. Then the OHC data (no "missing heat", moron) at #54.
Stop ignoring the corrections and repeating your stupid, climate-illiterate lies.
Chek
Agreed. This fucking troll needs burning.
BBD, it's quite fascinating that the settled robust sicience (thousands of scientists) knew that the suface temp was rising faster and faster when it actually did not. Yet "we" felt it in any heat wave. :-) And now you are telling me that the very same settled robust science (thousands of scientists) knew all along that the heat only was rising faster and faster in the deep ocean only (where the measurments are a lot more tricky, not to mention model based) and not in the atmosphere.
Indeed very convincing, my dear BBD. Me think deltoid climatescaresciensettleing is very funny.
But hey, if all the heat is in the deep blue how do you explain Jeffie's first hand spider? If I recall it correctly, it was scientifically witnessed on the surface. :-)
OP @#65
Lionel, you mean where Bernie is talking to himself explaining things way over what my pointy little head can ever understand at Tamino’s?
[ I'm sure it's ] Very good stuff!
[ But I'll never know, coz I is thicker than over-boiled porridge wot with the numbers an'all,. innit ]
Fixed that for you Olap. Certainly the gist of what you meant.
Olap the prolapsed, "And now you are telling me "
There is a whole universe of difference between what you understand and the reality of what happens in the world. And you know what they say, ignorance is no excuse, no matter how much you've invested in it.
I know chek. It's confusing. Like the scientists say: the hiatus is mysterious. :-)
Olaus Petrified the current GIT
Can you inform us as to your understanding of the heat capacity of the oceans vis a vis the atmosphere, what are the respective quantities?
Not only has heat been accumulating in the oceans, one component of SLR, but overland temps have continued to rise, just a little slower than maybe previously anticipated. Note this is not a pause in warming, nowhere close.
Which respected scientists, where? Provide a ref'.
Now this particular GIT is a useful GIT for it provides for showing what vacuous minds they posses.
Olaus, most Swedes can understand English well.
You are clearly not one of them. Try and read the following words:
THERE ARE MANY HUNDREDS OF PUBLISHED PAPERS SHOWING RANGE AND ELEVATIONAL SHIFTS AND CHANGES IN SEASONAL PHENOLOGY OF PLANTS AND ANIMALS IN RESPONSE TO RECENT CLIMATE WARMING. THESE CHANGES ARE ONGOING. THEY DID NOT STOP IN 1999.
What part of that can your brain not fathom? As I said, we all know here that you are as thick as two planks but that statement in pretty clear.
You constantly evade this salient fact. Why is that? Because you are too brain dead or because it vanquishes your argument about a hiatus in the warming? I think its a bit of both.
Fellow Deltoiders,
Olaus sticks to long discredited memes because his science comes mostly from AGW denier blogs. When challenged with facts that demolish his arguments, he simply ignores them and goes back to his original meme. Not once has he even tried to discredit the hundreds or even thousands of published studies which prove categorically that species and ecosystems are responding to AGW. He can't. Not in a million years. So he ignores it, as if in doing so it goes away.
Olaus represents the typical intellectual level of AGW denier we are dealing with on Deltoid. In more than a decade since I first commented on this site I have yet to encounter a single contrarian who has anything more than sophomoric understanding of science. Many of them pound their chests as if they are indeed experts (Jonas is a classic example) but in the end they all reveal their profound ignorance.
It's only confusing when you choose to believe the cranks, liars and charlatans, which you do as a default.
It's not at all confusing if you look at the data.
Where do you get this shite Olaus? Read. Start with England et al. (2014). There's no real mystery. Increased OHC, increased negative aerosol forcings (anthro and volcanic), low solar.
Read #19. Read the words that I wrote and stop repeating garbage.
Jeff, you're right. Olap is pretty dim even by the standards of the denier spectrum so it's peanuts to keep slapping down his garbage. It's not like he even understands it himself, so he can't even make a pretence of defending it. He'll just repeat and repeat and get smacked again until he twigs he's looking an idiot by his own standards.
At which point he'll do a Duffus or a Betty or a Griselda or a PantieZ and disappear for a few weeks before repeating his whole dull cycle.
Yes, but this particular Swede is a manglewurzle.
Salvete Plebes!
You're not all going to claim to be "Hiatus" deniers now are you? it's an active area of research! every man and his dog in the climate community has his own theory as to why.
NCAR puff piece for Travesty's paper here:
"Inside the warming hiatus"
http://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/opinion/10883/inside-warming-hiatus
gavin's "coincidence theory" here:
"Climate models projected stronger warming over the past 15 years than has been seen in observations. Conspiring factors of errors in volcanic and solar inputs, representations of aerosols, and El Niño evolution, may explain most of the discrepancy." (Aka "The Dog ate it")
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n3/full/ngeo2105.html
WUWT has put together a short list of competing theories for the "Hiatus" here:
"The Top Ten Reasons global temperature hasn’t warmed for the last 15 years"
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/28/the-top-ten-reasons-global-temper…
Party on Comrades!
;)
PS I can't remember which one of you dickless wonders (BBD?) thought he could make things real by fabricating his own wikipedia page, but this time you don't have to, there's one there already!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus
gavin’s “coincidence theory”
You haven't thought that through have you OP... if it wasn't for those elements, then the theory wouldn't be necessary. So it isn't a coincidence, it's a consequence.
GooSeWit,
Hiatus in this case is a poor descriptor to use and not initially used by scientists until discussing the label foisted upon by others.
Let us see, from your own wiki link:
Note, that does not mean anything has stopped. Period!
Now picking up on only reference 2 in that article:
Who Created the Global Warming "Pause"?
we find,
.
So, I call foul on your claims! You are just another GIT.
GSW
Not me, moron. You must be confused.
Can't you fucking read either?
#19
#53
#54
@Lionel
That's a bit weak Lionel, a link to a mother jones article written by chris mooney? Good god, I'm glad he's on your side, I'd feel positively soiled by the association.
;)
@BBD
Apologies BBD, there's just so many of you dickless wonders, you all merge into being the same amorphous blob after a while. Featureless, dull and nothing worth contributing; there's more pep in elevator muzak.
;)
BBD, the hitaus exists and its "mysterious". Like GSW pointed out, there are many suggestions....where is it, the accelerating global warming? :-)
For the last 15 years it was lobal, and in a pathological way.
I see the Bjornie cult are back in force - taking great care to bow and scrape and lick Jonarse's rancid arsethread whilst here.
And with an unsurprising lack of data - apart from the obligatory Wottbots link and a Nature paper they haven't comprehended properly.
They never change. They can't.
Well don't come here expecting to have your nappy changed el stinko.
Note I was working through your links you twerp. And as I was baby-sitting at the time - getting meals for grand kids in from school I didn't have the time to go looking up data filled stuff, of which we have already had much on this very page, that you won't bother reading. We know that you are just a drive by dick head. Or should that be Koch head?
There's your problem right there.
You take pointers from morons.
#19
#53
#54
All there, morons. The way you lot keep pretending that those words and data don't exist on this thread demonstrates exactly how intellectually dishonest you vermin really are.
Of course the biggest giveaway that informs that you're dealing with morons with a parrot complex is that 1998 is no longer the hottest year on record. But they're too dumb to have looked into that for themselves. They just do what they're told.
Olaus, I understand that you are either brain-damaged or of low intellectual capacity (or both), so to help you answer your question:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=65
To help further with your development of a functional understanding of the myth of a 'pause', you shouold consider:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/01/30/global-temperature-the-post-1998…
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/02/09/cherry-p/
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/02/23/uncertain-t/
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/02/25/by-request/
What pause, what mystery? Who said that it should necessarily "rise faster and faster" over the last 15 years?
And why are you avoiding my questions at #48? Is it because you are unable to answer them, or because you are afraid to do so?
SFB - and for morals.
Olaus, I understand that you are either brain-damaged or of low intellectual capacity (or both), so to help you answer your question:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=65
To help further with your development of a functional understanding of the myth of a 'pause', you should consider:
(to avoid the moderation queue - 'tamino.wordpress.com' with the following suffixes appended)
/2014/01/30/global-temperature-the-post-1998-surprise/
/2014/02/09/cherry-p/
/2014/02/23/uncertain-t/
/2014/02/25/by-request/
What pause, what mystery? Who said that it should necessarily "rise faster and faster" over the last 15 years?
And why are you avoiding my questions at #48? Is it because you are unable to answer them, or because you are afraid to do so?
SFB - and for morals.
Olas Petrified from #21,
Not even wrong! As Wolfgang Pauli once remarked. You see it is helpful to study a broad range of science as well as drill down through and absorb the currently relevant.
For, as Deke Arndt once remarked, "Climate trains the boxer but weather throws the punches".
Which also crops up in reply #49 here , which I shall quote in full because it raises some serious points that we all realise but has not got through to the interpreters of interpretations such as yourself: I have highlighted an important point to help you,
Getting the picture?
Lionel,
You are wasting your time with Olly. He's arrogant, stupid and ignores many inconvenient questions. I have asked him repeatedly why plants and animals (and Arctic ice for that matter) don't realize that there is a 'hiatus'. If there was one, the Arctic would not have reached an all time ice extent low in 2012, and plants and animals would not be continuing to exhibit shifts in phenology, growth cycles and distributions. If this were an open debate, he'd be tarred, feathered and sent packing. But because its a blog, he can dodge, weave, ignore, fake, and lie until kingdom come and think that he can get away with it.
Vermin is a vermin does, to paraphrase dear old grandma.
Jeff,
Yes, it is a funny old world where iriats like OP think it is funny to run around here exposing their ignorance to the world and yet think themselves clever for doing it. Reminds me of some denier bloggers and one funny old git who is a member of our upper legislature, or rather makes out he is so often that he believes it himself.
But then these opportunities are useful for lurkers to gain their bearings. I guess that is the only reason why you can stand to step in the mud over at the Jonas place, I had a look in earlier, their performance in there is cringe-worthy.
Anyone know what's happened to HotWhopper? The Whoppery is still there but the blog now redirects to Google.
Has Sou stood on too many Denialatus toes?
No problems here in UK Bernard, maybe its the Abbott effect down under.
Not a mouse pointer problems with a rodent having a will of its own is it? I had one of those for awhile an MS one. The MS keyboard, one with a curvy key run which ruined touch-typing, is another magic item where the captions have worn off the keys (E, O, gone, R, S, U and T nearly gone, M, A and C on the way out) just to make things even harder.
Real scientists continue to conduct research and to add to our understanding of the changes that are occurring due to the increase in heat:
http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/nasa-data-sheds-new-light-on-changi…
Meanwhile, what are McIntyre, Curry and co. doing?
I sometimes wonder why the "top ten" list of climate myths at Skeptical Science seems to be nearly static. Just the occasional shuffling of one or two items. But it really is this, isn't it. There's nothing new for them to say. It's like a denial merry go round (perhaps gloomy go round would be better).
Fellas, latest news on the lake that is heating up faster than any other lake on the planet:
http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/prods/CVCHDCTGL/20140310180000_CVCHDCTGL_000…
Olaus, tell me why species of plants and animals continue to expand their ranges polewards or to higher elevations, emerge or flower earlier in the growing season and in many cases are increasing the number of generations per year. I have asked you this about a dozen times and you have yet to answer it.
If there is a 'hiatus' as you suggest, then somebody forget to tell much of the planet's biota about it. They respond.
You don't because you can't provide a cogent answer. End of story. As for your Lake Superior figure, its meaningless of course because the spatial and temporal scale is insufficient.; the lake makes up a tiny percentage of the planet's surface. Expand the scale and the pattern becomes clear. See how true your graph holds for large scale land masses and even oceans; try the Arctic. A very different picture emerges. Moreover, how thick is the ice on the lake? How fast will it melt? All of these salient little points are important too.
But, as we know that you are as thick as two planks, you won't have thought of them. In your right wing political world, the truth is corporate science.
Jeffie, hate to tell you this for the xxx-times in a row but I, like all other sceptics, know that climate changes. Try to get that into the self-abcessed conspiracy pea between you ears. I'm sure it (cliamte change) could afffect your first hand spider too.
And again, the hiatus isn't measured by your spider. There are thermometers and satellites, remember?
The global surface wasn't heating up faster and faster, and now, when even you guys understand that it was a lobal-thingie, you seek comfort in Lake S and the Deep Blue. :-)
Why don't you call on Nessie too? ;-)
You have had this explained to you.
Since the intellectual dishonesty on this thread has become insistently repetitive, let's review the actual science as opposed to the twisted misrepresentations parroted by those who do not understand the topic.
