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.
Graham Lloyd writes something sensible in The Australian:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/a-pause-for-this-message-climat…
"There is no dispute that the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is rising, that human actions are contributing to the rise and, all things being equal, this will have an impact on the Earth’s climate."
Oops, I knew it was too good to last...
"This week, fresh science has shed new light on how plants use more CO2 than previously thought. "
Duh, plants don't "use more CO2 than previously thought" - modelling of the CO2 fertilisation effect have been adjusted to take into account new understanding of how plants will in future continue to increase their uptake of CO2 for a little bit longer under conditions of increased CO2 in the atmosphere.
Looks like Michael Asten (a good guy!) is a believer in lower sensitivity values along the lines of those proposed by Judith Curry:
"“An alternative approach which I predict will come, although not without opposition from ‘consensus scientists’, is to postulate that the ‘missing heat’ was never here; that is, a reduced climate sensitivity will be estimated for the Earth, at or below the low end of the range currently published by the IPCC.”
Asten says the trend of climate sensitivity estimates made across the past six years from meteorological, satellite and ocean sediment records has been, with very few exceptions, to produce estimates at or below the low end of the range published by the IPCC."
This will be good to watch over the next 3 to 5 years...
Don't mention this to BBD
Not got access to the Australian, but did Asten also say
"While opinions on causes differ, the existence of the pause is settled"
And
"Only activists dare claim the pause in global temperature does not exist"
Are you one of these "activists" Craig?
Asten is a very good bloke, but he's wrong in this case. I'm not an "activist", I'm a sceptic.
(How's your "scepticism" going, Rednose?)
There is clearly no such thing as this "pause", except that it is now a "thing" that we talk about.
We just had the hottest September on record, ever, and once again we are at the end of the hottest decade ever measured.
Not much of a "pause".
It would definitely be interesting to hear Asten explain what he is trying to convey, because he is (unlike Graham Lloyd) both honest and very very smart, so he has something important to say.
And talking about having something important to say, do you ever get embarrassed about just how vapid and moronic yrou conversational contributions always are, Rednose?
Managed to link to that Australian article, it being a different one to that referenced in the September thread. Hint, if you Google Craigs quote the top link takes you to the article but any attempt to use the URL from that field arrives at the paywall.
Such controversial material has no right being behind a paywall as it is in the public interest to be able to read and dissect such propaganda. It is a cowardly niggardly act to hide behind such a construct. I consider such material to be not worthy of copyright protection.
Whatever, as Craig hints, It is a similar mishmash of nuggets of truth, obfuscating statements and downright disinformation that we have come to expect.
Some snippets:
A rising chorus of literature in the world’s best scientific journals
Not true, the worlds best scientific journals are only describing any 'hiatus' in terms of a slow down in warming not a halt and within the context of heat energy balance surplus going into oceans and cryosphere melt. So that para' open with bullshit right there.
most prestigious opinion pages
Sorry but opinion columns in other Murdoch organs are not prestigious, and most certainly not in any scientific sense.
Forbes and the WSJ are comics for the children who cannot stand the thought of reality entering their world. They are comic playgrounds for the clowns such as Michaels and Ridley and now Curry too it would seem.
Curry's path towards scientific ridicule and ostracisation is accelerating. Will she pull back from the brink?
Clearly you missed the memo from last months thread, here it is again:
Warming pause or hiatus, better tell that to mother nature she ain’t listening:
10 Warmest Years on Record Globally..
and then there is this:
A lot more heat is found in the ocean .
Now what do you think that included Figure M2. Pacific and Atlantic meridional sections showing upper-ocean warming for the past 6 decades is telling us?
Stop trailing filth around with your boots, time to go through a sheep dip.
#8
Now calm down Lineol
You should be directing all this vitriol at Professor Asten who Craig tells us is a very good bloke.
If these statements of his are correctly quoted, then he has probably read all that activist crap you keep dredging up and come to a slightly different conclusion.
You seem to have great difficulty accepting "the pause" Loinel, does that make you an activist as well.
Craig#6
I always try to gauge the level of the target audience when making conversational contributions so your valued feedback indicates I might have been quite successful on this occasion.
The stuff you once knew where to get has probably had a more permanent effect than you realise.
It appears that "Rednose" is an expert in "argument from authority".
Unlike Rednose, *I* am a sceptic.
It turns out that Asten is not a climate scientist and his expertise is nowhere close to it.
Try again, Rednose. Asten has a good CV in his field but this isn't climate. Again, it shows how desperate the denialati is to scrape up voices supporting their flimsy positions.
Gee, its so easy to catch this lot out.
Rednose is an expert.
Well another unexpected compliment.
I am so glad you have finally accepted what you are. Ignore the taunts and abuse you may get from other Deltoids. It is the first step on your route to recovery.
L:ittle by little you will become more discerning and less accepting of climate propaganda and alarmism.
#12
A cv which is probably a lot better than yours Jeffie, with 173 published papers including on climate sensitivity as deduced from deep ocean records of the Eocene period.
I suspect he could therefore be a "climate scientist" and be qualified to speak on such matters.
How desperate are you?
I have already indicated why that may not be the case.
That concept is a figment of confused imagination as you should well know having being shown why that is so, time and time again. You must be a very, very slow learner. Aha! That is where there is a pause, in your intellectual development, or should that be development in integrity.
Define 'activist'.
Rednose, His cv most certainly ain't a lot better than mine....
....only 96 of his papers are in peer-reviewed journals - all of my 151 are, and I have way, way more citations from my peers. I've got 16 papers so far this year - so it won't be long before I breeze past him. And he's been around a helluva lot longer than me - I got my PhD in 93, 16 years after he got his.
So much for your input.
Moreover, you are falling into the same trap of citing the odd scientist here or there whose views contrast with the vast majority of climate scientists. Like I said before, you are desperate the find voices of denial.
Craig Thomas / all
Are we thinking of the same Michael Asten? The one I know of is essentially a denier. Those familiar with the paleoclimate literature will not have forgotten his disastrous attempt to confect a low sensitivity estimate from isotopic proxies dated near the Eocene-Oligocene transition. This was touted around the denialosphere at the time as another nail in the coffin blah, blah.
What the climate liars omitted to mention was that this paper was so horribly flawed it did not pass peer review and was never published.
Better yet, Asten submitted to Climate of the Past, which is an open review journal, so you can read the stringent critiques - some by major names in the field.
I wouldn't take this man's word on *anything* climate-related. He is clearly a politicised advocate for inaction.
Rednoise
It didn't pass peer review because it was crap. It wasn't published.
Idiot.
Ocean heat content 0 - 2000m
So what is this? I want an *answer*.
What is it?
Idiot.
BBD,
Great detective work, as always. Trust Rednose tom plug the bonafides of another sceptic. Again, its out of desperation.
Well caught BBD, and which I suspected from the beginning so that The Australian‘s War on Science 55: Michael Asten responds is worth pointing to again. Go to it Redshift.
Try cleaning your boots now.
Oops. I mistook "Michael Asten" for "Michael Ashley".
So sorry.
Michael Asten is just another cranky geologist.
I now recall Asten was the guy who wrote a couple of articles in The Australian that were embarrassingly riddled with errors and ludicrous opinions about climate scientists being like Nazis.
Forget Asten, he's had no credibility since he joined forces with Murdoch for their "War on Science".
Craig Thomas
I thought something like that might have happened. Not to worry; and besides, I owe you one ;-)
OK Redshaft is this what a pause looks like:
10 Warmest Years on Record Globally
?
Followed by this:
2014 On Track for Warmest Ever?
which leaves you no wriggle room or excuse for your continued spouting of disinformation.
What is the difference between disinformation and misinformation? Just so as you are sure.
I see that bodge-up of a heat content graph is still making the miserabilists huddle together in a circle-jerk.
How are the cats doing? When do they die out from global warming?
Should I worry more about cats or the ASrctic death-spiral? please tell me so I can join you in your misery and concern.
I smell a stinky sock!
Classic denial pathology: show scientific evidence of warming (eg OHC increase) and the denier claims that the evidence is faked.
Well, what else can the denier do? They have no scientific evidence, no scientific counter argument - nothing. So they must invent conspiracy theories and tell childish lies.
something new for you guys to worry about...
"Alpine goats appear to be shrinking in size as they react to changes in climate, according to new research from Durham University."
something new for you guys to worry about…
“Alpine goats appear to be shrinking in size as they react to changes in climate, according to new research from Durham University.”
lol at BBD...cross out the post and pretend it doesn't exist? Why? it gives you guys another excuse for a circle jerk.
And don't petend that you do not know why it is wrong to match the argo record with the shit that existed beforehand. Try not to be dishonest.
those poor chamois...withy friends like you...lol
^ And here we see the bottom of the barrel.
"cross out the post and pretend it doesn’t exist?"...
Fact is, its a crying shame that idiots like you exist, elmer or whatever sock puppet you are... please go back to your cave.
Yesterday Bart Verheggen, an atmospheric scientist who runs an excellent climate science blog gave a lecture for my Masters course on Science and Advocacy. In it he showed exactly why deniers are full of it, and why there is no 'hiatus'. Essentially, it boils down to this: there have been six so-called hiatuses since 1970; every one was supposedly broken by a sudden massive upward shift in temperature. As Bart explained, there is simply not enough energy in the atmosphere to account for sudden massive shifts in temperatures upwards. Short-term internal variability - mediated by ENSO, La Nina etc events - is responsible. But if one plots a regression over time, the trend shows that temperatures are rising. Climate change has not stopped.
He went on to debunk more denier memes. It was a great talk. Too bad that a veritable army of brainless idiots who have no scientific acumen whatsoever are flooding the blogosphere.
Jeffie, I'll break it down to you:
2014-1970= 44 years
44/6= 7,3 year pauses (average)
44-15= 29 years
29/5= 5,8 years (average)
5,8 x 5 = 29 years pause
In sum, Jeffie-style: simplifyed the 44 years between 1970 and 2014 harbours 6 pauses à 7,3 years. But since one pause is ca 15 years, the ongoing one, the other five are only 5,8 years long.
But adding all five 5,8 years paueses, we get a long one of 29 years.
And 29 is a bigger number than 15.
Ooops, where did the warming go Jeffie... ;-)
And Jeff, climate changes all the time, including during your 29 year pause. :-)
Sock Troll
Why don't you find us one or more published scientific papers that support your claim, with special reference to the words "shit", "wrong" and "dishonest".
I bet you that you will not be able to do this because no such studies exist.
This leaves us with you proposing that the scientists reconstructing OHC over the last half century are "wrong" and "dishonest". That is both evidence denial and a conspiracy theory. Standard denier behaviour when confronted with evidence that rips a hole through their denial - just as I pointed out above.
Incidentally, the stupid denier lie that:
can be shown to be a stupid denier lie by looking *only* at the OHC data from 2005 - within the duration of the misnomered "pause". But in your idiotic flailing to deny the evidence, you rather overlooked the obvious.
Olaus
Jeff's told you and I have told you dozens of times that there is no "pause". OHC continues to increase. Variability in the rate of surface warming is basically variability in the rate of ocean heat uptake.
Either you are moronic, or you are afflicted with the mental illness of denial to such an extent that you cannot process this fairly simple information. Either way, you are tediously, permanently wrong. So why not bugger off?
Dear BBD, you got it wrong. Jeff told us that there have been six pauses since 1970. His scientific buddy told him so. :-)
The most recent pause is ca 15 years, you now the one mentioned in AR5, wich means that the other five must be 29 years put together. ;-)
On the other hand is Jeff a shill. He's on the recieving end of le Haute-finance of the climate scare machine.
Once more with feeling: it's always projection.
Lothar, I wonder if Jeff's six pauses are projekctions too. ;-)
Is this thing really worth bothering with?
Olaus
You are lying. Jeff wrote exactly the opposite:
You shameless, verballing liar.
No, I got nothing wrong. The problem here is one of terminology. I don't use the words "pause" or "hiatus" to describe a slowing in the rate of global warming. I call that 'a slowing in the rate of global warming'.
The terms "pause" and "hiatus" were inserted into the discourse by deniers. Far too many people - including scientists - have started to use these incorrect terms. It has fostered the confusion seeded by deniers and now - as you demonstrate - they are trying to leverage that confusion still further.
Remember Olaus, not to confuse the troposphere with the climate system as a whole, which is mostly ocean.
When you consider the climate system as a whole there has been no pause or hiatus in the rate of warming. It has continued much as expected. The oceans are heating up.
The key point, for the nth time, is that the rate of surface/tropospheric warming is modulated by the rate of ocean heat uptake - which was Bart's point. This physical process can cause considerable short-term variability in the rate of surface (tropospheric) warming without magicking vast amounts of energy out of nowhere.
Stop lying. Stop wittering about non-existent 'pauses'. Accept the facts as they are.
bill
Lying scum need their noses flattening on a routine basis or they get too fucking bold.
Dear BBD, Jeff's buddy acknowleded six so called ;-) pauses, which, compared to the ungoing pause dealt with by AR5, are 29 years in total.
:-)
And how absurd isn't it that most biased, onesided, uncritcal and politically driven person I ever have come across, has a course in "Science and Advocacy". :-)
<blockquote.Dear BBD, Jeff’s buddy acknowleded six so called ;-) pauses, which, compared to the ungoing pause dealt with by AR5, are 29 years in total.
Except that he didn't. Either you didn't read what Jeff wrote and what I wrote or you are lying or you are too stupid to understand written English.
Whatever the reason, your claim is still false.
Read. The. Words.
Dear BBD, another go:
We have a real pause of 15 years acknowledged by AR5 and we have 5 more so called pauses identified by Jeff's buddy, which added together become 29 years.
Better?
A little light relief (excuse pun).
A brilliant comparison between those who accept the science of anthropogenic global warming induced climate change with the concomitant need to use renewable sources for energy was made by introducing a charming pre WW2 cartoon 'The Sunshine Makers' at Climate Crocks recently, although the title should be 'The Sunshine Catchers' for accuracy and currency.
It would seem that the pointy noses have taken to wearing socks, blue probably, to prevent them hurting each other.
No. When you write that we have had a slowdown in the rate of surface/tropospheric warming, then I will agree that you are using the correct terminology.
When you also acknowledge that OHC has continued to rise during the same period so that there has been no slowdown (or pause or hiatus) in the rate of warming in the climate system as a whole, then we will agree.
Both these statements are factually correct. Why are you arguing with them?
"climate changes all the time," tee hee, magic!
Talk is over.
Sitting back relaxed and enjoying the mayhem with cries of glee. São Paulo is running really well now.
#34 OP, you've divided the whole 44 years by 6 to give 6 "pauses" of 7.3 years. But as you've left no time between the "pauses" you don't have six of them but only one that is 44 years long. So, according to your view of things there is no warming.
However if you have 6 discrete "pauses" then the warming is in the gaps.
Turbo, my friend, are you suggesting that my calculation was flawed?
:-)
Wolfgang Pauli had the words to describe your calculations Oily Prat.
Olaus
Both "pause" and "hiatus" mean a temporary halt, cessation or stop. There has been no halt, cessation or stop in the rate of surface warming. There has been a slowdown in the rate of surface warming.
When you write that we have had a slowdown in the rate of surface/tropospheric warming, then I will agree that you are using the correct terminology.
Here is a graph showing not a pause or a hiatus from 1999 but a slowdown in the rate of warming.
What I write here is factually correct. Do you agree or not? Yes or no?
How many times have our visiting goons been told that there is no 'pause' or 'hiatus' is warming, my #24 above is but one example.
Your link in #55 fails BBD, no url with the anchor element, just looked at Page Source.
Friends, the accelerating global warming the last ca 15 years has been very lobal, a hiatus if you like. So yes, there is a "mysterioius" cavity between the ears of the doomsayers enabling them to feel and see something that isn't there. Or perhaps it's there the missing heat is hiding?
You have no friends here Oily Pest!
A hiatus is a string of hot records on hot records ending in a record hot year again. For once climate is not changing. It just gets hotter all the time, all the time.
Olaus
Apologies for the broken link above.
What does this graph show?
Post-1999 do we see:
1/ Warming stops (pause, hiatus, cessation, halt)
2/ Rate of warming slows down but does not stop?
Which is it?
Cheer up Lionel, Harveygeddon is a lobal thingie.
The accelerating global warming that never was, only in portents and in the minds of wild-eyed, intolerant and unscientific advocates (with grave Napoleon complex).
Must be good, me thinks.
I think our visiting Turing machine just blew a fuse at #61.
Ah! BBD I doubt the Turing machine can understand pretty pictures but then here is another similar with a starter for ten:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997.92/to:2013.92/every/plot/rss…
Now that starter for ten:
Turing machine, can you tell us why one of the trend lines is down?
Olaus
It's very simple. Look at the graph at #60 and answer the question.
Post-1999 do we see:
1/ Warming stops (pause, hiatus, cessation, halt)
2/ Rate of warming slows down but does not stop?
Which is it?
BBD, my friend, is it this graph you want me to look at?
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1970/plot/rss/from:1970/to:1999/t…
No, Olaus.
RSS is borked. It is the *outlier*. See eg here.
This was the point Lionel made above. He anticipated that you would copy other climate liars (eg Monckton) in this respect.
But you don't use the outlier. That would be silly, even dishonest.
So, back to the original graph that I asked you to look at.
Post-1999 do we see:
1/ Warming stops (pause, hiatus, cessation, halt)
2/ Rate of warming slows down but does not stop?
Which is it?
(We can repeat this exercise with HadCRUT4 and UAH, but the result is similar. )
Sorry BBD, it was this one, right?
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1970/plot/rss/from:1970/to:1996/t…
:-)
BBD we could get better out of a sack of shit than out of our Turing machine which latter would be OK with for it could grow mushrooms seeing as it is permanently in the dark. Like the pointy noses in the video at #49.
The Turing machine has just proved my #68 point at #67!
#62 - easy to blow a troll's fuse. Very weak characters, that.
Olaus
You know who Roy Spencer is, don't you? You know he is a sceptic, right? He's also the curator of the UAH satellite temperature data. You know that too - yes?
So you would trust him not to side with the 'warmists' nor to be involved in any conspiracy to fake data - yes?
Here's what Roy Spencer - no less - has to say about the problems with the RSS data. Specifically, about the spurious cooling trend in the RSS data.
Read carefully now. This is Dr Roy speaking:
Did you get that, Olaus? Let me repeat the key words again:
Did you get that, Olaus?
* * *
Now, back to the graph using more reliable data.
Post-1999 do we see:
1/ Warming stops (pause, hiatus, cessation, halt)
2/ Rate of warming slows down but does not stop?
Which is it?
Oh dear, straight from the horse's mouth -
Stefan Rahmsdorff:Stefan Rahmsdorff:
"Ocean heat content has increased by about 2.5 X 1023 Joules since 1970 (IPCC AR5). What would be the impact of that? The answer is: it depends. If this heat were evenly distributed over the entire global ocean, water temperatures would have warmed on average by less than 0.05 °C"
Perhaps the chamois can stop shrinking now and may be the moggies are safe for a few more years. Cheer up guys!
I just love that Levitus graph. An honest scientist would have shown the error bands. For the early part of the record they would need to be about 2cm wide. Maybe after Argo the band could reduce to about 1cm. What conclusions could you make about OHC from a graph as shitty as that? It's ok, BBD just knows, because his pet parrot told him, that it is all disaster for the planet
Kevin Trenberth seems to agree with me, of course rather than BBD's parrot:
"Trenberth questions whether the Argo measurements are mature enough to tell as definite a story as Hansen lays out. He has seen many discrepancies among analyses of the data, and there are still "issues of missing and erroneous data and calibration," he said. The Argo floats are valuable, he added, but "they're not there yet."
Dear BBD, I assume you are reffering to this Dr. Spencer?:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1970/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:…
where he writes the following:
"We all know that global warming has been on hiatus – set on pause – however you like to characterize the lack of significant warming, for over 15 years. Depending on how you do the statistics, the vast majority of the climate models used to guide our energy policy have over-predicted the surface warming trend since the satellite record began way back in 1979."
Just asking....
Olaus
Okay, we've disposed of the RSS squirrel.
Now please answer the question I asked you. Your refusal to do so is becoming hilarious.
Post-1999 do we see:
1/ Warming stops (pause, hiatus, cessation, halt)
2/ Rate of warming slows down but does not stop?
Which is it?
Elmer Fuckwit
The graphs in Levitus et al. (2012) have error bars. See L12 Figure 1 for example.
The NODC graphs based on L12 have error bars too if you turn them on.
Notice that the decadal rate of increase is greater than the decadal uncertainty since ~1970.
Data denial again...
Elmer Fuckwit
Data denial again...
I'll take that as yeas, BBD.
Olaus
You are providing the thread with an interesting case study.
It is obvious to anyone - including you - that there has been no "pause" or "hiatus", merely a slowing in the rate of surface/tropospheric warming. It's also obvious from the OHC data - even confining ourselves *only* to ARGO and only since 2005 - that there has been no slowdown in the rate at which energy is accumulating in the climate system as a whole.
But despite simple, repeated and relatively polite requests for you to acknowledge this, you have refused. Instead you resorted to really quite childish evasions. This *must* be obvious to you.
You know exactly what you are doing.
Now that is fascinating.
Olaus
You seem to be the only commentator here with any grasp of science. Are you as scared as I am by the news that climate change is making Alpine goats shrink in size?
that's interesting BBD. So you would agree that you cannot ascertain any trend whatsoever in the ARGO period. It could be up, down or sideways. In any case, even if it is 0.05C, my cat does not need to worry yet.
Come on, Olaus
One last chance.
Look at the graph. What do you see?
Post-1999 do you see:
1/ Warming stops (pause, hiatus, cessation, halt)
2/ Rate of warming slows down but does not stop?
Which is it?
Everyone here can see the same graph. Everyone here can and will judge you on your answer.
One last chance. Take it. Go on. Just be honest. What do you see?
Elmer Fuckwit
The clue is in the name:
When the decadal rate of change exceeds the decadal uncertainty, we can have high confidence that the decadal rate of change is reasonably accurate.
Now, either you are clueless (my personal guess) or you are another silly little liar like Olaus. Perhaps a bit of both. Whatever the case, please don't embarrass yourself further with statements like the one quoted above.
That should read annual not "decadal" since you were talking about ARGO data only.
"Decadal" would apply to the OHC reconstruction since ~1970.
How anyone could look at the ARGO data and say there is no discernible trend is beyond my comprehension.
You don't appear to understand the concept of specific heat.
You need to get the basics straight before you get into this any further.
Elmer, I'm doing this for the sake of large goats! And my receiding hairline too! :-)
From Fudge: "Olaus, You seem to be the only commentator here with any grasp of science"
Please. I can only laugh so friggin' hard. This is most absurd and hilarious comment I have heard all day. A guy who cannot separate the meaning of 'instinct' from 'extinct' is called a scientific whizz. A guy whose never been near a science class or lecture theater, either. Pure comedy genius.
Olaus
So you prefer deliberate, obvious, public dishonesty to admitting that you are wrong.
That's not the mark of a healthy mind.
However, neither is climate change denial (or any kind of denial, come to that). So, once again, I am forced to conclude that Olaus & co. are insane.
After his absolutely extraordinary antics on this thread today, Olaus cannot complain at this classification. He has earned it.
Elmer one-barrel:
Have you any idea the amount of heat required to raise the ocean temperature through 0.05C?
Context:
Source: The recent pause in warming. Paper 1, page 22
That is science. What's it like having a face full of cork?
BTW the use of 'pause' in the title is unfortunate reading the paper tells why. People who write these should really be more careful and use language with the same precision that they like data collected.
How boring EF at #72, with that selective quote... how does it continue: "If this heat were evenly distributed over the entire global ocean, water temperatures would have warmed on average by less than 0.05 °C (global ocean mass 1.4 × 1021 kg, heat capacity 4 J/gK). This tiny warming would have essentially zero impact. The only reason why ocean heat uptake does have an impact is the fact that it is highly concentrated at the surface, where the warming is therefore noticeable (see Fig. 1) "
Waiter, this troll is too obvious, could you bring me a decent one?
