But Abbott is not even bothering to 'make' evidence. He is now issuing decrees such as "for the forseeable future coal is the foundation of our prosperity"...which of course is just his dutiful presentation of coal industry talking points. As he has sold his sight and soul to coal, he forsees nothing, except shouting down a massed choir of scientific foresight.
Silver-tongued Tony's .... got it .... all under control. .... He's going to ... Um.. use the leftover coal .... dust to soak up .... the rise ... rise in sea levels .... Um .... His fall back ... Um ... plan .... is to channel ... channel ... the rise .... rise in sea levels .... into disused open-cut ... Um ... mines, .... disused underground ... ... that's ... underground mines, .... public ... note public, ... not private .... swimming pools, ... Um ... bath tubs ... in multi-bathroom .... residences. ... And he'll stress .... stress .... that it won't .... won't .... involve ... Um .... any big .... bad .... taxes.
Craig @ # 1
According to CSIRO, this is how Marshall was appointed: http://www.csiro.au/Portals/Media/International-technology-innovator-to…
And this is CSIRO's summary of his experience: http://www.csiro.au/Portals/About-CSIRO/Who-we-are/Executive/Dr-Larry-M…
The main thrust of that article you linked is that he believes that more investment will be directed into Agricultural research and Australia and CSIRO is well placed:
" "What's interesting to me is that in the last year, the top tier US venture capitalists, the people at the very peak of the pyramid who lend the trends, they've started asking me and others about agriculture.
" "So my prediction is that in the next 10 years, a lot of that venture money is going to get redeployed because, after all, how many times can we reinvent the internet?
"That money will get redeployed to solve real world problems on the land and I think CSIRO is in an amazing position to benefit from that and to capitalise on that."
His comment about dowsing is speculating if there is something behind dowsing:
""When I see that as a scientist, it makes me question, 'is there instrumentality that we could create that would enable a machine to find that water?'
"I've always wondered whether there's something in the electromagnetic field, or gravitation anomaly."
Quadrant does not say that Starck is a 'climate expert".
That quadrant piece is an OP written by Starck and Quadrant says:
" Walter Starck is one of Australia’s most experienced marine biologists, with a particular interest in coral-reef and marine-fishery ecosystems "
Whether he has been fascinated by crop circles at some point is really not relevant to either his career as a marine biologist or his personal opinion about science and the scientific method.
People can and people do become fascinated by all sorts of different things. It doesn't stop them from being good at their work and neither does it prevent them from being employed by such entities as CSIRO.
Of course if they allow their other interests or some other speculative theories and ideas to interfere with their work - then that is a completely different matter.
Starck is a IMHO a wannabe. H'e's got more soiled connections than an earthworm. Stu2 is correct when he claims that 'people can and people do become fascinated by all sorts of different things'. In Starcks case, it appears that ego and ideology certainly fascinate him. Heck, he's listed as one of the Heartland Institutes 'experts'.
Stu2, where do you dig these losers up? I've been around in science a long time and I have never heard of most of these people (Botkin excepted) until you mention them. And in virtually every case, they are either egregiously naive (Botkin) or wrong (both).
I'm wondering why Craig @ # 2 implies that this person is more worthy of attention than someone like Marshall? http://www.yorku.ca/jdupuis/
Most of this talk is more about government focus and policy measures and doesn't really offer any practical solutions - just advocacy and rather a lot of negative finger pointing. He does also seem to be overly obsessed with the fact that some career academics and scientists feel marginalised and unappreciated by governments and by the general public. http://yfile.news.yorku.ca/2014/10/27/next-sts-seminar-looks-at-the-can…
OTOH, despite his perhaps quirky fascination with dowsing, Marshall is clearly focused on looking at opportunities for scientific research at CSIRO.
Stu2, If I was Starck, or if I had any common sense, which he apparently doesn't, I wouldn't go near an agenda driven right wing anti-environmental think tank like Heartland in a million years. If they are paying him for his 'services', then I think we ought to know.
If I am a lawyer, and you pay me big bucks, I am working for you. It doesn't matter if you are guilty of a crime, and I know it, I will still try and get you off. Why should it be any different for scientists? Starck is damaged goods. Botkin is naive as hell (or also damaged). That you cannot see this is why I look at your posts like a well scripted but utterly innocent essay by a precocious 10 year old.
OK. I looked up Starck on the Web of Science. He's hardly published anything in the massive list of journals on it - I found 3 since 1966 - yes,3!!!!! With 17 citations. This is IMO beyond a joke. He is dismissed.
Botkin has 63 publications on the WoS since 1968, with 3487 citations and an h-factor of 22. Not bad, but hardly Earth shattering either. Yet both of these guys are being plugged relentlessly by the AGW denialosphere.
By contrast, I am called everything under the sun here - a maggotologist, an expert on gastropod penis structure, 'Hardley' et al. Yet here's my current standing: 144 publications on WoS (since 1993, with 7 more in press), 4032 citations and an h-factor of 36. Clearly my work is liked by a lot of my peers in science. The most citations of Botkins work in a single year was 162; I had 602 in 2012 and will probably exceed that this year.
The key to remaining anonymous in science is to be good and keep your mouth shut. The key to gaining celebrity is to speak in ways that resonate positively with those who have power, wealth and privilege. You don't need to be good, just to stand out from your peers. This describes many of the scientists whose reputations are exaggerated on the internet by AGW sceptics and anti-environmentalists. And the way to being a pariah is to be good but speak the truth even when it conflicts with the interests of the privileged few. Look at Mann, Hansen, Trenberth, Ehrlich, Diamond, Wilson, Lovejoy and many others. These are scientists whose qualifications rank them at or near the very top of their fields - and they are the ones being smeared left right and center on blogs and by think tanks and corporate-funded front groups.
To summarize what I wrote above, it is so easy to squash the nonsensical posts of people like Stu2. Yet they persist. I don't know if they have some kind of mental blind spot or if they are so indoctrinated that they will believe anything that fits in with their value systems. The main point is that Botkin is an outlier. For every Botkin there are 1000 more qualified ecologists who disagree with him and his approach. So why is Botkin singled out? Why is he to be believed when his views are at odds with the overwhelming majority of other people in his field? This is where Stu2 is all at sea. He is clueless.
As an anology, I go to an expert on some medical ailment. He does tests and comes back with a diagnosis. I am not convinced and go to 500 other experts in that field. They all concur with the original diagnosis. But I still don't believe them so I go on searching and searching. I eventually stumble upon a doctor who isn't necessarily qualified in that field, but he gives a different diagnosis anyway.
Who do I believe? If I am Stu2, I'll downplay the views of the 500 experts and go along with the lone dissenter. Now one as to ask themself: is this logical? Of course not - unless you think like Stu2. Sadly, many people clearly do, as evidenced by the myopic views of a few on Deltoid and many, many more across the blogosphere.
Botkin is not an atmospheric physicist or a palaeoclimatologist. He is pontificating outside his sphere of competence which is something competent scientists do not usually do. All this has been pointed out by Jeff and Lotharsson.
The only people who pay attention to this sort of behaviour are those with an anti-science agenda who are flailing for something - anything - to bolster their evidence denial. It looks stupid because it is stupid.
I'm going back a couple of months and 2stew is trying very hard to wrest the "Dumbest Deltoid Denier Troll" crown away from Olap. He doesn't quite manage it (which is not really a compliment), but he gets very close. He gets skewered by Lotharson and comes back with the very substantive, "I'm not interested in you say, he says"; unquestioningly follows the Moronhassy crusade against BoM but can't tell us what questions BoM needs to answer; tells us cold spell are bad for rice growing but strangely doesn't say anything about hot spell and how that will affect all crops. Just like all deniers: clueless, thick and dishonest.
Then the two inbred nordic sheep, Olap and GSW, turn up. Very suspiciously at the same time; now we know they're an item. I'd like to say that it's nice of them to take a break from fondling each other and pay a visit, just so they can regale us with more brainless, emoticon-filled twaddle, but I'd be lying. Poor GSW, as vacuuous as ever. And he's been trying so hard over all these years to say something remotely intelligent, or informative, or even vaguely interesting. Sorry to break it to you morrons, but emoticons won't mask your stupidity and lack of substance.
I see that Betula is back, craving for some attention. And he's brought with him another dumb, vacuous cretin who calls himself Elmer Crud. And a cretin with attitude to boot. How lucky is Deltoid! I see Elmer Crud likes to get down in the gutter and fling shit _ I mean fling pieces of himself _ at his opponents, especially BBD. He tells him not to breed. If we must talk about breeding, I think every denier cretin's mother is guilty of a crime against humanity by breeding. In Crud's case, not only was its mother too stupid and irresponsible to take contraception but when it fell out she let it live instead of squashing it. As for Betula, I wonder if he is going to play the victim card again, telling BBD how mean he is for not wanting to come to his help if he got beaten up. Maybe Betula will beat himself up, hoping that someone will come to his rescue; or maybe even set himself on fire and wait for someone to come running over and piss on him.
What a sad bunch of brainless cock-heads. They have nothing intelligent to contribute, but they keep on trolling, totally oblivious to their own stupidity and lack of substance. It's possibly a survival mechanism where there's an inverse relationship between stupidity and self-awareness; as the stupidity increases, the level of self-awareness decreases. If they were aware of how worthless they really are, they'd all kill themselves in despair ... which would be the best outcome for the planet.
Inbred n°2 says, "Thanks Olaus, good article from Nature". Poor idiot obviously didn't read it or understood what the gist of the article is, which is, in large part, that the global surface temp index is not adequate to give a true representation of the state of the climate considering that most of the energy is going into the oceans, and therefore to give a more realistic measure of global warming, emphasis on global, something more representative of the earth's energy budget is required.
"Science is about evidence !", our cretinous inbred nordic sheep, GSW, bleats _ with an exclamation mark _ at the same time as his inbred buddy Olap references an article in a very scientific publication _ CNSNEW.COM _ which quotes one of their disinformation gurus, Christy, saying that the heat could be escaping into space, to explain the supposed pause. I recall Olap telling us that he believes in the science; I never had any doubts. I always knew he was very scientific because he always goes to the most scientific and reputable sources, such as the one mentioned and of course WTFUWT and Joanne(knownothing)Nova. Even Elmer Crud says he's the most scientific person on this blog. It must be true.
As a knownothing, nonscience person myself, I'd like answers to some questions:
Why is it only during the last 18 years that that extra heat is escaping into space?
How does this self-regulating mechanism operate?
Why wasn't it escaping into space prior to that?
So during the decades that the temperature rises, the heat stops escaping to space? _ and then when there's a bit of a "pause", it's because it's escaped again?
Any evidence for that escaping heat? Any evidence that the warming is natural? Any evidence of low climate sensitivity? Any evidence of any fuckwit denier talking point having any substance?
But then again it's a bit hard for GSW to see evidence of anything, being part of the long conga line of denier sheep, each one's head firmly stuck up the arse of the one in front. Even if GSW's head was yanked out and evidence shoved in front of him, he'd be too dim to understand it anyway. And there lies the problem: how do you reason with and convince a bunch of sheep who don't possess the intelligence to understand whatever is presented to them, or too intellectually dishonest to admit it if they did understand but it went against their ideological indoctrination.
Still waiting patiently for Olap's insights into the pause. And so is BBD, who asked him a bunch of questions about 8 months ago. Come on Olap, I don't know much about the science and I want to be educated on this global warming/cooling thing; it would be a privilege to read some real analysis which I'm sure you and your physicist boyfriend GSW can provide. Tell us where all the heat is going _ or don't you believe in the greenhouse effect? I'm disappointed that your boyfriend has been too timid to demonstrate his grasp of the science, like, you know, equations and stuff. Actually, strangely enough, I barely see any deniers arguing on a scientific level at blogs like Andthentheresphyiscs or Science of doom or Tamino's. I would have thought they'd be all too keen to show how wrong the alarmist science is. I've observed that when those well trained in science, like the bloggers just mentioned open a thread with lots of maths and physics, there's hardly a denier to be seen. It's like holding a cross to a vampire. Funny that.
Actually, I'm wrong; Olap has answered. He's counted all the horizontal bits, the pauses, he could find and added them up. Yep. That proves there's been no warming. So when Olap looks at a set of stairs, he adds up the flat bits, the treads, and concludes _ after a lot of thinking _ that stairs don't go up... it's an optical illusion...all stairs are flat. What a fucking dummy.
Meanwhile....in the "Village of the Inbred", somewhere in scandinavia, they're having a debate in the town hall. The most contentious issue in the history of the village has split the population: should they join the modern world and have flushing toilets? GSW's mother says "No!" She stands up and slams her seven-fingered hand on the table in front of her, nearly smashing it, to the consternation of people watching the debate.
"We've done very well without them so far, and we don't need them now!", she bellows.
"And all those tourists writing negative comments in our visitor's book and complaining about the smell are just whingers."
She then becomes emotional; "My poor GSW wouldn't be alive if we had a flushing toilet. I didn't even know I was pregnant...he just fell out when I was on our squat toilet and I didn't even know. Poor GSW. Two days later I noticed something moving on the bottom and rescued him."
Olap's mother, wearing a revealing top revealing the cleavage of her three breasts nods and sobs. Her two-headed cousin comforts her.
Those sitting opposite, eyes wide-opened and transfixed, lose their train of thought and end up losing the debate.
Olap's mother, very emotional, then tells everyone how the same thing happened to her little baby Olap. "It was even worse for Olap, he was floating at the bottom of the latrine for four days before I noticed him. Had we had a proper toilet he would have been gone forever," she sobs.
"When I picked him up, I thought he would have been starving but he wasn't even hungry. Since that day I've been feeding him his own poo and he's been happy and thriving."
Sorry for poking and taunting the denier turds, guys, and for the language, but as far as I'm concerned it's a waste of time trying to talk logically or reason with these dumb fucks. It should be clear to everyone that these fuckwits fall somewhere on a spectrum of 'totally brainless' at one end and 'totally dishonest' at the other. You cannot have a reasonable discourse with these creatures.
JP welcome back into Deltoid! Glad to see you've caught up with the bilge from Betula, GSW, Olaus, and our new pin-up boy for stupidity, elmer. Olaus is multi-tasking between his adoration for Jonas and now GSW. And he has his eyes on Betula and his bark.
Elmer is actually a laugh. When he called Olly the most scientific person on the blog, then I knew he was into self parody, BIG TIME. I find his posts hilarious in their simplicity, hence he's comic relief.
Now Betula is a different kettle of fish. He writes well enough but his brain is seriously fixated in areas where he knows little if anything. He appears to be worried about some global left wing socialist conspiracy that aims to impoverish the rich nations (and especially the good ol' USA!) whilst apparently acknowledging that his country has been looting and stealing resources from ther poor countries anyway. Its just that he thinks many wrongs don't make a right. Looting; fine; plundering, fine; inequality, fine; exporting environmental footprints and damage, fine; social justice, accountability and reparations, NOT fine. How does one argue with this level of debate?
He also searches for everything he can find out about me. Even I don;t do that. Some of the stuff he's flund I didn't even know existed!
Authors include Solomon and Santer. It is inerestingly another paper about the pause that BBD strongly asserts does not exist and makes yet another attempt to account for the divergence between GCM projections and actual temperatures, another thing that BBD strongly denies.