The mainstream scientific position is that warming will accelerate during the course of this century if CO2 concentrations continue to rise. The mainstream scientific position is that warming will not be monotonic because natural variability has not magically ceased. There will be periods when warming slows down and periods when it speeds up, each imposed on the increasing centennial trend.
Ocean heat content is continuing to increase. Energy is continuing to accumulate in the climate system as expected. In terms of the climate system as a whole (which is mostly ocean), global warming has not even slowed down: OHC 0 - 2000m layer.
The terms "pause" and "hiatus" - inserted into the public discourse by deniers but sadly now even used by scientists - are incorrect. Both imply a temporary halt, but there has only been a slow-down in the rate of surface temperature warming. A popular denier claim is that there has been "no warming for 18 years". This is easily falsified:
HadCRUT4, GISTEMP, UAH; annual means 1996 - present
Finally, there is no "mystery" about the slow-down in the rate of surface warming. Several causes have been identified, including a transient increase in wind-driven ocean circulation in the equatorial Pacific associated with an increase in the frequency of La Nina England et al. 2014), an increase in both anthropogenic and volcanic aerosol negative forcing (Schmidt et al. (2014), and a period of unusually low solar activity (SC23/24).
So:
- Scientists never said there wouldn't be periods of less rapid warming
- There has been no "hiatus" in global warming
- OHC continues to increase rapidly
- There is no "mystery" about any of this
- Denier misrepresentations of the actual scientific position do not constitute a scientific counter-argument, only intellectual dishonesty
#2 - "but I, like all other sceptics, know that climate changes."
*septics.
Anyway, you don't know why those changes happen, because you have to believe in some sort of dumb god like Mother Nature wreaking magic.
You are one Dunning-Kruger case :D
A stupid and obvious lie. The denier position has changed with the wind from 'no warming' to 'predicted cooling' to 'yes it is warming'. Now it's that "climate always changes", but without any reference to the rate of change now being measured in decades.
... and this time with correct html
A stupid and obvious lie. The denier position has changed with the wind from ‘no warming’ to ‘predicted cooling’ to ‘yes it is warming’. Now it’s that “climate always changes”, but without any reference to the rate of change now being measured in decades.
Indeed there are and they show warming. As do additional instruments such as the Argo float array, and additional events in the Arctic over the past decade and general mass loss in the cryosphere – all caused by heat – in addition to the biological indications.
What a curious strawman claim. Maybe Olap can reference which part of WG1 this was ever claimed.
To call back on Craig’s question yesterday about what McIntyre has been doing, it appears the answer is turning dipshit know-nothings into jumped-up, dipshit amateur “auditors” who think they have even the slightest clue what they’re pontificating about, when it’s obvious to even laymen that bluster and generalisations and plain selective dishonesty indicate that they are indeed puffed-up know-nothings more in love with their own pontificating than acquiring any understanding of the natural world..
Chek, your fantasies and fabrications wrt what sceptics think and know are as bad as Jeff's unscientific delusions. You religious scaremongers invented the sceptics and gave them qualities with no match in reality. Like the "faster and faster"-meme you invented too. And now reality bites you in the ass. Tough on you, I can imagine.
Face it, the sceptics were right all along. The science wasn't settled, weather wasn't climate and there was/is no right wing conspiracy denying the CO2-hypothesis obstructing climate science.
Your authoritarian secteristic minds need enimes to feel good. If there arn't any around in the real world, you invent them and fight righteous battles. Anythying for the possibility to blame others.
Poor sods, that's what your are. And now you are crying that sceptics are moving the goalposts you set up all by yourself. Only in Deltoid la-la land. :-)
Olap, You're in a terminal tailspin of denying your denial. Deltois, Tamino's, Real Climate, Stoat and Skeptical Science to name only a very, very few are a catalogue of the ever-shifting denier stupid - and all in their own words too.
Your fantasy re-imagining of the history recorded for posterity in all the above blogs is just that, a fantasy.
More stupid lies. Read the fucking words - #4.
Olaus, simply spewing out rubbish isn't an argument. Get that into your head. All you are doing is making a noise. What I wrote at #4 is a referenced, supported argument.
This is self-evident. So address the actual argument, point for point. Or fuck off. Just how intellectually dishonest and buttock-stupid can you really be?
So what the fuck is Donors Trust, Olaus? Explain that for us.
Crickets.
O Petriervert, for you are being persistently perverse, it has been brought to your attention that there is no such thing as slow down in warming over the last 15, 18, 20, 30 years and sources have been cited.
The fact that you continue to spout the rabid BS that you do is a sign that your are either intellectually or morally bankrupt, quite likely both.
Some of the following have been brought to your attention but do go study them, and follow in-line links within for more:
Global Temperature: the Post-1998 Surprise
By Request.
Now I invited you to look up my citations of a June 2013 3 Part Met' Office report on this topic:
The recent pause in warming
study each part carefully and don't get excited by the unfortunate title.
However if you really wish to be remembered as a dishonest ignoramus do continue with your vacuous drivel for each one marks you for lurkers to recognise how well you deserve to be given the labels that you have and these lurkers also get to learn where to look for the honest truth.
Your current line is self defeating.
Olap @ #8 shows exactly the kind of rhetoric and pure projection that convinces idiot know-nothings of his own calibre. No supportive facts, just bluster, wind and piss is enough for him.
No wonder the denial machine of cranks, liars and sharp operators chews such idiocy up and spits it out leaving him wondering why he convinces nobody looking for at least some grounding in the real world of easily checkable facts and data.
Answer the questions Olaus:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2014/03/01/march-2014-open-thread/comme…
And like all deniers who like to call themselves sceptics, you leave out the most important bit about "climate changes".
Climate only ever changes for a reason. If nothing special happens, then nothing much changes in climate.
Just look at the climate for the whole of agricultural history. Lots of changes year by year and place by place, but the only observable change over the last 8000 years has been a very small but steady cooling of the overall climate. And that steady cooling has suddenly stopped in a couple of centuries and is now rapidly warming.
Something's changed. Perhaps the several thousand comments on hundreds of threads on this blog alone might have told you why. It's us. It's anthropogenic. It's CO2.
Adelady, in isolation, your quote from Olap reminds me of Faux News' Bill O'Reilly's now infamous quote, See, the water, the tide comes in and it goes out, Mr. Silverman. It always comes in, and always goes out. You can't explain that. "
Substitute "the climate changes" for "tide" and you're looking at the same standard of fucked-in-the-head ignorance.
O'Reilly played that 'Tides come in, tides go out' on Richard Dawkins some time back.
Which just goes to show that deniers are repetitive ignoramuses.
A thought provoking article on scepticism and denialism to be found here.
The money shot is neatly put:
Tens of thousands of Denialists egotistically assume that their fact-poor, pre-spun, group-rage opinion entitles them to howl "corrupt fools!" at the men and women who have actually studied and are confronting this important topic.
As I have suggested elsewhere, the real purpose of it all may be to undermine the very notion of expertise in our civilization, leaving no strong force to challenge any ruling elite.
Olaus, you complete and utter ignoramus, nature itself is a far better proxy for a changing climate than any devices Homo sapiens can create. And you can talk about a 'spider' all you like, but I am talking about a huge and growing empirical base involving vascular plants, pathogens, fungi, many types of invertebrates as well as vertebrates. Now you may feign intelligence, but what each of your ludicrous posts points to is a complete and utter lack of intelligence.
That was illustrated in your 'maggot' comments; an feeble attempt to smear and dismiss me and scientists like me who work with insects. As I said, I don't work much with the Diptera (though I would like to, as they are a fascinating order) but primarily with the Lepidoptera and Hymenoptera.
But let me make one point abundantly clear for your pointy little head: those ' maggoty' critters you so deride are worth billions of dollars to the global economy every year in terms of costs and benefits. As pests of crops, livestock (biotrophs) and as disease vectors, Diptera generate huge costs; on the other side of the ledger, as predators and parasites they are hugely important in biological control programs. Some of the most important pollinators are in the Diptera. But perhaps their greatest contribution is a decomposing organisms (e.g. breaking down biological wastes in terrestrial ecosystems). That service alone renders them as vitally important organisms in natural systems. Without those 'maggoty' things the landscape would be utterly littered with biotic detritus that would take many times longer to decompose.
And of course, in forensics they are very important organisms too. So the next time you open your big gob and attempt to impact some kind of humorous wisdom of yours, my advice is to think again. It may save you from your ritual self-humiliation.
Olaus has the audacity to write this: "Jeff’s unscientific delusions"
Good grief, I have more scientific expertise and acumen in the fingernail of my pinky than Olaus has in his entire body. I've explained that the best proxies fro a changing climate are biotic ones. There's no debate whatsoever on this point. Climate changes: nature responds. And this clod comes back with arguments that I would have found embarrassing when I was 5 years old.
Olaus is an idiot of the highest order. The real mystery is why he comes back here repeating is sandbox-level arguments. One can only surmise that his stupidity greatly outweighs any scintilla of common sense.
@All
Wake-up call for the climate alarm industry via Bjørn Lomborg.
"A new survey from Gallup shows that Americans don't worry all that much about global warming.
This is very similar to the survey showing Europeans worrying a lot more about almost all other issues than global warming...."
"Moreover, notice, how they've bunched up environment, climate *and* energy issues, and still can't get it above 5%."
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152349665523968
(h/t wuwt)
There is no climate alarm industry. You just made that up. There is physics and there is paleoclimate and there is modelling. These combine to inform us that at the very, very least we are going to see ~2C warming this century under BAU unless there is a policy response.
How buttock-stupid and intellectually dishonest can you be, GSW?
GSWs scraping the bucket now, having to cite something from a guy with a single peer-reviewed paper in his career (and on iterated prisoner's dilemma, of all things). But I am sure someone as daft as gormless probably thinks that Lomborg is a sage of wisdom. And this is a tip from WUWT? Gosh, how utterly stupid are they? Clearly very.
As for his analysis of the poll, what does this tell you? It says that the population are dumbed down by their dependence on the state/corporate media which of course downplays AGW or else insists on giving deniers 'equal time' in discussions on the topic when in reality the view amongst scientists is more like 95% against 5%. And many of the deniers are blowhards and laymen and have no relevant scientific expertise.
And what drives the media distortions of AGW? Owner-advertiser pressures for sure. Its Herman/Chomsky's 'Propaganda Model' in Manufacturing Consent writ large. But since gormless (and Lomborg, for that matter) are so utterly naive, its a small wonder they parrot polls as if they actually mean something. Well, they do: that the public swallows a veritable tsunami of disinformation for the media. That's not hard to imagine: look at how utterly gullible Americans were in the lead up to the war in Iraq. Bombarded with relentless media propaganda about illusory WMD and the alleged 'imminent threat' of attack by Iraq, by 2003 many (the majority) swallowed it hook. line and sinker.
The AGW denial-propaganda machine has hired the biggest heavyweights in perception management to mislead the public. Think tanks, astroturf lobbying organizations, Public Relations Corporations, and the media: nothing has been overlooked by those anxious to ensure that nothing is done to reel in the use of fossil fuels. Lomborg ought to be discussing how this well organized and funded movement has affected public opinion. But since Lomborg is IMHO also as thick as two planks, its hardly surprising that he would spew out this crap. I debated the guy in 2002 and he was as scared as a chicken when I debated and then spoke privately with him. He was clearly afraid of saying anything I could use against him, so he wisely shut up during our private talk.
Lookie, lookie at Jeffie! He's still completely stuck in his unscientific mindset, which forces him to invent and fabricate what is said. Why is it that, Little Napoleon? READ THIS SLOWLY AND MANY TIMES: I didn't claim that nature itelf wasn't a good proxie for climate change. Like always you made stuff up. You are such a loser and dishonest authoritarian activist troll.
What I did say was:
"And again, the hiatus isn’t measured by your spider. There are thermometers and satellites, remember?"
The fantiasy industry of the climte scare church can only find a valid argument if they invent stuff.
Jeffie, the poll tells you that normal human beings have been repelled by the mouth-frothin, crystal balling lies guys like you are so good at delivering.
Your unscientific and religious mantras are not appreciated. Deal with it.
Old Parrot and GaSbag Witless,
A new survey from Gallup shows that Americans don’t worry all that much about global warming...
The natural world pays Sweet Fanny Adams attention to polls, even those promoted by the likes Wlillard Anthony and Bjorn Lomborg.
You are as deluded as you are pig ignorant.
Think about it you dupes.
And in that #26 we see classic - How does it go - projection.
Indeed there are. And according to both, there's been no fucking hiatus.