EF at #74 from your link, ""Climate scientists were right that it was a cherry-picked observation, starting with an El Niño and ending with a La Niña," said Robert Kaufmann, a geographer at Boston University who recently studied the hiatus period."
Perhaps you could explain it to OP.
Olaus, Bart Verheggen is a qualified atmospheric scientist and he gave a great lecture yesterday. What are your qualifications again? Do I hear the sound of silence resonating through the blogosphere?
What is clear is that morons like you do not understand (or do not want to understand) the importance of scale and of how this relates to stochastic versus deterministic phenomena. As Bart said, if one does short term regressions then there are 6 alleged hiatuses over the past 44 years. Each alleged hiatus was broken by a sudden upward surge in temperature. As Bart explained, there is just not energy in the atmosphere to account for the supposed upward surge at the end of each hiatus. Given that climate regulation at the global level is a hugely deterministic phenomenon, he explained that short term variability can only be attributed to events that generate flux in the system - such as ENSO, La Nina etc. One cannot properly put short term regressions through temperature data and conclude that the system is somehow in a temporary stasis. It is necessary to regress the data over a much longer time frame, and in this context, as he explained, the warming is ongoing. Given that all indications are that 2014 will be the warmest year on record, and that all of the warmest years have occurred since 1998, there is clearly no hiatus. Its a construct of the ignoranti who will scrape the bottom of any barrel to deny, deny, and deny again.
The importance of scale lies at the heart of ecology. Stochastic events are generated at small spatial or temporal scales, but as these are extended things become more predictable. The properties of a large scale ecosystem are a lot easier to predict than the properties of a simple trophic web. So it goes with climate.
Its too bad you haven't been near a science lecture in your life or you'd understand the importance of scale. It seems like your admirer, Fudd, hasn't been either.
oh dear Turbo, my old fruit
you quote "This tiny warming would have essentially zero impact."
Should I worry about the mouflon now...or maybe the Castilian Ibex?
i assure you,BBD, my grasp is very specific...the ocean can not be demonstrated to be warming unless you are on LSD or do not trust climate scientists and their shitty graphs
Fudd the dud, purveyor of falsehoods, uncertainty and delay (FUD), like the rag-tags he gets his techniques of cherry picking and obfuscation from.
Fudd, you brainless vegetable,
Try reading through the empirical literature. Or reviews by Post, Parmesan, Thomas etc. (that is if you can read). There are literally thousands of studies showing biotic responses to the recent warming. Many of these report worrying signs of processes such as phenological asynchronies in trophic interactions that are resulting in population declines of many species. Its something we ought to be taking very seriously.
hi Jeff....how often do your wife and mother-in-law pass your papers for publication ;) ?
Elmer Fuckwit
You are a moron and a liar. Fuck off.
I should have added that you cannot read a simple graph and you don't understand the concept of specific gravity.
You are a joke.
the specific gravity of my beer is 1049. Does that satisfy you, BBD?
BTW have you had a vasectomy yet?
". One cannot properly put short term regressions through temperature data and conclude that the system is somehow in a temporary stasis"
So says the snail penis measurement expert.
How many peer-reviewed publications on the "hiatus" are there"? I think the mighty Tren might have submitted one or two....
EF
Specific heat.
You still don't know what it means. WTF have vasectomies got to do with anything? You sound even more insane than the average denier lunatic.
BTW Elmer, are you also denying that sea level is rising because of the thermal expansion of seawater?
Just curious to see how holistic your insanity is...
Why don't you post up the one where KT argues that energy has stopped accumulating in the climate system?
Go on. Do it now.
BBD...surely you would agree that it is wrong wrong wrong to attempt to breed when humanity is destroying the planet. You owe it to yourself not to impregnate impressionable females.
yadda yadda yadda, BBW...what about the Castilian Ibex? Don't keep changing the subject
Let's go with something recent: Trenberth & Fasullo (2013) An apparent hiatus in global warming
Notice the word "apparent". As in "seeming, but not necessarily actual". Language comprehension is a real problem for you muppets, isn't it?
Okay, to the abstract:
Oh my. Well that rather fucks up your rubbish about having KT on your side, doesn't it, Elmer?
What moronic crap next, one wonders?
spe ific heat...I vaguely remember H=MST where s is the amount of temperature rise achieved per unit of heat intake. What of it, BBD? That 0.05C increase is notmupsetting my cat at all...maybe the Alpine goats are more sensitive or even Jeff's snails
love it..."different ways" ....none of them measured....Tren at his best. 30 years ago,he had a shot at being Dean Martin, now he is a climate scientist
how many conspiracies have you detected, BBD?
You can't respond to anything I say, can you Elmer?
It's so painfully obvious it's actually not even fun any more.
Goodnight, fuckwit.
I love it..."merely manifested in different ways"...which not even Dr jeff can measure with all his snail penis measurement probes.
Do you guys realise how risible you are? At least if you worry about mouflon you might get some kind of popular sympathy.
shucks BBD...bon't you realise that Tren is bluffing his arse off? He has no more idea than Andy Dessler what is going on...besides Hansen disagrees (but then he does tend to invent his evidence, doesn't he)
yeah...the data in the Spencer and Braswell paper was so similar to the Dessler paper....all of it totally inconclusive, yet an editor resigned....did Tren have negatives, BBD?
if you do leave, BBD...please do not breed tonight, for the safety of the planet
Boy have we got ourselves a pernicious nasty little troll. I don't know what tree you just fell out of Fuddy Duddy best get back up there before the big felines get you.
0
Slight error there, #17 should have been the zero post as that is what Elmer was trending towards.
I'm not scared of the anti-science crowd, turbo
Olaus and me hold the nintellectual high ground here against you denialists and nullifiers and people who know nothing of statistics
Time for a three line post EF.
wow...an OAP issues an ultimatum. this is a strange way to conduct a discussion, Sir. We have BBD who resorts to throwing shit whenever anyone questions his amaxingly flawed and unreliable quasi-scientific references. He is like Lewandowski without the lack of intellect.
Christ, what a pointless creep this sock is!
This one appears to have forgotten their meds.
God only know only knows what wretched place our new Dunning-Kruger acolyte (elmer) emerged from. I'd ask him what wonderful scientific background he has, but I am likely to come up against the same stone wall as with Olaus (meaning none, other than being self taught).
Now I am apparently studying snails - in Olaus moronic universe I am merely a dipterologist. And what's even more ridiculous is that elmer thinks science is on his side. Its a strange view considering the views of every major scientific body on Earth, including the American Geophysics Union and National Academy and >95% of climate scientists.
This is why idiots like him end up on blogs where they are anonymous and can spew out any shit they like whilst pounding their chests about their scientific acumen and intelligence. This guy sounds more and more like Jonas. He's certainly got sock puppet written all over him.
TEH!
Note also how Fudd fudged when I challanged him with a simple question about the empirical literature. What his answer meant was that he has never read a paper by any of the three authors I listed, or any other detailing the environmental effects of AGW. He wouldn't understand them if he read them anyway, so what was left? To resort to a vacuous smear. He's clearly way, way out of his depth so ends up here, sniping away with nothing while claiming the intellectual high ground. This guy could be any nymber of deniers who have ventured here in the past.
KarenMackSpot?
That's my guess. But with the personality disorder further advanced...
Nah, elmer was a "num de plum" of kai aka freddie who really IS just an eleven year old (may actually be in his teens by now) kid posting shite because the only way they can make their life look less hopeless is if they make everyone else's equally hopeless (therefore making him normal).
A genuine teen internet troll, with not even the vitriolic hate that some trolls used to get off on in the old days of the internet.
Elmer
Only has one ball
The other
Is there but very small.
Olaus has ones like a mouse
But poor old Duffer
Has no fluffer
At all.
And Rednoise has one for a nose, one that inflates with every post he/she/it makes.
This graph, putting global temperatures in their proper contest, shows quite clearly that global warming has not stopped:
http://d35brb9zkkbdsd.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/2014_Pr…
With 2014 now poised to be the warmest year on record, I wonder what new memes the deniers will come up with next.
Oops... context....
My bad...
Following on from Jeff's last, there's an excellent illustration of the way that 'sceptics' fail to understand what climate models actually do. This example demonstrates that ignorance doesn't mean that "the models are wrong". It means that the 'sceptics' are confused.
They do not understand that:
- Models are *not* designed to 'predict' short-term natural variability.
- Models cannot therefore be 'falsified' if they do not match observations over a decade or so.
- Models are designed to investigate the long-term behaviour of the climate system under different forcing scenarios.
With these facts in mind, here's an interesting animation showing two runs of the same model. What will the models do next?
It looks like 2014 may be the hottest year in the instrumental record. We can infer from the basics of physical climatology that the warming will continue as CO2 forcing increases.
So what will the climate system do next? People who accept the physics know that it will be rather similar to the long-term model projections because it really cannot be very different.
Non-pauses notwithstanding.
I am pleased to see that Deltoid made it to October.
Unfortunately however it is the same people stuck in the same time warp.
Jeff Harvey's scary looking linked graph @# 34 shows a rise in the global average of approx. 0.75K over 134 years.
It's probably worth noting that K is different to F or C.
http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/maps/ctof.rxml
BBD's scary looking linked animated graphics begin in 1990 but graphically animate projections from 60 to 110 years.
These graphs project a 1.0K to 2.2K rise in global averages over that time frame.
The 0.00 standard are at differing calendar points (some might call that cherry picking but I think that's a bit unfair because all work in this discipline needs to pick start and end points to actually run simulations).
Keeping in mind that these are global averages calculated in K, and also slightly guilty of comparing apples with oranges, those graphs would of course look amazingly scary and alarming to an untrained eye which really only understands temperature in terms of F or C.
Note also that there is no solid causal link with CO2 - these graphs merely represent global averages and project on a averaged global trend in K.
I think it's time for most here (from both sides) to consider that they may have got themselves trapped in a signal to noise time warp that is based mostly on a white hat vs black hat political ideology rather than the climate or the weather?
Good God! The fool! Stick to KFC, 2Pid, that's more your level...
You are right, Bill... Stu2 appears to think that there's actually a scientific debate going on in which two sides, equally equipped with empirical evidence, battle out whether AGW is real or not and if it is, the extent of its consequences for humanity. As he should well know, every major scientific body on Earth has verified the existence of AGW and have warned of its consequences if we dn nothing about it. That leaves a few non-scientists or scientists on the academic fringe - some who are on the corporate payroll - to deny or downplay the evidence. If these deniers understood anything remotely about physics or of the importance of scale in generating trends, then they's have to come up with other deceitful propaganda to downplay the reality and seriousness of AGW. Stu2 tries to take the intellectual high ground but consistently falls onto his face, He hasn't got a clue what the science is telling us or of the huge and overwhelming consensus on this issue.
He also thinks there's some key difference between K and C in an anomaly chart! Possibly being used for deceptive intent! What a gift!
I think it’s time for most here to consider that they may have got themselves trapped in a noise time warp with ineducable morons.
Having wrapped himself in KC armour 2Stupid has torpedoed himself by not understanding the point about temperature anomalies.
He is truly DK on parade.
Paging Messrs Dunning and Kruger, paging Messrs Dunning and Kruger...
It's really impressive that Stu 2 can miss the entire point that Jeff was making by posting that graph and then miss the entire point that BBD was making by posting his animations! It takes real determination to be that consistent. ;-)
It's even more impressive that Stu 2 reckons...
...that we had a global average temperature of below absolute zero, a state of affairs physicists thought was impossible, as recently as the 1990s - and we're all still here having survived the extreme cold! Maybe the intense cold explains why I and everyone else have no memories of everything and everyone near the planetary surface freezing solid. And isn't it amazing what scientists find out that isn't obvious just by looking and remembering!
;-)
Once more with feeling, Deltoids: it's always projection.
Small changes can make a big difference as anybody who has used a chemist's balance knows only too well.
Will these microbes make our attempts to reduce atmospheric GHG content even more difficult?
Sorry, I dropped in the wrong url on that last link, although it was a related article, here is the one intended.
Stu2
I'm going to assume that you were drunk. It was Saturday, so fair enough.
KFC :-)
That was funny Bill.
Jeff Harvey. Those graphs are 'uplaying' rather than me 'downplaying'.
I note you have also repeated 'if we don't dn (do?) something about it'
Recently you also claimed there is a thing called 'the only way' which included claiming that targetted & mearsureable activities on local, regional and even national scales is not the 'it' that we should be ' doing something about' according to a non specified group of 'eminent scientists'.
The 'scientific consensus' is not about your 'the only way' & political alarmism.
The consensus is that human behaviour does have impact on the environment, local weather patterns & climate & that we need to understand the consequences & mitigate the negative impacts & build on the positives.
The brand of advocacy that you are adhering to is not proving to translate into positive action.
Oh, shit, I'm just going to pretend I didn't make a complete fool of myself. Right, 2Pid?
Sorry, but from now on you're... 'Colonel Sanders'!
Yes, Dear Lurker, this really is what we're up against...
No Bill.
Despite the fact that you were attempting to be supercilious, the KFC pun was genuinely funny and I laughed when I read that comment.
Stu2 agrees that "the consensus is that human behaviour does have impact on the environment, local weather patterns & climate".
A breakthrough?
Now we just need to see him admit the scientific consensus on the quantification of that impact, namely, global warming, sea level rise, and ocean acidification.
In other news, the "pause" that denialists like to talk about seems immune to ridicule in the form of the "going up the down escalator", so Greg Laden has produced a good post demonstrating that the current "pause" is unusual because such "pauses" have become very much less frequent than they used to be, thus this "pause" demonstrates the ongoing reality of global warming:
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2014/10/22/when-was-the-last-17-year-…
#KFC
No Craig.
No breakthrough.
Despite assertions otherwise, there was never a claimed nil human impact.
There is definitely some uplaying and downplaying about human impact.
The complications and the failure to 'do something about it' are
more ideologically & politically based.
The climate doesn't have a political opinion and it also doesn't understand that it's expected to conform to a human calendar based trend.
It has actually been around much longer than us mere mortals.
Autobot: comment #52 @ColSanders
No Content Detected. Suggest delete.
"The climate ... doesn’t understand that it’s expected to conform to a human calendar based trend."
You need to tell your fellow-deniers that, so they stop using the calendar to claim that climate science is broken.
Climate modelling isn't invalidated by short-term variability. Maybe the numpties will listen to you if you tell them that?
The graph Jeff produced is undoctored, shows the full high quality temperature record it is taken from, and does so using the correct units for scientific discussion of that topic. If you're going to assert that that is "uplaying" then you absolutely are "downplaying" here.
And the animated graphs someone else produced aren't "uplaying" anything either. They are a very good illustration of the point the blog post was making, that point being the reason they were cited here, and being a point you seem to have entirely missed. That means that again you are downplaying.
If you genuinely don't understand these things then you're not competent to make the claim of "uplaying" you made. If you do understand it, then you're being dishonest. Which is it?
Here's what Jeff actually said in response to Stu 2 in this comment. Readers can judge for themselves if Stu 2 has understood what the problems Jeff is talking about are, let alone demonstrated that Jeff is wrong about what is required to tackle them:
Here's what Jeff initially said in response to Stu 2 in this comment.
Further clarified in this subsequent comment:
Readers can judge whether it is dishonest or not to assert that by "the only way" Jeff meant "you have do this, and stop doing everything else", or "those other things are fine as far as they go but you have to do this or they won't work".
...it's just that if you point out that the impact is ongoing in response to denialists trying to claim that it is not, and if you post an undoctored graph to help illustrate that point then he says you're "uplaying" it and denies that in doing so he is downplaying it. Does he think the actual data is "uplaying", perhaps because the data is ... what, fake, or maybe the data itself is alarmist?
This is another of his downplaying comments which goes directly against the data - and in doing so provides a lovely example of it's always projection by introducing the idea of "politics" and "human calendar" into a question of science.
I'd say this was one of his most foolish comments, but since denial via downplaying can explain it that could be sufficient reason.
Hi folks, if you are still around. I hope you found something to get suitably miserable about over the weekend - it must hve been hottest/coldest/wettest/driest EVAH somewhere on the planet. Thos moggies are still under threat and the goats are shrinking as a result of global warming.
Just wanted to ask whether has looked at PAGES2K lately to see whether altering the orientation of some of the proxies has had any effect. Obviously, you would not expect it to since climate science is highly specialised in ensuring that outputs are totally unaffected by changing the inputs. You could almost say that the results are pre-determined.
Somebody else who doesn't understand that the Arctic is not the world.
If you cannot get that straight, then I'm not surprised that you are confused by Steve McI's confabulations.
Oh FFS. Pass the tinfoil.
S2pid still hasn't admitted his stupid gaffes, I see.
#KFC
Thud!
Fudd the Dud lands again.
Whilst the reality he is trying to avoid continues:
Five things to know about 2014 global temperatures
and the why this is happening:
Explaining the need to limit cumulative emissions of carbon dioxide.
No rational person can escape this reality, only fruitcakes like FuddyDudy who do so in their heads.
and BBD still in full conspiracist ideation mode and flat-out denial....why am I not surprised?
and BBD still in full conspiracist ideation mode and flat-out denial….why am I not surprised?
Fudd the Dud still writing absolute cods-wallop.
Paging Lotharsson. I'm hearing an a capella arrangement for four voices, with nice wide harmonies building at the end:
"It's all projection."
I didn't clumsily insinuate that the scientists were conspiring to falsify their results. That was you:
This is equally weird:
Denial of what? I don't deny the scientific evidence; I accept it.
Being insane and wrong isn't an argument or even a conversation, Elmer.
Sorry chaps, saw this over at WUWT and thought of you ;)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/26/climate-research-needs-re-directi…
The graphic reads "COMRADE BE QUIET - The science is settled". Obviously, the jumbled up, contradictory things that exist in your heads, as an ideology, could best be described as a form of communism as we've discussed in the past, only weirder. "Transnational elites" still out to get you I would imagine.
Enjoy turds!
;)
WilliWatts is suffering from dyspepsia - regurgitating rotten offerings from others writing at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/american-thinker/">The American Thinker.
Pathetic. Trust GSW to step into the filth through that deceptive cloak.
WilliWatts is suffering from dyspepsia - regurgitating rotten offerings from others writing at The American Thinker.
Pathetic. Trust GSW to step into the filth through that deceptive cloak.
Sorry about tag mayhem there.
BBD
have you not got over your insults yet? Address the argument
so BBD accepts the wrong version of PAGES? what am I missing?
I know...there is no difference between the versions...as is congruent with clisci (TM)
Let's just ignore the contemptible moron, shall we?
has the graph changed, BBD?
ihis is interesting that Cowtan and Way's graph showed enhanced warming over the last ten years
but nothing told us that their work showed decreased warning over the 10 years prior to that,
so over the whole period they show a trend equal to Hadcrut,
they didn.t tell you that of course. because they are climate fraudsters
Pages
bbd...Pages
try to wake up
DNFTN: Do Not Feed The Narcissist.
bill
You say narcissist and I say knobhead.
Potato, potahto...
David Dunning. #KFC
...tomato, tomahto...
:-)
Has anyone ever actually said 'potahto'. I'd be anticipating the British nobility as pretty-well the only likely candidates here; does, say, the Queen drawl 'potahto'? Inquiring minds etc..
I have heard potato pronounced pot-Ah-toe by Americains whereas we natives pronouncing an 'h' in there would make it sound like pot-hay-toe, but then that could depend on locale and local dialects amongst the natives. If that helps.
Can anyone tell me where Tim Lambert is, or at least if he is still among the living?
I linked a couple of his posts on Twitter (old stuff on denier Steve McIntyre), and the denier(?) I was corresponding with replied with a question as to his whereabouts. Only then did I notice that this blog has been on auto-pilot for awhile, and that his official website at UNSW had disappeared (his unofficial site is still there, though I couldn't tell via a cursory glance whether it had been updated recently). And his twitter account hasn't had shown any activity since July 2013.
Hopefully he's just too busy with honest work, and not in dire straits.
TIA for any news you can provide.
Fellas, latest news on the thing of the past wrt to the accelerating global warming:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/26/global-warming-has-d…
What will happen to the shrinking goats? Will they go instinct or wxstinct? Jeffie, seen anything first and that can help us out?
That's reassuring Olaus. More energy in the climate system is messing up the atmospheric circulation and increasing the frequency of extreme weather events in interesting ways.
Behind the curve as ever Oily Prat, we have already noted this:
New study strengthens link between Arctic sea-ice loss and extreme winters
Now do you know what happens to pilots who get behind the curve?
Olaus doen't even rise to the level of DK - he simply mistakes the squelching and gurgling of the suet pudding that ferments in his skull for knowledge about the world.
Seaking of people with pudding for brains.
The wave of anti-science sweeping the globe is a kind of Revenge of the Idiots. It may make them feel important, but given reality's well-known liberal bias it really ain't likely to end well...
Maurice Newman has been at it with a vengeance lately...
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/maurice-newman-refuses-briefing-with-to…
You know, the worst thing about people like Olaus is that they wade into complex fields beyond their competence and ridicule findings that actually have a broader significance. As it turns out, a huge number of studies are reporting AGW effects on body-mass relationships in a wide variety of taxa. The trend is clear: species are maturing earlier or else reaching smaller maximum body masses. There are a number of factors involved, including extrinsic ones like changes in the quality or availability of food, or intrinsic ones that are physiological.
Its actually ironic that Olaus, elmer and others think these findings are not only unimportant but joke about them. It says a lot about their mental state, as Bill says at #84.
Speaking of pudding for brains, anti-science and Maurice Newman, he appears to be a full-on Tea Party "UN = one socialist world government" "IPCC = wealth redistribution" nutter.
Wonder if one of ours is actually Newman? ;-)
Friends, the article isn't funny in itself. It can't be blamed for contradicting the hysterical mouthfrottings about an accelerating global warming and "thing of the past". The latter is something (ex)pressed out of the anti science sphincter, which produces delturds.
See Bill's posts @77 asnd @84 and then read Olaus' post @89. This is exactly the point. A small coterie of idiots with no scientific education whatsoever, and certainly none in related fields, actually believe that they hold the scientific high ground with respect to AGW. Forget the positions of every major scientific organization on Earth, every National Academy in every nation state, and the views of >95% of the scientific community. This bunch of quacks - of which Olaus is one - have the audacity to call the rest of us, meaning the overwhelming majority of scientific informed opinion, as being 'anti-science'.
Elmer is doing the same, as have any number of scientifically illterate AGW deniers who have ventured into Deltoid in the past. These people are so deluded that they feel they hold the scientific high ground. Its an incredible assumption on their part, given the empirical evidence and mainstream scientific view, but they actually think they are somehow 'better informed' and - heaven forbid - qualified to speak on the subject of GW, than those who have different opinions, including, as I said, the vast majority of climate scientists and the scientific community by-and-large.
See how Olaus tried to smear me. Betula, elmer and Jonas too. They fail miserably, of course, because my qualifications speak for themselves. I don't need two people lacking any releavnt education to tell me about my field of research. One runs a tree pruning company and the others (Olaus and elmer) - now what are they? They won't tell us because it would clearly be utterly humiliating to have to admit that they work in a profession that is light years away from science. So they keep their mouths firmly shut. Its not like they'd blow their anonymous cover by telling us what they do for a living, but they would blow any scintilla of credibility they have, so they keeps their mouths shut on this issue.
The bottom line is that these people are truly deluded.
Still climate revisionists here? Dumbasses. You can fetch USD 10 for a bucket of water in Sao Paulo now :)
Pine beetle, Olaus.
Mammalian body mass fell during Cenozoic hyperthermals (PETM; ETM2). No surprise to see it beginning to happen again.
Muntering fuckwits like Olaus who know nothing would not, of course, know this. Sadly, being absolutely clueless isn't enough to keep our resident mouthbreathers quiet.
Source.
Could not this 'dwarfism' be partly due to body mass/surface-area ratio adjustment as a form of temperature control response.