"currently available satellite databases neglect substantial amounts of volcanic aerosol between the tropopause and 15 km at mid to high latitudes"
Note only at mid to high latitudes and only above the tropopause. That's an important point since there is little sign of any aerosol effect in the Mauna Loa data. These are real sneaky stealth aerosols that only fly higher than airliners and avoid overflying places where they could be measured. And they were also not detected by geologists. Now that really is sneaky
Sorry Elmer's Glue, we have no evidence you have the capacity to understand the work of Solomon and Santer enough to make a claim on it that can be in any way relied upon.
You are a tool. The first line of the abstract of the paper you link is:
Understanding the cooling effect of recent volcanoes is of particular interest in the context of the post-2000 slowing of the rate of global warming.
The authors specifically *do not* speak of a hiatus or pause.
The sloppy use of language even by scientists doesn't alter the fact that it is technically incorrect to describe a slowdown in the rate of surface warming as either a pause or hiatus. Which is all I have ever said on this matter.
You obviously haven't read any science ever, so let me fill you in on the background. This is the latest of several studies examining previously undetected volcanic aerosols at altitude. The first is Vernier et al. (2011). If you bother to look, you will see that Vernier is a co-author of the study you linked but did not read.
The key insights from V11 are that there are more volcanic aerosols at altitude than previously suspected, that they originate from tropical volcanism and are carried aloft by the Brewer-Dobson circulation and eventually circulated to higher latitudes. These aerosols have a negative forcing which appears to be a component in the slowing of the rate of surface warming since ~2000.
yet another attempt to account for the divergence between GCM projections and actual temperatures, another thing that BBD strongly denies.
A simple lie.
What I have pointed out is that the divergence between models and observations since ~2000 is most likely a consequence of incorrect forcings being applied to the models. These errors - including the underestimate of volcanic forcing - were corrected and then used to force CMIP5 models which came into much better agreement with observations Schmidt et al. (2014). This suggests that the model physics is good and that much of the problem does indeed lie with incorrect forcing estimates.
The rest of the divergence is almost certainly down to a transient change in ocean heat uptake driven by variability in the wind driven ocean circulation of the tropical Pacific.
Isn't it noteworthy that those who use a non-word such as 'scientivists' always fail the acid test when any sources they cite are correctly interpreted.
This non-word seems to crop up at Cardinal Puff's, did this cream originate in that fairy cake tale land? A land which appears as a cross between the imaginings of the Brothers Grimm and Charles Lutwidge Dodgson where thoughts such as this appear:
But science and innovation were among the hardest hit areas.
with an air of smug self congratulation as if something good has been achieved.
BBD - how do you explain being in such fundamental disagreement with Sir Kev and Madam Solomon? It is you against them. I think you are all deluded fools and need to ask Olauf for some basic science lessons. Forget the scientivism.
#21, "Understanding the cooling effect of recent volcanoes is of particular interest in the context of the post-2000 slowing of the rate of global warming."
First sentence of abstract of Santer et al is clear. No pause, troll. Which is why 2014 will be #1.
...BAC’s chairman Bill Grant also serves as a director on the board of New Hope Group, a coal mining, oil and port operation company. The airport said its chairman’s position on a coal mining company’s board had nothing to do with it rejecting the advertisement.
Yeah right!
The billboard would have featured an Australian farmer who lost $25,000 worth of grapes in one day last year when temperatures reached 115 degrees Fahrenheit at his vineyard. It would have been part of the #onmyagenda campaign launched this week to encourage people to tweet at G20 leaders and ask them to make climate change a more prominent item.
oh boy...still denying the pause although all the top "dogs" of climate science are trying to explain it. maybe Jeffie has a way of justifying it. Pause, hiatus, slowdown.....which models projected it over so long a duration/ Answer.....NONE...they must be fucking good, trustworthy models then...
Nope duddy boy, there is no pause. The time frame is way too short and effects in the short term are masked by internal variability. BTW, 2014 will be the warmest year on record.
The reason the 'top dogs' in CS are trying to explain it is because they have to somehow educate idiots like you whose scientific education ended in the sandbox. They also have to try and teach those in power basic science in the face of a determined effort by the denial lobby to obfuscate the science in promotion of nakedly political agendas. Amongst themselves, CS know there is no hiatus. Dopes like you believe it because you want to and because it also nicely fits in with your pre-determined world views. You also believe it because you do not understand the concepts of deterministic versus stochastic processes. Its hardly a surprise that in the 10 years I have been reading and writing into not a single AGW denier who has written here has a job (or indeed education) that is remotely close to Earth or environmental science. Not one. And yet you lot wade in here as if you have something useful t say.
You don't. On the other hand, I do find some of your posts on here so ridiculously absurd that I enjoy them. They provide comic relief for me on busy days.
You know, Duddster, the lurkers are beginning to suspect that you just blurt out these glib slogans you've picked up from denier blogs, but you haven't the faintest clue what they mean.
(Assuming they mean anything at all, of course, but you don't appear to be in any position to judge that.)
Putting you in 'good' company with the Scanditrolls in particular!...
Jeff Harvey @# 10 & 11
I submitted a longer reply but mistyped my email & therefore it did not appear.
In summary:
1) Perhaps you don't understand what Starck meant by 'an academic kissing contest?
2) Your analogy fails to recognise the difference between diagnosis of an ailment and treatment to cure the ailment.
3) You are 'uplaying' the consensus. The consensus is that the human race has the ability to impact. The consensus is not that we are all going to he'll in a handbasket.
4) Lionel's post @# 37 is contradicting your post @# 40 and your post @# 40 is contradictory anyway. Seasonal heat waves of course damage crops (including grapes) but so do seasonal cold snaps. Seasonal variability is a feature of weather and natural internal variability and not a signal of AGW. Making claims about 2014 and records looks more like something that belongs in a sports report than anything that supports climate on the timescales you also highlight. That claim also has a timescale issue and a issue of degree.We can indeed measure race records to fractions of seconds but that is not the case with global average temps.
& lastly, I agree that the issue is an argument over the treatment rather than the ailment but I don't agree that only one side of the political debate is guilty of misrepresentation. Both sides are guilty and they are therefore part of the problem and in no way part of any solution ( which was largely Botkin's point)
Stu 2, and you fail to recognise why a non-expert who makes a very dubious claim to being a "scientist", with virtually no research to his name, doesn't get to offer an opinion we need to take seriously when it contradicts the opinions of those with some actual expertise in the area. What's more, his blitherings on the subject of crop circles are a major detraction from what little credibility he may have laid claim to.
I am busy, but I will demolish Stu2's nonsense again.
First we have tis nugget: "Perhaps you don’t understand what Starck meant by ‘an academic kissing contest?"
Sure I know what it means. It means that Starck is trying to cover his ass in that he has no real expertise in relevant fields. It also means that he is covering the fact that his qualifications IMHO stink. Three papers since 1966 with 17 citations? This is beyond a joke. He's smaller than a minnow is a scientific ocean. That the AGW denial lobby would scrape up such a bottom feeder and promote him as being qualified tells us everything we need to know about their desperation.
The you get worse, "ou are ‘uplaying’ the consensus. The consensus is that the human race has the ability to impact. The consensus is not that we are all going to he’ll in a handbasket".
This is a classic strawman. You set up the worst possible scenario and than argue that it isn't so, as if this makes everything appear rosy. Lomborg would be proud of you! Its too bad that its bull****. The fact is that there is a broad consensus among scientists that humanity faces a suite of very serious environmental threats and that the longer we wait to deal with them, the more costly they will be for future generations.
Finally, what the hell do you know about a consensus any way? Your whole post stinks of Dunning-Kruger. You are lecturing me, a scientist, on the state of the environment and whether there is a consensus over AGW and other threats or not. And you have no relevant qualifications to lecture me about the scientific perspective. The fact that you have to scrape up dinosaurs like Starck or Botkin whose views lie well outside the mainstream says it all - or should.
3) You are ‘uplaying’ the consensus. The consensus is that the human race has the ability to impact. The consensus is not that we are all going to he’ll in a handbasket.
The consensus is that we cause increasingly severe negative impacts during this century and well beyond unless emissions are structurally reduced at a global level, starting now.
Climate change - shifting of climates geographically is another signal as is the movement of species away from the equator and up the mountains, for that part of the biological system that can. Jeff has been over this time and time again thus for you to still be trotting out your same ol' same ol' is dishonest.
And by coming to the conclusion that my #37 has any connection with Jeff's #40 indicates that you truly are nucking futs.
Thanks Lionel. Its because of you, BBD, Bill and others that I persist here. Its amazing how much banality there is the comments of Stu2, willfull ignorance in those of Betula, and plain insanity in those of elmer. As for Olaus, they have ingredients of all thre...
an anymouse at Eli's linked to a piece by him at the 'Business Insider'Anyone Depressed About The State Of The World Needs To Look At These Stunning Charts.
Ah BBD, our resident cabbagivist. The one who's confused about Uk/World etc is you.
"Ward warned that the crushing heat seen this summer and during other, much hotter summers dating back more than a century could throw a massive burden on the NHS"
That would be the UK's NHS not the world's BBD. And from the Guardian piece.
"He[Ward] accused the government of failing to get to grips with climate change and said the coalition urgently needed to plough more money into beefing up Britain’s flood defences.
So, Lewis Page, The Register, The Guardian and Ward himself all knew the references were to the UK, but BBD thinks everyone else is confused.
...says an idiot who happily believes anything the GWPF tells him.
But it gets worse. Old Anthony 'scale? what is scale? Watts is bleating on about conditions in the Cretaceous, and how C02 levels and the significantly higher global temperatures and conditions were suitable for dinosaurs. He then appears to argue (this is where his vacuity becomes REALLY apparent) that if those conditions allowed animal and plant life to prosper, then there's nothing at all for Homo sapiens to worry about with lower temperatures and C02 concentrations; in fact, we should envy those 65 million year-old conditions.
Now, of course, such musings would be laughed out of any academic institution. They are so blindingly naive and ignorant that they really don't merit a response, but the problem is that the Olaus's, GSW's, Betula's, Elmer's et al of this world will actually believe it. Already I have read dozens of comments by Watt's supine followers making similar remarks, including one Dutch moron who said he dreamed we had 1000 ppm of C02 in the atmosphere and temperatures 7 C higher than now globally because it works in Dutch greenhouses so it would be a wonderful boon to nature.
Let me get straight to the point: if atmospheric conditions across the biosphere became remotely like the late Cretaceous now in the time frame envisaged by Watts and Co, then we would be staring our own extinction squarely in the eye. No ifs or buts. Species have evolved over many millions of years to adapt to conditions within certain abiotic windows. To expect such adaptive radiation of plants and animals across the planet's biomes to a shift to Cretaceous conditions in less than a century is so utterly stupid, its lamentable. Moreover, warmth is not an essential pre-requisite for high species diversity. The planet had evolved more species and genetic diversity in its history when modern man arrived on the scene. Species of plants and animals that roamed the Cretaceous landscape were for the most part completely different from those today. They were adapted to those conditions. Natural selection and phenotypic changes do not occur overnight. In vertebrates such macro-evolution takes many, many thousands of years. To expect a complex array of contemporary ecological processes to suddenly adapt to a massive forcing in terms of temperature and C02, whilst ignoring the attendant effects, is so utterly stupid that it is almost beyond comprehension. But that doesn't stop a veritable army of ignorant bloggers suggesting its benefits.
Species that are strongly adapted to an array of conditions - such as boreal forests in the northern hemisphere to long winters and cool summers, as well as acid soils and specific soil organisms - and the species that depend on them - would be utterly wiped out in the blink of an eye. But this catastrophe would rupture ecosystems across the planet. If the changes occurred over tens or even hundreds of thousands of years, then the perturbations would be less dramatic, but when any idiot suggests that they wish these conditions were suddenly imposed on natural systems now, they are doing nothing more than reflecting their complete lack of intelligence.
This won't stop the ignoranti from wading back in here thinking that they can debate me on the subject, and that their lack of any relevant education can stand up against my career over 25 years in population and evolutionary biology.
Ok BBD, teh [your] claim about teh Register being teh confused between teh UK and teh World, do you accept that teh was you just getting everything arse about tit as teh usual? ;) If you're not not prepared to read or understand whats sadi, tehn wyh bthoer cmmeonting as ouy od? ouy Dcki ehad ;)
BBD
Eyeballing the graph 2 observations.
1) The summer mean max temp has deviated by less than 1℃(compared to 1981- 2010 average)
2) The plateau or pause or hiatus or slowdown (or whatever you want to call it) of the last 10 - 20 years is evident in these UK Summer mean max temps, especially in the smoothed dotted plot line.
But nonetheless, over the longer timeframe a slight warming trend has been graphed.
The CO2 causal link is missing from this graph.
...and read some of the comments below it. They are equally hilarious. The last one (Dr. Stranglove) claims that the Cambrian explosion occurred because C02 concentrations were 7000 ppm; from that he goes on to call C02 the 'life gas'.
Again, to these twits, the concept of scale never enters into their understanding of evolutionary biology. They think the Cambrian explosion probably occurred over a few decades or centuries, and that adaptive radiation (a term of course they've never read about) is a therefore a short-term process.
But we are literally talking about millions of years versus 50 or so. If by some twist of fate atmospheric concentrations of C02 reached even 1000 ppm in the current century, this would exacerbate the extinction spasm already rippling across the biosphere. We would witness ecosystems collapsing left, right and center, and huge numbers of species and populations disappearing in an instant. The simple,reason is because they did not evolve under these conditions. They evolved under relatively low C02 levels and temperatures far lower than in past epochs. If warmth was the only pre-requisite for life, then we wouldn't find high diversity in temperate habitats. And plants today have also evolved to accommodate various nutrients, of which carbon is one. But excess carbon, given their evolutionary history and phylogeny, would upset the balance of other essential nutrients (N, P) and this would have profound consequences for trophic webs and ecological communities.
There are a million reasons why high C02 levels and rising temperatures will drive extinction. The main one is the time scale involved in the change. If it was gradual, occurring over tens of thousands of years or more, then natural systems may be able to adapt to it. But we are talking about a century over even less.
What Watts and his minions prove is that a little knowledge is dangerous. People writing in there, as well as Watts himself, think they know more than they do. Everyone is an ecologist or a climate scientist; no formal education required. In truth, they are cement heads.
1) The summer mean max temp has deviated by less than 1℃(compared to 1981- 2010 average)
Summer UK mean temperatures have risen by almost 1C in just 50 years. That is astonishing.
2) The plateau or pause or hiatus or slowdown (or whatever you want to call it) of the last 10 – 20 years [10 years actually - please don't casually double the period for rhetorical effect; it is dishonest] is evident in these UK Summer mean max temps, especially in the smoothed dotted plot line.
So? Nobody disputes the slowdown in the rate of warming and nobody who understands physical climatology argues that it can last. The system is experiencing a sustained and growing radiative imbalance. It can only warm. Natural variability will modulate the long term trend but it will not stop it. #PhysicDenial.
BBD.
What is 'astonishing' about a 1℃ rise in national UK average of mean Summer temps in 50 years?
Every day in Summer has a range far greater than 1℃.
The temp can change in Summer by more than 1℃ in a few seconds.
The % of that 1℃ caused by human emissions of CO2 is not quantified in the graph of UK Summer mean temps.
My comment was about the graph - not the physics of 'radiative imbalance'.
Turboblocke @ # 72,
It was indeed noted.
Note also that is 29 years & not the 50 years BBD captures nor the 100 years that is graphically represented.
If you graph the last 18 years against the 1981 -2010 (29 year average), that will also vary the results.