All this was written up on the previous page, and again at #4 above. If you weren't a snivelling liar, you wouldn't need to pretend that what I wrote and the data I linked to didn't exist.
The fact that you keep on blanking all this stuff simply proves my point.
Did you know that France outlawed fracking in 2011?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-01/france-vote-outlaws-fracking-s…
Dear BBD, no one is interested in your off the mark yapping. The hiatus is real and so is your accelerating lobal warming.
You invent as much as Jeffie.
Olap. you can huff, puff and wish as hard as your little head allows you to, but there is no hiatus - it's a denier fantasy foisted on you by shonky statistics.
That's what the data sows - and why all; you can do is insist and insist and stamp your little booties.
But that won't do.
It's facts and data that count. 1998 isn't even the warmest year anymore (not that you've a fucking clue as to why they chose that start point).
No it isn't and I can falsify your lies with a single graph.
Which I have now posted for the fourth time on this thread.
Olaus, you are pathetic, and you are a liar.
More from the climate alarm industry,
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/03/12/3397541/nc-climate-links-re…
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) under attack from Climate Progress.
"Mather did say, however, that climate change programs were not of great importance to the DENR because of a lack of federal regulation."
"DENR’s website change has raised questions on whether the removal of climate change information is a reflection of the current administration’s philosophy. Both McCrory and DENR Secretary John Skvarla have made no secret of their skepticism on climate change.."
"“Our secretary has said that he feels that our department needs to recognize that there are all kinds of views on this subject, a diversity of views, and that’s been his primary position,”
A "diversity of views" obviously unacceptable to Romm et al. How will the whole "climate change gravy train" stay on track if a diversity of views are tolerated? (you've guessed it, it won't)
More on the gravy train from the Herald Sun last year..
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/climate-hysterias-budget-pain/stor…
"And all to achieve absolutely nothing."
eh, well yeah, who knew?.
I invent nothing Olaus. I only look at the data.
Now you must look at the data too. There is no hiatus. The data don't lie Olaus, but you do.
Click the link, Olaus.
Click it. See for yourself.
No hiatus.
There is no climate alarm industry GSW. You made that up.
I answered your rubbish above. Why can't you read the words, troll?
What an unbelievable pair of knobheads.
The climate alarm "industry", like the poverty "industry" is another loony-toon right wing invention, projecting on to others what their lobby groups are actually doing in reality.
Olap and Griselda aren't interested in climate science - they're rabid activists working to an agenda, whether they know it or not.
Olap is too dumb to understand what data are, or how to use them.
He'll deny the data, because he's an activist loony, and also because he doesn't understand that tactic doesn't work on the educated who can work out for themselves that 2+2 will never equal 5. But he'll happily believe the result is 5 if his preferred sources say so. He's that fucking dumb.
BBD, even the IPCC recognizes the hiatus. You know it, I know it and your own little graph doesn't change that fact. Don't forget to adjust for the missing heat trapped in the deep blue, which Trendberth thinks might explain the hiatus. ;-) Read this and weep:
"Now, as the global-warming hiatus enters its sixteenth year, scientists are at last making headway in the case of the missing heat. Some have pointed to the Sun, volcanoes and even pollution from China as potential culprits, but recent studies suggest that the oceans are key to explaining the anomaly. The latest suspect is the El Niño of 1997–98, which pumped prodigious quantities of heat out of the oceans and into the atmosphere — perhaps enough to tip the equatorial Pacific into a prolonged cold state that has suppressed global temperatures ever since."
No signficant warming....
craig @#29
Indeed, but the foxes in charge of the UK hen-coop don't mind Total tacking an interest in shale gas development here French oil giant Total to invest in UK shale gas. The stink from No 11 is growing.
See what I mean folks? Olap the fuckwit strikes again.
No comprehension of the data, and a staggering ignorance of real world events.
OT, the German energiewände has become great laughing material:
http://notrickszone.com/2014/03/12/german-mainstream-media-mocks-fires-…
The secularization process of the climate scare church continues. :-)
GaSbag Witless at #33
North Carolina is governed by scientific ignoramuses funded by fossil fuel don't ya know, after all they banned mention of sea level rise as if that would make it go away. Ultimate head up seventh rock from the sun syndrome right there. You are as bad it would seem..
If you were able to comprehend English, what the IPCC addresses is the denier hullaballoo about your mythical hiatus.
They don't "accept" it, because it's statistical garbage based on 1998 being the hottest year when some think-tank devised the lie.
But since then, 2010 became the hottest year, only nobody thought to inform the fuckwit brigade (that's you, Olap). Likely because they thought them incapable of understanding the difference anyway. And true to form you don't, do you? Because you're a fuckwit.
All this data are in the thread. You just can't understand it.
Indeed, but only amongst the most knuckle-dragging of the fuckwitted (looking at you, Olap which is no recommendation at all) who haven't yet twigged that fossil fuels are a finite resource that are running out, even leaving the damage they do aside.
Even if the dire consequences for climate stability were put to one side and ignored, fossil fuels are finite and alternatives must be found.
Of course, planning for a future is beyond the comprehension of fuckwits of whatever nationality, which is why their counsel has been ignored since time immemorial..
Answer the questions Olaus:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2014/03/01/march-2014-open-thread/comme…
And for a gold star and a koala stamp, can you explain how the heat budget of the Earth has changed over the last 16 years compared to the time before that? In other words, is the difference between heat in and heat out at the top-of-atmosphere differen today compared to 16 or more years ago?
And if so, how?
I have (a token amount of) money with a colleague that says that you will not answer a single question. Sadly, he wouldn't take the supplementary bet that you wouldn't get even a single one correct if you did answer...
Olaus, you uneducated rightwing loon, biotic proxies are far better than thermometers for measuring changes in nature. The latest Royal Society/National Academy of Science joint report on AGW emphasizes the importance of distributional/altitudinal/phenological shifts in species over the past 30 years that are ongoing. In other words you clot, they did not magically stop in 1998; species of plants and animals continue to respond to warming that is ongoing. You are so utterly native and stupid that this salient point just does not sink into your indoctrinated pointy little head.
I'll give you plenty of examples if you like, and tell you to read a spate of published papers in the peer-reviewed literature, but your only retort will be about a singe spider and 'non-science'. What the f*** do you know about the scientific method? Get his through your thick head: THERE IS NO HIATUS. THERE IS NO HIATUS. THE WARMING CONTINUES UNABATED.
Olaus
It's the wrong word. Slowdown in the rate of surface warming is correct. AR5 barely mentions this as it is widely regarded as a transient and relatively unimportant phenomenon. Only deniers are making a huge fuss about it because they don't understand the science, which I summarised for you (again) at #4. Read my fucking comments. Then you will understand what is actually going on.
That graph demonstrates only one FACT: there has been no "hiatus". It's not "my little graph". It is the data. The measurements. Reality. Deal with it.
When you do that, the true extent of global warming becomes apparent - it has *accelerated*. See Balmaseda et al. (2013):
Now we come to the most bizarre and puzzling part of your comment:
First, this explanation is now regarded as incorrect (where did it come from btw? Reference it please). A multifactoral explanation for the slow-down in the rate of surface warming is now considered more likely. Please go back and read #4 on this page. You will see that wind-driven ocean circulation is probably the major factor, per your quote, but volcanism, anthropogenic aerosol loading and solar variability all play a role too.
What I simply cannot understand is why you can't see that a transient slowdown in the rate of warming doesn't change anything. The centennial trend is completely unaffected by this kind of natural variability and it is the centennial trend that matters when considering AGW and ultimately, policy responses.
You need to do some proper thinking. You are confused.
Surprise surprise ;-), Jeffie couldn't even understand what I told him about climate change (in uppercases). From his fetus position he again cries about me denying something I don't. What's the matter with you? Why can't you digest and deal with the simple information/statement that I (too) belive "nature itself" is a good proxie for climate change. What else would be? Truly amazing, and then Little Napoleon tops it off by labeling me "Right wing" loon. :-)
AGAIN: NATURE ITSELF IS THE PLACE WERE CLIMATE CHANGE CAN BE OBSERVED.
Get it? I guess not.
And the hiatus is real, and mysterious, and therfore a very intersting scientific subject, to us blessed with a scientific interest that is. That rules you out Jeffi, of course.
The missing heat, you know the one we felt for 15 years even though it wasn't there, is a main scientific problem that climate science is dealing with. Good for science, bad for you.
And the accelerating global warming isn't unabated. That's why we have a hiatus, remember. ;-) Where is the missing heat? So far the only place where it can be detected with any degree of certainty is in your (and fellow deltoiders) climate scareology zealot-brain.. :-)
I see: your quote was from the Jeff Tollefson article in Nature. That excerpt was reproduced at the denier blog WUWT, which is without doubt where you came across it.
Here's a bit WUWT missed out:
Here's another quote WUWT mysteriously didn't use:
The article isn't very well written and the incessant use of "hiatus" is indefensible. Tollefson and the editor of this article have made a mess.
Oh stop lying, Olaus:
A slow-down isn't a hiatus. It's just sloppy writing and the pernicious influence of denialist rhetoric on the public discourse. It's not really mysterious any more (see above, endlessly repeated). You have zero interest in, or knowledge of, the relevant science.
You are simply a polemicist (and a piss-poor one) and a liar. Your cheap talking points have been rebutted comprehensively now and yet you carry on repeating them, Jonarse-style. It's annoying, but it isn't advancing your "argument". You just come across as moronic and dishonest. Hardly a great victory for contrarianism, is it?
BBD, the hiatus is a hiatus because observations contradicts what was supposed to be there: an accelerating surface temp.
Stop crying will ya, and deal with it. There is no significant global warming the last 15 years and your church is crumbling.
Er, no.
Multiple different falsenesses of your claim about "what was supposed to be there" over this time scale have now been explained to you in several different ways.
You're either a liar, or you are not equipped with sufficient knowledge or intelligence to discuss this subject. (And those possibilities aren't mutually exclusive...)
Lothy, the sceptics have always claimed what you now try to attribute to you side. :-) The scale thingie has always been an issue for us. You, and the rest of the accelerating lobal warmers, have always had a hard time making difference between wether and climate. And now when you have realised that your original "scale" is working against your beliefs, you try acclaim an new one.
Hilarious. :-)
Any weather event has been accelerating global warming (climte) to you guys, ergo a scale-thing that was way out of scientific line. :-)
Still repeating crap, Olaus. Lotharsson is correct: you are either stupid or a liar or both.
Go back and read the previous comments and stop repeating rubbish.
No. The "sceptics" have never advanced a coherent argument. They all bray their own, typically contradictory pseudoscience or anti-science nonsense and the result is a great, amorphous noise. You trying to claim that "the sceptics claim" *anything" as a coherent group is farcical. Get a grip.
Olaus, el thicko: please ergo inform me why many species of plants and animals are continuing to move polewards, to higher elevations; are shifting their season phenologies; are increasing the number of generations per year in many terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems if there has been a hiatuis in the warming. Clearly, somebody forget to tell nature.
You are a clot, an idiot, a moron, et al. ad nauseum if you cannot grasp this simple principle. (Throw in the liar fro good measure). We've had the 2nd warmest winter in 308 years in Benelux and the warmest start to spring ever. The warmest was 2006/2007. Both during your bloody 'hiatus'. All three of Australia's warmest summers have occurred since 2009. All during your bloody hiatus.
In Europe, Plutella xylostella, a serious pest of collard crops, exapnded north during the 1980s and only began overwintering locally about a decade ago. Their overwintering range continues to expand north and east. All during Olly's bloody hiatus. The Oak Processionary caterpillar, a major health threat due to the release of toxic urticating hairs from the mature caterpillars, began spreading north from southern Europe in the 1980s, reached Holland by 1991 and has continued to increase to the north and in number over the past decade. All during Olly's bloody hiatus. A number of plants - amongst them Rorippa austriaca - that are native to central-southern Europe, began to colonize new habitats in northern Europe over the past decade. They continue to exapnd northwards and increase in abundance. All during Olly's bloody hiatus.
There is NO hiatus. Temperatures increase, nature responds. And species and populations continue to respond biologically. Olaus is just an arrogant, brainless idiot who promulgates garbage.
Loth to Olly: "You’re either a liar, or you are not equipped with sufficient knowledge or intelligence to discuss this subject. (And those possibilities aren’t mutually exclusive…)"
Liar: most probably, yes. A right wing lunatic, almost certainly. But definitely Olly is not intellectually equipped to deal with any scientific subject. He's an urban geek who sticks his finger to the wind and professes wisdom. What a dork.