Money quote from big Steph:
BBD old sausage
it seems I must apologise, the revised Pages graph is different. Amazingly, it seems to have reinstated the MWP. Sadly, I don't think they have changed their text fropm the standard "modern warming is the hottest EVAHHHHHH!!!! Still climate science seems to be taking a few baby steps forward, so it should be encouraged.
#96, so? The whole fucking climate system is taking up heat. It is either melting or getting hotter. So? Didn't you know this?
#97, how come Ötzi never surfaced during the MWP, or RWP?
(I know, guys, simple question so no answer forthcoming)
" Sadly, I don’t think they have changed their text fropm the standard “modern warming is the hottest EVAHHHHHH!!!!" - sadly you fuck up your spelling because you are quite nervous. If only for the fact that you cannot source that 'standard'.
Elmer
If McIntyre publishes his claims in a relevant high-impact scientific journal then we might be getting somewhere. Right now I see nothing but blog science - with too many hand-wavings and bodges by McIntyre. It counts for absolutely nothing and you need to understand that. Nobody serious pays any attention to McI (his fault entirely) and if he wants to make a splash and turn this round, now is his chance.
If he fails to publish we will know for certain that he never had anything of substance to start with. It was just more blog science.
While we wait, let's pass the time by considering what a global and synchronous MWP would imply for climate sensitivity. Here's an event that a couple of contrarians claim matches or even exceeds the modern global and synchronous warming yet which is associated with only weak changes in forcing.
If real - and I repeat that nobody thinks this is the case - then a global and synchronous MWP would be very strong evidence that the climate system is highly sensitive to radiative perturbations. This would have serious implications for the climate response to increasing CO2 forcing over the course of this century and beyond.
Do you understand this? If so, what is your response?
BBD, you hit the proverbial nail on the head. Old Elmer's stuck on blogs. He clearly doesn't read much of the peer-reviewed literature, and what he does he doesn't understand. What's funny is how he comes on here. all chest thumping et al. ad nauseum, in typical AGW denier fashion (this scientifically illiterate bunch are good at that).
What they cannot explain is why 97% of the scientific community is not on their side. As I said earlier today, they try and make the blogs they read somehow represent the mainstream. That is all they have. I'd ask elmer what his day job is but, like most of the other deniers here, he'll avoid the question. And of course, he has gobe back to his old meme about declining body masses in a single species. The fact that this is not an isolated case but that there are many other studies detailing similar phenomena across a wide range of phylogenetically unrelated taxa has sailed way, way over his head.
FuddDud.
It is a signal, another of many coming from the natural world
but of course a twerp like you will never grasp such a concept.
Since Elmer raises the topic of millennial climate reconstructions, let's once again consider what they can tell us about modern climate change.
The first line of the abstract to the PAGES 2k Consortium paper reads:
Strong regional expression.
McKay & Kaufman (2014)'s update to the Arctic temperature reconstruction shows more variability in this region than the original, which is incorporated into the PAGES 2K global reconstruction.
McIntyre claims that if the updated Arctic data are used in the PAGES 2K global reconstruction:
He admits that he has not exactly replicated the PAGES 2K methodology for obtaining the area-weighted global average temperature but waves this aside. You should be alert at this point.
If SM has given too much weight to the Arctic region in his calculation of the area-weighted global average temperature, then he has demonstrated nothing.
If he is essentially correct, then he may have shown that the PAGES 2k conclusion should be modified:
Changed to something like this: "The area-weighted average reconstructed temperature was higher than any other time in nearly 1,100 years".
What he will also have redundantly confirmed is that the climate system is sensitive to radiative perturbation. Quite small forcing changes have major effects. So cranking up the CO2 forcing as we have been doing recently may be expected to have a significant effect.
Why contrarians to think that there is any comfort to be had in paleoclimate behaviour remains a mystery to me.
Here is a recent OP written by a marine biologist that is relevant to recent discussions here.
http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2014/10/time-put-warmists-…
It even mentions Newman, but only a specific OP written by Newman here:
http://www.thegwpf.com/maurice-newman-calls-for-independent-inquiry-int…
Sorry for the double post.
I meant to also add this SMH piece from today's headlines.
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/emissions-trading…
Stu2
Two mistaken non-experts can't overturn radiative physics. See above.
Nice one Stu, I value that quadrant article as practically a full house: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fun:Global_warming_denial_Bingo
BBD.
Who are the 2 mistaken non experts and in what way were they specifically attempting to overturn radiative physics that we see above in your previous post?
Stu2
I put up with you as best as I can, but please don't be egregiously disingenuous.
Sorry BBD.
I was not attempting to be disingenuous.
Maybe I can ask it this way?
By 2 mistaken experts, do you mean Walter Starck PhD or Jennifer Marohasy PhD or Maurice Newman's organisation or Greg Hunt or Clive Palmer or maybe others who were mentioned
in those various links?
And in what specific way are -whichever 2 you meant-overthrowing radiative physics in your above post?
Ho, ho, ho, sounds like the Marohasy conspiracy theory about the BoM hasn't generated the desired result so now Quadrant has drafted one of the the Heartland Institute's tame scientists to try and revive the corpse ;-) whilst simultaneously attempting to defend politics from the minor inconvenience of seriously dealing with the implications of climate science by attacking the perceived integrity of scientists and the BoM.
He gets off to a good denialist beginning starting early with the very dodgy claim that scientists have made "prophecies" (which suggests that like so many non-sceptical "skeptics" they don't understand that projections are not predictions let alone why that is so, and don't understand that models are not intended to nor are they suitable for predicting short term variability so anyone who assesses them on that basis is forming an invalid argument) and then proceeds to pad out the rest of the article with standard denier illogic and falsehood.
The headline argument about consensus and evidence conspicuously gets it wrong on two major counts. Firstly, within climate science the consensus amongst scientists has arisen because of the evidence, not in spite of it. Within science the argument is not "there is strong consensus, so shut up" as he pretends it is. The arguments are all about the evidence. The author's denial of that consensus and of that evidence doesn't make either of them go away, (although it does allow them to pretend that the evidence isn't there, which is still more denial).
Secondly, when communicating the state of science to non-scientists it is false to characterise citing consensus as "an appeal to authority" and it is false to characterise it as a "tacit admission of weak evidence" because communicating science to non-scientists is not where the evidence is debated (if only because as Dunning and Kruger point out, non-scientists are generally lacking the skills to assess anything but the most basic evidence). Furthermore, evidence is presented when communicating to non-scientists but this article simply pretends that this does not occur - perhaps because acknowledging it would be inconvenient to the argument.
And astute readers will note that whilst he accuses others of implicitly admitting they have weak evidence at best because they dare to point out the consensus, he ... doesn't point out any evidence that supports his case. (All together now: It's always projection!)
And then the author touts Marohasy's conspiratorial imaginings (which is presumably why you cited it - as part of your long running campaign to tout anything that is written by or positively mentions Marohasy and her long and impressively incompetent campaign against the BoM.) Given that he's writing for Quadrant from the Heartland Institute and provides no new evidence to suggest she has done anything other than repeatedly cock up her incompetent "analysis", this implies (by his own logic about evidence and strength of position) that her argument has little to no merit. Glad we can all agree on that and stop trying to rehash it then ;-)
Then he cites (with no evidence) an invalid method of analysing whether warming of the climate system is continuing, a very basic error for a once-competent scientist to make (and it remains invalid even if you cherrypick the surface temperatures rather than the whole climate system as he did). And this argument rests on the false presumption that models are intended to predict natural variability over this kind of timescale - and the more fundamental false presumption that if they fail to do so it means we can assume warming is not happening and is not going to happen by pretending there is no other evidence relevant to the question. He even alleges "...there is now the developing indication of a possible cooling trend" on the back of no cited evidence whatsoever (maybe because there is no credible evidence he could cite, but more likely because he is in a full-on assert-rather-than-show-evidence mode) and not only falsely alleges the warming trend isn't discernible and that it only exists "on paper" due to allegedly inappropriate adjustments to the historical record, but also falsely alleges that the trend demonstrated by the official records is "not evident in nature".
But perhaps the biggest piece of bullshit for a former scientist to write - and it must be knowingly, because his career suggests he should well know that it is bullshit - is the idea that the best way to assess scientific evidence is "...in a quasi-legal setting where the hard questions must be answered under oath, testimony cross-examined, opposing expertise presented and evidence challenged." (So we can dispense with all that tedious "scientific literature" and "peer review, pre- and post-publication" then? And if we can do that, then why does his Heartland author page point out that he wrote a bunch of peer reviewed science articles?)
He claims (falsely) that pointing out the consensus is meant to stifle scientific debate - yet he actually wants to go one better than a science-wide expert consensus in order to (presumably) reject that consensus in favour of a kind of tiny group consensus manufactured by running a process that will hand down a judgement about science to politicians created by some kind of small jury panel (compared to the IPCC or the entire field of climate science) or even a single judge whose selection would presumably be massively tainted by political influence, much like the selection of the incompetent Dick Warburton or Maurice Newman to various recent government commissions tainted those. And presumably he wants to stifle debate about that tiny consensus once it is handed down...it's always projection.
In other words, the article is standard poorly argued and almost completely unevidenced or even counterfactual denialist propaganda seeking to mitigate the influence of the actual science on politics, that is so characteristic of the Heartland Institute. (For climate science, Quadrant is a second tier outlet for precisely that kind of rubbish argument that doesn't even manage to find its way into Murdoch media.)
Or shorter version of my comment: what turboblocke said.
Thanks for bringing to our attention another excellent indication of the weakness of Marohasy's case and Heartland's willingness to completely bullshit its gullible readers!
Yay! Taxpayers can pay through the nose for ineffective and insufficiently scalable carbon reduction schemes instead of using more efficient market mechanisms, because as we all know the LNP are the party that loves them some free market mechanisms and opposes "big government" and government regulation on principle!
Wait, what?!
And taxpayers can all pay for a review into a scheme the minister has already said he will reject, because our Environment Minister simply can't think of anything better for the Climate Change Authority to do - like, I don't know, review the (in-)effectiveness of his own Direct Action policy, a policy that hasn't even been well explained yet, let alone be subject to any kind of serious analysis.
And the minister rules out policy options for 20+ years, at least under the LNP, which is a "Brave, Minister, very brave" position to take given that it's clear from the science the government is trying to ignore that we have to heavily decarbonise over the next couple of decades.
We're well past the "first time as farce" stage...
Can somebody just clarify something for me?
Is Walter Starck actually a scientist?
From what I can see, he got a PhD exactly 50 years ago and has never had any further academic involvement.
Defending himself against charges of posing as a scientist 5 years ago, he fails to establish any evidence that he is one:
http://www.goldendolphin.com/WSarticles/Clarification%20of%20more%20Moo…
"numerous
articles, books, scientific reports in peer reviewed journals and documentary films"
ri i i i ght....so being in documentary films make you a scientist, eh?
Or maybe it's his association with
the IPA
The Australian Climate Science (-denying) Coalition
Heartland
that makes him a "scientist"?
And this is the kind of guy Quadrant wants to make an "expert".
Yet another scrape of the barrel by the Deniers.
Hold the presses - Walter Starck may be a Crop Circle nutter:
http://theconversation.org/archive/c-walterstarck.html
" the overwhelming preponderance of evidence indicates crop circles are non-human in origin, reflect conscious design and require capabilities outside anything we possess. They are obvious, inexplicable and appear to have a decided effect on any consciousness capable of engaging them. I suspect they are a combination of filter, test, announcement and invitation."
ROTFLMAO.
Wait 'til Quadrant hears about this....
http://www.goldendolphin.com/WASdisk/index.htm
Link didn't work, here it is:
http://www.goldendolphin.com/WASdisk/Editorial/editorial12.htm
"Magic and Mystery
When I first read about and saw photos of crop circles I wondered if someone was having fun with Photoshop. When I found that they indeed do exist on the ground in large numbers, impressive size, complexity, and elegance I was intrigued and began looking into the whole phenomenon. The more I learned the more amazing the whole thing has become. Year after year, hundreds of times annually and totally in public view something is occurring that is totally inexplicable in terms of any known natural phenomena or human technology. More remarkable still, it is difficult to avoid accepting that a high order of intelligence must be involved and that it is not us.
Although they seemingly have little to do with the oceans or diving crop circles do partake of something of the otherworldly magic and mystery of the underwater world that makes diving so compelling an experience. In any event, they are simply too fascinating to ignore.
Despite media distortion, scientific denial, government disinformation, crude hoaxes and sundry other human deceits and delusions they continue to appear and to remain inexplicable. One scientist who has looked into the phenomena wrote to me he began to feel like a rat in a maze in that every aspect one tries to investigate reveals more unknowns.
Something truly remarkable is going on. It appears to have profound implications for our understanding of our world and perhaps of consciousness itself. It seems clearly intended for our attention but also intended not just to inform but to test our beliefs, our intelligence and our readiness to confront a true unknown. Whether we will pass or fail or even be willing to meet the challenge remains to be seen. Here is the story. Decide for yourself.
Also in this issue is a major feature series on Micronesia containing six slide shows and some 300 full screen images. Rather than break it up into a series of articles spread over different issues I decided to put them all together as a major feature. As you will see in both this and the crop circle material there is still a lot of world to explore.
Walter Starck
Editor/Publisher
wstarck@goldendolphin.com"
*THIS* is the Quadrant's "Marine Biologist" and "expert"!!!
#KFCfail x 2
#QuadrantFail x ∞
Better hide until we go over the fold again, 2Pid! And, um, you're a 'skeptic', right?
The list of 'publications' on that homepage is truly extraordinary - worth checking out, e.g. 'Green Slime
Our greatest environmental threat is environmentalism itself.' 'Environmentalism and the Decline of the West' 'Environmentalism's bum steers' 'Government by NGO' ' Why We Don't Need to Save the Barrier Reef
Australian Penthouse magazine July 1984.' ... truly we're firmly in the realm-beyond-parody here!
Stu2 appeals to illusory authority - WHEN IT SUITS HIM. IO emphasize the final point. But let's get one thinbg clear - having a PhD is not a pre-requisite to wisdom. Its wat one does with it once they get it. Its too bad that the schmucks Stu2 metnions are mostly if not completely on the academic fringe. As Craig points out, in many cases they are old farts who have published little, if anything, in the empirical literature. In orther cases they are mediocre scientists who have maybe a dozen publications in fields well outside of climate or environmental science. What Stu2 is inadvertantly doing in these posts - and I wish to thank him for it - is revealing that there are very, very few qualified, statured scientists who are AGW sceptics or deniers. Stu2 is looking under every rock he can to scrape up people he then promotes as 'experts' when in fact they are nobodies or else are scientific unknowns.
Thanks for revealing to us Stu2 how desperate the denial industry is when they have to dig up anyone witrh a PhD to 'prove' that AGW is not serious. You don't realize it but you are exactly proving the main point - that the overwhelming majority of real, qualified scientists agree that AGW is very real and that it is a serious threat to humanity,
PS Sorry for the typos but, to reiterate, I am a busy scientist who has other things to do....
Fake experts not climate scientists S2pid.
Radiative physics ignores these charlatans and so should you.
2Stupid may like to consider the meaning of OP.
IMHO Starck lives up to the connotations of his name. Good find Craig - again.
BTW BBD I know I repeated the link to that article on dwarfism but having turned the page I thought our short attention span trolls needed a reminder.
I have been thinking more about these scientivists. When Uncle Steph posted his view of OHC on Real Climate, he was very careful, I guess, to show the graph in terms of zettajoules - a nice opaque measure. Perhaps he chose it because he could draw a nice, scary graph with it. And of course, camp followers enjoy proclaiming its significance through their toy trumpets.
However, the measurements underpinning this graph were presumably made with thermometers. So it is an interesting question why he did not present his findings in terms of degrees C or K. So a few sceptical observers sat down and did the back calculation to work out what it meant in terms of temperature rise. Of course it turned out to a very small number, almost indistinguishable from zero - of the order of 0.08C since the 1960s. Not even enough to toast my cat's toes. Why didn't Uncle Steph spare them this exercise and just quote the temperature change? Because he is a scientivist.
So now, everyone is scared about the colossal heating of the oceans, including that rare old sausage BBD. So along comes Uncle Steph to say that OHC is a bad measure to use. It should only be used to scare people. As he says in his Real Climate article:
"Ocean heat content has increased by about 2.5 X 1023 Joules since 1970 (IPCC AR5). What would be the impact of that? The answer is: it depends. If this heat were evenly distributed over the entire global ocean, water temperatures would have warmed on average by less than 0.05 °C (global ocean mass 1.4 × 1021 kg, heat capacity 4 J/gK). This tiny warming would have essentially zero impact."
- See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/10/ocean-heat-storag…
Steph has given the game away. OHC is irrelevant for policy discussions. I hope Jeffie is teaching his students how to do scientivism in a more coherent way than Uncle Steph practises it.
On Climate progress, they quote a figure of 250 trillion watts for total energy accumulation rate. Two hundred fifty trillion is 2.5 x10^14 J/second. If we have a heat capacity of 5.6×10^24 J/K we get 2.24×10^11 seconds until the ocean were warmed one degree. That corresponds to 710 years of heating to increase the ocean volumetric temperature by one degree which is still somewhere around zero C average temperature. In other words, climate progresses unrealistic worst possible case doom scenario’s are not sufficient to significantly affect oceanic heat content.
Don't let the scientivists fool you.
I am sure you will enjoy this graph that Gavin used to show....
http://www.realclimate.org/images/ohc11.jpg
Basically, the measured ocean heat is way below what is coming through the GCMs....strange days for Kevin "Godfather" Trenberth and his missing heat.
Funny how cousin elmer has completely misrepresented the commentary by Ramsdorff (I look forward to him characterizing Watts or McInTyre as Uncle Tony or Uncle Steveie, respectively, by the way; the initial denigrating comment was easy to predict).
One thing elmer: where are your peer-reviewed publications? You have so much to say on the issues of OHC and oceanic warming and the alleged (non-existant) hiatus, why are you an anonymous person on blogs? Of course, as with my previous questions (what is your day job and what makes you uniquely qualified to denigrate trained scientists in climate and related fields?) I expect nothing but the sound of silence from you.
We've just had the warmest October ever in Benelux, and 2014 is slated to be the warmest year on record here. Not only that, but globally. This spring I did see phenological shists that were bizarre: annual plants normally flowering in mid July were doing so in late May; I have a PhD student studying the effects of simulated heat waves on a multitrophic interaction involving a range expanding pest insect herbivore and two of its specialist natural enemies. One of them only arrived in the Netherlands around 5 years ago from the south. The herbivore originates in the Meditteranean and North Africa and only began to overwinter successfully here in the lagte 1990s. Since about 2010 it has two generations a year. Many more eco-physiological responses are manifest. Poor dumb old elmer is stuck on one example in Spain.
He's a waste of time.
Jeff, I didn't know you arrived to Benelux only five years ago. The accelarating global warming is indeed a huge problem for the Dutch.
I asked you a question Elmer. I asked if you understood the implications for climate sensitivity of a global and synchronous MWP as warm as, or warmer than the present.
Answer it please.
Hardley - "You have so much to say on the issues of OHC and oceanic warming and the alleged (non-existant) hiatus"
IPCC draft - "the hiatus is attributable, in roughly equal measure, to a decline in the rate of increase in effective radiative forcing (ERF) and a cooling contribution from internal variability (expert judgment, medium confidence)."
Hardley - "We’ve just had the warmest October ever in Benelux, and 2014 is slated to be the warmest year on record here"
Hardley - January 2, 2014 - "note how he thinks its fine to conflate weather and climate (‘oh the irony’) but when others do it they are called out as hypocrites"
Hypocrite.
Hardley - "I have a PhD student studying the effects of simulated heat waves on a multitrophic interaction involving a range expanding pest insect herbivore and two of its specialist natural enemies"
Why? I'm sure you've already reached a conclusion about the simulated results...
Sloppy language in draft AR5 doesn't change the facts. There has been no hiatus or pause in surface warming. Both these words imply a halt, cessation or stop. To be correct, you need to refer to the slowdown in the rate of surface warming.
When the rate of increase of OHC is considered - as it must be in any rational analysis of the energy balance of the climate system - there has been no slowdown in the rate of ocean heat uptake. Energy continues to accumulate in the climate system as a whole exactly as expected. It is honest and factually correct to say that "global warming" has not slowed down at all.
Elmer
Here is the Rahmstorf quote you truncated, but this time in full, so we can see how you have misrepresented what he was saying. The emphasis on the word "surface" occurs in the original:
BBD - "When the rate of increase of OHC is considered – as it must be in any rational analysis of the energy balance of the climate system – there has been no slowdown in the rate of ocean heat uptake"
Rahmstorf - "Surface warming has no simple relation to total heat uptake because that link is affected by ocean circulation and mixing changes."
Thanks for clarifying.
OK Birch Bark, where is all the heat accumulating on Earth going, you know that heat that is accumulating because more is coming in than is going out?
Maybe Hedge Fund managers have been used to hide the huge gains in accounted heat energy.
Betula
The keyword is "simple". See England et al. (2014). You'll love that one; it's got the word "hiatus" in the title ;-)
Or you could just keep on quote mining and trolling and wasting time...
on my #33
But do read the rest here:
Warming of Global Abyssal and Deep Southern Ocean Waters between the 1990s and 2000s: Contributions to Global Heat and Sea Level Rise Budgets
More context:
New research quantifies what's causing sea level to rise
Batty, if I am hardly, you are nothing, Thanks for clarifying,
With respect to climate: warm records are being broken globally at at least 5 gtimes the rate of cold records. That is part of a long term trend. That's climate. Moroever, the warmest years on record - both in Benelux and globally, have all been since the late 1990s. That's climate. And warm records continue to tumble. There's nothing remotely hypocritical in there when both of the facts abobe are considred. Whart clowns like you do is cherry pcik the odd cold snap as if that disproves AGW. What I am doing is saying that there are many times more warm events being observed. Hypocrisy is your game, not mine,
Good grief man, I know you are pretty thick, but couldn't you try harder?
Olaus, what are your professional scientific qualifications again? And while I am at it, who are the mainstream climate scientists you said that you agree with?
Just won'drin.
England et al - "A key component of the global hiatus that has been identified is cool eastern Pacific sea surface temperature, but it is unclear how the ocean has remained relatively cool there in spite of ongoing increases in radiative forcing"
That's as far as I will go with England. Since the hiatus is "non-existant" and he used the word "unclear" while addressing the "relatively cool" Pacific , the paper can be deemed worthless and stamped with "DENIER".
A paper such as this doesn't belong in the comment section of such a reputable blog as Deltoid, and I would implore you to not waste our time again with such drivel.
Thanks.
England et al – “A key component of the global hiatus that has been identified is cool eastern Pacific sea surface temperature, but it is unclear how the ocean has remained relatively cool there in spite of ongoing increases in radiative forcing”
That’s as far as I will go with England. Since the hiatus is “non-existant” and he used the word “unclear” while addressing the “relatively cool” Pacific , the paper can be deemed worthless and stamped with “DENIER”.
A paper such as this doesn’t belong in the comment section of such a reputable blog as Deltoid, and I would implore you to not waste our time again with such drivel.
Thanks.
Jeff, my friend, I tend to agree with Butala. Why ask a student to write a thesis about you?
"I have a PhD student studying the effects of simulated heat waves on a multitrophic interaction involving a range expanding pest insect herbivore and two of its specialist natural enemies. One of them only arrived in the Netherlands around 5 years ago from the south."
I know you find yourself very interesting, buy we already know that you are a self abcessed hater with a severe Napoleon complex.
Lionel's link @ 35 - "asked how this paper agrees or disagrees with a recent paper that reportedly showed the deepest ocean waters are not heating. He replied that the two studies actually agree with each other. They both show that the deepest ocean waters are likely contributing only a small fraction to the overall ocean energy/water rise. On the other hand, the uncertainty is largely because the deepest waters just don’t have a history of sufficient measurements to close the uncertainty range"
So papers that conclude the deep oceans are heating actually agree with papers that conclude the deep oceans aren't heating because they are both inconclusive due to uncertainties.
Again, thanks for clarifying.