Some would call all of that 'cherry picking' but I think that is unfair and displays a measure of ignorance about this type of work. By its nature, all of it 'cherry picks' as it uses varying start/stop points and tweaks the variables to create a range of results.
BBD @ # 70
Those models are generated similarly to complex economic models. Tweaking (or forcing) a commodity price or a cost input and graphing them against a static 'no change' scenario, creates similar graphic representations.
There is much less 'noise' in economic modelling and much greater confidence about the influence of inputs, yet they are regularly incorrect in their projections (like a GFC for example).
Further, those models do not represent UK Summers.
& @ # 71,
If we're talking about impacts to something or someone from a rise of 1deg C in average heat in Summer in the UK, I am astonished that you see no relevance.
All species in the UK, including humans, are fully able to cope with a far larger range of temp in Summer in just a few seconds on any typical UK Summers' day. A 1degC average rise of Summer temps in fifty years will not be noticed in a UK Summer and of course neither would a 1degC drop in averaged Summer temps in the UK.
What is ‘astonishing’ about a 1℃ rise in national UK average of mean Summer temps in 50 years?
Oh my, oh my!
Those models are generated similarly to complex economic models.
Oh my, oh my, oh my!
A 1degC average rise of Summer temps in fifty years will not be noticed in a UK Summer and of course neither would a 1degC drop in averaged Summer temps in the UK.
Oh my, oh my fucking my!
Need a stronger DKE meter. A much stronger one. The first quote blew mine out and the others got more and more intense!
So you deny that CO2 is an efficacious climate forcing despite the copious paleoclimate evidence demonstrating that it is.
You deny that CO2 is the principal driver of modern warming despite the complete absence of any other substantial forcing change that could be responsible.
You deny the model vs observational studies that demonstrate this. You deny that the modelled studies I linked - though regional - are directly relevant to UK climate change.
FInally, you introduce a particularly fucking stupid squirrel about UK summertime temperatures. Here is the UK *annual mean* temperature data. Exhibiting much the same warming trend for exactly the same underlying cause - physics. CO2 forcing. Planetary energy imbalance. You see exactly the same thing in all the regional observations I linked above. Please *look* at that link again, properly. As in the UK, so everywhere else in the world. That's why we call it 'global warming'.
Tragically, the ABC has seen fit to air a fourteen minute Gish Gallop of predictable swill from Patrick Moore, in an 'interview' with the hapless Michael Condon of ABC Rural.
Moore named checked George Christensen...as well he may because the script was near identical. No dishonesty was left unregurgitated. He finished with a call for a royal commission into BOMs data methods, prefaced with mind-boggling dishonesty about the evil mystery that is data homogenisation.
Send complaints the ABC Audience & Consumer Affairs
If ever we were unsure about 2Stupid's grasp of climate science there is now no doubt that he is wilfully ignorant, how else to explain the stupid ignorance driving his #73 above.
Lionel, IIRC Chameleon used to spout almost exactly the same line about climate models being like economic models, etc. I think it more likely than not that they're not the same person, but they either share the same brain cell or get many of their confident assertions from the same reliably unreliable sources.
#83: take a look at the rising dotted black line, then realise that the period used for the average finished a scant 4 years ago. Now look at where we are today compared to that average. If you consider that trivial then you clearly don't know what's going on.
even worse, Eduardo Zorita is displaying his usual scepticism, unlike those scientists who have become scientivists:
It only means that the models are lousy and probably wrong. In which direction they are wrong is not clear at all, yet.
All in all, I found myself agreeing more often with Emanuel, but certainly Christy's arguments cannot be dismissed out of hand. In the end, the conversation shows that the issue of climate change has basically ceased to be scientific - and thus the utility of the IPCC reports is becoming really marginal.
You have utterly failed to understand Nick's post, which says exactly what I have been saying - models aren't designed to *forecast or predict* actual Earth climate behaviour a decade ahead.
You are clueless. You have demonstrated your complete inability to understand any aspect of the CC "debate" over and over again here. You have just entertained us with yet another pratfall.
No Homer Fludd, Nick Stokes is not admitting GCMs are useless, he is explaining in simple terms for simpletons like you, or maybe those who are taken in by the you, what climate models are for and how they are set up and run.
Someone that tells you to your face that you've just said "black" when you and everyone else can see you just said "white" is admitting that they don't come here for the hunting.
Oh dear, PAGES2K is not only bad it is even worse than we thought (as the climate scientivists love to say). Not only don’t they know for certain which way to orient the proxies – hey, scientivists, maybe they are not good proxies – but now it seems that they model Australasia on a total of zero proxies from Australia (why bother including the largest land-mass in the reconstruction?) but with some help from some Indonesian islands north of the equator, where the climate is rather different. Thank God for teleconnections.
Perhaps it is just a coincidence that they plot the results in SD units, based on the standard deviation of a subset of the whole series. A sceptic would say that they do this to try to guarantee the emergence of the canonical and desired “hockey-stick”. Will any scientivist call them out on it? LMFAO. Any published reconstruction has to match the hockey-stick, otherwise the scientivists will refuse to publish it.
Admit it, the corruption is endemic. Either they did not know that this procedure would guarantee a hockey-stick, which would make them dim even by the low standards of climate scientivism, or they they knew…which makes them fraudsters. But then, of course, that puts them in line with the behaviour of Mann the Merciless. Trebles all round. Help yourself, BBD old fruit.
So we're back to the grand conspiracy theory where the entire field of millennial temperature reconstructions is corrupt.
Or correct, which seems inherently more plausible that the generally incorrect McI seeing farther than an entire discipline.
As I have said before, if his insights are so devastating to the field, why then does he not publish them in a high-impact climate journal. It would instantly give him the kudos he so clearly and desperately craves, so why not publish?
I can think of only one reason. He knows that he is wrong and he knows that his confected nonsense would not pass peer review.
Casting my mind back, I don't recall FUDd answering a very important question I posed about physical climatology.
The "sceptics" who argue (in the face of *all* the evidence) that there was a global and synchronous "MWP" as warm as or warmer than the present do so because they argue that modern warming isn't exceptional, at least on a millennial timescale.
But there is a problem with this. There is no evidence for a major net increase in forcings ~900CE - 1300CE. So this putative global warming event would be strong evidence that the climate system is very sensitive to radiative perturbations.
The sharp and ongoing increase in GHG forcing since the second half of the C20th constitutes such a radiative perturbation. So a 'hot MWP' implies a significant warming response to rising CO2 over the course of this century.
Yet "sceptics" violently contest that this will happen.
I cannot for the life of me reconcile the apparent and profound contradiction here.
So please, FUDd, I ask again - explain how this works. You keep on dodging this question, which is a source of increasing interest in and of itself. I begin to suspect (you see) that you dimly recognise that "sceptics" have got horribly muddled up in the creation of their narrative about corrupt scientists 'getting rid of the MWP' to make modern warming look more exceptional.
What's going on, FUDd? Physics won't let you have it both ways.
The “sceptics” who argue (in the face of *all* the evidence) that there was a global and synchronous “MWP” as warm as or warmer than the present do so because they argue that modern warming isn’t exceptional, at least on a millennial timescale."
I have no stake in this MWP that you are so scared of. All I know is that we know sod all about climate over more than about 100 years. paleo is shit shit shit...and even more shit than that. We DO NOT KNOW. Does that explain my position?
Dpn't worry, Fudge, we knew your position i.e. mental state some time ago. I'd describe it as deranged.
With respect to science, given that you are a complete and utter nobody with no formal qualifications in anything higher than tiddly winks, your 'position' means diddly squat.
The excursions of frigid polar air are part of an ongoing change in the behaviour of high-latitude atmospheric circulation:
The storm and associated intense cold is being triggered by an [un]usually extreme jet stream pattern, featuring a sharp ridge of high pressure over Alaska and a deep trough of low pressure diving to the south over the Central United States. This extreme jet stream pattern is due, in part, to the influence of Super Typhoon Nuri, which caused a ripple effect on the jet stream after the typhoon became one of the most powerful extratropical storms ever recorded in the waters to the west of Alaska last Saturday.
An increasing number of researchers agree that this is probably being driven by AGW which is altering atmospheric circulation in ways not predicted by models. I find this troubling, not reassuring, but YMMV.
“altering atmospheric circulation in ways not predicted by models”….
I think you'll find it's "projected" by models. According to the loony brigade, model outputs are "projections" not "predictions".
Theory's make "predictions" in Science and are falsifiable. Climate models are exempt from science because their outputs are"projections" apparently.
;)
"At the risk of getting the cold shoulder, it’s starting to feel a lot like Algonquin around here"
Well, if Batty wants to play the weather game, so will I. Its downright balmy over here in Europe, temperatures way above normal and set to stay that way for the remainder of the mont. No frosts yet in the Netherlands, weeks past when they would normally have been expected to occur.
So whats the point? There is none. Its weather. AGW is real.
#17 Doh GSW. Of course models don't make predictions, they are not crystal balls. To make a climate prediction you would have to know in advance all the factors that affect climate: solar variation, volcanoes, albedo changes, vegetation changes, aerosols, GHG emissions etc for the whole of the time period of the prediction. You would also need perfect knowledge of the starting conditions and perfect knowledge of how all the factors interact.
In other words an identical replica of the Earth. Since we don't have a big enough budget for that we have to make do with models that project what would happen if some parameters are changed.
Modelling of a simple system will predict everything.
I don't believe anybody asserts that modelling climate is anything like simple, therefore there is little expectation that climate models will provide predictions.
What a climate model "does not predict" is 1,000,000x more interesting to science than what it does, because this helps pinpoint missing inputs or faulty methods.
"As yet, there is no definitive answer on the possible contribution of climate change to the recent storminess, rainfall amounts and the consequent flooding"
"More research is urgently needed to deliver robust detection of changes in storminess and daily/hourly rain rates and this is an area of active research in the Met Office. The attribution of these changes to anthropogenic global warming requires climate models of sufficient resolution to capture storms and their associated rainfall."
2. Thanks for the 2nd link:
"Jet stream weirdness happens all the time Lots of historical examples of this kind of thing."
"Important to remember – though just about everyone agrees that the jet is behaving strangely, not everyone agrees on the cause"
3. And thanks for the third link, which says nothing.
"Reckon GSW will ever get the hang of this science thingie?"
Oh, I'm doing fine Craig. It's you lot tripping over your own "definitions" that has us all amused. Just tell us again why the climate models are doing a shit job of "projecting" future climates - That's one of my favourites.
;)
"Well, if Batty wants to play the weather game, so will I. Its downright balmy over here in Europe, temperatures way above normal and set to stay that way for the remainder of the mont. No frosts yet in the Netherlands, weeks past when they would normally have been expected to occur. "
lots of frost in England, Jeffie. Just be pleased that your snails haven't yet frozen
Betula: " Just tell us again why the climate models are doing a shit job of “projecting” future climates – That’s one of my favourites."
It's a fave because you are stupid. Dumb as a birch stump.
Projection for 2100 cannot be judged as 'doing a shit job' just right now. Do you understand? It's 2014 and the emissions path we take has not run. You'll have to wait.
And a little history tells us that early projections are well and truly close enough. The ones that have failed were the no warming assertions from industry stooges, god-botherers and other flotsam that clogs the global airwaves. As for the coolers....
Classic Fudd: "lots of frost in England, Jeffie. Just be pleased that your snails haven’t yet frozen"
Actually, there hasn't been. You're lying. Only in the far north of the UK has frost been evident. In virtually all of central and southern England there have been no frosts yet, a month after they would normally be expected to occur. Oh. and to drill this through your thick head: I don't work with snails. Does that resonate, you clot?
Betula, and Fudge:
2014 is going to be the warmest year on record. All of the ten warmest years on record have occurred since 1998. That's climate. Much of Europe is also having its warmest year on record - that includes the UK, Fuddy-duddy. Oh, by the way, while I am at it, Fudd, what are your scientific qualifications again? At least Betula gets out of the house a bit in his tree-shearing business; what's your excuse? With the exception of Batty and gormelss, both of whom blow their limited qualifications in science out of all proportion, the other denier quacks on here refuse to tell us their day jobs. Its not like you are going to blow your cover. The only reason you don't is because you'll look like even bigger idiots than you already are when you have to admit that you've never been near a science lecture in your lives.
The reason I discussed Algonquin Park is because it lies at the edge of two major biomes. These are the zones at most risk from AGW. Plants and species cannot merely shift northwards if conditions become unsuitable for them - there are a myriad of ecological constraints - such as soil chemistry and biology - that act as major impediments for dispersal. Yesterday I attended a lecture where the speaker described a UK study looking at the distributions of insects over the past 50 years. Since the 1980s, a large number of species have been moving northwards and the rate of movement is increasing. Weedy forbs from southern Europe are also expanding their ranges to the north. The empirical literature is full of examples of range shifts. Warming is occurring fro sure. The deniers are left with nothing but hyperbole, smears and rhetoric.
GSW thinks that climate models should be able to predict political choices by as-yet-unborn voters, and technological developments by as-yet-unborn inventors, in addition to merely modelling extremely complex physics. That would be the bare minimum to be able to fine down the range of emission scenarios to a single path and come close to something GSW might call a prediction.
It is touching that he has such faith in models that he thinks the good ones should do this, but he wants something that only exists in science fiction.
Normal people, better acquainted with the realities of science fact appreciate the actual capabilities of models, and value them for what they can tell us, and even what we learn from any divergence from observations.
GSW probably thinks a climate model imperfect if it doesn't pick up his dry cleaning and cook his dinner too. But then, GSW is an idiot, so who cares?
Of course by providing you with a source I would have expected you to read it in full honestly and take everything in context and not only within the context of this one document but also the wider body of evidence which is showing that climate has shifted gear as the world continues to warm. But oh no, you show yourself for what you are a cherry picking numpty who avoided this:
Sea level along the English Channel has already risen during the 20th century due to ocean warming and melting of glaciers. With the warming we are already committed to over the next few decades, a further overall 11-16cm of sea level rise is likely by 2030, relative to 1990, of which at least two-thirds will be due to the effects of climate change.
Recent studies suggest an increase in the intensity of Atlantic storms that take a more southerly track, typical of this winter’s extreme weather. Also the long-term warming of the sub-tropical Atlantic will also act to enhance the amount of moisture being carried by storms that take this more southerly track.
There is an increasing body of evidence that extreme daily rainfall rates are becoming more intense, and that the rate of increase is consistent with what is expected from fundamental physics. There is no evidence to counter the basic premise that a warmer world will lead to more intense daily and hourly heavy rain events.
Once again we see a cherry pick avoiding, amongst many other examples the if produced will show you for what you are, a denier. The evidence is presented and yet you deny, deny, deny.
That said, a growing body of science is developing that suggests the jetstream is getting “stuck” more often – jammed into extreme configurations that stay around for long periods of time, and cause extremes of weather over large areas. Last year’s Polar vortex is a good example.
The underlying reason for the anomalous jet stream behaviour is to do with the mounting heat energy [1] in the global systems, what is not yet clear is which of the postulated mechanisms it is that trigger this behaviour of the jet stream.
Maybe it is too much to expect a see no evil like yourself to understand the relevant parts in that last and why they are so.
Now as for my 3rd link - reports of anomalous weather events probably due to the jet stream disturbance mentioned in 1 & 2. So you closed your eyes or shut off your brain.
While it snows somewhere in the US autumn for us in Holland is showing Ice Age signs too. It is only the second mildest in at least four centuries, colder than autumn waaaayyyyy back in 2006.
But the year is simply #1 unless some record cold December month does something about it, even then 2014 will win a medal. Bye, 2006, 2007.