Jeffie, stupido, the speices have most likely moved northbounds due to the observed warming the past ca 150 years making new territories habitable. Why shouldn't they? AND MORE IMPORTANTLY: WHY DO YOU STILL FABRICATE THAT I DON'T BELIVE NATURE REPSONDS TO CLIMATE CHANGE, e.g. warming?
Stop humping the leg of your own straw-man, please?
Then we other expl. of course. Land use, deforrestation, globalisation etc.
Now, stop lying and start reading, you secteristic nut case.
So what? Nobody ever claimed that warming would be monotonic. Natural variability continues to over-print the forced trend. All this has been set out above, several times. See eg. #4 this page.
Read the words. Try to understand them.
Olaus, you are in no position to accuse anyone of advancing a strawman argument. You are profoundly guilty of this yourself. See eg. your insistence that a slow-down in the rate of surface warming can tell us anything at all about TCR, let alone ECS.
You are either intellectually dishonest or you do not understand this topic at all. See # 4 this page.
Read the words. Try to understand what is being said.
Trivial, localised forcings. GHG forcing and aerosols are by far the most powerful. You don't understand the relative strengths of forcings at all.
Olaus comes up with another boner. What a dork.
The range expansions began in the 1980s. There's a huge volume of empirical evidence showing without any doubt that ranges and traits like seasonal phenology were pretty static for many species until about 20-30 years ago. Then things began to change rapidly. The data are there and they are published. Olly's 150 year argument comes off the top of his pointy little head. There's not a shred of ecological understanding in it. He makes things up on the spot.
I might as well be debating a spider, given that there's more logic in the left pedipalp of Cheiricanthium meldei than in Olly's simple brain. Climate change is a major driver in the loss of genetic diversity in species. It will exacerbate the major extinction event already underway.
But heck, this is a guy who derides fly larvae as if they are unimportant. He tries to impugn me by suggesting that I work with 'maggoty things'. As I said earlier, its just another example of his sheer and unadulterated ignorance.
To quote our Swedish meatball: "speices have most likely moved northbounds due to the observed warming the past ca 150 years making new territories habitable"
This is so utterly wrong its laughable. Were Mr. Pointy Head to speak at a conference and start with this he'd be laughed off the stage. 'New territories habitable'??? Olly, where do you pick up this childish garbage? This isn't science, this is play school. You're trying to debate ecology with a professional in the field. Now I sometimes encounter students who make flippant remarks, but your comments are literally lamentable. Nothing in them goes beyond sophomoric in terms of scientific acumen. That makes it hard fro me, a scientist, to actually counter them. I am being forced into the sandbox. Try at least to elevate your discourse to the elementary.
There's an interesting graph up at SkS showing just how vital to denialist cherry-picks the 1998 El Nino really is.
Being a sceptic I have attempted to replicate the graph myself, rather than trusting SkS uncritically. Here's my version:
GISTEMP 1979 - present; linear fits 1979 - 1997 and 1998 - present
The amazing vanishing "hiatus"...
Sorry Jeffie, I was not writing a paper, I was only responding to your fabrications that I didn't blieved nature responded to climate change.
Stop inventing stuff and see yourself for what you really are: a hysterlical climate scare secterist with a scary authoritarian mind set.
SkS as ever, and not alone, serves up the goods that expose the Olases for what they are Grinning Idiots (GITs).
The last link 'beyond our capacity to adapt' is now fixed and it is to this article which the GITs need to read slowly and thoughtfully:
Tennis heat just the beginning .
Considering all the information that has been placed in front of the GITs then if they continue with their fatuous trumpetings then they can only be judged as dishonest and the sources they suck from need to feel the consequences of their propaganda, a list appears at any denier blog site such as Jo Nova which does not contain notrickzone or hockeyschtick which the GITs also seem to favour.
My money's looking good.
Olaus, it appears that you have questionophobia, so I'll frame those scary things in a different way.
How many 15-year periods (or greater) of "hiatus" can be identified in the global temperature record starting from the beginning of the 20th century?
It's not a difficult question. Really. Just one number.
Be brave and answer it.
Olaus, may I offer you some sage advice. You are humiliating yourself with every post. Everything you write stinks of Dunning-Kruger - its clear you have no relevant knowledge or expertise of anything remotely scientific, except what you've read in books or on web sites - primarily denier ones. You have no formal education in relevant fields, leading to you to vastly overestimate what you think you know.
Your statement re: range expansions 'over the past 150 years' and 'making new territories habitable' is pure and utter gibberish. There is nothing remotely empirical in that except what you are making up on the spot. I and others have cornered you and you don't know how to get out of the mire you have created. And you are sinking fast.
First of all, we don't have proper demographic data sets for most plants and animals beyond a few descriptive records from trappers and early biologists, pollen records and similar thin evidence. We know that a range of anthropogenic factors - for instance the mass-cutting of forests in North America - affected many species, both negatively and positively. But there is certainly little evidence of climate-related range shifts that were noticeable until the 1980s. There's an already huge and growing body of literature showing a phylogentically wide range of taxa began responding to climate changeat around the same time - as I said, in the 1980's and later - and that this is in response to recent warming. Now, you can make up all of the crap you want about 150 year time frames (where are your references, Mr. Swedish Meathead?) but it won't wash with me and it won't wash as empirical proof. The empirical evidence is there and you just don't understand it or ignore it or both.
You are being shellacked here and the more you say the deeper the hole. I am not going to let you off the hook. I want you to provide studies showing range shifts etc. began 150 years ago. I ask this because the evidence does not exist. You have made it up, just as deniers make up all kinds of other lies to suit their agendas. Now I can provide you with a lot of studies showing that range/elevational/phenological changes are a recent manifestation of AGW. Ultimately, it will be the made up views of an arrogant Swede with no relevant expertise versus many professional scientists.
Aw shucks, its no contest then. My advice Olaus is to shut up while you can and leave here for good. You are tarred and feathered and everything you say makes you look even worse that you already are.
Bernard J
IMO it was unethical of you to persuade your colleague to take the other side of the wager. Knowing what you know, you might as well have simply picked his pocket :-)
That is, knowing what you know about Olaus' track record.
Olaus reminds me of the infamous boxing match between Randall 'Tex' Cobb and Larry Holmes in 1980. Olaus is Cobb and the rest of us here are Holmes. Essentially, what transpired was that Holmes literally pummeled Cobb for 12 rounds like a punching bag. Cobb's response was by feebly pawing at Holmes, without ever landing a single punch. Finally, the referee stepped in, at which point Cobb's head was a pulpy mass. And yet when it was stopped Cobb protested, claiming he was doing well and that he could continue.
Olaus is at the same receiving end here, and he is being beaten to an intellectual pulp, yet somehow he thinks he has the upper hand. This is a pathology I have come to see with climate change deniers and other anti-environmentalists like Olaus. Most are not trained in science, and yet they greatly inflate what they think they know. I have yet to see many of them put up anything than feeble arguments, yet they have convinced themselves that they are intellectual heavyweights. Its so utterly bizarre.
I have just had a look into Sou's HotWhopper again and the article (Not) looking forward to hotter and drier... which I suggest our parroting GITs go take a look at.
Now having done that what chances do you think your descendants are going to have, even if they be as rich as Croesus?
Assuming that is they are bright enough to have begat any descendants.
Jeffie, your lingua-smegma can't hide your constipatorial fantasies abot others. Nor can it hide that the accelerating global warming the last 15 years was lobal only.
I feel sorry for you down there in your little bunker. ;-)
Save your pity for yourself Olap, because your performance indicates your grasp of even the basics are pitiful. Why else does a loon with no idea of what he's talking about pretend he does?
At least Pielke and Curry are able to cobble together semi-plausible non-arguments. Your efforts are just laughable, with a large dollop of crazy thrown in.
Oh, and btw - stop projecting your filthy and fetid mindset onto others. You're the loons who think the IPCC is a grand conspiracy to take away your teddy bears, remember?
Chek, I don't need to excuse myself. Unlike you and the delturds, I can make difference between weather and climate. Ialso know that there has not been any significant global warming the last 15 years.
"But, but, but,... I felt it!", says chek and Jeffie. :-)
Don't worry, I believe you.
Olaus
Do you understand the following:
- Nobody ever said warming would be monotonic (Y/N)
- Natural variability has not stopped (Y/N)
Just indicate Yes or No.
Thanks.
BBD, do you understand the following:
– There is a mysterious hiatus. ;-)
– There is no accelrating global warming, despite all the unsicientific doom and gloom for you.
– There was no settled science, especially about a missing heat hiding in the deep oceans. :-)
And YES, this means that it's worse than you thought. :-)
Olaus
Please just answer the simple questions. Don't be evasive.
Shows what you don't know, Olaus.
From the famous "Charney Report", way, way back in 1979:
GIT doubles down with inane incoherent comments. Deeper and deeper goes his hole.
I wonder if he is already institutionalised, not sane.
An activist loon like Olap cannot behave logically or give reasoned logical answers (even when simplified down to yes or no)
a)because he doesn't understand the questions
and
b) because his activist cause cannot withstand the data.
Cue more bluster and irrelevance from Olap.
Now answer the simple questions please Olaus. No more evasions.
Do you understand the following:
- Nobody ever said warming would be monotonic (Y/N)
- Natural variability has not stopped (Y/N)
Just indicate Yes or No.
There is no hiatus in the correct definition of the term, only a slow-down in the rate of surface warming. This has been demonstrated repeatedly to you above, so insistence on this point is pure dishonesty on your part.
The rate of ocean heat uptake has *increased*, so the rate of global warming correctly defined as the accumulation of energy in the climate system is increasing. This has been explained to you (with OHC data) repeatedly above, so insistence on this point is pure dishonesty on your part.
Once you disallow the denialist cherry-pick of the 1998 El Nino as a start point, look what happens!
This is the anatomy of a climate lie revealed for all to see in one, simple graph.
Look closely Olaus. Then go back and read that excerpt from the Charney report from way back in 1979. You have been lied to and you have been utterly confused.
Wake up.
BBD, I know the meme "it's worse than we thought" is a parallell to the 1970s ice-age scare. No real substance behind it. That's the sceptic point of view, all along by the way. But the accelerating global warming is part of the unscientific scar-narrative that is the core of the Deltoid belief system:
http://www.newscientist.com/special/worse-climate
Those damned lies! ;-)
... and true to form @ #82, that's just what Olap does.
Stupid AND predictable.
Stupid and predictable as only a grinning idiot can be.
Olap is falling down his hole only there is no problem because he is still falling, the SPLAT moment has yet to come and therefore does not exist.
Sheer numbskull idiocy on parade, with every post he looks dumber, dunning-Kruger ain't in it.
Hey, fuckwit. Give us a reference for the Intergovernmental Panel on Ice Ages. Show us where every National Science Academy on Earth and every professional scientific body in existence made their joint declarations to prepare for the next ice age, because apart from a few silly-season stories in the press, I can't find any parallel at all.
The only parallel exists within the vaporous medium occupying your skull.
#86 Just empty blather. And evasion, of course.
I repeat:
Do you understand the following:
- Nobody ever said warming would be monotonic (Y/N)
- Natural variability has not stopped (Y/N)
Just indicate Yes or No.
For you BBD:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQlHaGhYoF0
:-)
Seen it, Olaus. More dodging by you. To help you answer the questions above, here are some more graphs:
First, the short-term trend comparisons:
GISTEMP 1979 – present; linear fits 1979 – (end of) 1997 and 1999 - present
That's with the year 1998 missed out. No cherry-pick with 1998 as an end point and no cherry-pick with it as a start point.
Now, let's add the overall 1979 – present linear trend:
As above, but with linear trend 1979 - present
Finally, expand the view to 1900 - present:
GISTEMP 1900 - present linear trend; 1979 - (end) 1997 linear trend; 1999 - present linear trend
The centennial trend provides an informative context for the short-term trends.
So, do you understand the following:
- Nobody ever said warming would be monotonic (Y/N)
- Natural variability has not stopped (Y/N)
Just indicate Yes or No.
ROFLMAO! Were you going for tragicomedic effect with your attempt to rewrite history?
You're projecting again. A big chunk of climate science denialism, including much of the stuff you spout, RELIES on conflating weather and climate.
You are a blatant liar. I haven't done this, and I don't know any scientist who has. Their claims have been consistent - that we are forcing climate which will result in a long term warming trend, on top of which there will be a lot of natural variability.
And you are unwilling or unable to understand this: a weather event may be held up as an example of what we expect to see in a warming world, but that does not mean that the conclusion that climate is changing pretty much as expected is derived from a weather event in isolation.