One paper talks about a hiatus (which doesn't exist) and Batty tries to suggest it represents the bottom line. Shows how much he knows about how science works.
Olaus: two points. First you are NOT my friend. Second, why of course you agree with Batty, You'd agree with any dolt who denies the reality of AGW. Moreover, you tend to be the one with the Napoleon complex. You refuse to answer some pretty simple questions which tell us all we need to know: first, you have no formal education in any field remotely relevant to climate or environmental science, yet you write as if you have something useful to say. You don't. I'd boot you out of one of my courses in a second because you are so thick. Second, you cannot name a single mainstream scientist who is in agreement over the reality of AGW (shouldn't be hard, there are thousands of em'). Yet a few weeks ago you said you agreed with them. Why so hard for you to cough up a single name?
Come on Olaus, let's see your bonafide qualifications. You and other deniers are so confident in yourself, yet your views run well counter to the mainstream. Put up or shut up.
So Betty opts for quote-mining and trolling instead of trying to understand how the wind-driven circulation of the equatorial Pacific modulates OHU on a scale sufficient to contribute to the slowdown in the rate of surface warming.
Hardley - Just for the record, 1+1 = 2
Jeff, my freind, sometimes I just want to hug you and whisper comforting words in your ear. If anyone needs it, it's you.
One thing I cannot get my head around. No wonder Batty calls me Hardly. I can Hardly believe such idiots exist yet who think they are on top of the science with respect to climate. Yes, the name fits me alright.
Why aren't you denier bloggers writing your brilliant exposes in the peer-reviewed literature? I asked legend in his own mind Jonas the same thing several times and all I got in response were smears and putdowns. Good grief, if all of the Batty's and Olaus's and Jonas's and Rednose's and GSW's and Elmer's and other deniers who write into Deltoid put their collective wit and wisdom together, they could write a fantastic article that would change the course of climate science! Yes, all of these people think they are so smart, and always casually dismiss the likes of Hansen, Trenberth, Santer, Mann et al.... but they are anonymous nobodies stuck on blogs.
That's all you sad lot have. Again, put up or shut up. In the big bad world of science, nobody has ever heard of you. Blogs must serve a very useful purpose for you - egotism. I certainly don't need Deltoid or any other blog to legitimize my academic career. I only come in here when you clonws write some garbage downplaying the effects of AGW and related phenomena - such as increased concentrations of C02 - on natural systems. None of you deniers know a bloody thing about it but you write as if you do.
Look at this graph, Betula.
What do you see?
1/ An increase in the rate of warming post-1999?
3/ A decrease in in the rate of warming post-1999?
3/ A hiatus/pause (halt) in the rate of warming post-1999?
Thanks Olly but no thanks. At least, not from a loser like you. There are an infinite number of people I'd choose before I need to turn to a semi-literate vacuous anti-scientific blogger for solace. Oh, and by the way, care to answer my questions again?
global or synchronous MWP....they need to get their measurements right. Where did the CO2 come from in 1200? Let's face it, it is pants as a theory. Not even Jeffie could support it. But just to make sure, I am measuring earthworms and penisworms...maybe the warming we are not seeing is having an impact. jeffie would be proud of me....I a have as many pix of penisworms as he does of snail dicks
wow Jeffie...what are you feeding your plants? Over here in London, my plants stopped flowering 2 months ago....in the UK. Admit it, you were being correct in a scientivistic sense...ie lying your arse off. Is that how you are teaching your scientivist students?
BBD...I am glad that you agree that I did not mistepresent Uncle Steph. He is like the friendly uncle who molests you at Christmas. Can you show just how I misrepresented his "argument" (in clisci speak, that means assertion without evidene)
Lionel asks where the heat is going....perhaps he should ask Prof McLean at James Cook University.....I am waiting for the Andy Dessler take-down....timer is set.... As always...there is no evidence one way or the other but we can all hold strong views
clisci...the discipline without evidence or morals....
and meanwhile my cat is at risk...and the alpine goats might or might not be shrinking....what a total irrelevance clisci is....
perhaps Jeffie could tell me whether he expects penisworms to be longer or shorter under the threat of global warming?
I will calibrate the measures to get him the right results...as is the usual conduct in clisci
But Elmer, you were ranting on about PAGES 2K. In the unlikely event that McI is correct for once, he will have helped demonstrate that some combination of fairly weak forcing changes caused a hot MWP (defined here as 'global, synchronous and as warm as or warmer than the present').
You brought this up, Elmer. Repeatedly. One might even say insistently.
So now you are dimly beginning to recognise that a hot MWP would be very, very bad news for deniers, you are having second thoughts, aren't you? (I use the term 'thought' loosely here).
And Elmer, nobody (sane and informed about the topic) ever claimed that the putative hot MWP was the result of *CO2* forcing. The prevailing view is that the Medieval Climate Anomalies were at least partially the result of reduced volcanism and increased solar output and significant associated changes in atmospheric and ocean circulation.
Elmer
Meds...
Thanks Lionel A
"Over the past few decades, roughly 80% of the energy resulting from this imbalance has gone into heating the oceans (Levitus et al. 2005)"
It's still fucking cold in the ocean...let me have some of that "warming" please. Why else would walruses haul themselves out? It's freezing down there.
BBD...I don't rant...I l;eave that to you and your toy trumpet
BBD
It's not my problem if the CO2 theory thaqt you wank over is wildly wrong....so don't make it my problem
BBD...it is ok by me if you check in with SS to find out the latest Party Line on these matters. Maybe Jeffie can give you a preview.
sorry guys but you are not serious enough to debate with. I will listen to some 19thc guitar music and let you fret over ice floe patterns and shit like that...and Jeffie can watch snail penises till he cums
Got, what a truly appalling piece of human wreckage...
... I say knobhead.
:-)
Where's Betula gone?
I want to know what he sees when he looks at the graph.
Is it:
1/ An increase in the rate of warming post-1999?
3/ A decrease in in the rate of warming post-1999?
3/ A hiatus or pause - warming stops post-1999?
Nope. I was asking if you and your ilk had an explanation for where the continued radiative imbalance was having an effect. In other words I wanted YOU to explain where YOU think it is going.
The CO2 theory is not widely wrong for it is a matter of well understood physics, carbon budgeting and isotopic fractioning.
BTW I prefer pieces 'con molti strumenti' incl' chalemeaux and theorbo..
This is for Jeff, really, Lionel, but I'm sure you'd agree that one must always listen with an open mind. Even to allegro con dente. :-) It's only 1m 47s.
BBD - Go back one more year and scrap the misleading pretty blue line and it took a hiatus...
"For the past 15+ years, there has been no increase in global average surface temperature, which has been referred to as a 'hiatus' in global warming. By contrast, estimates of expected warming in the first several decades of 21st century made by the IPCC AR4 were 0.2C/decade. This talk summarizes the recent CMIP5 climate model simulation results and comparisons with observational data. The most recent climate model simulations used in the AR5 indicate that the warming stagnation since 1998 is no longer consistent with model projections even at the 2\% confidence level"
http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/MAR14/Event/210790
BBD – Go back one more year and scrap the misleading pretty blue line and it's a hiatus…
“For the past 15+ years, there has been no increase in global average surface temperature, which has been referred to as a ‘hiatus’ in global warming. By contrast, estimates of expected warming in the first several decades of 21st century made by the IPCC AR4 were 0.2C/decade. This talk summarizes the recent CMIP5 climate model simulation results and comparisons with observational data. The most recent climate model simulations used in the AR5 indicate that the warming stagnation since 1998 is no longer consistent with model projections even at the 2\% confidence level”
http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/MAR14/Event/210790
SOoyour "hiatus" depends on making a very selectiveuse of the data, is that it Betula?
There's a word for when you do that...what is it again?
You guys really have nothing without 1998, do you? What are you going to do when that gets eclipsed? As it will.
Batty's stuck in his grade 4 science class. Of course there's no hiatus, This is a construct of the denial industry PR machine. They clearly are scraping under every rock to find anything to downplay AGW and in the process to maintain the status quo,
As Bart Verheggen explained to me two weeks ago, there have been 5 or 6 alleged hiatuses in temperature globally since 1970. Each one was apparently broken by a sudden massive increase in temperature, followed by another alleged hiatus. As he explained, for a system characterized by so many complex inputs, internal variability dampens oscillations meaning that at least 20-30 years are necessary to elucidate trends and patterns. This is true for any deterministic system - the more one reduces scales of space and time, the more stochasicity emerges. As Bart explained, there simply is not enough energy in the atmosphere to account for sudden surges in temperature at the global scale, if we are to assume there are and were hiatuses, This is pure PR by the denial industry, By applying linear regression to the data over a longer time frame that is necessary to elucidate trends, the warming is ongoing. It has not stopped. Now that 2014 is set to be the warmest year on record, with 2010 and 2005 second that thirs respectively, it is clear that the warming continues unabated.
Most people with anything of a scientific education and who understand the importance of scale will recognize this. Its therefore indicative of their illiteracy that the Betula's and Olaus's and their acolytes on Deltoid don't get it.
BBD: thanks for the clip! Van Halen is a genius with the axe. After reading elmer's latest bilge, I sure need it!!! Old elmer's several loaves short of a dozen IMHO.
I recorded a song on my Jackson Demelition guitar for my Professor oration two months ago. I play pretty heavy stuff, but the song was well received by the audience. I played all rhythm guitars on it and a friend played lead and drums, and another friend was on bass guitar.
"sorry guys but you are not serious enough to debate with. " then fuck off, Fudd.
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Oh, and of course it's always projection.
Jeffm ny friend, I have already helped you understand your pals hiatus-aritmetics, but you seem to have forgotten the lesson. Here it is again:
"2014-1970= 44 years
44/6= 7,3 year pauses (average)
44-15= 29 years
29/5= 5,8 years (average)
5,8 x 5 = 29 years pause
In sum, Jeffie-style: simplifyed the 44 years between 1970 and 2014 harbours 6 pauses à 7,3 years. But since one pause is ca 15 years, the ongoing one, the other five are only 5,8 years long.
But adding all five 5,8 years paueses, we get a long one of 29 years.
And 29 is a bigger number than 15."
It is worse than we thought Jeffie!
Maybe de Freitas et al could combine their awesome climate science prowess which was sadly too brilliant for the NZ courts to grok with the similarly awesome prowess of Marohasy, Johnston and the guy who runs Ken's Kingdom and together they could figure out the obvious errors in each others' "analysis" of their respective national temperature records - because neither of them appear to be listening to any feedback from anyone else about their errors.
If nothing else, be sure to read this comment - but make sure you're not eating or drinking first.
Olaus reiterates his "proof" that relies on erroneous "logic" no more difficult to see through than the well known "2 = 1 proofs", i.e. the kind that your average grade 9 student can see through.
Olaus' obvious delight in this "proof" rather suggests he has just discovered this kind of illogic, which further suggests that he might be no more intellectually advanced than your average grade 9 student.
That would explain a great deal.
Speaking of de Freitas, didn't he co-author one of the worst papers of all time with John McLean and Bob Carter?
Speaking of McLean, he's back to have another go (which I think was pointed out or touted earlier by someone else but I skimmed over it at the time). ATTP doesn't think much of his lack of scepticism, nor the similar lack at Bishop Hill who apparently promotes McLean to "Professor of Physics" (!), and neither do the ATTP commenters. Then again neither McLean nor the Bishop have ever been particularly sceptical about various outlandish claims that they like the look of so what's new? ;-)
At least McLean turns up in comments at Bishop Hill to correct the record by informing BH that McLean still hasn't got his Ph.D., let alone a Professorship.
Olaus, my non friend, first of all the supposed hiatus began in 2001 (according tyo Englund); second, of course they vary in so-called duration. But as I said, 15 years is way too short a time frame to elucidate a trend for a largelyb determinisitic system. Now I know that the concept of scale in science is way over your unscientific little noggin, but one cannot regress data at short time scales to obtain a desired result. If you sent a paper into a journal in which you mysteriously begin comparing data in 1998, then I as a reviewer would ask why not 1997? Or 1999? Or 2000? What is so special about 1998?As it turns out, 1998 was an exceptional year. A massive El Nino event triggered conditions that were exceptional by any standards. It seems now that the denial industry is so desperate that its other memes have been repeatedly shot down that all it has left is 1998.
And since 2005 and 2010 were both warmer (and 2014 wil be warmer than both of those years), its clear that the warming has not stopped at all. Its the last refuge you clots have, though. Thankfully the scientific community by-and-large ignores it.
Betulala #40:
You need to read this article and comments, all is revealed with "Figure M2. Pacific and Atlantic meridional sections showing upper-ocean warming for the past 6 decades (1955-2011" being of particular note:
A lot more heat is found in the ocean
Of course such a complex issue is too taxing for your brains developed by the simplistic headline grabbing language of the media you follow.
Sorry BBD @ #6is 'allegro con dente' (meaning?) alluding to the van Halen you sent for Jeff?
If that is the case then the engine in that vehicle is showing symptoms from extreme feedback and hysteresis. ;-)
I prefer this poignant piece (of which I had the vinyl album) especially considering what happened to her within a year of its release. I was unaware of that at the time being up to my neck in Sea Vixens.
Lionel - Thanks for the article from the Burger King blog. Very informative.
Just found some footage of Hardley at his "Professor oration two months ago"....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRsd1HWlXKQ
Betty
The use of 'pause' or 'hiatus' to describe the slowdown in the rate of surface warming is a misnomer. It's a simple matter of fact. There's no *point* in denying it. It's even more wrong when OHC is included in the picture. Again, a matter of fact. You need to stop denying matters of fact. In the correct sense, 'global warming' hasn't paused or even slowed down.
Fact. Deal with it. It might help.
Lionel #81
Yes 'fast, with bite' was a joke about the EVH solo. Like allegro con brio only more so. A poor thing, but mine own... :-)
Shorter BBD - "Betula provided a quote from the IPCC mentioning the hiatus, I provided a link (England et al) talking about the hiatus and then Betula provided a link of Curry talking about the hiatus, therefore, Betula is a denier - there's no hiatus."
Ah Deltoid - always good for a few laughs, fun times, good memories...
Seems like your memory's gone too, Betty.
BBD old sausage, it really is very decent of you to extend my quote from uncle Steph. It seems to show that he now wants you guys to focus on surface temperature, as we sceptics have always said. That means you can forget the doctored OHC graph and the SkS measure of Hiroshima bombs per second. I know it's hard to stay on message when the scientivists keep changing their story. Maybe Jeffie gave his class some advice that he could share with you.
BBD do you believe that climate sensitivity is a constant? SoD doesn't. It might vary from time to time and from place to place in ways we cannot comprehend. Global climate is much more complex than your toy Legal construct.
Elmer
You are too stupid and insane to be worth the bother. Sod off.
Olaus
I bet you are waiting for that paper from Jeffie that proves that the arrival of rabbits in Australia, North American grey squirrels in the UK, and the nextinction of the dodo were the results of climate change. It should be fascinating scientivist work. I bet he even links them to changing levels of CO2.
Betty
Other people using language carelessly changes nothing about this argument. There has been no 'pause' or 'hiatus' in surface warming as this would require that warming *stopped*. So those words are misnomers and using them is sloppy and technically incorrect. This is a matter of fact. That you dispute it, despite repeated and exhaustive explanation demonstrates that you are a denier of matters of fact.
The rate of surface warming has slowed down but warming has not *stopped* so there has beenno pause or hiatus. Cherry-picking your start date from the peak of the 1998 super El Nino doesn't even get you a hiatus. It's a silly and dishonest trick that doesn't even work.
The fact that there has been no pause or hiatus in warming is especially true when OHC is considered - as it must be - in any technical discussion of the climate system energy balance.
You can't change facts by denying them Betty.
Batty you old tree pruner you. You are really unhealthily obsessed with me. It seems you spend half your time searching online information about my career. Glad to oblige, but I think you ought to stick to pruning branches from old birch trees. By the way, there's a piece in the latest issue of National Geographic in which reserch my lab is mentioned (hint: its from the cover article). I'm anxiously looking forward to a link in the same magazine to your work. Let me know when it happens.
With respect to the subject of my PhD student's research, I know this might be somewhat over your head, but I will give it a shot. We know that one of the specialist natural enemies of the insect herbivore he will study is distributed more to the south in Europe, whereas the other is more common in northern and central Europe. Where they have both been introduced into tropical regions to control the pest, the more thermophilic species has occupied niches in lower elevations, whereas the more cold-tolerant species dominates at higher elevations. What the student will examine is how temperature affects intrinsic and extrinsic competitive interactions between these natural enemies. This will include primary and seconday plant metabolism, as well has herbivore indiueced plant volatile profiles. The student will learn to use GCMS and HPLC to compare plant chemical profiles under different temperature regimes and how this affects behavioral and ontogenetic responses in the insects. Given that heat waves are increasing in incidence in central Europe, as well as overall mean temperatures as a result of AGW, the ways in which multittrophic interactions like this one are played out will be explored.
Got it?
Elmer, you are one piece of work. Like Batty and Olly, you try (feebly) to do everything to belittle my research. As fascinating a group as the gastropods are, I work with plqnts and insects for the most part. Moreover, snails are hermaphrodites, meaning that I would need to compare reproductive organs of both sexes. But I digress. I don't work with them.
Betula, in may come as a surprise to you to learn that as scientists try to explain things to the general public they will use phrases or words that would normally be deprecated for use in a strictly scientific context. Thus the 'unfortunate' use of a words pause or hiatus. It doesn't mean warming has stopped. The pause is in the rate of increase in warming because other factors e.g. aerosols are affecting the radiative balance.
Deniers such as you are never good on nuance so do study the three parts of this:
The recent pause in warming
Despite this slow down in rate of heating today is the warmest 31st October on record in the UK.
Yes this is a weather event but remember 'climate trains the boxer, weather throws the punches'. I suspect there will be more surprises before we reach next spring.
Please note the deniers' duplicitous (as from the root duo, meaning two) approach to what words mean.
When they see haitus or pause they INSIST that it must have the everyday meaning of "stopped".
When you point out that a pause necessarily ENDS (else it would be called "stopping") and that a pause or haitus in a process means a "brief cessation before continuing"), they DO NOT accept that the everyday meaning of such words MUST NOT constitute with the meaning they wish to apply.
If they wish to accept WITH NO AVENUE OF REFUSAL the evidence of a haitus, THEY MUST accept that this means that they accept that it will continue very soon.
They, however, are well practiced at demanding cake to eat AND keeping for themselves.
No cake for anyone else.
Re:#94, also note that such a weather event still refutes the claim of a lack of warming (and disintegrates one of cooling now), in exactly the same way as a single black swan disproves the claim of all swans being white.
If it's stopped warming, we should no longer be seeing record highs. End of story.
Just so, Wow.
Sorry, cannot resist this: Met Office: Hottest Halloween in UK instrumental record.
Yes, clear evidence that warming stopped over a decade ago... Just as 2014 turning out to be the hottest year globally in the instrumental record will demonstrate that warming stopped over a decade ago...
Denial is so stupid, really.
Sorry Lionel - I re-posted one of your links. Still, it bears repeating ;-)
Wow!
Deltoid really has got itself stuck in a time warp.
I linked those pieces above because they were recent and relevant to some of the discussion here.
What happens?
People launch straight into character assassination and actually confirm one of Walter Starck's comments in one of the links Craig supplied:
"matters of science are determined by reason and evidence, not by consensus or pissing contests over credentials."
Once you all did that, you immediately returned to the same old same old repetitive behaviour.
Jeff Harvey's comments are particularly interesting:
"having a PhD is not a pre-requisite to wisdom. Its wat (what?) one does with it once they get it."
" many cases they are old farts who have published little, if anything, in the empirical literature."
" there are very, very few qualified, statured scientists who are AGW sceptics or deniers. "
This is a quick summary of what Starck has done since he "got" his PhD.
http://www.goldendolphin.com/wstarck.htm
I don't mean to be offensive you guys but most of your argument at this point seems to rest on the idea that it is only a closeted academic (ie still resident in the publish or perish world) who has any right to comment on this issue.
Rather than people's qualifications or experience, you seem to argue that it is who people may or may not have worked for and if any one of those career moves are even slightly questionable in your opinion, then anything they have to say must be dismissed.
Indeed they are. And from these scientific determinations arises a scientific consensus. Which excludes very low values for climate sensitivity to CO2 forcing.
Lionel A
Van Halen goes flamenco!
Hope this sits easier with your sensibilities :-)
You seem to have deliberately missed the bit where people pointed out Starck's "argument" was full of non-reason and empty of evidence (e.g. like this, amongst others). In other words, you've missed the comments that disconfirmed Starck's quote.
If, by "most", you mean "most of the bits that I didn't ignore because they demonstrated using reason and evidence that Starck's article was rubbish".
Impressive blinkers you've got there. And it clearly makes it a lot easier to attack a straw man of your choosing!
No Lotharsson, I didn't miss your post.
You did indeed at least somewhat engage with the actual piece in your own inimitable, supercilious style.
And no Lotharsson I did not mean whatever you think I meant by 'most". I definitely meant 'most' here, who opted for what Starck rather aptly described as 'an academic pissing contest' in the piece that Craig linked.
Anyway that consensus thing just keeps reappearing over and over again:
http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553…
Perhaps BBD could let some of these people who are touting the 97% consensus thing that their word use is a bit sloppy and they're putting words like 'urgent' and 'crippling' and 'catastrophic' in the same phrases as sentences as ' 97% consensus'?
Yaaaawn. #KFC
Anyway, here's a question I have wondered about - is there a denier 'scientist' that anyone can name who is not also a (choose one or several) -
Dowser?
Homeopathy enthusiast?
Crop Circle devotee?
Creationist? (Old or young earth)
Right-wing thinktank / oil company current/former employee?
Beneficiary of Right-wing thinktank / oil company largesse?
Cold War holdover?
Free Market™ fundamentalist?
(Actually, the latter category would appear to apply to pretty-well all of them! And that's really the point...)
And here is yet another one that's out and about at the moment.
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/10/29/Climate-Change-is-…
Strange, you did an extremely good impression of meaning exactly that. Especially since you acknowledge reading my comments on why Starck's piece was rank deceptive propaganda deeply deficient in both evidence and reason - and then you ignored those severe issues to focus on peripheral complaints. This is always a giveaway to anyone paying attention that you don't have a viable argument and on some level you know it.
Anyway, that's par for the course with you and I don't expect that to change.
BTW, if you're allegedly claiming matters of science should be settled based on evidence and reason, citing a disinformation and propaganda outlet like Breitbart.com is like shooting yourself in the foot. (One suspects if we analysed the article itself like we did with Starck's article, we'd find that it shot you in the other foot as well. After all, that's what we almost always find when you cite something with apparent approval.)
Well, unless of course demonstrating that you are unable to cite an article that is actually based on solid reason and evidence is your goal here, in which case well played, Stu 2, well played!
Bill, you might want to add Emeritus to that list. It's surprising what proportion of denialists who are cited for their scientific credentials are emeritus...
BTW Stu 2, it's even more amusing to see you (quite rightly) state that matters of science should be settled based on evidence and reason, and then (quite the opposite of rightly) cite a WSJ opinion piece written by Heartland's Bast and the often scientifically dubious Spencer...that IIRC (because it's now behind a paywall) wasn't even trying to deal with the evidence or reasoning, but was simply trying to deny the scientific consensus, and apparently didn't even do a very good job of that!. (I guess that's not surprising, because the consensus that we are well on our way to causing a serious problem within the active climate researchers is real.)
Do you realise you're violating the very principles that you just espoused? Or is illustrating that your goal here? If so, well played, Stu 2, well played!
But really you needn't have bothered. We all figured that out long ago.
Check out this story about an industry PR guy who made a private speech to fossil fuel industry executives. Click on the blue open document to read a transcript (or go directly to the PDF here).
Then ask yourself how much of what he advocates plays out in the media and even here.
(To his credit one of the industry execs found this offensive enough that he leaked a recording of the speech.)