It's called Stuck Pattern Syndrome. By cRR, so be careful to quote cRR when using this term. US stuck in trough, Europe up to far into Russia and the Arctic stuck in eternal balmy subtropical fucking shit malaria air.
There may be issues with that Met Office link which I would only be sure about once posting link and then testing. It appears to be rather clunky on scrolling and magnification but then I note my net connection is playing up a bit ATM.
"Very entertaining…..and the reason I keep coming back"
No, there are two reasons you keep coming back:
1) Because you are a sucker for punishment and enjoy seeing your vacuous points demolished;
2) You actually think you're clever and are capable of changing the minds of readers who are on the fence. I guess that is what being an ex-marine and tree pruner does for you. It gives you a Dunning-Krugeresque sense on intellectual confidence in spite of the fact that you have not got a clue what you are talking about, and instead are guided by your own personal right wing ideology.
Whatever makes you happy. But when it comes to science, you are as thick as a stump. Nick got that right.
Hardley - "You actually think you’re clever and are capable of changing the minds of readers who are on the fence"
Hysterical! There are only a few readers here, and none are on the fence. Your ego is fooling you into believing you have an audience...
So, as far as trying to change someone's mindset on Deltoid, unlike you, I realize it's a mute point. However, I must admit I do enjoy exposing your mindset.... because it is both fun and easy.
Olaus, this is the same Watts who argued recently that conditions in the Cretaceous were great for dinosaurs, so why not for humans? The comment was so infantile and scientifically vacuous it was priceless. All Watts does whenever he wades into anything remotely scientific is show what a simpleton he is. I laughed out loud at that for hours and could not resist telling my colleagues. Again, it was a gem of stupidity.
I won't even begin to try and deconstruct his comedy piece. It was soooooo baddddddd that I think a kindergarten child could see through it. Not so sure about you, though. Nor Betula and Fuddy. I am sure the three of you will think its informed. That's the level of scientific ability you all possess.
...and the comments underneath it were even funnier. Good grief, WUWT is full of idiots. If I ever need a bit of a laugh, I go there. That's one thing the AGW denialosphere has done for me and my peers in science; given us a good laugh when we need it. These sites are so abyssmal its beyond parody. The GWPF was promoting Susan Crockford's latest crock of s*** with respect to AGW and Polar Bears and Walruses last week. Comedy gold. But Crockford is, of course, a zoological luminary - 14 papers on the Web of Science in her career. No wonder the GWPF (along with Morano) cite her.
cRR Kampen @# 45 & #49.
You must not understand Aussie Spring weather?
That system has passed through where I live yesterday. Today is vastly different. It is now cool and about to rain.
Yesterday all the harvesters were asked to stop and the receival sheds were closed to avoid accidental fires.
Today they are all out again.
All fire services were on alert and there was a total fire ban.
That is not unprecedented for OZ in November.
Brisbane will have one hot windy day too as the system passes through.
They will be uncomfortable if they're outside just as we were yesterday. They will also need to watch for fire hazards just as we did yesterday.
The following day will be much cooler.
Claiming a singular hot windy day or, for that matter, a singular
cold blustery system is just commenting on weather.
It's the Aussie Spring doing its thing and it is no more the friend of sceptics than it is the friend of CAGW proponents.
Hardley - "As for people, I reach a lot more than you do. Many, many more. Think about it"
Um, if my purpose was to reach a lot of people, would this be the place? Think about it.
Besides, I could never compete with the amount of people your ego inflated imagination reaches...
"Besides, I could never compete with the amount of people your ego inflated imagination reaches…"
Says an idiot who boasts about being an ex-marine, and having a degree and his own business at age 24...
Talk about pot, kettle, black....
Your ego is pretty bloated, Betula, otherwise you wouldn't write the crap you do with such confidence. I recall you once going on about the benefits of the fertilization effect of C02 until that was completely debunked; then your white-tailed deer/wild turkey example was debunked, and then you move onto the political arena.
I see Olaus is being a copycat again.. cannot even come up with how own insults. He has to copy those of the other denier halfwits on here. Good grief, Olaus, how pathetic are you? Clearly very.
And Polar Bears are most certainly NOT doing fine. The most recent population demographics shows that recruitment is down and that the population is becoming increasingly skewed towards older animals. Moreover, the weight gain of juveniles is also slowing. If the current trend continues, the species will be another example of the living dead; the only saving grace right now is that the bears are at the extreme end of the k-selection continuum and are long lived. This means there may yet be time to shift the age-structure back towards a healthy balance of age demographics.
Of course, even this little discussion is over the head of Olaus. But I don't aim it at him. Betula is equally daft; when I said I reach a lot more people I was of course not referring to Deltoid but in my job as a scientist and the academic and public lectures that I give. But he has spent too much time in his birch bark canoe to even understand this basic point.
Stu2, So please then explain why the two hottest years in Australia have been since 2009? Is that the Aussie weather doing its 'normal thing'?
Good heavens, the deniers on Deltoid are DUMB. Is this the best crop of intellects that they can throw at us? That being said, I read the comments on WUWT from time to time and they are equally hilarious and vacuous. Its just that WUWT is populated by more of them. Its Dunning-Kruger writ large there; they have run amok.
#50, "It’s the Aussie Spring doing its thing", o, look, a moron! Breaking the records again, 'its thing'.
O and look around for your missing heat, it is everywhere. October 2014 took the gold again (= hiatus: only records, records only).
I'm more worried about the empreror penguines that are threatend by the huge loss of sea ice in Antarctica, you know the ice loss caused by the accelerating global warming. :-)
yes it's intersting how the nostradamianism works:
“At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions.” (NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally, 2007)
And Jeffie is the ecolocist in the coal mine. He dies instantly when traces of science come his way. :-)
Look at the year that Jay Zwally wrote, or said, “At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions.”
Now tell us what happened to Arctic sea ice that year.
Unfortunate use of the word 'predictions' aside, note the 'at this rate' as pertinent to 2007.
One this is for sure, Arctic ice is melting faster than projections of just a decade ago. Furthermore you are unlikely to be able to point to Antarctica to support your rhetorical devices for much longer: New study shows warm waters are melting Antarctica from below.
Mark well GSW if all you can do is call on the Global Worming Policing Federation for support. Who you trying to kid?
The more the idiots like GSW write, the more idiotic they look.
After everything that's been said, he posts up a video from the GWPF (shills, shills and more shills) and Crockford, the big-time zoologist/Heartland Institute darling with 14 career papers. Good grief, how stupid can GSW get? Obviously a lot. I have already seen the crappy presentation, gormless (last week); its so full of bullshit that I found it hard to stomach the whole thing, but I got to the end. Don't expect it to appear in a peer-reviewed journal any time soon.
And there's our insult copy-cat Olly having the audacity to talk about scientific acumen. I have to admit, that we do have bonafide denier dopes on Deltoid. If this lot is symptomatic of the broader denial movement, then woe betide them.
As for the ex-marine, I'll leave him to his deciduous trees.
Genuinely insane indeed, they have been told the trains acoming, and now we can see it coming around the curve and yet we still see this s*** posted from the suspects usual.
Lets see what a bonafide peer reviewed article by actual researchers working in the area and who aren't apparently shills for Heartland and the GWPF have to say:
And, metaphorically speaking, this study is the tip of the iceberg. The empirical literature is full of studies reporting negative effects of rapid AGW on biodiversity. And at least I write as a qualified population ecologist. None of the deniers here (as expected) have anything remotely resembling relevant expertise.
Two things stand out. First, the fact that decidedly anti-environmental right wing front groups use environmentally friendly names to mislead the public (the GWPF is a good example); second, given that these front groups are generally set up and/or staffed by non-scientists, its amazing how they scrape up a few mediocre scientists to argue that AGW is not a problem, whilst ignoring a sea of peer-reviewed studies and the opinions of the vast majority of the scientific community (including scientists whose qualifications put people like Crockford into the shade).
If it isn't blatantly obvious that they care diddly squat about the science, then it ought to be. And its remarkable that any scientists who disagree with the deniers - meaning me and >95% of my peers and colleagues who think that AGW is very real and a problem - are smeared as Olly and GSW do to me above. Again, it would be precious to stand in a debate with either of those two twits on the ecological effects of warming in front of a large audience. First thing that would happen is the moderator would describe our respective professional backgrounds. I'd love to see the face of the audience once those of the three of us are described. At this point I am sure that someone in the audience would politely ask, "Why are those two (GSW and Olly) even here? On what basis were they invited to participate?"
Of course, these debates would never happen. Sure I would be (and have been) invited to debate the effects of AGW on nature, and I have lectured at universities, workshops and conferences on the subject. Old Olly and gormless have never even studied the field, let alone lectured it.
This is one reason I find their participation here and their continual attempts to claim the scientific high ground both comical and amusing.
Jeff Harvey @#54.
If you're looking for vacuous, cRR Kampen's link re Brisbane & the G20 @#45 is a prime example.
It is a chatty little piece about the current weather in QLD.
Meanwhile in southern NSW & Vic, it is cold and blustery today after temps in the 40s 2 days ago.
What does any of that prove other than the weather in Spring in Australia is highly variable?
Averaging it nationally, from a relatively short data set, is not conclusive proof of anything particularly alarming.
The Aussie Spring weather is not behaving in an unprecedented
manner.
Heat waves and cold snaps are not uncommon in November in Australia.
Claiming either as proof of anything re climate trends is bordering on nonsense.
It would be unusual if everyday in Spring was average.
The Aussie Spring weather is not behaving in an unprecedented manner.
But Australian weather *is* behaving in an unprecedented manner (within the observational record). 2013 was the hottest year since records began in 1910. And lots of records were broken. Lifted directly from the BOM September 2013 report:
Australia’s warmest month on record (January)
Australia’s warmest September on record
Australia’s largest positive monthly anomaly on record (September)
Australia’s warmest summer on record (December 2012 to February 2013)
Australia’s warmest January to September period on record
Australia’s warmest 12-month period on record (broken twice, for the periods ending August and September)
Indeed, Australia’s warmest period on record for all periods 1 to 18 months long ending September 2013
Two significant daily maximum temperature records were also set this year:
Australia’s hottest summer day on record (7 January)
Australia’s warmest winter day on record (31 August)
The periods inclusive of September 2013 have also resulted in numerous State and Territory mean temperature records including:
Warmest September on record for South Australia, Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland and the Northern Territory
Largest positive monthly anomaly on record for South Australia and Queensland (September)
The warmest January to September period on record for South Australia, Victoria, New South Wales and the Northern Territory, and also for Melbourne, Sydney and Adelaide
The warmest 12-month period on record for South Australia, the Northern Territory, and southern Australia
It is possible that the IPO has switched back to its positive mode, which would mean a reversion to the pronounced warming seen from the seventies to the turn of the century.
BBD.
The Aussie weather is not a sporting event or a top 100 music chart.
We can measure a singular race within fractions of a second and claim broken records.
Singular sales records are broken fractiinally in the music industry.
Fractions of degrees averaged over a whole continent for a
whole calendar year is an entirely different matter.
It would be 'unprecedented' if the Aussie weather was always average.
It is, after all, the land 'of drought and flooding rains'.
Claiming singular Australian weather events as proof of anything other than what they are is nonsense.
The link supplied @#45 is an example.
FractiOnally!
Missed that error before I submitted.
BBD,
The possibility that the IPO will switch back to its positive mode does indeed mean that the weather patterns could possibly revert to a previous pattern.
That is not a new concept or unprecedented.
Are you suggesting that the IPO can be controlled this time around if it does switch back?
I don't think it's particularly interested in conforming, confirming or being anyone's political ally.
When I last checked (yesterday) it was described as neutral.
BBD?
Shut eyed denial?
Are you claiming that link @#45 is something other than a chat about the current weather in QLD that means it's a bit uncomfortable for everyone involved in the G20?
Do you claim that comparing it to the averaged national trend is proof of something else?
BBD.
Perhaps you didn't understand the question?
Are you claiming the link @#45 re current weather in QLD is clear evidence?
How do you match that up with the current cold and blustery weather in the southern states?
2 days ago, it was hot and windy in the south. The temps were in the 40s. Today in southern NSW, it didn't make it to 20 & we're all back in winter clothes.
BTW, the rice crops bounded ahead in that warm weather a few days ago along with the corn, soy, cotton, vegs and several other summer crops. They don't like this cold snap as much - especially the rice crops.
Stu2, You can try and obfuscate all you like, but the two warmest years ever recorded down under have been since 2009. Globally, the 10 warmest recorded years have been since 1998. You and Betula are picking at hairs. The planet is warming, and humanity is responsible.
Note also how our Swedish meatball has left the Polar Bear/biodiversity/Happer discussion and slithered into a new direction. Its what deniers do: they are pretty much an uneducated lot, at least in relevant fields, and when their arguments are systematically demolished they simply produce new ones. Its a never ending cycle.
And Olly still hasn't told us what his day job/profession is. That's because, as we all know, it has nix to do with anything remotely scientific. The fact that eh relies of WUWT etc. for his 'education' is indeed alarming.
I see Olly is writing in semi-literate grammatically incompetent misspelled English again.
I think he needs a spell-check.
But then again, he's as daft as a brush so that isn't going to help. He's also bypassing the latest demolition of his nonsense. I see he's also not talking about current Greenland temperatures - some 10 C above normal.
Olly, it's over; you've been humiliated once too many times. Time for you to crawl back under your slimy rock.
The possibility that the IPO will switch back to its positive mode does indeed mean that the weather patterns could possibly revert to a previous pattern.
Very unlikely, given that we've altered the atmosphere in the meantime to slow down the rate of outgoing longwave radiation. It's likely to be distinctly warmer this time around than the last time the IPO was positive.
I don’t think it’s particularly interested in conforming, confirming or being anyone’s political ally.
This is incredibly stupid or it's wilful denial. It seems that Stu 2 has an awful lot of trouble with distinguishing science from politics, or finds it more convenient not to. That might explain his near-constant confusion.
The possibility that the IPO will switch back to its positive mode does indeed mean that the weather patterns could possibly revert to a previous pattern.
Very unlikely, given that we’ve altered the atmosphere in the meantime to slow down the rate of outgoing longwave radiation. It’s likely to be distinctly warmer this time around than the last time the IPO was positive.
I don’t think it’s particularly interested in conforming, confirming or being anyone’s political ally.
This is incredibly stupid or it’s wilful denial. It seems that Stu 2 has an awful lot of trouble with distinguishing science from politics, or finds it more convenient not to. That might explain his near-constant confusion.
Olaus keeps trying. The point is that warming is greater the further one moves polewards. This was predicted based on global circulation models by Keeling and Revelle back in the 1950s, and is being borne out today. The Arctic is warming at rates much greater than biomes to to the south towards the poles. There, other climatic factors are being affected as well, such as precipitation regimes.
And again, its vital to keep scale in the discussion. I recall Watts saying back in 2010 that the Arctic ice was recovering in extent, no worries, and then along came 2012. The process is non-linear in the short term. We can only honestly regress data sets at appropriate spatial and temporal scales. Its warming and it hasn't stopped. Short term variation drives upwards and downwards cycles, but the longer term trends are undeniable. The number of record warm temperatures worldwide exceeds cold records by a ratio of 5 to 1. The 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1998. Species are moving polewards or to higher elevations, or are increasing the number of generations they have per year. Its warming. There's no two ways around it.
Against the mounting evidence we have the shills and right wing ideologues saying "It ain't so! It ain't so!!!".