I suspect you're simply throwing a lot of mud because you know that you can't honestly answer BBD or Bernard's questions.
And you know what's most amusing about your position, Olaus?
You're parroting Jeff's terminology about the "importance of scale" and saying you and your fellow "skeptics" have "always" understood it, at the very same time as you're parroting a denialist meme that relies on not taking the time scale of the relevant processes appropriately into account.
I'd bet good money that you don't even understand that you're arguing against your own position.
And if one were really pedantic, one would also point out that your current favourite meme relies on a highly inappropriate concept of physical scale as well, because it conflates a thin slice of the near-surface with the entire climate system.
But you cannot or will not understand this, right?
Lothy, you can whine as much as you like. :-) The hiatus is there, despite the accelerating global warming (not to mentio the models accuracy). And the weather was weather, not climate, which was and is the sceptic vuiew.
And of course I'm parroting the parrtot. The scale thing is hilarious, at least when comming from him. :-)
Yes, I did have a twinge of guilt but it was obly a dollar, and my colleague thought that Olaus would respond with a straw man.
As it turned out Olaus has simply pretended that the questions just aren't there, and as of an hour ago I am a dolar richer.
That's why you can't point it out on a graph without cherrypicking, either a thin slice of the data, or a thin slice of space or an inappropriately thin slice of time, right? (What was that about how "skeptics" always understood "the importance of scale" again?)
If you're serious, it's impressive how self-deluded you must be to think that readers here are not on to you. If you're trying to clown-troll, you're a lightweight - Sunspot was much better at it.
Olaus,
The 'ittle bunker' you refer to is >95% of the scientific community. I gave a lecture to a large group last evening at Amsterdam University in which I spent some time discussing climate change denial as well as other anti-environmental themes. The talk was very well received.
Truth is, the bunker mentality is the purview of the climate change denial community. Their latest desperate meme is the hiatus, which presupposes that there was arming in the first place. But alas, this same bunch of losers formerly argued that there was no warming. So essentially what we have here s a bunch of uneducated non scientists who are liars and shift the goalposts at will.
As Bernard said, Olaus simply pretends that the questions just aren't there, as well as the many studies I have discussed showing ongoing biotic responses to ongoing climate warming. This ostrich mentality and behavior allows this teflon crowd to avoid the real issues on blogs, whereas in face-to-face debates they's be eaten alive.
We can start calling Olaus now Cobb or 'Tex' on the basis of the pummeling he is taking here (the fact that e refuses to answer our challenges is proof positive that he s being hammered). Why he persists is anyone's guess. Most of the other deniers who come in here either have long taken their willful ignorance elsewhere, have been rightfully banned or only try the hit-and-run method.
Jeffie, the 95% is no tabout doom-and gloom. That's your fantasy. The real 95% doesn't disregard the CO2-hypothetis, (and believe humans impact the climate). So do I, you self-loving parrot.
The unscientificness is the political and ideological garbage you lot contaminated the CO2-hypotheis with. That's why you can't differ weather from climate, and science from cult. You turned climate science into portentolgy, and now it starts to bite you in the ass.
I'm sure it feels worse than you thought. :-)
Olaus, please answer the questions posed to you by Bernard and me. And at the same time please tell us what special scientific skills and qualifications you possess? What is your day job? From what I can gather, you work in some stuffy boring office shuffling papers. Clearly you aren't within a light year of a university or research institution.
I wonder how you, of all people, a pen-pusher, can have the audacity to say that hundreds of studies by scientists published in peer-reviewed journals are 'unscientific'. Please enlighten me. If anyone is a self-righteous arrogant, self-loving buffoon, it is you. My scientific qualifications shit all over yours (not hard: I have 137 papers and now 3,468 citations of my work and you have 0 and 0 respectively) and yet you write in here as if you know more than anybody else.
I blew your 150 year quip out of the water. No response from you. Just more vacuous jibes and a desperate appeal to your own authority. "Trust me"!!!! you bleat. "There is a hiatus!" Forget the fact that there's ample evidence from nature that there is no such thing, we are all supposed to believe an uneducated (in terms of science) Swedish blow-hard who has delusions of grandeur and parrots insults from other deniers (now there's some hypocrisy, you of all people calling me a parrot).
The truth is, Olaus, you are an intellectual lightweight. You don't understand even the most basic environmental science, as evidenced by some of your responses yesterday. You should be flattered that people who are scientists- meaning me, Bernard etc.. - actually bother to respond to your puerile garbage. The only reason I do that is to prove to anyone who might pass by here just how insidiously stupid the anti-environmental movement is, based on their rank-and-file membership (you included).
Well done Olaus. I can add you to the list of morons I have encountered during my scientific career.
Olaus
Why are you still not answering two simple questions? Whatever can be the problem? To help you along, here are some graphs:
First, the short-term trend comparisons:
GISTEMP 1979 – present; linear fits 1979 – (end of) 1997 and 1999 - present
That's with the year 1998 missed out. No cherry-pick with 1998 as an end point and no cherry-pick with it as a start point.
Now, let's add the overall 1979 – present linear trend:
As above, but with linear trend 1979 - present
Finally, expand the view to 1900 - present:
GISTEMP 1900 - present linear trend; 1979 - (end) 1997 linear trend; 1999 - present linear trend
The centennial trend provides an informative context for the short-term trends.
* * *
The very obvious evasions on your part are now acutely embarrassing. Stop wriggling and answer the questions:
Do you understand the following:
- Nobody ever said warming would be monotonic (Y/N)
- Natural variability has not stopped (Y/N)
Just indicate Yes or No.
BBD, he won't answer them because he can't. This is one of the perils of blogs - dopes like Olaus can spew out their crap here and never have to answer devastating rebuttals. The song remains the same for them. One of the most prescient questions - one we also asked another know-nothing, Poptech, but which was never answered - was how total intellectual lightweights with no scientific expertise whatsoever can have views of climate science that are at odds with >95% of the scientific community including the people doing the actual research.
This is like an accountant, having read a few popular books or blogs on medicine, arguing that 95% of professional experts who agree on some medical procedure are wrong. of course this makes absolutely no sense at all except in the light of politics. Olaus believes what he does because it fits in with his political ideology which, though he won't admit it, is at the far end of the political right/libertarian. Almost without exception, the right wing political views of deniers cannot be hidden. They wear it on their sleeves. And its this and this alone that forces them to wade into fields beyond their competence in a feeble attempt to camouflage their brazen political ideologies. Although this is blatantly obvious, they rarely, if ever, admit it. Expect Olaus to come back in here with more nonsense about a hiatus and to ignore any mention of socio-political agendas - except to claim that 95% of climate scientists are lefties or communists or whatever.
Jeffie, I' sure you win all your battls in the little bubble of yours. :-) But deep inside something is itching: the knowledge that you are barking up the wrong tree (I'm sure that's the story of your life) and that your fear-mongering portentology going out of fashion, thanks to reality.
And you still live in the fantasy that you know what the 95% say om your doom-and-gloom. Fascinating! :-)
Your analogy is also very poor, like everything else you come up with. I'm sure 99% of the MDs would disagree with a group of colleagues finding agressive forms of cancer in every patient they examine. That doesn't mean that they (99%) deny the existence of cancer.
You belong to the 1%, ergo the activistic loud mouths seldom workning with real climate science.
I'm sure the above went way over your bicorne though. :-)
No answers Olaus.
You lose.
Time you fucked off now.
BBD, my analysis is better than urinanalysis. ;-)
It's fun watching you squirm in the silt you claimed was settled science.
BBD, my analysis is better than urinanalysis.
It’s fun watching you squirm in the silt you claimed was settled science.
Charney Report 1979
Answer the questions or fuck off, Olaus.
Olaus, take BBDs advice. No answers from you. Only more of your right wing bullshit,. In terms of science you cannot stand in the same room as anyone here. Certainly, as I have said, its clear you are a neophyte, And an obnoxious one at that. 95% (that's being conservative) of scientists agree that humans are forcing climate. The seriousness of this is proven by the joint positions of every major scientific body on Earth; every National Academy in every country. The recent joint National Academy of Science-Royal Society report, which backs up the IPCC, is just further evidence of the seriousness of the predicament.
You are a first rate idiot, Olaus. Like your brothers in arms who have waded in here with your profound ignorance. And my analogy stands. You are the equivalent of a self-taught hack who presupposes he knows more than most of the scientific community. Pure Dunning-Kruger, like the other similarly brain-dead deniers who pound their chests in here. None so more than your pants-wetting hero, Jonas. They don't come much more self-righteous than him, what with his zero publications in anything scientific.
Which reminds me Olaus: since you will not and cannot answer a string of scientific questions thrown at you, at least answer this simple inquiry:
What are your professional scientific qualifications again? Where can I look your web site up with its many publications, grants, keynote lectures, and scientific conferences attended?
We all know the answer to this. El zippo. Nix, None. Back to pen pushing for you, Olly. In science you are a nobody. Bugger off.
Climate science has known that variability in ocean heat uptake will modulate surface warming for decades. You were shown this on the previous page and STILL you repeat your lies and nonsense. So here, again, is the evidence that you don't have a fucking clue what you are talking about.
Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment (1979) Charney et al. Report to the Climate Research Board, Assembly of Mathematical and Physical Sciences, National Research Council:
Olap, what you are too stupid to realise is you're being kicked around like a soggy football, and any squirming - should it even exist - is of the same type of embarrassment as you'd get witnessing a nine stone weakling insisting on doing the full ten rounds against Mike Tyson. But I like watching fatuous munchkins getting hammered - figuratively speaking - so no squirming here.
You're just pouring out meaningless words that are a product of your own unhinged fantasy thought processes.
If they weren't unhinged and you had at least some connection to reality, you'd have the data, but you don't. That's why you're avoiding every question put to you.
Every Single. One.
Hopefully your denier cult friends find your attempts to achieve God-knows-what here as funny and baffling as I'm sure most here do.
Let me repeat for emphasis: the Charney Report was published in 1979. That was thirty-five years ago. Three and a half decades.
Yet you act as though the slight and transient slowdown in the rate of surface warming is a surprise that overturns "settled science".
You are wrong again, Olaus. As you always are.
Now, back to the questions you are too cowardly and dishonest to answer:
Does climate science claim that warming will be monotonic (Y/N)?
Does climate science claim that natural variability has stopped (Y/N)?
Answer the questions Olaus, or fuck off.
BBD, he won't answer them, because he's a dolt. A simpleton. Self-educated on right wing blogs. That's it. He's not clever, witty, smart, or even original. He doesn't understand basic environmental science, as evidenced by some of the shite he has pasted up here in recent days. I particularly liked his 150 year/territory quip, which claim straight from a comic book or an anti-environmental blog. I mentioned this last night at my talk to biology students and lecturers in Amsterdam and it drew howls of laughter followed by an incredulous question: 'there are people out there who truly think like this?'. My response: Yup. Sadly there are. And what's worse, they think they are clever.
We have quite a bit of demographic data on many plants, verts and inverts over the past century in Europe. Certain groups - like in the Carabidae (Coleoptera) and Lepidoptera are very well studied in this regard; many passerines as well. What the data unambiguously show is that many species began shifting their ranges in the mid to late 1980s northwards or to higher elevations. It began then; not 150 years ago. Moreover, we are also finding changes in voltinism and community re-assembly as a result of recent warming that is ongoing. Its all there in the journals that the Swedish meathead doesn't read and probably wouldn't understand if he did.
He cannot dispute stuff he doesn't read. But he tries. that's the hilarious part. He tries to cover up his ignorance by retreating to discredited memes. He lost the debate here eons ago but his arrogant pride keeps him lingering like a bad smell.
What I truly loathe about these vermin, Jeff, is the dishonesty.
You show them that they are flat-out fucking *wrong*, point by point, and they just repeat the same shite again without batting an eyelid.
It's in the hazy area between extreme dishonesty and actual mental illness.
Anyway, fuck Olaus. Things to do.
BBD, absolutely. Calling them vermin may be actually too kind. I am flabbergasted by the crap Olaus and his ilk write. Its beneath contempt.
Jeffie, if you stopped inventing what others claim and actually read what the say, I'm sure you would feel a lot better. :-)
And for your unique change plant demographics from the 80s, I would be happy to read the vast bulk of empircal studies on the period ca 1910-1940. Care to share?
*Sigh*
Where to begin dismantling this latest remark from Mr. Meatball?