I guess Berman is kinda admitting he really doesn't have facts on his side. (He also talks about putting "facts" out there and engaging in "factual debate", but most of the examples he uses are suggestions that might or might not be facts. I wonder if he or his audience realises that he's conflating the two? And even when he puts out genuine facts it seems that they are going to be cherrypicked or strawmen. Bear his use of "factual debate" in mind as you read this:
"You" here is the industry execs, and presumably "get all ties" means "you guys win the game if there is a tie because you get to keep on with business as usual".
Also read the part on page 4 about deliberately cultivating "common knowledge", beautifully illustrated by an example that shows that "common knowledge" is not actually knowledge.
That's just the first four pages. There is plenty more.
There are some doozy quotes in the remaining pages (some from the second speaker). Apparently if you inherited a lot of money from your parents but became a left-wing activist you "lost your way". Or if you oppose fossil fuels or fracking or advocate for more regulation you're a "bad guy". Why, it's almost like the speaker is taking a politically-based position about these issues! ;-)
You can also clearly see that the mindset doesn't care about whether the weight of evidence is on his clients' side or not. A large part of their method is to go after the credibility of the people pointing out the alleged facts - not go after the alleged facts. There's also the comment about not caring whether people understand the ballot initiatives - they just want to brand the entire movement behind it as not credible and anti-science. And another about manipulating people emotionally rather than intellectually persuading them - especially using the F in FUD and using anger.
And one speaker complains that there are "multiple shell organisations being propped up to hide who is funding what" (the "what" being things the industry doesn't want passed). The other shortly afterwards, without any trace of irony, boasts about successfully hiding donors behind anti-regulation PR campaigns from public view.
Let me comment on the views of Botkin. First of all, they may be well intentioned. Moreover, his credentials as an ecologist are not to be taken lightly. At the same time, one wonders why he would accept an invitation from the Republican Party to testify that AGW is, in fact, not man made. Another important point is that he is not a climate scientist and has no relevant expertise in the field. If Olaus wants to harp on about Napolean complexes, he needs to focus on people with no expertise in certain fields whose views, on the other hand, run counter to the overwhelming consensus of professional experts in those fields.
Now to what I consider to be the most important context of what Botkin writes, and why I feel that (1) he is utterly naive, and (2) why Stu2 has again shot himself in the foot.
Botkin uses his own belief system - that AGW is not anthropogenic after all - to argue that capital resources would be better spent dealing with other environmental problems that have enormous ecological consequences. By this he must be referring to other various forms of pollution, habitat destruction, overharvesting and perhaps invasive organisms. He appears to fall into the remarkably narrow and ignorant Lomborg-esque trap of truly believing that the money spent dealing with climate change - which isn't apparently man made after all in his view - would be better spent solving other ecological problems. Lomborg simply argues that the money should be invested in programs that help the poor in the south. In both examples there is similar theme: that we have to prioritize spending.
On the surface, this seems noble enough, But it reveals a stunningly narrow-minded view of the world and how wealth is allocated and concentrated. The fact is that both Botkin and Lomborg are remarkably naive and if one goes further, IMHO profoundly stupid. They are both being used - perhaps Botkin a lot more than Lomborg, who I think has a more ego-driven agenda, but the pattern is similar.
Measures to deal with climate change threaten the profits and business activities of extremely powerful and politically influential tansnational corporations. The most apparent of these are the fossil fuel companies, but a range of other corporations (e.g. the automobile industry) see regulatory measures in a similar light. These corporations are not at all interested ins the scientific truth, as elusive as that may be, and in fact they loathe climate science. You'd think that, if they were being truly honest, they'd acknowledge the views of over 95% of the experts in the field of climate, given that they themselves are not trained in this field. But they are doing all they can to cast doubt over the veracity of both the IPCC reports and the views of the mainstream climate scientists. To do this they have set up front groups, bought-and-paid for a few scientists, funded think tanks and PR firms and invested heavily in greenwash.
Enter Botkin, one of few statured ecologists, on the scene. Does he really think that, of we do nothing about GW, that the monies saved from mitigating it will be suddenly and miraculously divested towards protecting wild nature? Thus far, as Hansen has said, virtually nothing has been done to deal with GW anyway. The costs are projected on the basis of real meaningful action, and not on promises or intent.
The fact is that climate change denial falls under a larger banner of anti-environmentalism. Its a huge industry that has been growing exponentially since the 1980s (see Andrew Rowell's book, 'Green Backlash', written back in 1996, and see how relevant it is today). The crux of the matter is that if AGW was not the public focus, but, say, another issue like the loss of wetlands or primary forests worldwide, then there would still be huge reluctance of deal with these threats, because corporate profits would be at stake. IMO web sites like WUWT and CA would suddenly switch fron downplaying GW to attacking the science behind these other apparent threats to the planet and to humanity. The corporations investing in this denial would be different (e.g. logging companies, mineral extractors, developers etc) but the strategies and underlying message would be the same. CA might then be suddenly morphed into FA or WA ('Forest Audit' or 'Wetland Audit') and they would be doing the same thing as they do now: using their own analyses, arguing that the loss of forest and wetland ecosystems is exaggerated and thus impying that we should do nothing at the policy level.
This is where Botkin IMO becomes a useful idiot, at least if he truly believes that GW is not anthopogenic and we should be dealing with other environmental threats in lieu of GW. Most importantly, if dealing with these threats threatens the profit-driven agendas of immensely powerful corporations, then of course every effort will be made to downplay them whether they are real or not. In Botkins place a different group of 'scientists' will be paraded before Congressmen on behalf of the Republican Party and their paymasters arguing that wetland draining or forest loss is not a problem and that measures to deal with them threaten the economy.
Botkin may be the first (and thankfully only) prominent ecologist who has thus far jumped on the AGW denial bandwagon. Be sure, though, that anti-environmental groups like Wise Use and a labyrinthine network of other anti-environmental front groups must be laughing out of their socks when Botkin joins the ranks of AGW sceptics. Climate change is interchangeable with a suite of other environmental problems. Its just that Botkin is too naive, or, sadly, too old to recognize it.
The bottom line is that the evidence for AGW is overwhelming, and that means to deal with it will not send us back to the Medievel Period, but it will impact the profit-driven agendas of some very powerful corporations. A similar argument can be made to demolish the arguments of Lomborg and his Copenhagen Consensus; a small fraction of the military budgets of NATO and especially its master in Washington could reduce or even eliminate many poverty-driven problems in poor countries. But this clashes with the agendas of the rich and powerful elites in the north, who never see welfare of the poor as a priority. But this leads onto another area and requires attentionall of its own.
If Jeff's analysis is too complex or detailed for you, ask Botkin what he reckons we should do about rising seawater in Miami and how much it will cost. You simply can't build an effective seawall because Miami is built on limestone and the salt water seeps through it - and they're already finding it harder and harder (and more expensive) to protect their fresh water reservoirs from it.
You might also ask him about "dealing with" sea level rise in Bangladesh, or any of dozens of other heavily populated low lying coastal zones around the world.
And that's before we get to the impacts of ocean acidification on the parts of the marine ecosystems that we heavily exploit for food - something that ought to be closer to his actual area of expertise than whether human activities are warming the planet or not.
BBD @ #1
Now the meaning of the word 'consenus' seems to give our protagonists trouble. Check it out, preferably in the OED.
Let me know what you come up with 2stupid and FuddyDud.
Lotharsson @ #10
Check out this story about an industry PR guy who made a private speech to fossil fuel
Berman cropped up yesterday at <a href="http://climatecrocks.com/2014/10/31/lobbyist-tells-fossil-fuel-execs-pl… Crocks
That quote:
Raises a red flag in my mind about the uses of a 'hospitality industry insider', maybe I have been around too long and have seen too much of the world. Beware of 'honey traps' all involved in climate science and of spreading the correct view of the situation. That consensus word that the likes of Berman would twist and demean.
I wonder if our PR PM ever met Berman?
The Berman Exposed interview with Rachel Maddow is enough to remind me of Dick Cheney. The mold has seen much use.
In the world of the alarmist everything is so difficult. If the inhabitants of Miami find it too expensive to manage storm surges and miniscule level changes, they should move elsewhere, maybe even with the help of public money. Alternatively they can cling on to survival in Miami and commission someone able and knowledgeable, such as Fernando Leanme, to design and cost a solution.
And that old canard about Bangladesh crops up again. The delta is rising because of silt deposition.
BTW, if you follow the link to Botkin's full piece, you can see him deceiving the audience (or repeating his own self-deceptions).
In the section titled "Has the earth been warming?" he misleads his audience about the climate since the current interglacial started (although he portrays it as "the end of the last Ice Age" which is one clue that he's not speaking from deep competence - we're still in an Ice Age). He says climate has had "overall but highly variable warming since then", completely ignoring the obvious slow cooling trend of the Holocene period.
He does the same by asserting that the Mediaeval Warm Period was globally warmer than a 1960-1980 or 1960-1990 baseline which IIRC is a dubious claim, given all of the reconstructions addressing that time period.
And he cites the somewhat hapless McKitrick's "novel statistical analysis" (which I suspect may be one that didn't fare well when peers started looking at it), and of course works in Christy's dodgy claims about insufficient warming. It looks like he relies on the assumption that models are intended to forecast the annual weather "noise" (and I suspect you'll find that he didn't go back and run them with the actual forcings estimates, but rather used the forcings from a representative scenario). But even more illogically, he concludes that if the models aren't super accurate then humans aren't affecting climate.
And that is almost as scientifically moronic as an actual scientist gets - "rebutting" one line of evidence and simply asserting that you've rebutted them all.
Since you and I and everyone here have seen all of these memes before, you'll recognise that he appears to be doing a standard denier Gish Gallop...
So predictably Elmer doesn't answer the question.
It would however be amusing to get Fernando to "design and cost a solution", given what is already known and how much is already being spent trying to protect water supplies, so unintentionally Elmer finally provides some (amusement) value ;-)
It would be even more amusing to contractually bind Fernando to his estimate, given what is already known about the problem and the cost by those gamely trying to protect the water systems there.
Hardly - "But this clashes with the agendas of the rich and powerful elites in the north, who never see welfare of the poor as a priority"
And this is the true priority and ideology behind climate change, right Hardley? Fix the predictions by developing the poor undeveloped countries financed by the rich developed countries.
Of course, the thought of it being done in the most sustainable way possible won't negate the fact that development on a global scale will still have the affect of increasing overall CO2 emissions in the short and long run......manufacturing, construction, transportation, imports and exports, infrastructure, shipping, consumption and on and on....and better health services will decrease death rates and increase life expectancy which will increase the global population putting more strains on the limited amount of earth's resources....not that there is anything wrong with that.
So we must act now! The rich developed nations, who have created the problems that are predicted to happen, must send monies to the poor developed nations to fix the problems that are predicted to happen...by increasing CO2 emissions!
Fairness. Equality. Justice. They all trump CO2....but we need CO2 to get there.
After all, let's not forget that the rich developed nations have only become that way by plundering the resources of the poor undeveloped nations without just compensation. It is their moral and legal obligation to make right the wrongs they have committed with their greed and over consumption...
Funny how it fit's perfectly into the predicted climate change, predicted solution scenario...almost like it was made that way. Like a glove...
Of course, Jeffrey Sachs, Rajendra Pachauri, Gavin Schmidt, James Hansen, George Soros, NASA GISS, The Earth Institute, Saleemul Huq , the U.N. (with all of it's affiliations) and media conglomerates such as AFP and CFI among countless other organizations and foundations would all agree...
Isn't that right Hardley?
Wait for it....LOOK! A SPIDER!
Ah, a cup of coffee and some music...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxaPbOEm070
Lotharsson
Good to see you over at ATTP.
Betty
Nerp! Nerp! Nerp! Conspiracy theory detected!
You paranoid, right-wing crank.
Fernando Leanme is a buffoon, Elmer.
Another one who hasn't thought this through:
See #3 previous page. They *always* stuff this up.
BBD
Just for once, why not try to evaluate the evidence instead of showing blind faith in scientivists?
The Richard Berman speech Lotharsson links above is absolutely damning. Listen, you lot who deny that there is a covertly-funded denial industry secretly backed by vested interests. Just listen to this:
And later:
Oho! Thank you, Mr Berman!
But you lot will keep on denying the truth about the denial industry and how it works, what it does and who funds it all, won't you? Moronic sheep that you are.
Sod off Elmer, you idiot. You've already demonstrated repeatedly that you aren't able to understand the evidence so I'm not going to waste any more time discussing it with you.
Betula, you clearly need to get out of the house more often. Where do you think a disproportionate amount of the wealth in the developed countries originated? And how are the rich nations able to maintain and finance their ongoing ecological deficits?
Its called LOOTING. Look it up. You may learn something. Samir Amin, Africa's leading economist has been discussing it for years. Tom Athanasiou and Patrick Bond, two other economists, have written extensively about it.
Sorry old Bat, but you appear to think the have's have been able to maintain their position on top of ther heap through some miraculous methodology. But the sad fact is that we import our biological and natural capital from abroad. In the Netherlands, for example, 95% of our water ecological footprint is externalized, primarily through agriculture and meat consumption. The US maintains one of the largest per capita ecological deficits in the world. It does this largely through promoting an economic system than enables them to plunder (LOOT) capital from LDC.
Just because you haven't read anything in the field, Batty, doesn't make it so.If you want to try and debate me on this go right ahead, but I think you clearly don't know a thing about it.
Fudd-the-Dud
You are totally clueless aren't you? Demonstrating that you have no idea as to why Florida is vulnerable to sea level rise which is no longer minuscule and will accelerate further as ice mass loss from Greenland, Antarctica and glaciers accelerates at rates unexpected just a decade ago. The corks are popping out of the bottles.
Have you seen Balog's 'Chasing Ice'?
Rising Sea Level May Trigger Groundwater Floods
some illustrations fill your boots, enough there even for a clown like you.
And just up at Climate Crocks an apposite article, Conservatives Increasingly Conflicted on Climate , I can smell your scorched tyres from here.
What is clear is that you cannot be accused of losing the plot, you never had it in the first instance and neither did Birch-barking-mad Betula, whoever that strange entity is.
Lotharsson @ #10
Sorry I borked the link.
Check out this story about an industry PR guy who made a private speech to fossil fuel
Berman cropped up yesterday at Climate Crocks
It should be pointed out that the writer of that Botkin cheer leading piece at Breitbart seems to be a budding Melanie Phillips having the following bye-line:
Lewes being the county town of East Sussex and another enclave for the well heeled, in other words doing fine on the 'looting' of developing countries. Its MP is seen sitting adjacent to the PM or Chancellor frequently these days.
I normally refrain from reacting to people, such as Lionel, who are intellectually blind to science, but sea-level rise is totally and utterly unimportant compared with tidal range and storm surges. The manual of alarmism does not help you to appear sane.
Lionel
There's probably not much point in trying to explain to the idiot that SLR will increase the height of high tides and the transgressions of storm surges, so perhaps you should ignore him and hope that he goes away.
Hardley - Thanks for the confirmation and proving my "conspiracy" correct. Now, if you could just convince BBD and the other Deltoid ideologues, my job here will be done...
Betty
Jeff did *not* prove your conspiracy theory about AGW being faked up to bring about the dawn of world socialism. He simply pointed out that the developed economies benefit from an exploitative relationship with developing economies.
Stop the verballing and stop being a paranoid crank.
Thanks for the support, BBD. Betula is a right wing crank. I do hope his 'work' (meaning bull****) is done here, though, so that he will spare us any more of his 'wisdom'.
In fact, Betty, you've probably never heard of George Kennan. He's quite a famous American, so you should know him, but it wouldn't surprise me, given your myopic world views, if his name draws a blank.
Well, Kennan was an influential planner in the 1940s. In his now infamous planning document 23 from 1948, Kennan said, "We (the US) control 50% of the world's wealth with only 6% of its population. Our aim in the coming period should be to maintain this level of disparity without threat to out national security". He went on explain how the US should go about that - by avoiding the promotion of democracy and thinking is straight power concepts. Kennan was dismissed in 1951 for his excessively 'liberal views', but was often quoted up unto his death at 101 in 2005. Later in his life, I recall Kennan expressing concern that movements towards nationalism in South America might threaten US access to what he termed as 'our resources' even though they just happened to lie under the ground of other countries. US historian Greg Grandin writes about this in his quite excellent book, "Empire's Workshop". My guess is that old Batty has not heard of him, either.
This is Batty's sandbox-level debating strategy: to deem any inconvenient information about western (and especially US) foreign policy agendas aimed at maintaining Kennan's oft-quoted wealth disparity as 'conspiracy theories'. Forget US and NATO gunboat diplomacy: maintaining over 700 military bases in 140 countries around the world, the expansion of Centcom, Southcom, Africom etc. as a means of ensuring capital and resource flows remain largely unidimensional. Forget trying to understand why the Congo, with 21 trillion dollars (at least) worth of unexploited mineral resources remains one of ther poorest nations on Earth (hint: all of its resoources are owned by 38 corporations based in the G-8 countries).
Its all a conspiracy. Thanks for your pearls of wisdom, Bat.
Hardley - First, again, thanks for confirming the ideology behind a global redistribution of wealth...
Now, with that out in the open, and given everything I mentioned a few comments back, please explain how the development of the poor undeveloped nations financed by the rich developed nations will reduce over all CO2 emissions.
Thanks.
And once again, Betty verballs Jeff.
If you can't conduct an argument without serially misrepresenting your interlocutor, you haven't got a case.
What a pointless Bircher nutjob. Is there a denier who is not also an all-purpose right wing crank?
Lionel,
Do you have a shred of evidence that has not been invented by scientivists? BBD has declared that he is in the anti - intellectual camp, along with Jeffie. Your beliefs are based on lies. Grow up.
Jeff Harvey @ # 12:
" Another important point is that he is not a climate scientist and has no relevant expertise in the field."
Well neither is this person:
http://www.tacticalmediafiles.net/article.jsp;jsessionid=11F1BA7FF93E08…
And neither is Dr Jeff Harvey as far as I am aware?
" Enter Botkin, one of few statured ecologists, on the scene. Does he really think that, of (if?) we do nothing about GW, that the monies saved from mitigating it will be suddenly and miraculously divested towards protecting wild nature? Thus far, as Hansen has said, virtually nothing has been done to deal with GW anyway. The costs are projected on the basis of real meaningful action, and not on promises or intent."
Well yes, It does appear that he does actually think that. Along with many, many other people from many walks of life including people with PhDs, he does indeed seem to argue in your words:
"that the money spent dealing with climate change - (...) - would be better spent solving other ecological problems. "
Perhaps he has seen lists like this one among other things?
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
I'm guessing that Botkin would probably agree with Hansen that virtually nothing has been done despite the enormous expenditure to date.
" The crux of the matter is that if AGW was not the public focus, but, say, another issue like the loss of wetlands or primary forests worldwide, then there would still be huge reluctance of (to?) deal with these threats, because corporate profits would be at stake. "
This is simply not supportable Jeff Harvey. Much has been done and continues to be done to deal with specific environmental issues separately from AGW. Quite likely people such as Rowell and of course people like Botkin have played their part in facilitating a greater public awareness and greater public support of measures to conserve natural environments including such things as national parks (Botkin's area of interest).
And seriously. It might help if you desist from what Starck dubbed as 'an academic pissing contest" with comments like these:
"Its just that Botkin is too naive, or, sadly, too old to recognize it."
http://www.danielbbotkin.com/about/
I strongly suspect that your disagreement with Botkin is not actually 'environmentally' or 'ecologically" based?
I'm also wondering what you think is the age where someone can be accused of being 'too old', particularly since you have used that argument twice recently?
I think 45 years of experience in this field is worthy of some respect.
tl:dr
Stu2 is still trying to push crop-circle-enthusiast and non-scientist, Starck, as an "expert"?
Seriously?
He says, "45 years experience" - in doing what? precisely, and if this experience is so valuale that you choose to lean on him for your argument from authority - why does that 45 years experience translate to virtually zero professional, academic published science?
Ho ho ho! This is the funniest thing I've seen all day!
Are we sure Fudd is not a Poe, still struggling to find an effective schtick but occasionally coming up with something that works like that?
Craig, the 45 years comment was about Botkin, not Starck. Botkin has stature in the ecological field, and has done work on ecological aspects of climate models (and maybe even more).
That doesn't mean that Botkin is not claiming some bullshit in the article that Stu 2's article cited. He is.
Stu 2 is - as Jeff pointed out, and as he does so often - relying on argument from carefully selected authority and ignoring the vast amount of authority that outweighs his chosen one.
The interesting thing about some parts of Botkin's argument is that they are not at all controversial. There is a sense in which "it's happening" and thus "doing something about it is necessary regardless of what is causing it" (assuming we care about the consequences) .
The trouble is, that part of the argument is accurate enough, but in practice it doesn't get you very far. The most effective way to "deal with it" depends on what is causing it and how that cause will or won't change over time. If you try to rule out using the cause in your response, you've tied one hand behind your back. You're essentially saying "I'm simply ruling out any mitigation and placing all my bets on adaptation".
If there's water all over the floor in your apartment, you have to deal with it regardless of what's causing it. But the most effective tactic is not to commit purely to mopping (potentially for the rest of your life), it is to first figure out where the water is coming from and reduce the flow as much as possible, ideally to zero. You can say "I don't care what's causing it, I have to deal with it" all you like, but that would be stupid. There's a vast difference in your most effective response if it's caused by a burst pipe in your overhead neighbour vs a leaking tap in your apartment vs a spilt glass in your room.
For anyone interested in delving into the implicit elements of Fudd's comedic stylings, read this whole article about sea level rise challenges in Miami and consider the Fudd reckons Fernando Leanme can fix it (presumably for a reasonable price).
Hmmm, when the freakin' Dutch are scratching their heads over what to do about sea water...
Lotharsson @ # 47
This is what Botkin is quoted as saying:
" However, he does acknowledge that climate change is happening. Taking sea level as an example, he says: “the sea level has been rising since the end of the last Ice Age, starting about 14,000 years ago as the continental and mountain glaciers have melted and sea water has expanded with the overall warming. The average rate has been about a foot or two a century”.
The question he poses is: what to do about it? Rather than spending time arguing over the causes of climate change, Botkin advocates simply rolling up our sleeves and dealing with the outcome, harking back to Frederick Law Olmstead, who in the mid 1800s, created the Back Bay Fens on Boston’s shoreline as a way to manage both ocean floods, deal with waste water for the city, and create a recreational area for city dwellers.
“Confronted with the combined problems of ocean surges and flooding from river runoff inland, Olmsted did not waste his time complaining about whether or not people have caused the problem. He just set out and solved it.”
Your analogy re the burst pipe vs leaky tap vs spilt glass misses Botkin's basic point.
Of course the response would be relative to the amount of water and the cause of that water in your apartment.
But that response would also need to be fit for purpose and designed to achieve a practical outcome would it not?
If it's a spilt glass then picking up the glass and mopping up the water is fine.
If it's a leaky tap then replacing the washer and/or the tap and mopping up the mess will solve that one.
If it's a burst pipe then turning off the mains pressure, replacing the burst pipe, probably repairing some damage to your ceiling and then mopping up the mess is a practical response.
Botkin is arguing that the current response to SLR is neither fit for purpose or designed to achieve a practical outcome. He argues that the focus is on an expensive argument about the cause of the problem to the detriment of any practically based solution.
He then further highlights that it is not only the response to SLR but also in other areas like managing the risks from wildfires.
Re your comment @ # 48 and continuing along the same theme.
With continuing SLR, obviously low lying, inhabited coastal areas- including South Florida- are vulnerable. Those solutions will also need to be fit for purpose and designed for a practical outcome or as Robert Daoust says "will require innovative solutions"
I am rather amused by your interesting attempt to define different types of 'authority' that looks to be based on some type of idea of 'contest' between those different authorities.
Is Robert Daoust or Glenn Landers a member of the 'vast amount of authority' team or the 'carefully selected authority' team?
Stu 2, thank you for quoting what I had already read, understood and responded to. ;-)
Nope, it did not address his basic point which I indicated is not entirely unreasonable. My analogy addresses flaws in Botkin's position on action that is derived from his basic point.