Lake Superior – the fastest warming lake on the planet – has had som ice on it today.
Now is it winter in the Northern Hemisphere or have I missed something?
Once again YOU OP miss lots of somethings.
Climate change will lead to some areas getting colder but with spatial and temporal moves away from what was once considered normal.
Other places will get warmer, once again with spatial and temporal idiosyncrasies.
You clearly don't bother reading posts that are not directly addressed at you, or if you do you have poor short term memory and/or poor comprehension. Writing which does not rule out both afflictions.
Now go pick up on the first two links in my #18 above. I doubt you will be able to sort out the relevant bits at Jeff Masters' blog accessed via the third link.
Now OP can you tell us all the effect on freezing point of ocean waters as it is freshened, say by melting ice including additions from faster flowing glaciers?
Why is this relevant to the history of the Arctic ice melt/freeze cycle?
Which tropical ocean has greater salinity, the Atlantic or the Pacific?
Bonus for 10, explain why there is the difference indicated in that last question.
If this is about right (and I suspect the refutation part will prove to be) the recent Loehle paper looks like it might actually be an own goal for the denialists. The last sentence of the abstract is particularly scathing if you understand basic academic speak.
No doubt it will still get trumpeted triumphantly by the usual suspects...
It is little short of incredible that the muppets fail to understand a very simple fact: low sensitivity is incompatible with paleoclimate behaviour. So every single one of these studies that lowballs the estimate is obviously wrong.
No, I did not argue that #45 is clear evidence. Your strawman.
Why not go back and read what I wrote - including the linked BOM September 2013 report - oh, and this too - and consider the problem of your shut-eyed denial a little more honestly.
Extremes are variability around a rising temperature trend which is clearly visible in the data. That is AGW. Records are tumbling left and right because the variability is occurring from an ever-rising baseline.
No other forcing has changed sufficiently to explain the massive accumulation of energy in the climate system. This is not in debate in serious scientific circles and has not been for many years.
You can carry on denying and denying and denying, but the evidence keeps on piling up. It must be a huge mental effort maintaining your stance these days. I don't envy you.
"It is possible that the IPO has switched back to its positive mode, which would mean a reversion to the pronounced warming seen from the seventies to the turn of the century."
So he now believes in natural variability. What will he say to Tamino and Gavib and Uncle Steph and big boss Kev?
Lovely to see him banging on the big bad sensitivity ndrum as always. While all the palaeo temperature studies rapidly submerge under their scientivistic incompetence.
“It is possible that the IPO has switched back to its positive mode, which would mean a reversion to the pronounced warming seen from the seventies to the turn of the century.”
So he now believes in natural variability...
Of course he does but this is not what he is indicating, what is being pointed out is that a new step in the up escalator is in progress for natural variability to swing either side of.
What is it with the 'suspects usual' and comprehension?
It must be a huge mental effort maintaining your stance these days
The huge mental effort involved with Stu et al is in staying away from observation and evidence. A moments examination of easily accessed climate records puts feeble 'what abouts' into real context: this spring heatwave is a lot pointier than any coolness behind a southern cold frontal system. I can only conclude these idiots do not know how to access weather and climate data. Or why they should do so.
When did I not? All I've ever said eg. about the slowdown in the rate of surface warming is that it demonstrates natural variability overprinting the long-term forced trend.
Lovely to see him banging on the big bad sensitivity ndrum as always.
You can't just step back and say 'I never cared about the MCA' because the MCA is the only argument that modern warming might not be exceptional in the last 1000y.
Expanding the focus somewhat, consider the implications for climate sensitivity of the Plio-Pleistocene glacial cycles.
If S is very low, how does a mere spatial and seasonal reorganisation of TSI - with barley any net increase - trigger glaciation and deglaciation?
Think about this carefully. Low sensitivity means that the climate system is dominated by negative feedbacks which reduce the effect of any forcing change. If this were the case, then even if the climate system somehow came to be in a glacial phase, how could the regional effects of orbital forcing (Milankovitch) trigger a huge, global shift in climate state?
The negative feedbacks should have prevented this from happening. The only way deglaciation under orbital forcing can work is if the climate system is dominated by positive feedbacks (the definition of a sensitive climate system) which amplify and globalise the effects of regional TSI change.
Or do you deny that there was a glaciation that ended ~11.5ka and that we are now in the Holocene interglacial?
you are locked into a cycle of believing unbelievably bad science. You do not need to do it. there are alternatives. You could become a rpofessor of maggetology somewhere - as Jeffie shows, no qualifications are required. You could sell ice-ceams at a cinema, but I guess the tips are less than Jeffie requires.
Oh here we go... the copycat smears go on. What an unoriginal bunch. Should I ask Fuddo what his esteemed qualifications are in any scientific field? Of course he doesn't have any; besides, how can one do science when they are confined to a padded cell...
Fuddo claims the paleo studies are 'shit'...no evidence required. Then out come a few more smears, then no-sequiters, and then more smears. Note how the small band of idiots on Deltoid also 'hang out' together.... I suppose they need all the support that they can get. No worries. We will get fuddo booted out of here sooner or later so he can draw on the white walls of his cell all day.
Earth to fuddo: you are an outlier, an anomaly. And again, please tell us your scientific qualifications. We are all eager to read them. Mine blow yours out of the water. Nuff' said.
Now answer the fucking question. How can you square indisputably known paleoclimate behaviour like deglaciation under orbital forcing with low sensitivity?
Come on, answer the question instead of dodging around like a panicked rat.
"indisputably known paleoclimate behaviour like deglaciation under orbital forcing with low sensitivity?"
Do you have a reference for it being "indisputable"? Sounds as though your reaching to me, but happy to take a look - "indisputable" doesn't sound very "sciency" language more advocacy - check with jeff hes the expert.
;)
I'll have a browse tonight - so you're claiming this paper states that Climate Sensitivity is high and that this is "indisputable" (?). I've also noted that this is a paper from 1976(?).
Not read thru it yet, just checking you believe this paper backs up your statements.
The Hay, Imbrie & Shackleton paper deals with the orbital pacing of deglaciation. Which you seemed to be questioning but I think what you actually did was mangle, misread and partially quote a sentence of mine and in the process imposed your own unique 'meaning' on it.
This is what I wrote, and I said what I meant:
Now answer the fucking question. How can you square indisputably known paleoclimate behaviour like deglaciation under orbital forcing with low sensitivity?
Note the use of italic in the original for added clarity. Still, nothing's muppet-proof, apparently.
Ya gotta give gormless (GSW) some credit. He's been mucking around the blogosphere for several years now spreading his delusions about AGW. Along the ways he's met up with some equally daft people (Jonas, Olaus, etc) who he's taken to heart and idolized. GSW is the only clot now still writing into Jonas's asylum thread to give the silly twit a boost.
He also claims that most of his friends are scientists; now that IS funny. He's trying to suggest that they either take his arguments seriously and in that vein are AGW sceptics. Given that the vast majority of scientists agree that humans are driving climate change, these friends of his must also be on the fringe.
In fact, I just checked up on the insanity thread and there is Jonas, muttering vacuous ripostes to me over the course of the past 2 months. What a loser. He's trying to tell the world, "Listen to me! Listen to me! Jeffie isn't a scientist! He's not! Listen to me!".
Since then I've had my Professor oration in Amsterdam, taught a course there, and published 16 papers this year. My work has thus far been cited on the WoS 447 times in 2014. Now, let's see Jonas' tally in the same year..... and then decide who the 'real' scientist is...'
BTW, I am reading James Hansen's outstanding 2009 book, "Storms of My Grandchildren". Excellent. It leaves no doubt whatsoever as to the reality of AGW.
Ok BBD, I think that's as close to an admission that your claim was just downright wrong as we're gonna get - "Indisputable" & "High Climate Sensitivity". The bullshit detector goes off every time you post.
Jeff, we've been thru this at length before, YOU'RE AN ACTIVIST before you're anything else - that, and an unpleasant personality, colours everthing you say or do.
At some point in your life you opted for the path of motivated ignorance and it's too late to expect you to change now.
That's a very good book. Hansen understands very clearly what paleoclimate data tell us about probable future climate change. If only more "sceptics" would do the properly sceptical thing and look at all the information (eg Hansen's book) not just the mangled and lying nonsense that comes out of "sceptic" blogs and right-wing front groups masquerading as "think tanks" and educational charities.
Ok BBD, I think that’s as close to an admission that your claim was just downright wrong as we’re gonna get – “Indisputable” & “High Climate Sensitivity”. The bullshit detector goes off every time you post.
"Jeff, we’ve been thru this at length before, YOU’RE AN ACTIVIST before you’re anything else – that, and an unpleasant personality"
Thanks for the complments, GSW. That you call me an activist is a real hoot. And with respect to my personality, my colleagues and friends like me - but I just don't have time for obnoxious Dunning-Kruger wannabes who attack mainstream science and scientists.
Yes BBD, its a great book and has taught me a lot about the basics of climate science. Hansen is a wonderful, compassionate scientist and a role model for many of us.
FrankD's link to an old Deltoid thread in #14 above is revealing on not only GSW's ignorance, wilful ignorance by now surely, but also his agenda.
But this is not my main point, luminous beauty @ #18 there linked to one of my favourite video segments which not only shows denier's lack of raiment but also how they set out to deceive.
There are at least three strands this exposure, one being the extent of Michaels deviation from his own written testimony, how he distorted the message and the manner in which he tried to rake up an old controversy which he, and Dick Lindzen, tried to create at the time of the 1995 IPCC report publication. I'll not go into it here as there is plenty on this available elsewhere and yes I know where, which shows unequivocally how Michaels was playing foul then, that the manner of his unmasking still rankles - well good.
I watched all of this long running House Science Committee Hearing (suffering through the long rambling baffle-gab of Ralph Hall fromTexas - surprise, surprise) and downloaded each of the panel members written testimony for comparison, it was striking how certain individuals deviated from their own scripts. Here is a link to the whole segment, hopefully ( I am sure Virgin and throttling video - red bar data drop outs kick in soon after starting).
Santer had his chance to show up Michaels, which was his intent nothing more, and thanked Michaels for giving him the opportunity.
It should be noted that at this stage Santer was still engaged in studying aspects of climate science whereas Michaels had been reduced to venting through mainstream media, which he still does. Mark his name well.
@#8.
Instead of posting chatty pieces about a Spring weather event, perhaps you could research how much trouble that particular species of bats have been causing in that area? They are in plague proportions and are responsible for spreading viruses such as the Hendra virus.
They're particularly unwelcome near the primary schools and
childcare centres.
This is also not unprecedented. Even WWF has some info on bats and heat waves.
#30...warming the global climate seems to be an expensive way of dealing with an alleged bat problem. Bat numbers are down on pre- anglo settlement estimates. Fact is, white settlement often agreed with fruit bats on ideal roost sites. Lismore has always had bat colonies, as long as whites have been there...and since the countryside was stripped of woodlands and dry rainforest by the early 20th century, peri-urban reserves and remnant vegetation became vital for bat colonies.
That 'Spring weather event' was a little more than you might like to concede. 44.1C at Casino on Saturday was the hottest ever recorded there. 50,000km2 of country experienced maxima 10C and more above the mean on Saturday, about 15,000km2 on Sunday, many records fell.
I think it's time to retrieve this from the previous page:
Stu2 bleats denial:
The Aussie Spring weather is not behaving in an unprecedented manner.
But Australian weather *is* behaving in an unprecedented manner (within the observational record). 2013 was the hottest year since records began in 1910. And lots of records were broken. Lifted directly from the BOM September 2013 report:
Australia’s warmest month on record (January)
Australia’s warmest September on record
Australia’s largest positive monthly anomaly on record (September)
Australia’s warmest summer on record (December 2012 to February 2013)
Australia’s warmest January to September period on record
Australia’s warmest 12-month period on record (broken twice, for the periods ending August and September)
Indeed, Australia’s warmest period on record for all periods 1 to 18 months long ending September 2013
Two significant daily maximum temperature records were also set this year:
Australia’s hottest summer day on record (7 January)
Australia’s warmest winter day on record (31 August)
The periods inclusive of September 2013 have also resulted in numerous State and Territory mean temperature records including:
Warmest September on record for South Australia, Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland and the Northern Territory
Largest positive monthly anomaly on record for South Australia and Queensland (September)
The warmest January to September period on record for South Australia, Victoria, New South Wales and the Northern Territory, and also for Melbourne, Sydney and Adelaide
The warmest 12-month period on record for South Australia, the Northern Territory, and southern Australia
Why not go back and read what I wrote – including the linked BOM September 2013 report – oh, and this too – and consider the problem of your shut-eyed denial a little more honestly.
Extremes are variability around a rising temperature trend which is clearly visible in the data. That is AGW. Records are tumbling left and right because the variability is occurring from an ever-rising baseline.
No other forcing has changed sufficiently to explain the massive accumulation of energy in the climate system. This is not in debate in serious scientific circles and has not been for many years.
You can carry on denying and denying and denying, but the evidence keeps on piling up. It must be a huge mental effort maintaining your stance these days. I don’t envy you.
Since Stu2 is in the shut-eyed denial business, I'll risk the patience of other commenters by repeating part of the above for a third time:
Extremes are variability around a rising temperature trend which is clearly visible in the data. That is AGW. Records are tumbling left and right because the variability is occurring from an ever-rising baseline.
That is AGW and it will carry on, with worse and worse regional impacts for the rest of this century and well beyond. The policy aim is to limit the damage as far as possible, which may not be as much as we'd like.
...perhaps you could research how much trouble that particular species of bats have been causing in that area? They are in plague proportions and are responsible for spreading viruses such as the Hendra virus
Stu2's tried-and-true, no wait, tried-and-false "fake it till you make it" ruse. Perhaps you should tell us, Stu. Because I did research, and AFAICT, the answer is none.
All the pictures I've seen show Black Flying Foxes (Pteropus alecto). Number of Hendra infections traced to Black Flying Foxes in New South Wales? 0. Number of dead flying foxes in this heat wave? 5000.
"They are in plague proportions" - alarmist crap. Hysterical handwaving, to justify a fatuous claim that AGW is our friend because it keeps down those nasty bats. Except, as ever, Stu2's moronically one-dimensional worldview misses the sting in the tail: Heat-stress increases viral loads in host bats, so even if the BFF was a carrier, this heatwave would make subsequent transmission more more likely, not less.
Batty, What will you call the Greenland team while you are at it - the amazons? Temperatures there are some 10-15 C above normal... as are temperatures across much of the Canadian Arctic.
but there's another of our resident scientific illiterates thinking some short term cold snap negates AGW. No wonder he's in a job thats light years away from anything remotely scientific...
By the way Olaus, just what are your scientific credentials again? Uh? uh? Do I hear the sound of silence again?
@#35 & 36.
You're kidding?
cRR Kampen has twice linked chatty little weatherzone pieces about a weather event in Australia.
The first discusses that it made it a bit unpleasant for all those involved in the G20.
The second was about the well known fact that hot dry Spring
heat waves in Australia kill flying foxes.
I don't deny either of those observations in those chatty little pieces.
I do however question the 'uplaying' of a weather event, including reporting the weather like it's some type of Olympic running race.
Records of all descriptions get broken, including weather records.
At the same time Northern NSW & QLD was experiencing that hot,windy, dry weather event, it had already passed through here in Southern NSW & Vic, and we were freezing in cold, showery blustery weather.