I am busy right now revising two manuscripts and starting another. I can see that Olaus expects me to do his homework for him. He might start by checking up on species distributions circa 1960 and earlier, and then more recent research. For instance: in Europe Oak and Pine Processionary caterpillars are native to central and southern Europe. Historical records suggest that the OPC was never common in northern Europe, whereas the PPC was never here, or not at least in any old records. Both species began well documented range expansions in the late 1980s. The OPC arrived in Benelux around 1990 and then spread to the cover the entire country pretty well by 2008. Their numbers are still increasing. The PPC is now in northern France and expanding towards Benelux. Both species are thermophilic and limited in their ranges by the number of frost-days in winter (they overwinter in the egg stage). As these have been decreasing linearly since the 1980s, this is a very strong correlation between this parameter and their range advancement. There are many other examples. Butterflies are responding in the UK to warmer conditions, changes which began in the 1980s. That appears to be the critical decade. Ranges are always labile but only in the 1980s and thereafter have marked changes been noted for many. Some did expand earlier, but these are dwarfed in number by many biota since the 1980s. What is so significant abouyt that decade? That's when AGW became manifest.
The same pattern is repeated in biomes across the planet. Its no accident. The planet is warming and nature is responding.
As I said earlier, over much of Eurasia this has been one of the five warmest winters on record. Here in Holland we only had about 5 frost nights over the winter period (December-March). This is unbelievable. The coldest night temperature was about -2 C. This was a Mediterranean winter. The growing season here is about 4 weeks ahead of schedule. Some annul plants that do not normally grow until summer are already in full leaf (e.g. Brassica nigra). I've never seen anything like it in my two plus decades of science. Its beyond exceptional.
Jeffie, always the evasive. :-)
Something from the vast bulk of research comparing the "speed of change" during the warming periods 1910-1940 and ca 1975-1998 will do.
And now one is argueing that the latest decade is the warmest sin satlellite records started. How thick are you Jeff?
Meatball, ecology only became a mainstream science in the 1970s. I explained to you - and it clearly does not sink in - that recent studies have focused on range expansions that have occurred since the 1980s. They do this - now read it and try and understand it - because existing data (based on older observations) reveals that many taxa are now spreading into areas from which it is known that they were formerly absent. The processionary caterpillars I mentioned were either very rare or absent in northern Europe before 1980 (this includes 1910-1940). But they began moving northwards in the 1980s and also increased (and are still continuing to increase) in areas from which they were historically absent. Being ectotherms that survive within well-established thermal windows, there is no doubt that climate warming has played a major role in their recent range expansion. In the past decade a wide range of arthropod taxa have become established well to the north of their historic ranges. In marine ecosystems, warm-water species are now found far to the north of where they were just two decade ago, and again records indicate no evidence of them at all in these habitats before the 1980s and 1990s. And the ranges of many species continue to expand polewards. Why? Because its warming!!!!!! Geddit?
How much do I have to drum this into your head? You just want to believe in the tooth fairy meatball.
I get it Jeffie, as I have all along. It's warmer in 2000 than in 1960 and "nature itself" has adapted to it. As always you argue against strawman.
What I was interested in, however, was refs to empirical research comparing the two mentioned periods wrt speed. Do you have some of these up your sleeve, that I can read?
AND ONE MORE TIME: It's warmer in 2000 than in 1960 and "nature itself" has adapted to it.
In other wrds: You don't need to state the obvious one bore time. OK?
Olaus
Why have you STILL not answered those two simple questions? We are trying to establish just what you do - and do not - understand about the basics. You pretend to great knowledge yet won't even engage on the most straightforward matters. This is very odd.
So, once again:
Does climate science claim that warming will be monotonic (Y/N)?
Does climate science claim that natural variability has stopped (Y/N)?
Refusing to engage proves you to be ignorant and bluffing or simply rotten with intellectual dishonesty. Neither are attractive options, so if I were you I'd stop pissing around and answer now.
This is a particularly stupid (and IMO wilful) misdirection:
The ecological damage will (not may, will) be done in the C21st and thereafter if warming continues unabated. Early C20th warming is completely irrelevant. What matters is that another century of warming will be too much for a multitude of species to adapt to *fast enough* to avoid a spreading disintegration of food webs and consequent extinctions.
Yes, nature is resilient, up to a point.That point is about to be reached. Ecologists - scientists who are experts in this field are in unanimous agreement on this point. Palaeontology indicates mass extinctions during previous strong warming events. There is no expert dissenting argument.
Just you. And as Jeff correctly asks: where are your credentials?
Some further questions for Olaus (I'm going to put them in a numbered list for ease of reference as we go on):
1/ Does climate science claim that warming will be monotonic (Y/N)?
2/ Does climate science claim that natural variability has stopped (Y/N)?
3/ Do you disagree that CO2 is an effective climate forcing?
4/ If you disagree, explain why
5/ If you *agree*, then why will temperatures *not* continue to rise as CO2 concentrations continue to increase?
TBC...
Nature has 'responded' to warming is very different than saying nature has adapted to it, you clot. And there's no use drawing a line at 2000 as nature continues to respond. Some species are most certainly NOT adapting to recent warming (there's a pile of empirical literature on that, too).
Jeff, it's totally OK to say that there are no such studies, if that's the case, :-)
Yet you know so much about it...:-) By first hand knowledge, I presume?
You are a sitting duck, as always. Making stuff up is the story of your life Jeffie.
#23
#23
#23
#23
#24
#24
#24
#24
?
Think, MacHarvey...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kh9PYtmVybU
"Refusing to engage proves you to be ignorant and bluffing or simply rotten with intellectual dishonesty. Neither are attractive options, so if I were you I’d stop pissing around and answer now."
#23
#23
#23
#23
#24
#24
#24
#24
?
"Early C20th warming is completely irrelevant. What matters is that another century of warming will be too much for a multitude of species to adapt to *fast enough* to avoid a spreading disintegration of food webs and consequent extinctions."
What matters is another century of warming
What matters is another century of warming
What matters is another century of warming
What matters is another century of warming
What matters is another century of warming
What matters is another century of warming
What matters is another century of warming
What matters is another century of warming
What matters is another century of warming
What matters is another century of warming
What matters is another century of warming
What matters is another century of warming
What matters is another century of warming
What matters is another century of warming
What matters is another century of warming
What matters is another century of warming
What matters is another century of warming
What matters is another century of warming
What matters is another century of warming
1/ Does climate science claim that warming will be monotonic (Y/N)?
2/ Does climate science claim that natural variability has stopped (Y/N)?
3/ Do you disagree that CO2 is an effective climate forcing?
4/ If you disagree, explain why
5/ If you *agree*, then why will temperatures *not* continue to rise as CO2 concentrations continue to increase?
******
1/ Does climate science claim that warming will be monotonic (Y/N)?
2/ Does climate science claim that natural variability has stopped (Y/N)?
3/ Do you disagree that CO2 is an effective climate forcing?
4/ If you disagree, explain why
5/ If you *agree*, then why will temperatures *not* continue to rise as CO2 concentrations continue to increase?
******
1/ Does climate science claim that warming will be monotonic (Y/N)?
2/ Does climate science claim that natural variability has stopped (Y/N)?
3/ Do you disagree that CO2 is an effective climate forcing?
4/ If you disagree, explain why
5/ If you *agree*, then why will temperatures *not* continue to rise as CO2 concentrations continue to increase?
******
1/ Does climate science claim that warming will be monotonic (Y/N)?
2/ Does climate science claim that natural variability has stopped (Y/N)?
3/ Do you disagree that CO2 is an effective climate forcing?
4/ If you disagree, explain why
5/ If you *agree*, then why will temperatures *not* continue to rise as CO2 concentrations continue to increase?
******
1/ Does climate science claim that warming will be monotonic (Y/N)?
2/ Does climate science claim that natural variability has stopped (Y/N)?
3/ Do you disagree that CO2 is an effective climate forcing?
4/ If you disagree, explain why
5/ If you *agree*, then why will temperatures *not* continue to rise as CO2 concentrations continue to increase?
******
1/ Does climate science claim that warming will be monotonic (Y/N)?
2/ Does climate science claim that natural variability has stopped (Y/N)?
3/ Do you disagree that CO2 is an effective climate forcing?
4/ If you disagree, explain why
5/ If you *agree*, then why will temperatures *not* continue to rise as CO2 concentrations continue to increase?
******
1/ Does climate science claim that warming will be monotonic (Y/N)?
2/ Does climate science claim that natural variability has stopped (Y/N)?
3/ Do you disagree that CO2 is an effective climate forcing?
4/ If you disagree, explain why
5/ If you *agree*, then why will temperatures *not* continue to rise as CO2 concentrations continue to increase?
******
1/ Does climate science claim that warming will be monotonic (Y/N)?
2/ Does climate science claim that natural variability has stopped (Y/N)?
3/ Do you disagree that CO2 is an effective climate forcing?
4/ If you disagree, explain why
5/ If you *agree*, then why will temperatures *not* continue to rise as CO2 concentrations continue to increase?
******
Hello Olaus.
Are you there?
“Early C20th warming is completely irrelevant. What matters is that another century of warming will be too much for a multitude of species to adapt to *fast enough* to avoid a spreading disintegration of food webs and consequent extinctions.”
Hello Olaus
Remember this?
“Refusing to engage proves you to be ignorant and bluffing or simply rotten with intellectual dishonesty. Neither are attractive options, so if I were you I’d stop pissing around and answer now.”
Ignorant moron or lying scum?
5/ If you *agree*, then why will temperatures *not* continue to rise as CO2 concentrations continue to increase?
Think, Olaus. Think ever so carefully.
Notice all lurkers all the dishonest grinning idiot can come up with is spam like #28.
If Olaus is a stupid boxer absorbing punches he can only do that because his brain is already liquid i.e.
@BBD
Apologies BBD couldn't help noticing, but there seems to be something wrong with your brain- it's got stuck. Perhaps if you ran it under the cold tap for a while it might right itself? Bit of a long shot, but it's probably your best bet in the short/medium term; get you thru the weekend at least.
GSW
Feel free to help poor Olaus out. He seems to be screwed.
In fact why not? The more the merrier.
GSW, your answers please:
1/ Does climate science claim that warming will be monotonic (Y/N)?
2/ Does climate science claim that natural variability has stopped (Y/N)?
3/ Do you disagree that CO2 is an effective climate forcing?
4/ If you disagree, explain why
5/ If you *agree*, then why will temperatures *not* continue to rise as CO2 concentrations continue to increase?
You fancy yourself as a bit sciencey, IIRC. So let's see what you are made of.
@BBD
Looks like you going to have to take more drastic action than the cold tap BBD.
Enjoy!
;)
So fuck-all from another clueless and intellectually dishonest denier.
Shocked, I tell you.
It's being dishonest and clueless wot makes them deniers.
I can't think of any exceptions.
More on the flailing Climate alarm industry,
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2014/3/14/a-peer-reviewed-josh-2…
The Josh version at least ;) with accompanying material (Matt Ridley)
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2014/3/12/the-works-of-lord-deben.html
"the recent “hiatus” in temperatures;
the likelihood that medieval temperatures may have been as high as today’s;
the unpredicted increase in Antarctic sea ice;
that 111 of 114 models had predicted too much warming over recent years"
Oh dear.
;)
Oh FFS read the previous page of the thread. Not going through all that again. Check out the pretty pictures at #2 this page while you are at it.
So climate sensitivity pretty high then...
And some crap about Antarctic sea ice extent which is increasing because of increasing zonal windspeeds quite possibly linked to AGW... and is in any case no evidence against AGW... yawn
And some crap about CMIP5 which doesn't even merit a response because it will be a distortion of the facts *and* you can derive S from paleoclimate behaviour.
What a piss-poor troll you are, GSW.
Now answer the fucking questions or sod off:
1/ Does climate science claim that warming will be monotonic (Y/N)?
2/ Does climate science claim that natural variability has stopped (Y/N)?
3/ Do you disagree that CO2 is an effective climate forcing (Y/N)?
4/ If you disagree, explain why
5/ If you *agree*, then why will temperatures *not* continue to rise as CO2 concentrations continue to increase?
chek
These two are absolutely crap. Even worse that karenmackspot and that other twat.
It's not even sport.
Also from GWPF today
http://www.thegwpf.org/reasons-environment-movement-losing-battle-heart…
"“Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket,” Eric Hoffer wrote more than 40 years ago."
(for business/racket read climate alarm industry, those who profit from "Doom awareness"; suzukis, flannerys, karolys etc)
"This has led environmental journalist Keith Kloor to ask: “Are environmental groups on the verge of extinction? Not exactly. But unless they do something to broaden their appeal, their days are numbered as a meaningful presence in American culture and politics.”"