Thank you for confirming the point of my analogy. Now, perhaps you could consider how that applies to Botkin's "don't worry about the cause or the amount probably coming down the pipeline, just do something, damnit!" stance?
He argues that, and he is probably right to a fairly large extent. But that wasn't the flaw in his argument that I was pointing out. He quite conspicuously doesn't offer any "fit for purpose solution" either.
...which is a bit odd. Does he realise most of us can walk and chew gum at the same time?
In addition there's little argument about the dominant cause amongst climate scientists, regardless of Botkin's repetition of some denialist nonsense or his apparent allowance in other parts that humans might be causing some climate change.
But he does have a point in another sense: amongst certain political groupings and certain sets of decision makers, there is an obvious effort by a subset of them to try to deny the actual cause and use that denial as justification to delay or under-provision action. At least he's trying to point out to those people that some of the problems are actually occurring and need to be dealt with even if we're not the dominant cause, but he also risks providing fodder for the no-action denialists by doing so. And unfortunately he seems to be advocating dumb (as in "blind to causes, and hence blind to how big the problem will grow or what will most effectively tackle it") action since there's not enough smart action. I can sympathise with that - but ultimately it's a pretty tragic stance to feel one must take if you love the National Parks and want them preserved for many generations to come.
Any "practically based solution" must take into account how big the problem will get, and how it will change in character over time. Otherwise it's not a "practically based solution", it's a hopeful bandaid. A bandaid is better than no bandaid, but not by an amount of any practical significance if you have severed an artery. A mop and bucket is better than no mop and bucket when there's water on your floor, but not by an amount of any practical significance if the problem is a slowly leaky pipe that's at risk of turning into a completely burst pipe...
Certainly! But this is a tautological statement of what a solution actually is (and I've seen dozens of them in my professional life). They help not one whit because they are redundant - technically they are not even requirements for a solution, and you generally need to define your requirements before you can tackle fulfilling them. Such boilerplate contributes nothing towards figuring out whether a fit for purpose solution even exists, let alone at a price we are prepared to pay. To figure that out we require a decent understanding of the system in question and the problems we anticipate and how bad they will get...the latter being precisely what Botkin rejects in favour of "just doing something".
I am probably even more amused than you, because I am not aware of making such an attempt.
On the other hand, I have explained many times why citing the evidence-based consensus of experts (a.k.a. "vast amount of authority") is different that citing a contrarian to that consensus and his/her credentials as a ("carefully selected") authority. This is why I point out that you generally do the latter, but often reject not the former.
Rubbish Lotharsson!
The problems re future SLR and the various causes of the problem have been analysed and reported to death.
Coastal property is vulnerable. That is not a new concept nor is it a new problem.
Arguing about whose fault it is and arguing about who must pay for it does not fix the problem.
If a specific problem exists in South Florida, then like the Dutch had to do, the residents in South Florida would be well advised to come up with their practical solution for South Florida.
No offense to your oft quoted 'evidence based consensus', but I would further suggest it is unlikely that a consensus of 'expert climate scientists' have the expertise to devise the necessary practical solution for South Florida, or any other vulnerable inhabited coastal areas.
Apparently not, according to one Stu 2:
Who wins when Stu 2 argues against Stu 2?
And apparently it hasn't been analysed to death according to the Botkin that Stu 2 cites. (Did you even read the Botkin article cited by the article you cited?)
And it certainly hasn't been analysed to death according to a whole bunch of people who refuse to agree that the causes have been analysed to death, if one of those causes is human-induced global warming, and reckon that what we do know is very little and rather uncertain, all of which (coincidentally I'm sure) dovetailing neatly with with their preferred position that we do nothing to mitigate human induced climate change.
No offence taken because your comment is predicated on me saying something I never said.
My point about your habit of citing contrarian authority figures instead of the authority of expert consensus derived from the evidence was in the context of climate science, not in the context of engineering.
And just to make sure, since you seem to have failed to comprehend the obvious:
When someone cites expert consensus they mean experts in the relevant field. They do not mean experts in an unrelated field.
Specifically, when someone cites expert consensus regarding a matter of climate science, they mean climate science experts, not engineering experts. And when someone cites experts in a matter of engineering, even an area of engineering where the problem at hand is driven by or exacerbated by a changing climate, they do not mean experts in climate science.
ROFLMAO! :-)
Sorry - but that little lecture from you is side splittingly funny Lotharsson.
So if a highly qualified and experienced engineer works for a fossil fuel company or a mining company or a multinational construction company or a think tank etc - and there are lots and lots who do- does that mean that they should be summarily dismissed in matters re designing projects to manage risks from SLR?
No apology necessary. It is sidesplittingly funny to everyone else as well because it seems I must explain the obvious to you, given that you apparently and quite bizarrely tried to allege that I was pitting engineering experts vs the consensus of climate science experts somehow.
But hey, at least we're all laughing at the same time!
So, you still don't seem to understand what I wrote.
If it's regarding engineering matters within their sphere of expertise they shouldn't be summarily dismissed.
But if they are going against the expert engineering consensus in a reasonably well understood area they shouldn't be summarily accepted either. In that case it would be prudent to place little weight on their opinion - unless you're an expert engineer in the appropriate field yourself and agree with their argument.
If they're asserting contrarian climate science positions, or contrarian economic positions, or contrarian techniques for playing a cut shot to a fast bowler then they should be summarily dismissed.
If they're asserting expert evidence-based consensus positions in any field outside their expertise such as those in the previous paragraph, then their assertions should not be dismissed. However this has nothing to do with them as non-experts asserting them and everything to do with them being the expert consensus.
Worth revisiting:
And if the gorbletrorjknet has a specific problem with the klagterknachtigher, then like the Dutch had to do, those affected would be well advised to come up with a practical solution too!
"Well advised" is a content-free platitude, a statement of the bleeding obvious.
The issue is not acknowledging the desirability of finding a practical solution. The issue is whether such a solution exists, and it's twice as hard to find if like Botkin you summarily rule out mitigation and insist that only adaptation is allowed.
And that puts Botkin at odds with most economists who study climate change. He's taking a contrarian position in another field he is not an expert in and you give the impression of agreeing with him...
Stu2, your argments are so utterly naive and simplistic that I don't know whethr to laugh or cry. First of all, 99.99% of qualified ecologists - including me, and I am every bit as statured in th field as Botkin - would disagree with him. So what makes his views worthy? He is not a climate scientist and has done no research in the field of climate. I am smart (or wise) enough to leave climate science to the experts, and to focus on the effects of AGW on trophic interactions and communities. Clearly Botkin has no qualms about stepping into a field well outside of his own and opening his big mouth.
And of course he is naive. The same people arguing that he is a sane voice of reason - in other words the GW denialosphere on blogs as well as in the political arena, are many of the same people who downplay other environmental threats that are (or should be) close to Botkin's heart. For example you have Marco Morano over at Climate Depot arguing that Botkin is a prominent scientist and that his words must therefore have merit:
http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/05/29/scientist-dr-daniel-botkin-tells…
Yet this is the same Morano, once a newshound for right wing windbag Rush Limbaugh who, before becoming a prominent climate change denier, was writing about other environmental issues, downplaying their serioiusness. In 2001 he wrote an article in which he claimed that the Amazon rainforest was largely intact and not under threat from loggers, ranchers ad developers (he is wrong on both counts). Here is a more recent link on his blog:
http://www.climatedepot.com/2009/07/08/climate-depot-report-rainforest-…
Using typical deceptive jargon, he lumped secondary forests in with primary forests (they are very, very different ecologically), ignored the effects of burning of the forest understory as well as damaging high-grade logging processes on the health and resilience of these forests, and thus greatly underestimated the damage to them (which is actually about 35%, and not 12% as he claimed). He also ignored human welfare indicators which showed that people living in the vicinity of rainforests were far better off than those living in deforested regions. He also ignored polls which show that ther majority of Brazilians want the forests protected. In writing his article it was clear Morano had problems finding qualified ecologists to support his bilge. In the end, he scraped up Patrick Moore and Philip Stott, neither of whom has any relevant expertise on the ecology of Amazonia.
So whay was Morano writing about the Amazon anyway? I am sure his arguments would provide succor for those who want to continue cutting them down for short-term profit. As I said yesterday, climate change denial falls under the rubric of a greater anti-environmental movement. The themes are interchangable. If climate change was not the prominent issue, but, say, global concern over wetland loss and eutrophication, then be sure that the current army of climate change deniers would be on that bandwagon in order to maintain the status quo. Clearly Stu2 has never heard of Wise Use or any of the huge number of front groups set up by PR firms or right wing think tanks and funded by industries who see any regulations that might limit their activities and profits as a very real threat. These fron groups are veru influential and cover a very wide range of environmental issues. I have given many lectures at universities on them for the past 15 years. AGW is just their latest meme. In the past they have downplayed everything from acid rain to the ozone hole to extinction rates to forest loss.
So what would Botkin think about protection of the Amazon? My guess is that he would or should loathe the comments of Morano. But Morano, as I said,probably sees Botkin as a useful idiot. He will trump his qualifications when Botkin claims that GW is natural, but if Botkin were to argue that the Amazon forests are under threat, we can be sure that Morano would either ignore him or cite a few rainforest deniers on the other side of the issue.
Stu2, is you want to engage in meaningful debate, be advised that starting with basically an empty head with no knowledge of important facts is not the way to go. You are way, way over your head. The facts are simple: climate change is focused on by the ostensibly right wing deregulatory army because it is seen as the most serious threat to their business activities and profit margins. If it were to be replaced by any one of other threats, the deniers would switch in an instant. Botkin is, IMHO, either naive or stupid. He does not appear to have a clue about the workings of the broad anti-environmental lobby.
Here's Batty who clearly cannot read or understand basic English. After my last post, I get this back, "Hardley – First, again, thanks for confirming the ideology behind a global redistribution of wealth…
What about first confirming the ideology behind resource looting and wealth concentration Batty? As it turns out, wealth has been redistributed - upwards, and primarily from the poor south ot the rich north. But I explained that in my previous post. Unable to counter it (or perhaps more accurately, understand it), you go back to your silly conspiracy theories.
Good grief you are a simpleton....
BBD @ #34
I had a post to that effect in the works before yours appeared but which got lost as my connection dropped out as I 'Submit', I know its VM because the modem lights and my monitoring software told me.
But it is clear that Fudd-the-Dud has not grasped the case of Florida. What a numpty.
Shit. The net has just dropped out again.
Now trying again about 15 hours later the connection having been borked all night.
Fudd-the-Dud
Evidence for what, that sea level rise is going to result in destruction of much of Florida?
I have already put this under your nose and now Lotharsson @ #48 has underlined the message from my links with one of his own where we find this:
Which pinpoints the most problematic feature and then finishes with something of an understatement.
Stu2 then demonstrates, repeatedly that he fails to grasp this also.
This is rapidly turning into comedy gold, were it not for the seriousness off what is happening.
The rise of groundwater out of aquifers was something that brought a nasty surprise to residents in the UK well inland, e.g. Basingstioke, and well above sea level as the result of last winters severe storms.
Where would you build the sea wall or dyke FuddyDuddy, 2Stupid?
I try to write any substantive comments in a separate text editor or use a browser that remembers form contents if you hit "Back" after the connection drops out.
Perhaps all the way to the bottom of the ocean, around the entire country.
Or maybe just dig up all of Florida, move it to one side (surely the neighbouring states won't mind if you stick it there while you work), lay down a waterproof base and surround the base with some lovely high sea walls and then put the dug-up Florida back down inside the new state-sized seaproof container?
Surely one of those is a "practical solution, fit for purpose", right? ;-)
Me @19 - "After all, let’s not forget that the rich developed nations have only become that way by plundering the resources of the poor undeveloped nations without just compensation. It is their moral and legal obligation to make right the wrongs they have committed with their greed and over consumption…"
Hardley @61 - "What about first confirming the ideology behind resource looting and wealth concentration Batty?"
Again, thanks for the confirmation.
Synopsis: "Good grief you are a simpleton…."
Synopsis:
[Shannon, Fastnet, Lundy (8)], Irish Sea Malin, Rockall (8), Hebrides, Bailey, SE Iceland (9), Faeroes, Fair Isle, Viking, North Utsire, South Utsire, Forties, Cromarty, Forth, Tyne, Dogger, [Fisher, German Bight, Humber, Thames, Dover, Wight, Portland, Plymouth, Sole, Fitzroy, Biscay (8)], Trafalgar.
Lotharsson
Indeed, I often follow that first method, but being a short post I didn't to begin with but then salvaged using that second routine and saved it so that I could switch off overnight and inject it in again. I wasn't sure if it had got through, often the signs are it has failed but on resend one gets a rude message informing that 'You have already said that'.
Such is life.
What no criticism from the usual suspects for poor use of language and typos. They must be comatose, a vegetative state like potatoes.
You know, Jeff, I get the impression that denial runs very deep in our Betty.
Obviously Betty denies the scientific consensus that unmitigated AGW will be extremely dangerous, preferring instead to believe that it's all a hoax engineered to bring about world socialism.
But it seems that he also denies that the developed economies have benefited from a predatory, exploitative relationship with developing economies.
Or perhaps his attitude is simply 'so what and fuck 'em'.
BBD, I have heard it said many a time that the essence of Libertarianism is "I got mine, you fuck off".
...or more directly, "I got mine, fuck you".
BBD and LOTH -
And I thank you both for the confirmation as well. It's nice to see everybody being so civil and honest.
Now, since we have confirmed the need to develop the undeveloped nations, financed by the evil rich developed nations, many questions remain...
Here's one:
How will development on a global scale, given everything I mentioned in my previous comment, reduce overall CO2 emissions and lessen the need to consume more of the earths resources?
Developed economies reduce their emissions to create development space for developing economies over the next several decades. They also provide hardware and expertise to assist developing nations in - as far as possible - not building a carbon-intensive infrastructure as they develop.
The reason this is being proposed is because unmitigated AGW will be a planetary disaster eventually affecting all of us. You deny this out of ignorance and stupidity and because you cannot bear the idea that actions come with responsibilities and this might just cost you some money. With you, it's just #72 forever. And you wonder why we despise you.
Let's just keep something front and centre here: Betty is a conspiracy theorist who believes that AGW has been exaggerated by a global cabal of lefty intellectuals and scientists in order to usher in the dawn of world socialism.
He's a paranoid, right wing crank:
"Developed economies reduce their emissions to create development space for developing economies over the next several decades"
But overall, the CO2 emissions will increase, they will have to, especially overtime. And population will increase, and life expectancy will increase and consumption will increase...
So what will be the affect on climate?
"Let’s just keep something front and centre here"
Don't worry BBD - Jeffrey Sachs, James Hansen, Gavin Schmidt, Rajendra Pachauri, George Soros, The United Nations and countless other people, organizations and foundations are keeping it front and center for you...
Funny how it fit’s perfectly into the predicted climate change, predicted solution scenario…almost like it was made that way. Like a glove…
Sort of like finding a six fingered glove in the house of a six fingered man and coming to the conclusion that it belongs to him...
It will get warmer. But the difference between doing nothing and doing something is arguably that between catastrophe and a rather difficult couple of centuries. Arguing for inaction is illogical.
Nerp! Nerp! Nerp!
It seems to me that Betty as a kid stood in front of one of those distorting mirrors in fun arcades for rather to long at an impressionable age and continues to look at the world through that looking glass.
BBD - "It will get warmer. But the difference between doing nothing and doing something is arguably that between catastrophe and a rather difficult couple of centuries. Arguing for inaction is illogical"
So the solution predicted to solve the predicted catastrophes caused by increased CO2 emissions is to increase the overall CO2 emitted by undeveloped nations financed by the rich nations. Sort of - "You've emitted a lot of CO2, now we get to emit a lot too!"
You admit this will create more warming, but justify it by saying it is necessary in order to prevent predicted catastrophes (caused by warming), and instead creating predicted borderline catastrophes for the next couple of centuries...
BBD - You do realize you've come to a dead end and the gig is up don't you? No, of course you don't...
Classic Deltoid entertainment...it really doesn't get much better.
Betty, you continue to astound and amaze.
That's not what I wrote. Just read it again, this time taking in the meaning of the words, eg:
The standard picture is that *whatever happens* there will be more CO2 and more warming this century. The idea is to keep global emissions as low as possible over the century (they *rise* in all the IPCC RCP scenarios - invalidating your daft strawman).
Here's a simple visualisation aid. Click the different emissions scenarios and see the effects on temperature evolve.
I repeat: argument for inaction is illogical.
"They also provide hardware and expertise to assist developing nations in – as far as possible – not building a carbon-intensive infrastructure as they develop"
"as far as possible" being the key undetermined phrase there. Development on a global scale will still result in an increase in CO2 emissions...
"The standard picture is that *whatever happens* there will be more CO2 and more warming this century"
So we may as well have the rich developed nations finance the development of the poor undeveloped nations and increase CO2 emissions even more..... you know, because the C02 emitted by the rich developed nations are the main cause of predicted catastrophic scenarios that are predicted to affect the poor undeveloped nations the hardest...
Like a six fingered glove....
Betula
Yes. This is an integral part of the real picture and not in any way in dispute. Can you not just read the words and look at the simple visualisation tool and think before repeating a strawman argument? Please.
Finance the development of low carbon electricity generation. Not the entire national budget. Constant misrepresentation of your interlocutor etc.
Straw, as discussed. Try "keep the rate of increase as low as possible" instead. That's why there are different emissions scenarios (all rising, note).
We're all stuck under the same sky, Betula. If the future isn't more of a common human enterprise than the past, we are going to have a rough ride. Think of it as Spaceship Earth and all humanity as the crew with a single atmospheric commons and life support system. We are going to have to make allowances for each other or we will all suffer together. We are going to have to think.
Thanks for providing the lurkers with a text-book example of the combination of bad-faith, willful incomprehension, paranoia, political zealotry and just plain thick that characterises your entire tribe, Batty.
Hey Bill,
If there is something I stated that's not true, please feel free to add it to the discussion. Things you hear in your head don't count...
BBD - How about honesty?
If this is really all about reducing the CO2 emitted by rich nations so poor nations can emit more, than why aren't we hearing that from the talking heads? Why are we looking at pictures of cute polar bears to sway public opinion?
Let's be honest....we need to eradicate poverty and disease, we need justice through compensation, we need fairness and equality. It should be the moral and legal obligation of the rich nations to ensure we increase the global population and increase CO2 emissions...polar bears be damned.
Honesty BBD.
No, it's about global CO2 emissions by all humanity over the next century. Physics doesn't care who did it.
Spaceship Earth is as honest as it gets, Betula. Where 'honest' means 'accurate representation of the known facts'. We are all stuck under the same sky and we all have to bow to the laws of physics.
Consider upgrading to enlightened self-interest. You could view the technology aid to developing economies to limit their CO2 emissions as an investment in your nation's future.
BBD @74 - "Developed economies reduce their emissions to create development space for developing economies over the next several decades"
Me @87 - "If this is really all about reducing the CO2 emitted by rich nations so poor nations can emit more"
BBD - "No, it’s about global CO2 emissions by all humanity over the next century"
Which will increase with development paid for by the rich evil part of humanity as planned by James Hansen and friends...
We are all in this together. Invest in your nation's future wisely.
Invest in my nation that has plundered and looted and will cause predicted catastrophic harm to the poor undeveloped nations unless we help them to increase their CO2 emissions. Got it.
Oh, and now that this is all out in the open, does this mean the polar bears will be ok after all?
I'm pretty sure there was no "confirmation" from me.
But as we've seen that's typical with you...or maybe it's just as others suggest, that you are simply incapable of understanding what is being said. Speaking of which:
Nope, they really do not have to over time. If we choose to make them decrease over time, we can make that happen (although it will take some time to build out the necessary infrastructure).
Heck, the IPCC report strongly points out (yet again!) that if humanity is going to survive and thrive, we must make emissions decrease over time until we reach something close to a zero emissions society.
It's initially fascinating but rapidly tiresome (unless you are Dunning or Kruger) to watch someone asserting nonsense with great confidence...
Hey Loth - Let's review:
Me - "After all, let’s not forget that the rich developed nations have only become that way by plundering the resources of the poor undeveloped nations without just compensation"
BBD - "But it seems that he also denies that the developed economies have benefited from a predatory, exploitative relationship with developing economies. Or perhaps his attitude is simply ‘so what and fuck ‘em’."
You - "or more directly, “I got mine, fuck you”.
Meaning you agree with BBD that "the developed economies have benefited from a predatory, exploitative relationship with developing economies", and so they owe them, and should compensate them.... but apparently I deny it, even though it's what I said.
So you confirmed what I said and accused me of denying it in one incoherent response...
Me - "And I thank you both for the confirmation as well."
You - "I’m pretty sure there was no “confirmation” from me."
Understanding is difficult when your preconceived notions don't let you form a logical response because you can't see the words.
Loth quotes me - "But overall, the CO2 emissions will increase, they will have to, especially overtime"
And then states - "Nope, they really do not have to over time"
Meanwhile, here's the full quote - "But overall, the CO2 emissions will increase, they will have to, especially overtime. And population will increase, and life expectancy will increase and consumption will increase…"
"So what will be the affect on climate?"
BBD's response - "It will get warmer"
Me again - "Development on a global scale will still result in an increase in CO2 emissions"
BBD again - "Yes. This is an integral part of the real picture and not in any way in dispute"
BBD again - "The standard picture is that *whatever happens* there will be more CO2 and more warming this century. The idea is to keep global emissions as low as possible over the century (they *rise* in all the IPCC RCP scenarios"
So Loth, perhaps you should take this matter up with BBD and the IPCC, Apparently, it's "not in anyway in dispute"
Good luck.
Yes, indeed.
Nope. The "..." at the front of the comment you refer to (as well as the context) indicates it was a continuation of the previous comment I wrote, which was about libertarianism, not about agreeing or disagreeing with BBD.
Now you certainly could choose to read that as agreeing with BBD given that it came after BBD's comment. It's a legitimate reading if you don't have any more information. But if you do that and then I correct you and then you insist I meant what I say I did not, that just points out you're arguing in bad faith.
(As per usual.)
No need. You're conflating two different things (measured over different timescales - the large hint was in the bolded term over time) and pretending they are in disagreement. They are not.
When humanity finally gets around to deciding that we must reduce emissions - as humanity will be forced to if we aren't smart enough to do it earlier - we will reduce overall emissions and we already know how to do so. In the meantime, since we aren't that smart and because introducing those technologies at scale takes some time emissions will increase. The two preceding sentences are not contradicting each other in any way. (And even if we dropped emissions to zero tomorrow, it's not in dispute that we'll have more warming this century because we're not at equilibrium yet.)
Note how Betula quotes part of what I said and suggests I'm at odds with the IPCC but leaves out the bits where I explain that it's part of the standard picture as reported by the IPCC that total emissions must reduce to almost zero over time.
Lacking in comprehension, failing basic logic or mendacious?
Your call.
Here's where Betula is full of it:
"Now, since we have confirmed the need to develop the undeveloped nations, financed by the evil rich developed nations, many questions remain…"
Who said anything about financing? I was talking about allowing poor nations to control their own resources and use them for internal development - something the US has long opposed because it conflicts with the interests of US-based corporations. Read Kennan's quote again. Read quotes from the likes of Kissinger, Nitze, Brezinski, Meachling, and a long list of declassified US (and UK for that matter) planning documents. They spell it out clearly. Resources we need to maintain ecological deficits at home may lie under the land masses of other countries but our elites see them as the our property - by right. Its also tied up in intellectual property rights.