And cRR Kampen. I don't know why it should matter, but I am indeed an Aussie with a first fleet generational background and even a small dash of aboriginal heritage. I live and work in regional Australia and as mentioned at an earlier thread, I work in Agricultural research.
My questions and comments have always been about the 'something' that we should doing about the negative environmental impacts caused by human activity.
In my line of work I have seen plenty of good stuff that has been done, including the reparation of native fauna and flora habitat and 'doing more with less' in terms of resources and yields.
Bill at some point here also revealed that he has done 'something about it' in terms of native trees.
I don't believe a global ETS or a global tax would stop an Australian Spring heat wave from killing flying foxes or keep those involved in the recent G20 more comfortable, whether it breaks a previous record or not.
Stu2, take some advice from a scientist: when your arguments are demolished, as Frank does @36, accept it and graciously withdraw. First of all, increased numbers of heat waves are predicted under AGW scenarios. Is it warming in Australia Sure is. Its a slam dunk. Second, for all of your pontificating about the benefits of AGW killing off those nasty critters that we humans don't like, there are a huge number of other species of plants and animals that play an important role in the functioning of ecosystems that are adversely affected as well. Its typical of deniers to do everything they can to exaggerate the supposed benefits of global anthropogenic changes on nature, whilst downplaying or ignoring a vastly greater number of harmful effects.
You can't debate your way out of a soaking wet paper bag, as your last response shows. Why do you even try?
Jeff Harvey.
You need to give over on the straw man arguments.
I have never denied that human behaviour impacts the environment - it does.
My questions have always been about that "IT" that we should be doing about it.
People like you have successfully alienated the demographic
that you would need to have working with you to help mitigate the negative impacts- the land managers.
Chatty PR pieces about the weather are nothing other than chatty pieces about the weather.
Flying foxes die in the circumstances that occured in Eastern Australia last week - they always have.
The main problem was the lack of humidity caused by the weather pattern - it is not a new phenomenon.
A global tax or a global ETS will not prevent something like that happening.
The majority of people who work on the land are laughing at attitudes like yours.
That's a pity because the overwhelming majority in places like Australia care deeply about the environment, but unlike you, they understand that R&D and land managers need to work together on a suite of practical measures.
Stupid Two #42 - "At the same time Northern NSW & QLD was experiencing that hot,windy, dry weather event, it had already passed through here in Southern NSW & Vic, and we were freezing in cold, showery blustery weather."
You fucking liar. You mean you got a Sunday of normal with, of course, the extra convectiveness belonging to AGW, while as of now this region is getting a scorcher AGAIN for fucking days on end. More inland another 44+ bat killer in the weekend too.
Does Stu2 think that "undeniable human impacts on the environment" have made, and will go on making, heat waves more common and extreme, or less?
And attentive readers note that he is suddenly silent on the subject of the "plague" of killer bats coming to infect the children of northern New South Wales...
Oh, no, it's suddenly "Global Tax and ETS", subjects which only he has raised....obvious deflections is obvious, much?
The main problem was the lack of humidity caused by the weather pattern – it is not a new phenomenon.
Huh? The main problem was it hit 44.1 degrees Celsius in...an all time record high temperature for Casino, any month....and it was still 42.3C at 3PM.... and it was over 40 [38.4 at 3PM] the next day. And the flying foxes had recently given birth, it being spring. Unseasonal extreme spring heat over two days caught out an animal with a breeding season evolved to avoid summer heat. Given the extreme heat, the humidity held up pretty well....it was the fact that the 3 PM temperatures were almost 15C above the mean for November 15th and 11C above on the 16th.
Meanwhile, something that might qualify as marginally more interesting that Stu2's fatuous handwaving...(but anything would)...
BOM have raised the El Nino status to "Alert", meaning a 70% or greater chance of entering El Nino conditions in the forecast period. More heat for S and E Australia then...
It's AGW. Variability around a rising baseline. Records tumble. Bushfires rage. Bats die.
It's AGW and it will carry on getting worse and worse and worse.
I agree that a carbon tax won't stop it. The pity of it is you don't realise how right you are. But thanks to the tireless efforts of vested interest we are now two decades behind where we could have been on implementing a phased reduction in fossil fuel use. Mentally ill idiots and liars like you have not helped. Or rather, you have helped the wrong fucking team. You will have this on your conscience for the rest of your life, which I sincerely hope is long enough for you to realise what you have helped to do.
"You will have this on your conscience for the rest of your life, which I sincerely hope is long enough for you to realise what you have helped to do."
And I for one will remind you & ilk every fucking day - especially the day of party when your house goes out in flood or fire and your economy crashes on commodity prices. And you'll party with me because that is what you wished for.
The majority of people who work on the land are laughing at attitudes like yours.
In that case they are laughing the laugh of the village idiot who shot his own foot out of boredom, denied he did it, and apparently found the whole episode immensely amusing.
Meanwhile nature is laughing at them because we're clearly not doing enough to combat the problem and they're rejecting the knowledge of people who understand what's happening, what impacts it will likely have, and what needs to be done about it because they don't like "their attitude" (and if you are at all representative of them, have ideological objections rather than scientific ones that they keep trying to pretend are really not ideological).
All of that really is the wisdom of the village idiot speaking.
1) Climate sensitivity and model forcings do not match measured temperatures.
2) The factors that influence this are many and varied - the factors cannot be understood or modelled "at this time".
3) Concludes with the "hope" that more work is carried out to understand the reasons for the inconsistencies - so that models of the future better match the measured climate response.
And you guys are so convinced that the science is "settled".
I saw something a while back about farmers being more sceptical of CAGW than the general public. I'm not sure where the orignal was, but I found this on the Farming Futures site.
"The impacts of climate change are not seen as a pressing threat, nor are extreme weather events regular enough for the majority of farmers to invest time and resources into taking immediate action. Farmers are working to prevent the impacts of short-term impacts and maximise opportunities rather than mitigate long-term risks. "
"The majority of farmers are sceptical about long-term projections of climate change noting they’re confusing lacking consistency and clarity. Instead farmers are likely to take actions based on their own perception of short-term variations in weather."
I'm not going to read too much into it, but it's more supportive of Stu 2's position than yours.
#55, only Britain, where rising temps and a precip rise of up to 35% over last century makes for a longer farming season. In some regions CC can be beneficial.
But if you look at what struck the main agrarian area of Britain last winter you could suspect with me that farmers might feel some alarm as to too much precipitation.
Find some farmer's perspectives from the SW US, or India, or most of Africa, or the eastern two thirds of Australia, or Indonesia, or Brazil. Please come back with some of that.
Btw are you aware rice/acre is dropping considerably in semiequatorial regions because of nothing else than temperature rise?
Fuddy Duddy (aka Andrew wearing a village idiot mask)
TCR or ECS is it?
I see you probably came via Cardinal Puff with this one on Schwartz. It seems that the deniers have loved to clag onto papers by Schwartz for a long time grasping at a low climate sensitivity straw as chewed on at Real Climate and Real Climate
The EBM-based estimates always lowball, hence the spread when compared with proper work done with AOGCMs and with paleoclimate data. EBMs only do linear feedbacks and the real climate system doesn't operate like that. They are toy models.
I thought you lot didn't like climate models anyway? How is it that underestimates of S derived from toy models suddenly come top of the pops with the skeptikoids?
You are nothing if not inconsistent (remember the muddle over the MCA and sensitivity? I do).
"Opinions on anthropogenic climate change vary greatly across society, and it appears that Australia’s farmers remain largely sceptical about the causes of climate change."
“Knowing that producers are likely climate change skeptics is important information to scientists and extension personnel promoting climate change mitigation and adaptation practices,” Rejesus said. “It may be advisable to just not mention ‘climate change’ when engaging farmers, but rather talk about how these mitigation and adaptation practices can economically benefit their operations.”
The more you look, the more support there seems to be for Stu 2's position.
Farmers are working to prevent the impacts of short-term impacts and maximise opportunities rather than mitigate long-term risks. ”
“The majority of farmers are sceptical about long-term projections of climate change noting they’re confusing lacking consistency and clarity. Instead farmers are likely to take actions based on their own perception of short-term variations in weather.”
Which guarantees that they will be royally fucked in the long term which is the scale on which climate change is operating.
“Opinions on anthropogenic climate change vary greatly across society, and it appears that Australia’s farmers remain largely sceptical about the causes of climate change.”
"The majority of people who work on the land are laughing at attitudes like yours."
And these links certainly backup the claim that, should jeff turn up. accompanied by the four horsemen of the apocalypse, with the portent that "he saw a spider" and witness'ed " climate change first hand", there's going to be a certain amount of guffawing isn't there?
The Oz agricultural community does not have a reputation for suffering fools gladly.
;)
^ ... in which GSW completely misrepresents the comment by Jeff that Stu 2 was replying to, thereby enthusiastically cheering on the bandwagon of those shooting their feet and cackling manically about it.
Nope, climate change denial among ignorant, short-term-fixated farmers is the same as climate change denial amongst ignorant short-term-fixated fuckwits everywhere.
All this trollish diversionary blether is pushing us away from what it is that deniers (including horny-handed sons of the soil) are denying. See #32 #33 and #34 above. I suspect this is being done on purpose because the deafening silence greeting those comments was impressive.
But AGW is reality. It is also the future for farmers, fuckwits and financiers alike. We all have to live under the same sky.
BBD.
Laughing at the attitude has nothing to do with denial.
Australian farmers as a general demographic are practical people and they care deeply about their environment.
They are also acutely aware of cause and effect as their
livelihoods depend on it.
When they see hand waving pieces like the ones cRR linked,
they find it amusing.
They also found it amusing when people such as Milne coined
the term 'climate criminals' on the basis of the bushfire disaster last Spring.
Farmers know that you can't control a bushfire with a carbon
tax. They know that bushfires will rage out of control if the fuel loads have been poorly managed.
Most of the poor land management last century in Australia was
caused by the ignorance of so called 'experts' who refused to
listen to the people on the land, including aboriginal people.
Unfortunately that ignorant attitude has not changed and has
been on display at this blog since my last comment.
Real progress can happen when so called experts listen to and
work with land managers.
They are the ones who will often come up with the practical
management solutions and they are the ones who can often deliver measurable results.
The 'there is only one way' attitude of people like Jeff Harvey along with the underlying negative and misanthropist meme that claims that only elitist scientists have the answers is not producing positive or practical results.
Further, political placard waving by people who live and work in cloistered academia and do indeed engage in what Starck called an 'academic pissing contest' is just exacerbating political inaction.
People like Australian farmers are far more interested in taking sensible, practical action and whether you understand it or not, they often find the antics of the 'experts' highly amusing.
It would be far better to have the land managers working on side with your cause.
Ironically, the prevailing attitude has put them off side when the general demographic could quite easily be the strongest allies.
They will naturally do what is demonstrably beneficial to their natural environment.
They will naturally do what is demonstrably beneficial to their natural environment.
No they won't, because they are in denial. So they will go down, hard, fast and all together, when the extremes pass a certain level of ferocity and frequency.
Farmers know that you can’t control a bushfire with a carbon tax
You sound like Barnaby Joyce. Rhetoric, all the time.
Just don't ask Barnaby to actually say anything or make a decision. Well, they have made a decision....do nothing about climate change, and never challenge News Ltds disinformation campaign about climate science and the BOM. They don't really want to admit to that sort of stuff.
They will naturally do what is demonstrably beneficial to their natural environment
Only if the market lets them. If you've got a spare lifetime I can show the 'demonstrably beneficial' degradation of my country brought about because economics is really crap at costing farming activity.
Nick @#79.
I actually concur with that comment, it is part of the same problem.
I too can show you many examples of degradation that occurred last century because 'expert' economists along with other 'experts' were (and unfortunately still are) crap at costing the long term realities of farming activities.
It is part of the reason why those who could easily be on side with environmentally responsible practices are not willing to work with the 'experts'.
Ironically, in many, many regions throughout Australia, the land managers have done much in the reparation of those mistakes that were made last century. Most of it has been done at their own expense.
The failure of the academic 'experts' to recognise that work is also a large part of the problem.
read the paper, BBD old fruit. Charnley was involved. Yes...that fuckwit. The models are bullshit. The palaeo studies you rely on are tripe. Is "sensitivity" a variable? is it a constant? does it mean anything? In a world with logarithmic feedbacks...or so the "jeffies" assert, you contend that CO2 is a problem rather than an opportunity. Words fail me. Humanity could combine to be the new race of world leaders...taking over from the beetles...does jeffie know about beetles?
The brilliance of this paper is in exposing the inconsistent choices of aerosol forcing and equilibrium climate sensitivity in AR5. The authors (who include Charlson, the grand old man of atmospheric sciences) show that AR4 and Otto et al produce best estimates of ECS that are completely in line with their choices of aerosol forcing, but that the AR5 range is wildly exaggerated on the upper end. As far as I can tell from their Figure 1, the actual ECS that AR5 should have produced given their choice of aerosol forcing is somewhere around 1.6 or 1.7, barely within their range of 1.5-4.5.
Now I believe I understand why the AR5 seemed to take a bit of a backward step compared to AR4, reducing their lower bound from 2 to 1.5--it's because they KNEW their best estimate would be in this range from 1.5-2. AR5 famously refused to come up with a best estimate, just presenting the range of 1.5 to 4.5, which to most readers would indicate that their best estimate is still around 3 as in all previous IPCC reports.
hey BBD...scare ourseles shitless and stop mucking women because cimate sensitivty is high...You should stop it from sheer altrusim. Your stupidty genes (and jeffies) should not be needed
They are also acutely aware of cause and effect as their livelihoods depend on it.
Except when it comes to climate change as a cause, if you are to be believed. And that was the whole point of the pushback to your claim on behalf of the majority of farmers.
Farmers know that you can’t control a bushfire with a carbon tax.
Thereby providing another illustration of (a) massive sophistry deployed in the service of denial and (b) the pretence that climate change isn't one of the significant causal factors that contributes to bush fires and bush fire danger levels.
They are the ones who will often come up with the practical management solutions and they are the ones who can often deliver measurable results.
They can't do that if they're in denial about some of the relevant factors, which was the point of the pushback.
The ‘there is only one way’ attitude of people like Jeff Harvey ...
... is a fiction created by your refusal to correct your misunderstanding, even after that misunderstanding has been pointed out several times.
Stu 2, this all shows that you're either not bright enough to understand the problem with your argument or you refuse to understand. And the irony is that in doing so you're laughing at the foot you shot and preparing to shoot the other.
Rubbish Lotharsson.
Those pieces linked by cRR Kampen are nothing other than chatty pieces about a weather event.
I do not deny the observations made in those pieces:
1) That it made the participants in the G20 a bit uncomfortable and
2) That the hot, dry windy weather pattern caused the death of flying foxes.
I have not noticed farmers denying that mistakes were made in the past.
Neither have I noticed farmers denying that CC can be a contributing factor in conditions favourable to bush fires.
You seem to be working hard at missing the point.
Jeff Harvey did indeed summarily dismiss local, regional and national grass roots programs in rural and regional Australia in favour of his 'there is only one way' that apparently has something to do with a group of elite scientists.
He later attempted to 'downplay' that comment.
It is also laughable that he believes that people who work in Agriculture in Australia don't listen to or understand science & technology including their ability to read weather and climate information.
If people like Jeff Harvey and you could ever manage to take your blinkers off you might discover that viilifying Australian Agriculture is not helping your cause. You would have far more success if they were willing to work with you.
Says you, missing the point AGAIN whilst projecting on to me. You're really really really really dedicated to not understanding it. We all get that - you don't have to do more to convince us of that point!