Oh dear (2)
;)
You're projecting like a seasick dog, Griselda. Right wing think tanks and journalists (Kloor the denier enabler, FFS!) are Twainishly greatly exaggerating.
As indeed they might well, seeing as how their best brains can only confect "the hiatus" which - like it's twin brother '1998 was the hottest year (tee hee, no longer) - has been disproved so many times already.
But it's all you've got, as the US law makers start to awaken.
GSW
Standard daft conflation of physical climatology with "environmentalism".
Yawn.
No answers to the questions yet. Come on. What are you afraid of? Have a go!
1/ Does climate science claim that warming will be monotonic (Y/N)?
2/ Does climate science claim that natural variability has stopped (Y/N)?
3/ Do you disagree that CO2 is an effective climate forcing (Y/N)?
4/ If you disagree, explain why
5/ If you *agree*, then why will temperatures *not* continue to rise as CO2 concentrations continue to increase?
More for those based in Holland/dutch speakers,
http://www.dagelijksestandaard.nl/2014/03/het-klimaatconflict-waar-gaat…
(translation http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/Thoenes-The_Subversion…)
"The IPCC is not a scientific but a political institution. The final report will be determined by representatives of the participating governments, i.e. politicians and officials. According to the skeptics, the IPCC has insufficient scientific authority."
"I see this situation as a serious undermining of democracy. It has been the basis for totally misguided government policies that cost taxpayers billions each year. In these times of additional cuts it is absurd that this waste of money is continuing."
Dick Thoenes is emeritus Professor of Chemical Engineering at the Technical University in
Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Oh dear (3)
;)
GSW, did you notice how upset BBD got when he understood that Jeffie could back up yet another of his silly claims? :-)
Poor Jeff in his stupid bicorne. :-)
Another great big yawn - the IPCC is a political body - Hold the front page! It's report chapters however are prepared by lead authors who are scientists, not politicians.
Scratch another desperate denier red herring.
And another yawn - Canadian think tank promotes report by another retiree in an unconnected discipline.
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, Griselda.
So much effort for nothing. It's already well recognised that corporate power is the greatest subversion of democracy yet seen which is why it's being fought on many fronts.
Poor Matt Ridley, a once respected popular science writer (who's books, the one I have, I am re-evaluating because it is clear he cannot be trusted with facts) reduced to making posts on the likes of WUWT and now Bishop Shrill.
For Ridley to complain that there are no, what he calls 'sceptics or lukewarmers' on the 'Committee on Climate Change' makes it clear that it is they are beginning to feel the heat of being on the wrong side of the debate with false balance in the media brining exposure as more and more high profile companies start accepting the fact that climate change is well and truly here and that we are mostly responsible.
It is interesting that our protagonists here have to resort to feeding at the poisoned trough of denial, that long list in Nova site right hand side provides clues, this I mentioned up thread.
An indication that Bishop Hill'sCardinal Puff's site is childish pants, appeared in the sidebar
No, I - along with other readers here - were too busy noticing your continued inability to answer the many, many questions put to you that slaughtered your position, and which you could only remain dumb (in both senses of the word) about.
@Olaus
Hi Olaus ;) I don't know if 'upset' is the right word, "gibbering" certainly.
Is Joff still trying to measure temperatures with spiders? Doesn't he know that thermometers are much more reliable? I sort of imagined that with his zoology training he'd be much au fait with "standard practice".
"How to take a calf’s temperature"
http://www.infodairy.com/infodairy_upload_files/Cows_heifers_calves/Cal…
Would love to see how it would turn out with joff sticking a spider up it's arse, as in his view it was a much better indicator!
;)
It's almost, but not quite, funny watching GSW and Olaus demonstrate their pathological intellectual dishonesty by refusing to answer questions:
1/ Does climate science claim that warming will be monotonic (Y/N)?
2/ Does climate science claim that natural variability has stopped (Y/N)?
3/ Do you disagree that CO2 is an effective climate forcing (Y/N)?
4/ If you disagree, explain why
5/ If you *agree*, then why will temperatures *not* continue to rise as CO2 concentrations continue to increase?
* * *
(Public Enemy Night of the Living Baseheads)
Nope. Irritated because of Olaus' ignoring this:
"What matters is another century of warming"
While refusing to answer this:
"5/ If you *agree*, then why will temperatures *not* continue to rise as CO2 concentrations continue to increase?"
FFS:
So not a climate scientist, not an energy expert and not an economist then. Of course we should take this emeritus chemist seriously!
"Doesn’t he know that thermometers are much more reliable?"
If you truly believe this gormless, then you are much more stupid than even I thought. And I thought you were abysmally stupid to begin with. Clearly, your hole gets deeper. Being in academia, I meet all kinds, but I have to admit that some of the morons I have encountered on Deltoid (like gormless and Olaus) really push the limits of ignorance to an entirely new level. And what's worse, they think they are smart, informed, and worst of all, correct... the mind boggles. I've met mediocre BSc students who know many times more than these two.
You won't find a scientist on Earth who would claim that thermometers or other devices are more accurate long-term measures of abiotic conditions, such as temperature, than biodiversity (ectotherms and endotherms). Well, I will add a caveat: at least those who haven't been bought and paid for by industry. Species are continuing to exhibit shifts poleward and to higher elevations; moreover, we are seeing ongoing shifts in communities as thermophilic species in some instances displace species adapted to colder ambient conditions, changes in seasonal phenology, increases in the number of generations and more. Now, since neither gormless or Olaus know diddly squat about environmental science, all they can do is dismiss the biotic evidence. This is no argument; its assertion by ignorance.
As another example of gormless's rank stupidity, he cites something from Dick Thoenes of all people. Living in Holland, I am well aware of Thoenes and a few other people like him.
Let me just say this: nothing more needs to be said. If these are the kinds of 'experts' that deniers rely upon, then this shows how really desperate they are. By the way gormless, I am a Professor too in case you hadn't noticed. Oh, and one with many times more publications and citations than most of those you dredge up as 'experts' on 'your side'.
You really are a joke. Why you, like Olaus, write in here is anybody;s guess. When I gave an evening lecture to students last night in Amsterdam, I quoted Olaus and soem of his kindergarten-level comments about ecology (territories/150 years). Following the laughter, I was asked by one student if it was really true that people could be this stupid. Sadly I replied, yes, it is true. And Olly isn't alone. He's got you at his side.
Mr. Petri, I am very interested in this "hiatus" you speak of. Could you share a link that demonstrates that there has been a hiatus in global warming recently?
Jeff, any signs of the piles of studies comparing "demografic speed of plants"? Prefarably the 1910-1940 period with 1975-1998? :-)
GSW, Jeff usually takes global temps from the top of a mountain, standing against the wind while holding a first hand spider in his raised other hand. :-)
...and this is only the beginning; the tip of an iceberg of studies. Too bad Olly and gormless neither read nor understand it. They are too busy living on denier weblogs.
Study covering the years 1960-2010 showing very significant phenological changes in a range of species and interactions in Russia as a result of climate change. And, to counter Olly's vacuous remark about 'adapting', it only shows biotic shifts, not long-term adaptations. Given the non-linear nature of responses which are association-specific in many instances, its clear that the net result will be the simplification of food webs and communities less resilient to other anthropogenic stresses.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/07/29/1305533110.full.pdf+html
Before sodding off out for a night of debauchery, it struck me as worth observing that the Skantroll contingent of Olap and Griselda find the pointing out of their intellectual and moral bankruptcy amusing, without any conception that such behaviour may cause indignation to honest folk who abhor the dishonesty of liars promoting the lies of charlatans and their vested interests.
As Olap and Griselda prove, it's not as if they even understand either what they're attempting to belittle, or what they're cheering for
Talk abut shooting himself in the foot. Meatball makes a vacuous quip just before the first of many studies is linked. Ouch! That's gotta hurt, meatball. Given that you can count the number of allies you have on Deltoid now with one finger, all that you can do is appeal to gormless to share in your brainless attempt at humor. You are amazingly dense, you know that meathead?
More to come still: http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/11-1912.1
@Olaus
" Jeff usually takes global temps from the top of a mountain, standing against the wind while holding a first hand spider in his raised other hand"
Yeah, you need to get the angle just right with the rising sun otherwise the result can be as unreliable as reading tealeaves apparently (joff will have more on this having transcended using mere thermometers for measuring temperature apparently)
@chek, BBD, stu
No need to bother chaps, your bit was recorded earlier,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUcHZ9yH3j8
;)
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10669-007-9153-1#page-1
More tomorrow. Its just too bad that I have to do the homework for the louts here. Like all deniers, they refuse to look for studies themselves. And, they use their rank ignorance as a strategy to claim that there is no evidence for a process. As I said, type in keywords like 'phenology' and 'climate change' or other words like 'extinction' and 'climate change' etc. into Web of Science search engine and there are thousands of hits. The studies are there. Its just that the deniers don't like to read them. And, to be fair, given they have no relevant scientific education, they wouldn't understand them anyway. So that leaves only to possible responses: admit the truth and have done with it, or else camouflage your ignorance by either belittling the studies or their authors, or ignoring them entirely.
What's most amazing here is that Olaus seriously thinks he has the upper hand in this debate. No kidding. Its almost pathological, a form or insanity, an extreme kind of narcissism. Olly believed the same about Poptech, all while he was getting soundly thrashed here (Poptech had me on the floor with his statement that the US is not a plutocracy but a 'Constitutional Republic'. I could here a collective cheer from the ruling elites when they read that. They must have been proud that, though the corporate media they control, that they have so dumbed-down the population that they'll believe almost anything they are told. I am sure thatv gormless believes the US is a healthy, functioning democracy too.
@joff
Apologies, didn't mean to leave you out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hil0xCAmWUM
Your contribution gets a special merit for effort!
;)
Okay, climate science experts, if you can't answer the other questions, here's one GSW trolled with earlier: MCA as warm as present.
How do you square this with a low climate sensitivity?
Which brings us back to:
3/ Do you disagree that CO2 is an effective climate forcing (Y/N)?
4/ If you disagree, explain why
5/ If you *agree*, then why will temperatures *not* continue to rise as CO2 concentrations continue to increase?
Mr. Petri, I am very interested in this “hiatus” you speak of. Could you share a link that demonstrates that there has been a hiatus in global warming recently?
Olaus, unless you answer the questions, you are simply making a noise. Why not try to defend your position?
You would do that by answering these questions:
1/ Does climate science claim that warming will be monotonic (Y/N)?
2/ Does climate science claim that natural variability has stopped (Y/N)?
3/ Do you disagree that CO2 is an effective climate forcing (Y/N)?
4/ If you disagree, explain why
5/ If you *agree*, then why will temperatures *not* continue to rise as CO2 concentrations continue to increase?
So come on, argue your case, point by point.
By the way, Olaus, Gormless, please tell me again how many scientific publications you have accumulated, and other relevant aspects of your amazing scientific credentials. Just wondering.
Thus far what we have learned is that both of you have zero publications and no relevant qualifications whatsoever. Oh, I stand corrected; gormless has a third rate BS degree in chemistry.
Now expect meatball to make a quip about me boasting about my CV. But alas - didn't gormless try and legitimize vacuous commentary by Dick Thoenes by pasting up his qualifications? Poptech was big on that. In a feeble attempt to legitimize the opinions of known shills, he plastered lengthy descriptions of their qualifications. What we have here is rank hypocrisy. If your opponent is a qualified scientist, and says so, he is 'waving his CV'. If someone you agree with has any qualifications, no matter how thin, you blow them out of all proportion. This is the denier mindset.
More hyppcrisy: the reason I made my qualifications clear here in the first place was when one of the deniers here - thankfully I cannot remember who - demanded to know what qualifications I had to challenge him. When I responded, then the new tactic (honed by meatball) was to attack me for waving my CV. This is how these people operate. They belittle someone's expertise, then when that is presented, they accuse them of narcissism.
What a sordid lot they are. THANKFULLY this blog is populated by very few of them (right now its only a few).
Stu, look at what the hiatus boys will not even acknowledge (pasted in from upthread):
* * *
GISTEMP 1979 – present; linear fits 1979 – (end of) 1997 and 1999 - present
That's with the year 1998 missed out. No cherry-pick with 1998 as an end point and no cherry-pick with it as a start point.
Now, let's add the overall 1979 – present linear trend:
As above, but with linear trend 1979 - present
Finally, expand the view to 1900 - present:
GISTEMP 1900 - present linear trend; 1979 - (end) 1997 linear trend; 1999 - present linear trend
The centennial trend provides an informative context for the short-term trends.