It seems, perhaps unsurprisingly, that my posts sail right over the top of Betula's head. He just can't get his right wing head around the fact that our wealth was and is largely obtained by plunder from LDC and by foisting political and economic rules on the south that maintain the massive disparity in wealth. Betula appears to think that our wealth is wholly generated internally. Externalities are not unimportant in his myopic little world. I've spelled it out many times with evidence and he just ignores it and goes off in some stupid direction. Its all about suppressing indigenous nationalism and of ensuring that capital flows remain largely unidirectional. The main reason that we do everything to maintain poverty in the south is because, if these people began to redirect the benefits of their own resources internally, it would conflict with our own interests. I've read quite a few planning documents which argue that we need to do everything to influence decision making processes in resource-rich but poverty riddled nations because any move towards internal development will conflict with the interests of our corporations, as well as impede the flow of capital that enables the US, for example to maintain a per capita ecological deficit of about 5 hectares (see papers by Rees and Wackernagel for further discussion). Since Betula doesn't know one ting about this, he is forever steering the discussion into his own knowledge-limited corner.
if this was a face-toface debate he couldn't get away with it. He gets away with his willful ignorance here because he doesn't have to address areas in which he knows absolutely nothing. He can try and steer the debate into his own little corner. He's not the smartest cookie in the pack, that is for sure.
Page 3 #7 On Botkin :
--However, he does acknowledge that climate change is happening. Taking sea level as an example, [Botkin] says: “the sea level has been rising since the end of the last Ice Age, starting about 14,000 years ago as the continental and mountain glaciers have melted and sea water has expanded with the overall warming. The average rate has been about a foot or two a century”.
This is just garbage and mischaracterisation. SL started rising 18-20k years back and eased off 8k years ago, in that time rising perhaps 120m. Botkin suggest it's risen an average of 1 to 2 feet/century since 14k ago, just wrong. It rose 100m between 14k and 8k- 100m in six thousand years [ or 4 to 5 feet per century in that interval], and since the Holocene Optimum has drifted down a metre or more according to many sites, to start its pronounced recent rise in the 1800s.
Not only are his times and heights wrong his rate is a misdirection...less than useless from Botkin. Why Stu2? Why? It's chump stuff.
Thanks Nick. I was pretty sure Botkin was misleading his audience about historical sea level rise timing/rates too, but didn't have time to verify it and then it slipped off my radar.
Well, Betty has exceeded even his own standards for wilful stupidity and incessant, selective misrepresentation of what is being said.
Trying to communicate with right wing cranks is very hard work indeed.
Still, one must keep trying. Who knows, one day the penny might drop.
Try to understand what everybody else in the room already knows. Developing countries WILL DEVELOP ANYWAY. This means an inevitable rise in global CO2 emissions as they industrialise. BUT developed nations can try to stave off something like RCP6 or RCP8.5 (use the data viewer) by helping developing nations build a low carbon infrastructure rather than predicating everything on burning coal.
Try to understand that because we are all trapped on the same planet together, globally high emissions will be disastrous for all humanity together.
AVOIDING the worst possible outcome is what the developed nations will be paying for and that is why it is an investment in *everybody's* future. Not an evil green-socialist plot to penalise developed economies for fostering inequality in the past.
Lionel
As faras I am aware, people in the Somerset Levels are far more riled against the governmental authorities who, advised by scientivists, stopped the proper drainage prgrammes that were already in place and had been for hundreds of years in order to protect Jeffie's closest friends and relatives - various lower-order creatures. That caused the floodin earlier this yearg Not global warming. and definitely not anthropogenic global warming. I am curious as to why you mention Basingstoke. The coucil says this, which is totally in line with my comments earlier (if a community feels worried, get someone like Fernando leanme to devise a plan and cost it out):
Lotharsson
you must be one ofJeffies's nstudents, if so then I am sorry for you. As to your question:
"r maybe just dig up all of Florida, move it to one side (surely the neighbouring states won’t mind if you stick it there while you work), lay down a waterproof base and surround the base with some lovely high sea walls and then put the dug-up Florida back down inside the new state-sized seaproof container?"
Maybe you have heard of geology? perhaps even you have heard of contour maps? This nis probably way too advanced for you. But you could charge a premium for folks who want to build on the coast or near sea-level. you could insist that they have foundations of a certain standard or that they leave the groundstorey vacant. You could make it cheaper to buy prperty on top of hills.
In other words, the real world, which you have not yet become a member of, has been solving these problems for millennia. If you were to educate yourself out of scientivism, you might recognise this. There are people who live on top of crumbling cliffs. People like you, Jefffie, BBD and Lionel would laugh at them because their risk is not from sea-level rise. You are all spociopaths.
BBD - "Not an evil green-socialist plot to penalise developed economies for fostering inequality in the past"
Of course not.
Saleemul Huq: IPCC - Lead author of the chapter on Adaptation and Sustainable Development in the third assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Lead Author of the chapter on Adaptation and Mitigation in the IPCC's fourth assessment report.
"Furthermore, it is also widely recognised that it is the rich countries of the world that are primarily responsible for the problem of global warming. And that puts a political slant on the allocation of responsibility both for extreme events themselves, and for efforts to mitigate their impact."
"In future, therefore, when affected countries demand assistance from the rich countries of the world in helping address climate-related disasters such as floods, it will not be for a request for charity but for compensation, appealing to their moral responsibility, if not their legal liability, to make good the damage and destruction for which their activities have, directly or indirectly, been partially responsible."
http://www.scidev.net/global/climate-change/editorials/bangladesh-flood…
Thanks for your help Saleemul.
Betty
Can't you understand that whatever rhetoric Mr Huq uses has no bearing WHATSOEVER on the matters of fact repeated for the nth time at #3?
Yes, it's *true* that the developed economies are primarily responsible for the bulk of GHG emissions to date. But as any "sceptic" will tell you, fractional attribution of individual weather events to AGW is currently not possible and may always be fraught with difficulty. So how to determine the percentage of aid and reconstruction to be paid by developed economies?
Much simpler to treat it as discussed at #3. Even the more intelligent right wingers can understand a policy of enlightened self interest. Unfortunately you are as thick as pigshit.
BBD - "So how to determine the percentage of aid and reconstruction to be paid by developed economies"
Oh, don't worry BBD, it's all in the works...as I'm sure you are aware from being so well read on the subject. Of course, The Millennium Development Goals are getting a name change soon to The Sustainable Development Goals...it has a much better appeal to it.
Here:
"The SDGs will have very significant resource implications across the developed and developing world. Estimates for total investment needs in developing countries alone range from $3.3 trillion to $4.5 trillion per year, for basic infrastructure (roads, rail and ports; power stations; water and
sanitation), food security (agriculture and rural development), climate change mitigation and adaptation, health and education"
"At today’s level of investment – public and private – in SDG-related sectors in developing countries, an annual funding shortfall of some $2.5 trillion remains (figure 8). Bridging such a gap is a daunting task, but it is achievable"
"A range of policy options is available to respond to
challenges and constraints in mobilizing funds"
"Innovative financial instruments and funding mechanisms to raise resources for investment in SDGs deserve support to achieve scale. Promising initiatives include SDG-dedicated financial instruments and Impact Investment"
"Building or improving pricing mechanisms for externalities. Effective pricing mechanisms for social and environmental externalities – either by attaching a cost to such externalities (e.g. through carbon taxes) or through market based
schemes"
"Jeffrey Sachs acted as the lead adviser"
For the record, Sachs is James Hansen's boss. Sachs himself getting some advice from George Soros (on the External Board of Advisors for The Earth Institute with Rajendra Pachauri)....one big happy family.
http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/wir2014_overview_en.pdf
So don't worry BBD, where there is a will for more development, there is a way...... along with more CO2 emissions of course, in spite of the name change.
So not just a random troll but a Jeff Harvey stalker? And one with conspicuously poor spelling, a massively overinflated sense of their own intellectual prowess and a fine line in poor logic?
You could, but that has fuck all to do with dealing with most of the problems caused by sea level rise, let alone the problems impacting people living in places that are already built. You don't sound like you read the article, which is not surprising. Your fantastical flights of fancy are rather interesting, but only because they barely scratch the surface of the problems that have been outlined. You know, the complete set of issues in the real world that you say I don't inhabit, but that you conspicuously ignore.
Once more with feeling, Deltoids: it's always projection.
Elmer Fludd
All together now:
..................................................................!
Nobody is laughing you clot!
Whatever. Somerset levels is an interesting case and where drainage channels cannot help when the external water level is as high or higher than the flooded area.
As sea levels rise the occasions when rivers and other watercourses are as high as the area to which any flow goes will increase.
I have lived and worked in that area [1] and seen roads turned into rivers overnight, particularly when the fields, higher than the roads, cannot absorb any more water after long periods of heavy rain.
And that, is the big problem, an energised hydrological system and climate change has altered patterns of rainfall.
And this is the problem in Basingstoke, and other places where groundwater rises above ground by which time aquifers have joined sewers.
Why is it so difficult for you to see the problem. Strewth! What a jerk!
[1] On a well know air station. I turned out of bed one morning to put my feet straight into about 8 inches of water with by boots (yes boots) and shoes floating near the door of my cabin along with all the parquet floor tiles that were not held down by furniture.
Betty
Let's try again.
You. Have. No. Choice.
Either the developed economies assist developing economies with creating a low carbon infrastructure or it's RCP8.5 and goodbye everything.
I think you are back to denying the basic physics again.
Because if you *accept* the basic physics, then the only logical, self-interested policy that developed economies can pursue is to assist developing economies with creating a low carbon infrastructure.
Smart people, some of whom you list above, can see this. Others are too stupid and/or lost in right wing paranoid fantasies to engage with the work that needs to be done.
Fortunately they are a remnant part of the past, not the future.
As for your evident loathing of the MDGs / SDGs, you have previously made it very plain in comments here that you don't want any money spent on global development. This is so unspeakably contemptible it's quite hard to respond to.
Let us remind ourselves what this indescribably loathsome bastard doesn't want other people to have a sniff of:
- basic infrastructure (roads, rail and ports; power stations; water and sanitation)
- food security (agriculture and rural development)
- climate change mitigation and adaptation
- health and education
For the record, it was Sachs who foisted Milton Friedman style 'lite' shock therapy on former Soviet block countries like Poland and Russia, as well as on Bolivia and elsewhere. This entailed the IMF (meaning the US treasury) coughing up multi-billion dollar loans that had structural adjustment written all over them. Sachs is certainly no left winger.
But what I find most comical about Betula's musings is his stubborn belief that we in the MDC are rich on the basis of merit and hard work. The idea that the much of the wealth originated - and still does - from LDC can't seem to penetrate the birch bark on his head. Looting, plunder, and political economic and military mechanisms that have long aimed to maintain the status quo don't register with him. I am sure he loves Mitt Romney, Rick Perry and other idiots on the far right who bleat on about America's greatness as if externalities had nothing to do with it. The US 3-pronged strategy has always been: (1) subjugation of other countries assets; (2) outright expansionism; and, importantly, (3) nullification of other political and social systems that offer a real alternative to the ' Washington Consensus'.
So of course its only logical that the biggest polluters and plunderers should pay their share of the bill with respect to environmental damage and AGW. But whats ironic is that I don't see Betual bleating on about the way in wich successive US administrations have balied out the corporations (e.g. the banks) on public money or how the US taxpayer benefits from a trillion dollar plus military budget. He's silent on these issues. but feels a real threat from his inverted totalitarian state (kudos to Sheldon Wolin) being forced to pay up for the environmental costs of its global economic activities. I said it before. He's a joke.
As for Elmer, I ignore him. He takes ignorance to an entirely new level. Its symbolic that virtually all AGW deniers who have ever written into Deltoid share many of the idiotic traits of Elmer. What a sad lot.
BBD - "you have previously made it very plain in comments here that you don’t want any money spent on global development. This is so unspeakably contemptible it’s quite hard to respond to"
Classic move! Can't attack the message, so you make up a new message, assign it to the person whose message you can't attack (in fact you confirmed it) and then attack them as if they made it!
This is a new one, but I give you credit for ingenuity.
Hardley @13...
"Looting, plunder, and political economic and military mechanisms that have long aimed to maintain the status quo don’t register with him"
Me @19 and @ 67:
“After all, let’s not forget that the rich developed nations have only become that way by plundering the resources of the poor undeveloped nations without just compensation. It is their moral and legal obligation to make right the wrongs they have committed with their greed and over consumption…”
When it comes to the nutty Prof. Hardley, apparently words "don’t register with him"
You are a lying sack of shit, Betty.
You have been unable to respond directly to a single point I have made here. Your "responses" have been word salads and nonsense designed to conceal the complete lack of engagement with the facts presented eg. #3 #7 #11 #12.
You are a an ignorant, dishonest, science-denying conspiracy theorist and you hate the very idea of humanitarian efforts directed at improving the lot of the world's poorest.
Thanks lottie
a fascinating example of the ad hom fallacy...maybe you have a bigger plastic trumpet than BBD.
So you admit you have no idea of geology and contours. A real Jeffie student.
Building codes. BIG CLUE. Even Stalin used BUILDING CODES. Even MAO. Do you get it now, pinhead?
not entirely surprised that Jeffie and his bum chum BBD espouse development spending....maybe they got in with Mobutu and are living in luxury money-laundered state aid. It would fit with their understanding of the world.
"You are a an ignorant, dishonest, science-denying conspiracy theorist and you hate the very idea of humanitarian efforts directed at improving the lot of the world’s poorest"
You were sounding so believable, and then you went and ruined it by confirming the theory with your accusation that I hate it.
Come on Betty. You claim that the IPCC is a fraud set up to con us into world socialism. You think the MDGs are part of the process. You have written this down and I have just linked to the thread where you did so.
You hate all this. You believe that these thieving foreigners are going to steal all your hard-earned dollars. It's so fucking obvious.
But you know what you really think is foul and mad and seething with crank paranoia, which is why you keep on and on and on denying it. But you've been careless and said far too much and you are nailed, Betty.
One last thing. Observers of this unpleasantness will have noticed that at no point did you ever directly address my key comments. Your discourse has been a blather of evasions from start to finish.
But you cannot get away from the brutal truth:
You. Have. No. Choice.
Either the developed economies assist developing economies with creating a low carbon infrastructure or it’s RCP8.5 and goodbye everything.
The only logical, self-interested foreign policy that developed economies can pursue is to assist developing economies with creating a low carbon infrastructure.
Deal with this.
BBD - "Either the developed economies assist developing economies with creating a low carbon infrastructure or it’s RCP8.5 and goodbye everything"
If you say so...
"In the IPCC’s business-as-usual scenario, Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5, coal accounts for half of future carbon-dioxide emissions through 2100, and two-thirds of the emissions through 2500. The IPCC’s coal burn is enormous, twice the world reserves by 2100, and seven times reserves by 2500. Coal so dominates that it is not an exaggeration to say that the IPCC and climate-change research programs depend on this massive coal burn for their existence. Without the threat of coal, the IPCC could close up shop and the research program funding would drop to a small fraction of what is spent on research in weather forecasting."
"It is true that the R/P (reserves to production) ratio is 109 years. However, the R/P ratio has been dropping rapidly. Ten years ago it was 204 years. It is also true that conversion of resources to reserves is expected to be limited, but for a different reason. Countries end up producing less than their reserves. Most importantly, the statement does not address the problem, which is the large multiple of the coal reserves that is assumed to be produced in the business-as-usual scenario, RCP8.5. There is no precedent for this, and RCP8.5 should not be used for any purpose whatsoever"
http://judithcurry.com/2014/04/22/coal-and-the-ipcc/
Simultaneously new and classic. Not much of a thinker, is Betula, and apparently entirely unaware of the long and rich history of the strawman.
And speaking of attacking strawmen, sigh: it's always projection
Ah, so that's another thing you pretend to understand, but do not. You're racking up an impressive record of fail!
Nope. More fail from you. (Betula, look, another classic example of making up a position, assigning it to the other person and using it to attack!)
And it's a double fail when you apparently have no understanding of the specific geology of Miami that makes defending it and its infrastructure against seawater incursion so difficult, despite being pointed to an article that gives some inkling of it.
More fail.
Building codes won't solve the problems coming down the pipeline, because (a) many of them aren't problems with buildings and (b) many of them will severely impact buildings that already exist, which is why I joked we should take it all away, fix the underlying problem and put them back. (And my secondary point was the cost of dealing with all the existing buildings and infrastructure...)
Please, please, tell us this is not the best your intellect can produce and you're deliberately spouting Teh Epic Fail.
Elmer, you clot, Mbutu was a US 'client'. Its strange how you throw him into the mix. As for the rest of your bilge, I won't waste my breath. You are profoundly stupid.
Yes BBD, Betula cannot counter the message so he attacks the messenger. He's good at words but stinks when it comes to actual knowledge. He gets so wound up about the MDC paying their dues after decades of plunder, but remains mute on the subject of corporate bailouts and hyper-bloated military budgets. Mentions Sachs as Hansen's boss (nonsense) but fails to credit Sachs for forcing shock therapy onto poorer nations during periods of transition, and the damage this caused them (e.g. imposition of structural adjustment policies).
But at least he's a step up from elmer, who sucks at both knowledge and words. Old elmer ranks in the upper echelon of dopes to enter Deltoid in the past 10 years. He knows zippo.
Betty
As usual, Curry delivers a mix of wrong and misleading.
First, the straw. Forget about the year 2500. Use the data viewer I linked for you three times above and look at the year 2100. That's the focus of this conversation. That's game over for the planetary ecosystem in anything much resembling its present form.
Second, and I suspect deliberately, JC fixates on known conventional reserves of coal and coal alone. You might dimly be aware of unconventional reserves of things like tar sands, of fracking for oil and natural gas, of plans to extract seafloor methane hydrates... But that's 2500's problem. BAU will easily get us somewhere in the region of +3C by the end of this century and that on known coal reserves.
You need to be careful with JC. And if I were you, I would never quote her as a source in conversation with me again.
BBD - The article was by Dave Rutledge - you're slipping. Does this mean I'm allowed to use Curry as a source in the future or is my free speech still at risk?
As far as the data viewer, I forget which one I'm supposed to deny - the AR4 or the AR5?
Hardley - "Mentions Sachs as Hansen’s boss (nonsense)
So Jeffrey Sachs isn't the director of The Earth Institute?
Ok, explain.
Betty
Yes, sorry about the misattribution to JC of the Rutledge thing. However, *anything* she gets hold of will be crap. And I have no confidence in Rutledge at all.
That said, RCP8.5 is an extreme scenario. I would be happy to accept, for the sake of this discussion, that we use RCP6.0 instead. It makes absolutely no difference to my point and the Rutledge argument becomes irrelevant.
* * *
Denying AR4 is very last year, so let's do AR5 (which I think is set by default).
Use RCP6.0 as discussed, and consider what I have tried very hard to spell out above:
We. Have. No. Choice.
Or if you prefer: TINA.
BBD - "Denying AR4 is very last year"
Yes it is, and if things keep going the denier way, denying AR5 will be very last year as well...
"I would be happy to accept, for the sake of this discussion, that we use RCP6.0 instead."
Why not just cut RCP4.5 and RCP6 down the middle and we agree to call it a prediction?
Things aren't going the denier way, at least not as far as physical climatology is concerned. The appalling damage done at a global level by denialism amongst US Republicans is another matter. It won't ever be forgotten, as I believe I may have mentioned to you before.
1/ Scenarios are not predictions.
2/ I'm not buying a low emissions scenario like RCP4.5 as a realistic C21st outcome.
3/ A more plausible intermediate scenario closer to RCP6.0 would result in something like 3C increase over present values by 2100. Very, very bad news.
Regarding technology transfers to developing economies to minimise their emissions growth over this century,
We still have no choice.
You *still* aren't responsive to this point. You just blank it, every time.
You will have to deal with this reality or retreat into physics denial (aka lukewarmerism) and be mocked for it.
This is incomplete - addition in italics:
2/ I’m not buying a low emissions scenario like RCP4.5 as a realistic C21st outcome without aggressive global policy intervention of the kind discussed previously. And even then, I believe we will struggle.
"The appalling damage done at a global level by denialism amongst US Republicans is another matter. It won’t ever be forgotten, as I believe I may have mentioned to you before"
I don't recall, tell me again.
That's not even funny, Betty.
Batty, Hansen is more-or-less retired. He does his Earth Institute stuff on the side. Just because you don't appear to like him doesn't mean he's not one if the most respected climate scientists in the world.
As for Sachs, you can have him. He's a strange guy. When he foisted his shock therapy programs on several countries, he claims that he thought the IMF would bolster it with aid packages to soften the impact. Given the IMFs record in tearing economies apart, concentrating wealth and of course, structural adjustment, Sachs was either naive or stupid to believe that they were interested in helping these countries achieve prosperity, any more than the Chicago boys whose initial shock therapy programs ripped apart Chile and other countries.
http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Sachs.html
Sachs reminds me of Leslie Dach. He is (or was) one of the directors (or was on the board) of the Audubon Society, while at the same time working for Edelman PR, which like other PR firms has amongst its clients a number of polluting industries. I think that Sachs has better intentions these days, but after his fiascos with shock therapy, I wouldn't trust the guy with a barge pole. And in the accompanying article he's all lovey-dovey with Bono, a man who takes naivete to the extreme. Heck, Bono finds nothing wrong hanging out with criminals like Bush, Wolfowitz and other neocons. These guys do keep strange company. I saw Lomborg sharing a platform at the UN with right wing-nut John Bolton as well, which also takes absurd comedy to the extreme.
But then again, Batty, you are one strange dude. Given your musings on here, its hard to know exactly what on Earth you do believe policy wise. You clearly have zippo scientific expertise but that doesn't stop you making outrageous statements. I recall your estimation of the health and vitality of US ecosystems because white tailed deer populations were booming and wild turkeys had been restocked over much of their former range. Whoppee doo. The vast majority of breeding passerines in the US show declines ranging from moderate to dramatic over the past 30 years. Cerulean warblers have declined at 3-4% per year since the late 1970s, and many other species that were once common are now uncommon to rare (e.g. Rufous-Sided Towhees, Brewer's Blackbirds, Red-Heqaded Woodpeckers, and several other warbler, vireo and sparrow species). Loggerhead shrikes are heading for extinction east of the Mississippi River. A few species are doing well, most notably the open habitat loving brood parasite the brown headed cowbird. But this is a strange case to highlight as a 'success'. There are many reasons, of which habitat loss and climate change are clearly important. These have all kinds of effects on trophic interactions and thus impact food webs and communities.
Hardley - You say Sachs keeps strange company.
Sachs is the director of The Earth Institute..... Rajendra Pachauri, George Soros and Bono (along with many far left leaning economists)are all on the External Board of Advisors. Sachs himself is an advisor to the U.N Secretary General regarding the MDG's and he runs the Millennium Village Project. In fact, the mission statement of The E.I. includes advising on issues regarding the MDG's...
Hansen is an adjunct professor at the Earth Institute and Gavin Schmidt is a former adjunct professor there. NASA GISS is located next door... the same Columbia campus. Some sites actually refer to NASA GISS as a unit of The Earth Institute...
Schmidt wrote a book about climate change with a forward by Sachs. Sachs wrote a book about the end of poverty. It's all one big happy family with a single goal of developing the undeveloped nations financed by the developed nations....all very noble, but how? And how much will development on a global scale reduce overall CO2 emissions....give me a number.
As far as this statement - "I recall your estimation of the health and vitality of US ecosystems because white tailed deer populations were booming and wild turkeys had been restocked over much of their former range".......your recollection is wrong. I wasn't referring to U.S. ecosystems, I was referring to the area where I live.
Now, if you really want to compare that to the claim you made about witnessing climate change first hand because you saw a spider while your friend was getting frostbite, bring it on...
Betula,
The area where you live is part of a larger area of the eastern US where the pandemic declines of passerines have been reported. Your examples stink for several reasons. First, the two most important natural enemies of white tailed deer have been largely extirpated over most of the white-tailed deer's range. By these I mean the Mountain Lion and Gray Wolf. The abundance of deer is not indicative a healthy environment but at the loss of a trophic cascade. Wild turkeys were restocked largely at the behest of the hunting lobby. They are a slightly better example than your deer one, but still their recovery tells us little about the health and vitality of ecosystems in the eastern United States. bring these up in a debate with me and I will demolish yo. You can't stand in the same room with me when it comes to ecology. Don't even try.
As for Sachs, he's hardly left leaning. Hansen is a Republican. Bono is an idiot who hangs out with anybody who will give him publicity. Sachs can write all he wants about ending poverty. His role as a shock doctor 20 years ago was right out of the World Bank-IMF-US Treasury handbook. And he still tries to argue that the creation of mass poverty as a result of his advocating these policies was not his fault.