Jeff Harvey did indeed summarily dismiss local, regional and national grass roots programs in rural and regional Australia in favour of his ‘there is only one way’ that apparently has something to do with a group of elite scientists.
BULLSHIT!
(And this has been pointed out to you multiple times now.)
He said that something was necessarily part of any program that aims to successfully deal with the long term issues that we face, because without it certain of those issues will eventually overwhelm and defeat the intended good effects of other actions. That's not the same as saying that something is the entire program, and the only program that will be effective.
It's like saying that "continuing to eat is necessarily a part of treating tuberculosis, because if you don't do that the effects of malnutrition will overwhelm the health improvements gained by fighting the TB". It's NOT like saying "the only way to treat TB is to eat properly", which is analogous to your interpretation.
If you don't understand the difference between "is necessarily part of" and "is the only way" you aren't equipped to criticise what was said.
It is also laughable that he believes that people who work in Agriculture in Australia don’t listen to or understand science & technology including their ability to read weather and climate information.
It's not at all laughable when you claim to be speaking from experience on behalf of the majority of farmers and you repeatedly and determinedly spout half-baked notions all the way through to arrant denialist nonsense about climate change. One hopes you truly aren't representative.
If people like Jeff Harvey and you could ever manage to take your blinkers off you might discover that viilifying Australian Agriculture is not helping your cause.
I don't see anyone here vilifying agriculture, except perhaps you by associating it with climate change denialism. I'd certainly hope the average Aussie farmer has a much better picture of the current scientific understanding than you do, and spent a lot less time spouting ideologically motivated unscientific objections and distractions to that understanding.
Stu2, you are a complete and utter liar. I never said any of the stuff that you claim above. Thanks to Lotharsson for clarifying it. To be honest, you last post is so utterly contemptible that it does not deserve a polite response. You've out 1 and 1 together and come up with 20.
Farmers are in many cases like fishermen - they claim to know a lot more about the 'habitats' on which they work that the scientists who study them. Of course, in the UK, for example, the farming community by-and-large doesn't want to face up to the fact that intensive agriculture has been a major driver of biodiversity loss. The same goes for the North Sea fishing fleet, continually arguing that cod stocks are doing just fine. In both cases, the answers, of course, ar every different. Unsustainable agricultural practices are a major reason that we are losing biodiversity. Its telling that in areas of Europe where extensive agriculture is still practiced, biodiversity is doing better. There are certainly some farmers, however, who are working to ensure that diversity is enhanced, because they know that a reduction in biodiversity is concomitant with a reduction in vital ecosystem services that are important in agriculture. But in much of the developed world this is the exception rather than the rule.
And for gormless, who gives a rat's ass what farmers think about climate change, any more than bankers, accountants, taxi drivers or shop workers? They've all been duped by a huge well-funded propaganda machine. So what if they don't believe it?
As for Fudd, what an a*******. A profoundly ignorant, right wing one at that. Like Olaus, he won't tell us his day job either. Perhaps not easy when you are writing from an asylum in a padded cell (like Jonas).
Let's make things clear. Humans are simplifying vast swathes of the biosphere. This is occurring through a vast array of human-mediated processes. We are well into the 6th great extinction even in the planet's history and the first to be caused by one of its evolved inhabitants. The planet already has a reduced capacity to support man. We know this from studies showing that critical ecosystem services are being reduced. The Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (2006) made that clear. And since then, things have continued to go in reverse. If we look at just one vital ecosystem service that is vital to much of our agriculture - pollination - we see profoundly worrying signs. Across much of the world wild pollinators are disappearing. Honey bee colonies are in freefall. In western Europe, there has been a collapse in numbers of solitary bees that are important pollinators. This is one service that we do not have effective technology to replicate. And of course, a loss of pollinators is not just harmful to agro-ecosystems but to natural ones as well. These systems generate a wealth of other services that are also vital for humanity. If we see a widespread collapse in systems from ther bottom up, the pollinator crisis is a good place to start. And much of this almost certainly has to do with the overuse and overreliance on pesticides, part of the 'green revolution' that is increasingly rebounding on us in negative ways. Humans and nature have long been on a collision course.
Climate change indeed may be the final nail in our coffin. All of the noble things Stu2 goes on about will mean bloody nothing if we don't deal with climate change. All of these programs that are aimed to help us become more sustainable in small ways will be vanquished quickly if we do not do everything to halt the runaway greenhouse effect.
What is so utterly comical and futile for me writing as a senior scientist on here is that a few deniers write in as if they hold the scientific high ground. On a blog, its easy to write in piffle and to give the impression that the science is on your side. This is what GSW, Stu2, Betula, Olaus, Fudd do endlessly here: none of them are scientists or do anything remotely scientific in their professional lives, yet they write in here as if they know more than the scientists doing the research do. They talk about 'stupidity genes' (Note how Fudd misspelled stupidity as well; he's not the brightest bulb on the Chrimstmas tree) in describing me, whereas my views as a scientist are shared by the vast majority of my peers. So, by association, Fudd is saying that most of the scientists in the world who in large measure agree that humans are the main drivers behind climate change are 'stupid'.
The following are examples of the level of their intellectual discouse. GSW once argued that there are few if any examples of biodiversity being harmed by warming. He focused on amphibian declines for some reason. That argument was easy to debunk. He hasn't read the primary literaure. Betula once argued that increased atmospheric concentrations of C02 were probably beneficial to nature, based on an add he read on greenhouse conditions. This argument of course is also nonsense if one explores more complex ecophysiological processes. Olaus argues that polar bears are doing well. Notwithstanding that there is a huge body of published literature showing negative effects of warming on biodiversity in many different biogeographical regions, which Olaus clearly hasn't read, he's also wrong about polar bears. Then Stu2 downplays clear warming in Australia as an example of weather, and shifts the argument to talk about all of the noble things landowners are doing to protect nature in the country. This has nix to do with climate change, but heck, this lot are good at shifting the goalposts over and over again. Fudd, for his part, has no arguments at all except to impugn scientists as a whole because he doesn't like what the data says and what we interpret from it. He's the worst of the lot. Ultimately, as their arguments are shot down one by one, the small army of deniers on here shift into smear mode. Betula and Olaus started early, given that their arguments were utterly simple. Betula, realizing he couldn't debate oen of my Master's student on ecological effects of AGW, then began by trying to create the impression that AGW was part of some left-wing conspiracy to redistribute wealth. Olaus was left on a small piece of floating ice with his polar bear meme. GSW is all over the place, but none of it is scientific. All three of them post up links to right wing anti-environmental blogs, as if they are useful sources of information. The primary literaure is nowhere in sight.
One thing is certain. My views on AGW and its potential consequences are shared by the vast majority of the scientific community. If even a few more were writing into this blog, then the small coterie of deniers would be out of here in a second. This explains why they pollute the blogosphere. First, they can remain anonymous. Second, if they went anywhere near a university lecture hall or a workshop or a conference venue, they'd be laughingstocks. I've told several of my colleagues and students about my writing into Deltoid. Some have read the smears from Betula, Olaus, Fudd etc. and ask me why I am wasting my valuable time on these nobodies. Its a good point, and something I need to ponder. I do appreciate the views of BBD, Lotharsson, Lionel, crrKampen, FrankD, Nick et al, who are defending the science. But I have to wonder whether its worth it, given the total vacuity of the views of what amounts to a small number of scientific illiterates who write in here.
You have once again demonstrated your complete lack of understanding of the topic.
From Schwartz et al.:
Explanations might involve underestimated negative aerosol forcing [1], overestimated total forcing[2], overestimated climate sensitivity[3], poorly constrained ocean heating[4], limitations of the energy balance model[5], or a combination of effects.
[1] is known - see eg. Ridley et al. (2014)
[2] is known - profound solar minimum of SC24 *not* included in CMIP5 forcings
[3] zero evidence for this; lots against - please explain how deglaciation occurs under orbital forcing if S is low. You haven't yet and I'm fed up with waiting
[4] is known Llovel et al. (2014)
[5] is well known - EMBs are simple toy models that assume linear feedbacks
So Schwartz et al.'s conclusion is reasonable - it is possible to underestimate S by using incomplete data and toy models.
You *plagiarised* your #84 verbatim from a commenter at Bishop Hill. Not only are you a moron, you are so dishonest you have to steal your crap arguments from another fool. Did you think I wouldn't notice? Do you think I don't know that you are incapable of stringing together a comment like that yourself?
Even amongst deniers, blatant plagiarism is utterly unacceptable. If you have no original argument to make to me here, then go away.
BBD, well spotted! Elmer's been reduced to plagiarizing denier anti-environmental sites. This is the depths to which deniers stoop. They are so profoundly stupid that they have to copy-paste garbage from blogs run by non-scientists. How pathetic.
I will only know once posted so that I can test, short of trying this post on another site which allows a preview - and going no further at that site, that is the only bugbear here with html lack of preview to test links.
Looks like doing 'a Wegman' has rebounded on you. It was only a matter of time before your sock began to stink. Not a surprise given the drivel and incompetence you demonstrate.
Yes please! Testable, measurable facts from Stu2 are rarer than hens teeth. No more handwaving from Stu2 - lets have some actual documented examples of our sainted farmers lifting their games by flying in the face of so-called experts at their own cost. We're choking on pablum from Stu2, time for some facts that we can consider, weigh and test.
This ought to be fun.*
*I'll assign a vastly lower, but non-zero, probability of it being informative and corrective. Stu2 might surprise, but thats not where the smart money is.
Goodness! The Glue Sniffer (tm) and the Old Establishment (tm) are REALLY trying to bury #32,#33,#34...
But Australian weather *is* behaving in an unprecedented manner (within the observational record). 2013 was the hottest year since records began in 1910. And lots of records were broken. Lifted directly from the BOM September 2013 report:
Australia’s warmest month on record (January)
Australia’s warmest September on record
Australia’s largest positive monthly anomaly on record (September)
Australia’s warmest summer on record (December 2012 to February 2013)
Australia’s warmest January to September period on record
Australia’s warmest 12-month period on record (broken twice, for the periods ending August and September)
Indeed, Australia’s warmest period on record for all periods 1 to 18 months long ending September 2013
Two significant daily maximum temperature records were also set this year:
Australia’s hottest summer day on record (7 January)
Australia’s warmest winter day on record (31 August)
The periods inclusive of September 2013 have also resulted in numerous State and Territory mean temperature records including:
Warmest September on record for South Australia, Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland and the Northern Territory
Largest positive monthly anomaly on record for South Australia and Queensland (September)
The warmest January to September period on record for South Australia, Victoria, New South Wales and the Northern Territory, and also for Melbourne, Sydney and Adelaide
The warmest 12-month period on record for South Australia, the Northern Territory, and southern Australia
#33 BBD
November 18, 2014
@ Stu2 continued:
Why not go back and read what I wrote – including the linked BOM September 2013 report – oh, and this too – and consider the problem of your shut-eyed denial a little more honestly.
Extremes are variability around a rising temperature trend which is clearly visible in the data. That is AGW. Records are tumbling left and right because the variability is occurring from an ever-rising baseline.
The rising temperature trend shows up all around the world. That’s why it is called ‘global warming’. It is inexplicable unless the increased radiative forcing from CO2 is responsible, as the atmospheric physicists have been telling us it is since 1859.
No other forcing has changed sufficiently to explain the massive accumulation of energy in the climate system. This is not in debate in serious scientific circles and has not been for many years.
You can carry on denying and denying and denying, but the evidence keeps on piling up. It must be a huge mental effort maintaining your stance these days. I don’t envy you.
#34 BBD
November 18, 2014
Since Stu2 is in the shut-eyed denial business, I’ll risk the patience of other commenters by repeating part of the above for a third time:
Extremes are variability around a rising temperature trend which is clearly visible in the data. That is AGW. Records are tumbling left and right because the variability is occurring from an ever-rising baseline.
Read the words, Stu2.
Now look at the data.
That is AGW and it will carry on, with worse and worse regional impacts for the rest of this century and well beyond. The policy aim is to limit the damage as far as possible, which may not be as much as we’d like.
Of course, to StuPid, " The ‘there is only one way’ attitude of people like Jeff Harvey …" is meant in the same way as The Tick's comment on sanity:
Tick: And, isn't sanity really just a one-trick pony anyway? I mean all you get is one trick, rational thinking, but when you're good and crazy, oooh, oooh, oooh, the sky is the limit.
StuPid and GlueSniffer (et al) all want us to Open Our Minds (r) (tm) to the Multiple Ways Of Insanity, just like they have!
#100 (last page) " I’ll risk the patience" - not at all. Besides a re-read and re again of Jeff's great #94 truly sooths.
Something from that, "... ask me why I am wasting my valuable time on these nobodies. Its a good point, and something I need to ponder."
About two years ago I absolutely gave up on serious confronting climate revisionism; as to gaining knowledge there are better venues anyway than infested blogs like this one.
Instead I use climate revisionists solely for my amusement. Bully the bullies.
Meantime I've taken up the attribution question (as in 'weather can be climate change induced and wouldn't exist otherwise') with those on 'our side' of the 'debate' (Holland only, for now). This begets more interesting discussions of course.
"Denial is a mental illness, isn’t it?" - No, it is political. But let them decide.
Actually couple of years ago I pondered the possibility that there was a serious health issue emerging with J. Curry. But it's right wing politics. Now that kind of politics could be deranged but it's a bloody big pandemice then.
"Contrary to the repeated insistence of both climate alarmists and the media, scientists do not all agree on the standard climate alarmism talking points. A Purdue University scholar, surveying scientists in the agricultural sector including climatologists, found surprising disagreement on humanity’s role in climate change. These findings, though contrary to popular narrative on climate change, are unsurprising to anyone familiar with the prevalence of dissent in the scientific community."
I think the interesting thing here is not so much the findings of this American Meteorological Society paper, but the fact that "non-consensus" views are beginning to make their way thru to publication.
We live in interesting times.
(H/T Marc Morano at ClimateDepot)
I think we all know where the agricultural workers stand after yesterday, but looking at the climatologists grouping (n=19),
In answer to the question, "There is increasing discussion about climate change and its potential impacts. Please select the statement that best reflects your beliefs about climate change"
Only 53% selected the response,
"Climate change is occurring, and it is caused mostly by human activities"
Which I wouldn't have said was unequivocal - but then I think we all know that was never more than a politcal statement from the activists.
The relevant inquiry is how many climate scientists agree that modern warming is caused by increasing CO2 forcing. The opinions of non-specialists carry no weight at all.
I'm sure you've read your own reference before posting it, so can you tell us how many *climate scientists* in the survey agreed with the statement:
“Climate change is occurring, and it is caused mostly by human activities”
OH GSW you card you. You did look at the survey didn't you, so you know that only 19 climatologists participated. https://news.uns.purdue.edu/images/2014/prokopy-climatetable.pdf
and that actually over 80% of the 121 cross disciplinary scientists think that mankind have a role in climate change
GSW, thanks for illustrating the Morano Method: make up some misdirection about a paper, and imply that 19 'climatologists' is a number of some utility to make a finding 'contrary to a popular narrative'....and Newsbusters is in the same business of killing understanding.
Morano turns this:
"In 2012, a total of 22 state and
extension climatologists were selected through a purposive sample to represent main outlets of
publicly available and location-specific climate information in the region. Nineteen of these
climatologists completed a pre-interview survey that included the climate change question (see
Wilke 2013). Consistent with the many disciplinary scientists in the two USDA-NIFA projects,
over 90% of the climatologists agreed that climate change is occurring while none believed that
it is not occurring (Table 1).