* * *
They go on and on about satellites and thermometers but when you show the data... They go blind.
But Mr. BBD, Mr. Petri speaks of it often, and with much confidence. His spectacular scientific credentials are only bolstered by his liberal use of emoticons and spelling akin to a drunk Albanian sailor.
So it should be no problem for him to produce one graph that shows a recent hiatus in global warming, I feel. I eagerly await his teachings.
Jeff, thanks for the articles, but non of them compares the "speed of plant demgraphics" during the mentioned periods.
I know your hate-saturated conspiracy brain is thick, but please stop telling me stuff I have no problem with. Why is that you always invent what others think or claim? Of course "nature itself" changes (use what term you like if it pleases you) when it gets warmer. I have told you this many times, you know. :-)
So, the "speed"-thing, then. Can I please see one or two from the other high stack, the one with studies comparing the "speed och plant demorgraphic" in 1910-1940 period with the 1975-1998 period.
Without such studies it's impossible for me (and for you) to see if the change NOW is faster than BEFORE. Witnessing spiders first hand doesn't count in my book, sorry!
Surprise me Jeffie! ;-)
Hey Olaus
You forgot to make an argument. The problem lies ahead, not behind.
You ignore this:
“What matters is another century of warming”
While refusing to answer this:
“5/ If you *agree*, then why will temperatures *not* continue to rise as CO2 concentrations continue to increase?”
You have a logic problem. You need to explain yourself and defend your position.
Why won't you do this?
Stu
Mr Petri has a problem and he doesn't seem able to fix it. English is not Mr Petri's first language, so we can ignore the spelling and grammar. What we can't ignore is the absence of an argument and the refusal to engage substantively.
Mr Petri is making a noise. Like a whoopie-cushion.
It isn't mine either, but I am aware of the existence of spell-checking software at the very least. I think there's a law against that in denier circles though... Jonas was congenitally incapable of going an entire comment without an egregious error as well.
Mr. Petri, why are you not linking to a simple graph proving the existence of the hiatus in global warming you continue to speak of?
Then chapeau, Stu.
And they called him Jonarse for a reason.
Thank you BBD, but ask cRR and Jeff how magical I really am.
By the way -- if these troll threads have proven anything... being coherent is not language-dependent.
It seems that Jeff got lost in the pile of literature. :-)
No Olaus, I got sick and tired of responding to people (you and gormless) whose education in the relevant fields is less than elementary. In other words, we are on very different intellectual planes, and its not worth my valuable time as a qualified scientist to deal with people whose understanding falls below undergraduate level.
But I will give you this, although it won't sink in. There are many historical records of plants and animals found in Eurasia and North America that go back 100-200 years at least. This is thanks to the diligent work of amateur collectors as well as professional taxonomists. Given that ecology really didn't enter the radar until after the writings of Aldo Leopold, G. Evelyn Hutchinson and then Robert MacArthur (eminent scientists the Swedish meatball has clearly never read or even heard of), it wasn't interpreted in terms of local and wider community-level dynamics. Only in the 1960s with the seminal Hairston et al paper and then the works of Wilson and MacArthur did population and community ecology become a full blown discipline, which enabled us to chart demographic changes in ecological communities at various spatial and temporal scales. The works of Gleason earlier helped us to understand patterns of community structure, and the seminal models of Lotka-Volterra and Nicholson-Bailey were important in understanding the population dynamics of species, but until the 1960s we knew little about the role of abiotic and biotic factors in determining species ranges and local abundance. Following me Olaus? Of course, given your understanding of environmental science is grade-school, Imam trying to keep this simple. I won't even start talking about neutral models, asymmetric intra- and inter specific competition, island biogeography, Hubbell'a theories etc, or the green world hypotheses as all of this will be well above your pointy little head.
What we do know on past data sets is whether species were in a given location of not, and, importantly, to some extent how abundant they were. For instance, records of certain insect groups and orders in many European countries are excellent and go back a century and a half (at least). Ditto for plants. As a single example, we know that the ground beetle Ophonus signaticornis is a largely thermophilic species that is confined to open habitats in central and southern Europe (as far north as central Germany). Here, in Holland, where the Carabidae have been well studied and collected, there were three single records of this beetle here - only three specimens, beginning in 1880 with the last in 1958. In 2001, hundreds were collected from a single site in Gelderland, Holland, showing that they had established well north of their historical distribution. There are many similar records of insects in especially well studied and collected orders - the Coleoptera, Lepidoptera, and Hymenoptera - being collected in large numbers in areas far to the north of their historical ranges during the period 2000-present. Most importantly, they were NOT here until recently, including the time periods meatball refers to. Their spread northwards is a very recent phenomenon. What caused it? Climate warming almost certainly. These are ectotherms with very specific thermal requirements.
Some of the research I am involved in is also looking at range expanding plants that are colonizing and increasing in areas well to the north of their historic ranges. There are floral atlases for many countries in Europe that have excellent records for the local abundance of annual, biennial and perennial plants going back more than a century. What these records again unambiguously show is that many plants are moving into habitats well north of their historical ranges where there are NO records of them. In our research we are studying the ecological consequences of climate-warming induced range shifts in plants with known congeners that are native locally. The research involves detailed analyses of soil and above-grund communities associated with the range expanders and their related natives, as well as the ecological consequences of community re-assembly. The plants are based on data of known historical distributions and covers a range of families including phylogenetically unrelated species.
So there you have it. I am sick and tired of having to deal with the vacuous comments of people like meatball whose understanding of the relevant science is sophomoric at best and falls way below university-level thresholds. Given the vacuity in his knowledge base, the only explanation one can make on his opinions re: climate change is that they are politically driven. If the meatball was honest he'd finally come out and admit it, and save everyone here their valuable breath demolishing his arguments (as I, BBD, Bernard and others are doing). The questions he has posed to me are childish ones, speaking as a qualified scientist. We know that AGW is driving shifts in species interactions and communities, and that the consequences for these communities are uncertain and likely to be serious if the warming - as is predicted - continues.
To reiterate what I said: there was very little change before meatball. This is amply proven by historical records of species presence/abundance in various parts of their ranges. Rapid changes are a recent phenomenon.
What's cleat is that you didn't read the studies I posted, especially the one in PNAS. Or, more likely, you didn't understand them. Most hilariously, you calling me 'thick' has to be the ironic statement of the year, given my qualifications in the relevant fields put yours back in the Carboniferous.
Jeff, I told you it was perfectallly OK to say that you have no idea of how fast the "speed of plant dempgraphics", etc were during the 1910-1940. :-)
The PNSA-article didn't contain anything of the sort. You must have picked the wrong article in the high stack of PNSA-articles on your desk. :-)
I know it's almost impossible for self-loving first hand portentologists to understand the concept of scale and what is proven or what is not.
SAY AFTER ME JEFF: "I REALLY HAVE NO CLUE IF THE SPEED OF THE PLANT DEMOGRAPHIC (etc) IS FASTER TODAY THAN DURING 1910-1940 PERIOD. THANKS OLAUS FOR MAKING ME UNDERSTAND THAT I JUST MADE IT UP."
You are welcome Jeff! :-)
And again, like you Dr. Bicorne, I'm sure nature itself reacts to a warming climate, spiders, plants, and so on. At any rate that's what your articles claim.
Well Olas the Undone, maybe you should try getting lost in a pile of literature, here is a starter for ten.
What could be the effect of climate change on the ratio of protandrous/protogynous individuals in **** populations?
Come on, stop this dishonest weaving and ducking and start answering questions.
You might care to find 'Ecological responses to recent climate change' and note the date of that.
For more let Google be your friend..
The paywall is still a barrier to those not in academe but enough can be found to throw down your Tower of Babel Olaus.
Pay attention to Jeffs knowledgeable words,
One of the leading fictional characters in Patrick O'Brian's excellent 'Master and Commander' sequence of novels was one such amateur and O'Brian clearly knew about the role of Sir Joseph Banks, a real life naturalist of considerable renown see here Natural History Museum: Historical collections.
Now look all this out Olaus and stop pissing about.
Olaus is such a dick he cannot get the letters PNAS in the correct order. The grinning idiot (GIT) Olaus strikes again.
Did you bother to read the words here?
The evidence for climate related disruption is growing by the day, from many regions. Wherever you are get involved in local natural history or environmental projects and LEARN.
Lionel, I have no problems with paywalls, but you, like dr. Bicorne, have a hard time finding any research establishing the "speed of change" during the 1910-1940 period.
SAY AFTER ME JEFF AND LIONEL: “I REALLY HAVE NO CLUE IF THE SPEED OF THE PLANT DEMOGRAPHIC (etc) IS FASTER TODAY THAN DURING 1910-1940 PERIOD. THANKS OLAUS FOR MAKING ME UNDERSTAND THAT I JUST MADE IT UP.”
I'm sure Jonas will be proud of you. ;-)
Lionel, # 89, yes, what about it?
WRT #90 Olas the Undone,
You clearly didn't understand the message. Now read this bit again and think about what it means:
getting it?
What's with Olap demanding answers to his questions when he ha so very many of his own outstanding questions awaiting an answer?
Oh! Poor Matt Ridley, how sad that he will be remembered as a self serving contrarian rather than as a gifted science writer as he rides off into the sunset of denial. Denial not only about the human impact on global warming but of the fallacies in his own truth stretching bluster, bluster so prominent in that Bishop Shrill piece.
Matt Ridley's House of Lords speech probably followed the script he laid out in the WSJ (see below) and at WUWT, which has been nicely taken apart here:
Matt Ridley in denial about being in denial.
Skeptical Science has over recent years carried much that demonstrates that Ridley is trying to muddy the waters, at best and is likely having his strings pulled from behind the scenes as he entices his readers down the yellow-brick road.
John Abraham has countered Ridley a number of times including in this article:
John Abraham Slams Matt Ridley for Climate Denial Op-Ed in Wall Street Journal
and then Ridley has the gal to exhibit faux concern about the disadvantaged in the world with this egregious section:
Ridley, take a trip, if only by proxy, to Alaska, the Andes, the lower reaches of the Himalayas' rivers, the increasingly arid lands in Africa, those hit by storms and heavy rains across the world to see how real climate change is having an effect here and now. There is nothing exaggerated about the science that underpins the IPCC reports, if anything political pressure tends to water them down.
As for being smeared as a denier, if you don't like it then Ridley look in the mirror, recognise the condition and stop acting like one.
And with Olap's self declared 'no problems with paywalls' he has no excuse for not answering ALL of those questions.
Olaus, you moronic idiot: if there are NO records of species in certain locations until after circa 1980-1990, THEN THEY WEREN'T THERE EARLIER. Do you want me to repeat that for you?
Its now warmer in most parts of the planet than it was circa 1910-1940. The ten warmest years have all occurred since 1998. Therefore, ITS NOT SURPRISING THAT WE ARE NOW SEEING HITHERTO UNPRECEDENTED SHIFTS IN SPECIES MOVEMENTS POLEWARDS, TO HIGHER ELEVATIONS, AND IN SEASONAL PHENOLOGY.
Now we know the swedish meatball is profoundly ignorant, but why does this not sink in?
To continue from my last post: THE ABSENCE OF MANY SPECIES FROM ANY RECORDS UNTIL AFTER 1980-1990 IS PROOF THAT CURRENT WARMING EXCEEDS ANYTHING THAT HAS OCCURRED IN CENTURIES, AND CERTAINLY MORE THAN 1910-1940.
Good grief, the stupidity exhibited by meatball is exasperating. I've answered his bloody stupid question; again, species distributions and local abundance were fairly constant up until about 1980. Many declined due to habitat losses or changes mediated by human activities (excluding AGW) whereas some generalists benefitted. However, climate change only began to generate large-scale range shifts in the past 20-30 years, a fact which is in no dispute whatsoever. And its not disputed because surface temperatures are now higher than at any time in recorded history. This is NOT rocket science. But Mr. meatball is so uneducated in the field that I am forced to lower myself to utterly basal levels of discourse.
This debate is now over; kaput. Current demographic changes in biodiversity, caused by AGW are unprecedented. Ranges are shifting faster now than at any time since records were kept (for many biota that is around 150-200 years). Given the magnitude of the warming we are probably talking about many, many centuries. Species now occurring in Benelux, for example, that are native in southern Europe, have never been here before or else are more abundant now than ever before. There are many examples from across the biosphere. I have presented several. The empirical literature has many more.
Case closed. Shut up now Olaus and go away.