As far as politics goes, I have no clue where you are coming from. You are a chimera with no solutions. The US fosters a massive ecological deficit and both maintains and benefits from a global economic system that is tantamount to looting.
Betty
And off you go again. It's intellectual dishonesty, pure and simple.
Developing economies WILL DEVELOP. CO2 emissions WILL INCREASE. The policy of enlightened self-interest dictates that developed economies assist developing ones to ensure that they grow a low carbon infrastructure.
Why can't you understand this? It is stunningly obvious.
As ever, I am left convinced that you are so warped by the politics of the right that you cannot countenance any such international development aid. You hate the very idea of it. So like a fringe of other extremists, you've subscribed to a crank conspiracy theory that AGW is being exaggerated to usher in world socialism.
Science just doesn't work that way and no such conspiracy could possibly exist. Believing in things that cannot possibly exist is a clear mark of insanity. This is how the rest of us see the extreme right - as crazy, marginalised, dangerous lunatics.
"Science just doesn’t work that way and no such conspiracy could possibly exist."
The science is used to make predictions. The predictions are based on averaging climate sensitivity derived from computer models with incomplete information. The predictions are used to create policies, predicted to fix the predictions...
The predictions come from the IPCC, founded by 2 U.N. organizations. The same U.N. pushing for development...
As Rohm Emanuel said - "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”
Hey, even better if you can create worst case predictions and make a serious crisis out of them...
The "solution" to the increased CO2 problem in this case is to decrease the developed nations CO2 emissions and increase the undeveloped nations CO2 emissions...increasing overall CO2 emissions with increased transportation of people, materials and goods, manufacturing, construction, infrastructure, population, consumption and demand on resources, thus "solving" the issues of fairness, equality and justice...not that there is anything wrong with that.
Meanwhile, spiders are thriving in Algonquin, with just a few minor cases of frostbite being reported...
"Science just doesn’t work that way and no such conspiracy could possibly exist.”
The science is used to make predictions. The predictions are based on averaging climate sensitivity derived from computer models with incomplete information. The predictions are used to create policies, predicted to fix the predictions…
The predictions come from the IPCC, founded by 2 U.N. organizations. The same U.N. pushing for development…
As Rohm Emanuel said – “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”
Hey, even better if you can create worst case predictions and make a serious crisis out of them…
The “solution” to the increased CO2 problem in this case is to decrease the developed nations CO2 emissions and increase the undeveloped nations CO2 emissions…increasing overall CO2 emissions with increased transportation of people, materials and goods, manufacturing, construction, infrastructure, population, consumption and demand on resources, thus “solving” the issues of fairness, equality and justice…not that there is anything wrong with that.
Meanwhile, spiders are thriving in Algonquin, with just a few minor cases of frostbite being reported…
No! No! No Birch Bark! Not predictions but projections (such as with Hansen 1988).This another concept like 'consensus' that you fail to grasp. Probably because you get your information from the obfuscaters who like to confuse the unwary or challenged.
Now do invest in a good dictionary. I suggest the 'Oxford English Dictionary' (many volumes) or one of its smaller cheaper siblings like the 'Shorter Oxford English Dictionary' (two hefty volumes) or the 'Concise Oxford English Dictionary' (one handy sized volume).
Careful with that. Read Lionel's response below.
That's completely wrong on several levels. The ~3C best estimate for ECS comes from a combination of paleoclimate behaviour and modelling. Nor is it derived by 'averaging' model results. PDFs are a hell of a lot more complex than that. Don't go and exhume Manabe and Hansen and the Charney report either. That was over thirty years ago.
NOT by scientists. Scientists do science. Politicians make use of the information to formulate policy.
Utter fucking bilge. The science pre-dates the formation of the IPCC. Nor do estimates of S all come from the IPCC which does not conduct original research. This is key. The IPCC only summarises existing science and that science is independent of the IPCC.
I repeat: there is no conspiracy. Science just doesn’t work that way and no such conspiracy could possibly exist. Believing in things that cannot possibly exist is a clear mark of insanity.
And we come back to your massive, permanent blind spot. So I'm going to repeat the facts on that as well until they sink in.
Developing economies WILL DEVELOP and their CO2 emissions WILL INCREASE. The policy of enlightened self-interest dictates that developed economies assist developing ones to ensure that they grow a low carbon infrastructure. Not whatever cheap, coal-fired bodge they can manage on their own.
It's all about trying to ensure the LEAST BAD OUTCOME.
You actually think that the developing economies will just do nothing for the rest of the century. You think that development will only occur if stimulated in some way by the UN. That's frighteningly wrong. But it allows you to argue that the poor should be left dying in the dark, doesn't it? And that fits with your hatred of economic aid as a policy doesn't it?
Doesn't it?
"You actually think that the developing economies will just do nothing for the rest of the century. You think that development will only occur if stimulated in some way by the UN. That’s frighteningly wrong. But it allows you to argue that the poor should be left dying in the dark, doesn’t it? And that fits with your hatred of economic aid as a policy doesn’t it?"
I'm asking for honesty - instead of pictures of polar bears, just say it's about developing the undeveloped nations financed by the developed nations, and CO2 will increase. Tell the people - We need to increase CO2 to decrease CO2...
The problem is, being honest won't get the job done....there needs to be continuous financing and it needs to be justified in a legal sense, not just a moral sense. Fear, guilt, labels, a hurry up attitude and sentences like this....."But it allows you to argue that the poor should be left dying in the dark, doesn’t it?" all come into play to sway opinion and societal change.
Those who "deny" the fear set forth need to be chastised and blamed for not going along with the "hurry up before it's to late" mantra....they are the cause and should be spat upon, pissed upon and as James Hansen said - brought up on charges for "crimes against humanity". Because thought is really the driver of climate change, not CO2. Right?
Excuse me for butting in here BBD but, now Birch Bark in this note just one phrase I have highlighted:
I will add that this is whilst developed economies (if that isn't something of an oxymoron) doing everything they possible can, not just what is politically acceptable, to ensure that they themselves follow a low carbon path in order to give people living without basic essentials like clean water, fresh air and adequate nourishment.
This is not to wreck the lives of people in the developed world, although Cameron and Co. are doing their best to do that anyway by, amongst other things, forcing fracking on an unwilling population, but to allow equitable development without racking up GHG emissions further.
This is the antithesis of the kinda rubbish ideologues promote in the WSJ, Daily Fail, Telegraph, Times, Forbes, American Thinker etc. of which the latest at Ridley's blog is a prime example. (H/T ATTP who wrote a rebuttal akin to HTP. Ridley plays the poor developing world card whilst invoking David Rutledge.
As for Golden rice, would it not be better to provide for a varied diet where vitamin A is taken up in other ways, then the other benefits of the foods that contain this will become available? Besides anything else, rice can have a cumulative arsenic burden and Vitamin A excess carries its own hazards to health and well being.
I've explained this to you enough times now. You are just being an arsehole.
More arsehole.
You really are deranged, Betty. I just give up. Talking to right wing nutters is a waste of fucking time.
I should know better.
Lionel
But in all you like. Take the fucking helm. I am sick to death of Betty. Really, really fed up.
Notice how Betty still hasn't engaged substantively with a single point I have raised? Not one.
Developing economies WILL DEVELOP and their CO2 emissions WILL INCREASE. The policy of enlightened self-interest dictates that developed economies assist developing ones to ensure that they grow a low carbon infrastructure. Not whatever cheap, coal-fired bodge they can manage on their own.
It’s all about trying to ensure the LEAST BAD OUTCOME.
You actually think that the developing economies will just do nothing for the rest of the century. You think that development will only occur if stimulated in some way by the UN. That’s frighteningly wrong. But it allows you to argue that the poor should be left dying in the dark, doesn’t it? And that fits with your hatred of economic aid as a policy doesn’t it?
Doesn’t it?
I'm going to keep repeating this until Betty deals with it. Conspiracy theories, childish misrepresentation and evasions won't do.
bill put it better than I can on the previous page:
It all seems to be one way traffic at the moment; first, carbon tax goes tits-up, then in the US mid term elections,
"Climate change supporters suffer losses"
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/223028-did-climate-change-…
GWPF has a round up of reactions here,
"Powerful Green Lobby Defeated In US Midterm Elections"
http://us4.campaign-archive1.com/?u=c920274f2a364603849bbb505&id=1d4ca4…
" The billionaire’s super PAC and other green groups saw the vast majority of their favored candidates in the battleground states go down to defeat, despite spending an unprecedented amount of money [$85 million] to help climate-friendly Democrats in the midterm elections."
"The $12 million that the United States Senate has allocated to UN climate agencies is expected to be among the first casualties [after] Republican take control of the chamber following Tuesday’s midterm elections."
"This Election's Top Donor Is an Environmentalist. So Where Are the Results?"
Indeed, gone the same way as the climate change "projections" I'd imagine.
;)
"GWPF has a round up of reactions here"
Good grief, GSW appears to think that most of us here are interested in what an anti-science, anti-environmental deregulatory-agenda based front group, the GWPF, has to say.
News for you gormless: we aren't. You dig?
@GSW - Hardley tells us James Hansen is a Republican.... I imagine he must be ecstatic with the election results.
Yeah, yeah, gloat gloat. The absurd deficiencies of the US electoral system never cease to amaze. Now all the newly-elected magical-thinkers need to do is vote in new laws of physics...
Note that GSW fails to point out how much was spent opposing climate policies and candidates that take the climate seriously. (There's a good reason - or two - for that. Good luck finding out how much many of the donors on that side of things spent...)
Meanwhile riffing off what bill said, I recall seeing it reported that a number of successful GOP candidates wish to legislate to prevent the Pentagon considering the national security implications - which it has been doing, and quite loudly lately - of climate change. This is analogous to when North Carolina (IIRC) legislated to prevent municipal planners (or some such) from factoring projected climate-change driven sea level rises into their deliberations.
Fortunately, the average Tea Party devotee isn't bothered by concepts such as "deliberately undermining national security by telling the Pentagon to ignore things they reckon are threats is really kinda treasonous", because "their side" would never do such a thing. They tend to manage this cognitive trick by associating unpatriotism and treason purely with people who don't share their political stance, often aided and abetted by asserting "anthropogenic climate change is a hoax cooked up by unpatriotic socialists who want to undermine our precious bodily flui...er, our national sovereignty in cahoots with enormous free-market capitalist businesses and the UN".
Batty, You actually think that you live in a healthy, functioning democracy and that the two party system works. I think BBD describes you well in recent posts. It doesn't matter which party is in power over there - both are beholden to big business and the bankers. Your 'democracy' is a farce, a sham, a joke. Plutocracy, inverted totalitarianism, call it what you like.
And you think Hansen, Bono, Sachs et al are 'left leaning'. That one had me in stitches. You really do need a shrink. Liberalism is dead in America.
And by the way, Hansen has made no secret that he has been a lifelong Republican (as if that means anything over there). There are actually a few Republicans who do take climate change seriously. But it doesn't matter much in your wretched political system who is in power.
From this - "Hardley tells us James Hansen is a Republican…. I imagine he must be ecstatic with the election results."
Hardley gets this - "You actually think that you live in a healthy, functioning democracy and that the two party system works.
After attempting to inject his scrambled egg into a rational thought, it has become evident that Hardley is slowly adapting to the parasitoid environment that he studies...
Betty
No sane, functional democracy ends up with Jim Inhofe about to become chair of the Senate environment and public works committee. It is, as they say, a travesty.
The irony of asserting that Hansen must be ecstatic about the election results merely because he's a Republican - and then turning around with the chutzpah to accuse someone else of not being rational...
...need another irony meter.
Hey Loth - Of course, Hansen is a registered Independent, which calls for putting away the irony meter and bringing out the sarcasm stimulator...
In Mark Bowen's book Censoring Science, Hansen says (p174):
BBD - Thanks for the confirmation, I'm sure you will be hearing from Hardley shortly...
I think the words "I can be accurately described as moderately conservative" merit more attention here, Betty.
Betula you are as daft as a brush. But your obsession with my scientific career is indeed worrying. What do you do - sit in the dark on your computer at night and surf for anything and everything about me? Sheesh, you are one sad dude.
Even if you blew your cover, I think I could find a million more things to do than to check up on your brilliant academic career - oops, sorry folks. I forgot. Betty doesn't have one. He sheers trees.
With respect to politics in the USA, well, savor your one party system - the Property Party with two right wings. You had me on the floor with your 'left-leaning' comment the other day. You appear to think that the Democrats are are 'left-leaning party', which is a joke all on its own. Corporations there have long since co-opted democracy. I know you've never read much about your political system, aside from the exceptionalist bull**** they taught you at school and the bilge that comes from your 'free press' (er, corporate media). That's pretty sad.
The other thing that is strange is why you write in here. Most of us on Deltoid except for the usual suspects think you're a dope. The person most impressed with your musings is yourself. Do you think you've changed any minds here with your arguments? Or impressed anyone aside from said persons? Given the state of their scientific acumen, that's not a whole lot to be proud of.
One last point: Betty actually thinks that the Republican win in the US mid-term 'elections' the other day (occurring while the rest of us in the world collectively yawned) is a big vote against actions to deal with climate change. What a hoot. Obama's done nothing either. It doesn't matter in the choice over there between tweedle dee and tweedle dum. Not one iota. Not so long as big money runs government. US 'democracy' has long been seen as a joke in most other parts of the world.
"But your obsession with my scientific career is indeed worrying"
Don't be jealous Hardley, I promise nobody is more obsessed with you than you...
"I think I could find a million more things to do than to check up on your brilliant academic career – oops, sorry folks. I forgot. Betty doesn’t have one. He sheers trees."
I can tell you this, at the age of 34, which is when you got your B.S. degree, I had my degree 11 years earlier, served as an officer in the Marines, started a business and had purchased my second home. Am I wrong to assume your mother was still making your bed?
No, dear. If you don't understand why, ask your average high school student why it still applies.
So ignoring the obvious red herring, that's a resounding "NO" to "do you have any professional science experience" then?
"I can tell you this, at the age of 34, which is when you got your B.S. degree, I had my degree 11 years earlier, served as an officer in the Marines, started a business and had purchased my second home. Am I wrong to assume your mother was still making your bed?"
Oh my dear, Betty's playing the alpha male; the silverback. As if this information justifies the right wing crap he writes in here. All your posts reveal, Betula, is that you are an intelligent guy whois profoundly ignorant. If you want to 'bring it on' as you say, then respond to the many points I, BBD , Lotharsson and others raise here. Like other AGW deniers, you continually evade the arguments presented here. In a face-to-face debate you'd be skewered. You have made points about C02 fertilization, the alleged warming hiatus, and the state of biodiversity in the past which are plainly wrong. Each time your points are trashed, you go on to something else.
In terms of knowledge about environmental science, I don't care if I got my BS when I was 33 (not 34) and my PhD when I was 37. I've certainly made up for lost time in the following years. I'd debate you about the state of the environment anywhere, any place any time. I've faced off against people who put your puny knowledge to shame - people with qualifications that are way over yours. What does being a former marine have to do with scientific acumen? Its nothing more than a chest-pounding exercise.
Shorter Betty.
:-)
It's starting to get entertaining again. Chris Horner tweets,
"@tan123 @BarryJWoods Explaining to environmentalists, or my dog, that something improves poor peoples' lives tends to produce the same look"
https://twitter.com/Chris_C_Horner/status/530344290753724416
;)
That would be the Chris Horner who shills for ExxonMobil, I assume, GSW?
The Chris Horner who is a lawyer, not an environmentalist, climate scientist or expert on economic development?
That Chris Horner?
Can't you find *anyone* who isn't both clueless and blatantly shilling for vested interest to wave at us?
Anyone at all?
And you may wonder why US Marines are known as jar head, tendency to think in a bubble perhaps.
So its a good thing to have two homes is it?
Some green credentials there I am sure.
Most of what you need to know about Chris Horner here, always worth a look at DeSmogBlog's 'Research Database'.
Look through that list GSW.
"So its a good thing to have two homes is it? Some green credentials there I am sure."
The home was already there, it would still be there whether I bought it or not. And if it's rented, then there is no need to build another place to house the people that need a place to live...
You may be bright, but it's obvious you're not the most efficient bulb in the pack...
So #74 it isn't a second home as in for you is it. On this side of the pond a second home is just that a ready to use at any time second home, maybe in a rural setting for city folks to stay in a few weeks of the year.
Actually it was a multi-family home that I had for years and sold. I still have a quarter share of a condo at the base of Mt. Snow in Vermont, but since there won't be any snow in the near future I'm thinking of selling it while I can....
Precipitation will increase in general as the troposphere warms and the hydrological cycle accelerates, Betty. Whether it falls on Mt Snow depends on all sorts of regional factors. It might even get snowier for a couple of decades.
"Whether it falls on Mt Snow depends on all sorts of regional factors. It might even get snowier for a couple of decades"
It "might", which would apply to just about any region in the world....yet, we know that no matter what happens, it can only be negative and catastrophic.
The time to redistribute emitted CO2 is now...
There's a serious point struggling to get through here. Of course there will be regional variations in the effects. Some regions will benefit. The serious point is that net impacts globally turn negative over time as warming increases. So by the end of the century, the net global impact (ag. , ecology) will be negative and it is *that* which is the problem.
I'm very tired of your intellectual dishonesty over this matter, Betty. Let's get this sorted out now:
1/ Do you think the developing economies of the world will continue to develop (Y/N)?
2/ Do you think they will emit more CO2 in the process of industrialisation (Y/N)?
3/ Will technology aid that helps developing economies to build a low carbon infrastructure reduce the amount of CO2 emitted during and beyond industrialisation (Y/N)?
4/ Is the overall goal of climate policy to reduce the rate of increase in CO2 emissions over the next few decades (Y/N)?
BBD - Fair questions, but as you know, involves more than just a yes or no. A lot of unknowns. Will respond later..... heading to UCONN vs. Temple soccer game. Conference semi - final.
Already the wriggling begins.
For this phase of the discussion, we need to establish some ground truths. The questions are carefully considered and may be answered without undue compromise in this binary fashion. There is no valid reason to demur.
* * *
Enjoy the game.
BBD -
1/ Do you think the developing economies of the world will continue to develop (Y/N)?
As a general answer yes, but obviously not equally, so how much and over what period of time?
2/ Do you think they will emit more CO2 in the process of industrialisation (Y/N)?
As a general answer yes, but obviously not equally, so at what rate and over what period of time?
3/ Will technology aid that helps developing economies to build a low carbon infrastructure reduce the amount of CO2 emitted during and beyond industrialisation (Y/N)?
Which economies and how much development over what period of time? I would say as a general answer to a general statement....no. Because even though the attempt is to build a low carbon infrastructure, you are building more infrastructure at a faster rate with the influx of wealth than would have been built without it. Plus, with an increase in life expectancy and population, over the long haul the result will be more infrastructure and the consumption of more resources....
4/ Is the overall goal of climate policy to reduce the rate of increase in CO2 emissions over the next few decades (Y/N)?
Let's be honest. The overall goal of climate policy is to redistribute wealth from rich nations to poor nations....
1.To eradicate extreme poverty and hunger
2.To achieve universal primary education
3.To promote gender equality and empower women
4.To reduce child mortality
5.To improve maternal health
6.To combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other diseases
7.To ensure environmental sustainability[1]
8.To develop a global partnership for development
And I'll add, to make good on the moral and legal obligation of rich nations to compensate the poor nations for the damages they have caused in the past and will cause in the future...
All of which will increase life expectancy, population, overall CO2 emissions and the consumption of more resources.
All very noble goals, but using the threat of CO2 as the means to achieve them...
BBD - Do you have an idea as to how much more CO2 will be emitted from undeveloped nations if left unchecked vs. how much overall CO2 will be emitted as a result of developing the undeveloped nations financed by the wealthy nations? Over what period of time?
UCONN 5-0
The MDGs are humanitarian aspirations; basic things that will never be universally achieved but should always be striven for. They are aimed right at the bottom of the human pile. They aren't a blueprint for industrialisation. This is a fundamental point of difference between us.
The goal of climate policy, on the other hand, is to reduce the rate of increase in CO2 emissions over the next few decades.
For (1) and (2), you generally agree:
It doesn't matter so long as every development trajectory relies on as little coal-fired generation as possible.
Is this good or bad?
The problem with Betula's perspective - as always - is that in is development model he appears to assume that, in order for the south to achieve some sort of equity with the north, the rich countries would have to invest in their economic and developmental infrastructure. He smells a socialist rat in the room and sees climate policy as a means of redistributing wealth from the north to the south - whist paying mostly lip service to the fact that much of our wealth comes from the poor countries and continues to do so. He also fails to notice that the developed world already over-consumes natural capital, and that every one of these nations fosters an ecological deficit which can only be made up by reaching beyond our own borders to obtain that capital from elsewhere.
The concept of ecological footprints and overshoots appears to sail over Betula's branches. Until he can reconcile these basic facts, debating him is a waste of time.
Lets be honest, here, Betty. That's YOUR fear talking. NOT reality.
The goal of climate policy is that our children will not have a worse life than ourselves.
But lets be honest, you don't give a shit about anyone else, do you, Betty.
Of course, the mantra of the morons is "Adapt!" but only adapt where they are. If they adapt by migrating to HIS country, he'll be apoplectic with rage at these scroungers coming over here, taking his job, blah blah blah.
Rather like drivers, he'll do anything to help others as long as it involves telling them to change what THEY are doing.
"But lets be honest, you don’t give a shit about anyone else, do you, Betty"
Wow is back!
How the sucking mucking *ucking hell does Betula think some in India and other poor countries are going to survive with this sort of shit happening:
Coca-Cola's crimes in here, there and everywhere.
Coca Cola's coming, Coca Cola's coming, Coca Cola's coming, Coca Cola's coming, to take your water away.
See also <a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/08/29/coca-cola-and-its-egregious-hist… Punch: A Perfect Example of a Capitalist Abuser Coca-Cola and Its Egregious History by HEATHER GRAY.
And Coca is only the tip of this mountain, which reminds me, see what 3M have been doing in Indonesia etc.
Lionel - thanks for helping to make my case. I think you are the 3rd person now who seems to have confirmed that this is really all about social justice and not CO2.
Anyone else?
You have been shown that it is not. Yet you incessantly repeat this lie. Your penchant for intellectual dishonesty is irritating.
You were unable to answer the questions I asked in order to bring honesty and clarity to this discussion because doing so forthrightly would have demolished your lie. Since you refused to answer me above and will obviously remain dishonestly evasive I will fill in the blanks myself:
1/ Do you think the developing economies of the world will continue to develop (Y/N)? YES
2/ Do you think they will emit more CO2 in the process of industrialisation (Y/N)? YES
3/ Will technology aid that helps developing economies to build a low carbon infrastructure reduce the amount of CO2 emitted during and beyond industrialisation (Y/N)? YES
4/ Is the overall goal of climate policy to reduce the rate of increase in CO2 emissions over the next few decades (Y/N)? YES
From this very simple Q&A, it is very simple to see that climate policy is designed to limit the harmful effects of CO2 emissions.
No I am not, but then like Homer Fludd you always invert reality.
I presented an example of a developed economy rapacious free market, that has lost all relationship to Adam Smith to the detriment of millions and the benefit of the few across the world. Not only is there a war on the developing world but increasingly on those not in control of money, money which directs politics.
I am unsure what cloud cuckoo land you inhabit but you are in for a shock should misfortune ever visit on you.
Passing response through Captain Obvious translator helmet.
“But lets be honest, you don’t give a shit about anyone else, do you, Betty”
"Yes, you are correct."
ooo...that nasty capitalist shit....ooo...Lionel craps his trousers...and rakes in his pension
Talking logic to scientivists is like talking mto sheep
Talking from experience there Homer Fludd and I bet you wear yellow wellies whilst doing so.
Unfettered capitalism, masquerading as democracy, is evil, pure poison but then that's what you exude isn't it Andrew?