Fifty-three percent attributed climate change primarily to human activities."
Into this:
Only 53% selected the response,
“Climate change is occurring, and it is caused mostly by human activities”
The 53% of 19 may well believe that that it is partly caused by HA, but the question wasn't asked,.....while for Newsbusters it becomes "only 50% of Scientists blame mankind for climate change in new study".
Great moments in right-wing media. Turning information into shit, 24 / 7.
Comment from 'Ben Franklin' under the Newsbusters piece:
Just to be clear, the authors surveyed 19 climatologists -- not a very large number. Of those 19 climatologists, 17 thought that climate change is occuring and that it was either caused mostly by human activities (10) or by both human activities and natural changes (7). 1 climatologists thought climate change is occuring and it is due to natural changes; and 1 climatologist thought there is not sufficient evidence to know. See Table 1 in the actual report: http://journals.ametsoc.org/do...
This is a very small sample of climatologists and appears to be miss used by the author of this Newsbuster piece.
You clot turbo, that's what n=19 means, and the statement "mankind have a role in climate change" is so innocuous as to be not even worth stating - it's a far cry from saying we're all doomed in the CO2 induced "thermogeddon" you lot are hoping for.
There's a queue for the wiggling, BBD's ahead of you.
;)
You clot turbo, that’s what n=19 means, and the statement “mankind have a role in climate change” is so innocuous as to be not even worth stating – it’s a far cry from saying we’re all doomed in the CO2 induced “thermogeddon” you lot are hoping
That is the wiggling of the first order, GSW.
Newsbusters wiggling amounted to turning the 19 climatologists into '50% of scientists'.
"Newsbusters wiggling amounted to turning the 19 climatologists into ‘50% of scientists’"
Yes Nick, that was a comprehension fail on your part. They surveyed 19 climatologists, ~50% of them endorsed the "consensus position".
You really are all a complete a mess aren't you? No wonder you get the big stuff wrong, even the little things cause you problems! uh... what does n=19 mean GSW? uh... I fink 50% of scientists is more than 19 GSW, wait while I counts 'em on me webbed fingers and toes.
;)
Actually my "have a role in climate change" encompasses "mostly caused by human activities" and more or less equally human activities and natural causes.
The comprehension fail on your part, GSW was to even consider posting the link, and to consider ten respondents to a specific question as somehow usefully equivalent to the findings of literature surveys that cover 10,000 plus. Not even wrong, as they say. But good enough for the bad-faith US 'media' to dedicate their efforts...and they got you wiggling.
I can see from that display of heart-breaking helplessness how you can decide I'm 'a complete mess'... it makes perfect sense. The usual projection.
Please turbo, have a word with BBD, I think your 121 CSCAP team members (The Corn-based Cropping Systems Coordinated Agricultural Project), which includes "social scientists", are unlikely to pass BBD's climate scientists speak only test.
Guys, if you're going to wiggle, can you try and make them consistent so you all agree with each other at least.
Thanks ;)
Yeah, but what was so difficult to understand in the first place? Numbers not your thing I'm guessing. And hey, they did a survey, a snap shot of a opinion, and they presented the results they got, so what?
You may not like the answer, but I don't think anyone's that bothered whether you like it not.
;)
So, GSW, any thoughts on why you'd link to Marc Morano and Newsbusters, trumpeting their framing, then helpfully link to the paper that ruins that framing? The very paper they use for their unsupportable twaddle....
What point were you trying to make? It's not news to anybody much that Morano is persistently-stupid-for-cash. Or that Newsbusters really does destroy news.
What point, again?
You may not like the answer, but I don’t think anyone’s that bothered whether you like it not.
What 'answer'? There is no significance in the sample size, you said so yourself. So no one's 'bothered 'with the survey, never mind my opinion. You've admitted it amounts to nothing, but it's got you posturing with glee, even after you destroyed the idiot framing of Morano and Newsbusters. It seems your act was inadvertent...
Frank D @ # 99.
In my area, the most obvious example is dry land salinity caused by over clearing.
The original land managers, many of them from other lands with prior experience, strongly argued against completely clearing land as they knew the value of keeping trees and wildlife corridors and also the problems associated with erosion and salinity from over clearing.
The 'experts'' however decreed that all land had to be totally cleared within a set timeframe and if it wasn't totally cleared, it was legislated that the land holders would have their land and in some cases their water confiscated.
That was a grim choice for the people who had been put out in these areas by the government of the day. In order to survive and in order to keep their land, they mostly did as the 'experts' had demanded and legislated. It was further hastened by the government of the day providing cheap migrant labour, particularly Chinese, to facilitate the work.
Since then, it has become obvious that the original landholders were correct and that the country should not have been cleared in the manner it was. Since the 1960's and mostly at their own expense, landholders have been quietly and responsibly restoring native trees, mitigating erosion and encouraging native fauna.
It is ironic that NRM bureaucracies under the guise of 'experts' blaming farmers for over clearing are now legislating in the opposite direction and placing caveats over these landholdings which is further preventing land managers from sensibly managing their properties according to triple bottom line principles.
This is only one example, there are others associated with ground water use, creek and river bank management, invasion of pests species etc. If you actually seriously thought about it, you would understand that farmers would of course want to do the right thing by their environment.
Jeff Harvey @# 93 & 94:
"they claim to know a lot more about the ‘habitats’ on which they work that the scientists who study them"
That statement is pure nonsense.
Farmers claim, quite rightly, that they too have valuable generational knowledge about the land they manage that 'academics' could benefit and learn from.
Dismissive attitudes like yours are alienating the very people who should be working hand in hand with environmental scientists.
Here is some of that attitude from the last 2 months:
1.Jeff Harvey
October 10, 2014
Stu2’s posts get dumber and dumber. His response to climate change is thusly summed up: “I actually do practical, measureable stuff about repairing & enhancing native flora and fauna”.
The only way we are going to stave off the disastrous effects of overconsumption of natural capital, social injustice and systemic collapse of ecosystems associated with this and processes linked to it including habitat loss and degradation, overharvesting, climate change etc. is to address the political and socio-economci factors underlying it. You appear to be too naive to understand this. Many eminent scientists have written about it over the years, but you appear the approach which is akin to giving a terminally ill patient with pneumonia better tissues on which to blow their nose. You like to deal on small scales with the symptoms and not the disease, which is the combined effects of the human enterprise.
All your posts reveal Stu2 is that you do not know very much about global change biology and the measures needed to address it. I may as well be corresponding with a mediocre high school student."
&
1.Jeff Harvey
October 11, 2014
1.Its no use for me or anyone else fort that matter to try and discuss any of this with you. You are stuck in your little sandbox. Well done.
& more recently this:
Then Stu2 downplays clear warming in Australia as an example of weather, and shifts the argument to talk about all of the noble things landowners are doing to protect nature in the country. This has nix to do with climate change, but heck, this lot are good at shifting the goalposts over and over again.
So my question to Jeff Harvey is this:
In what way is things that landowners are doing to protect nature in their country so unimportant that you claim makes those (noble) things "nix to do with climate change", especially considering your repeated concerns about poor land management practices and their contribution to climate change?
It is not particularly hard for a 'scientist' like you to come out into these areas and compare photos from last century to modern day land use practices.
It is indeed possible to be productive and environmentally responsible at the same time and in many cases, farmers in the developed nations are the ones who could teach others in countries that are barely past subsistence or slash and burn land practices.
And BTW, cRR Kampen's links were not scientific evidence of clear warming in Australia, they were chatty little Weatherzone PR pieces about an Australian Spring weather event. I think cRR Kampen et al were 'uplaying' a weather event rather than anyone 'downplaying' warming. That is no more helpful or scientific than those you call 'deniers 'uplaying' a Spring cold weather event.
Apologies to the moderator.
I mistyped my email address.
Here it is again.
Frank D @ # 99.
In my area, the most obvious example is dry land salinity caused by over clearing.
The original land managers, many of them from other lands with prior experience, strongly argued against completely clearing land as they knew the value of keeping trees and wildlife corridors and also the problems associated with erosion and salinity from over clearing.
The ‘experts” however decreed that all land had to be totally cleared within a set timeframe and if it wasn’t totally cleared, it was legislated that the land holders would have their land and in some cases their water confiscated.
That was a grim choice for the people who had been put out in these areas by the government of the day. In order to survive and in order to keep their land, they mostly did as the ‘experts’ had demanded and legislated. It was further hastened by the government of the day providing cheap migrant labour, particularly Chinese, to facilitate the work.
Since then, it has become obvious that the original landholders were correct and that the country should not have been cleared in the manner it was. Since the 1960’s and mostly at their own expense, landholders have been quietly and responsibly restoring native trees, mitigating erosion and encouraging native fauna.
It is ironic that NRM bureaucracies under the guise of ‘experts’ blaming farmers for over clearing are now legislating in the opposite direction and placing caveats over these landholdings which is further preventing land managers from sensibly managing their properties according to triple bottom line principles.
This is only one example, there are others associated with ground water use, creek and river bank management, invasion of pests species etc. If you actually seriously thought about it, you would understand that farmers would of course want to do the right thing by their environment.
Jeff Harvey @# 93 & 94:
“they claim to know a lot more about the ‘habitats’ on which they work that the scientists who study them”
That statement is pure nonsense.
Farmers claim, quite rightly, that they too posses valuable generational knowledge about the land they manage that ‘academics’ could benefit and learn from.
Dismissive attitudes like yours are alienating the very people who should be working hand in hand with environmental scientists.
Here is some of that attitude from the last 2 months:
1. Jeff Harvey
October 10, 2014
Stu2’s posts get dumber and dumber. His response to climate change is thusly summed up: “I actually do practical, measureable stuff about repairing & enhancing native flora and fauna”.
The only way we are going to stave off the disastrous effects of overconsumption of natural capital, social injustice and systemic collapse of ecosystems associated with this and processes linked to it including habitat loss and degradation, overharvesting, climate change etc. is to address the political and socio-economci factors underlying it. You appear to be too naive to understand this. Many eminent scientists have written about it over the years, but you appear the approach which is akin to giving a terminally ill patient with pneumonia better tissues on which to blow their nose. You like to deal on small scales with the symptoms and not the disease, which is the combined effects of the human enterprise.
All your posts reveal Stu2 is that you do not know very much about global change biology and the measures needed to address it. I may as well be corresponding with a mediocre high school student.”
&
1. Jeff Harvey
October 11, 2014
1. Its no use for me or anyone else fort that matter to try and discuss any of this with you. You are stuck in your little sandbox. Well done.
& more recently this:
Then Stu2 downplays clear warming in Australia as an example of weather, and shifts the argument to talk about all of the noble things landowners are doing to protect nature in the country. This has nix to do with climate change, but heck, this lot are good at shifting the goalposts over and over again.
So my question to Jeff Harvey is this:
In what way is things that landowners are doing to protect nature in their country so unimportant that you claim makes those (noble) things “nix to do with climate change”, especially considering your repeated concerns about poor land management practices and their contribution to climate change?
It is not particularly hard for a ‘scientist’ like you to come out into these areas and compare photos from last century to modern day land use practices.
It is indeed possible to be productive and environmentally responsible at the same time and in many cases, farmers in the developed nations are the ones who could teach others in countries that are barely past subsistence or slash and burn land practices.
And BTW, cRR Kampen’s links were not scientific evidence of clear warming in Australia, they were chatty little Weatherzone PR pieces about an Australian Spring weather event. I think cRR Kampen et al were ‘uplaying’ a weather event rather than anyone ‘downplaying’ warming. That is no more helpful or scientific than those you call ‘deniers ‘uplaying’ a Spring cold weather event.
#25 I think cRR Kampen et al were ‘uplaying’ a weather event rather than anyone ‘downplaying’ warming. That is no more helpful or scientific than those you call ‘deniers ‘uplaying’ a Spring cold weather event.
"This is all a bit confusing"
You probably are a bit confused BBD, we've come to accept it as your natural state.
@BBD #24
"Unless these 37% of respondents can provide an evidentially-supported case for that natural component, they are on their own."
Ok, so it's still only a 53% endorsement for the "consensus" position then.
@Nick #23
The paper is what it is, they did a survey of various groups, they presented their results, they issued a press release with their results, articles were written about their results, people on blogs discussed their results - are you with it so far?
Either way, if you have an issue with the paper, contact them, tell them where they went wrong, email the American Meteorological Society, let them know how you would have done it.
It's been "peer reviewed" Nick. I thought you lot considered that the "Gold Standard" for "stuff".
Dummkopf!
;)
And BTW, cRR Kampen’s links were not scientific evidence of clear warming in Australia, they were chatty little Weatherzone PR pieces about an Australian Spring weather event.
Ok, so it’s still only a 53% endorsement for the “consensus” position then.
The scientific consensus on AGW is an expert consensus. The survey you are waving about is *not* a survey of experts. Therefore it cannot be used to demonstrate weakness in the expert consensus.
if you have an issue with the paper, contact them, tell them where they went wrong,
Try to stay somewhere in the area you marked out, GSW...I have no issues with the paper, the fun is with the 'framing'.....It is clear you have unwittingly destroyed Newsbusters and Morano's 'interpretation'. Well done, you!
How long have you been suffering from involuntary self-debunking disorder? It goes back a long way, no?
All joking aside BBD, can I just check your "position"?
You're saying that, in your view, climatologists are not "expert" enough to hold a valid opinion on "climate change"? is that where you're at with this?
I was following when you said you were a bit confused, that had the ring of truth to it, but you think climatologists are expert in what? car maintenance? decorating perhaps? NOT climate, is that it?
Yesterday you were dismissing the opinions of the agricultural community. Today, its the climatologists that are getting the "treatment", and turbo wants to beef-up the concensus numbers by head counting the social scientists.
As I said earlier, you're all a bit of mess aren't you? Got save us from environmental activists. Not a brain cell between 'em.
It's simple enough. The *expert* consensus among climate scientists is virtually unanimous. This suggests that the self-identified sample of 'climate scientists' in the survey may not be representative of expert knowledge in the field.
Meanwhile, #EvidenceDenial
#32 #33# #34
Observations. Data. Records. Facts. Not surveys of opinion.
False equivalence is a logical fallacy. Please, think about this.
BBD @#28
I was commenting on cRR Kampen's Weatherzone links not your links @ #32 #33 #34
Where do you claim that I denied that the participants at the G20 got a bit uncomfortable or that a hot dry windy weather pattern on the coastal fringe has killed flying foxes?
Are you claiming those Weatherzone links are scientific evidence of clear warming in Australia?
Today, its the climatologists that are getting the “treatment"
'the climatologists' = a subset of 19....oh, dear. We look at the data link provided by turbo at #11
19 responded. 10 agreed that human activity was main contributor, 7 agreed that human influence was about half, 1 agreed that it's mostly natural and one [1] thought we did not have enough evidence to know with certainty that climate change is occurring or not.
In the face of that, GSW is untroubled by this framing of the results: "Only 50% of scientists blame mankind for climate change in new study".
And further, GSW cannot see the fallacious equivalence of comparing this tiny sample of responses to questions with papers that drew their conclusions for literature surveys of paper abstracts with sample sizes of 10,000+.....
As I said earlier, you’re all a bit of mess aren’t you?
It's always projection. Indeed, denial is a mental illness.
Guys, you are needed at Macrobusiness (Australian site). It's being infested with paid deniers supporting the coal mining industry. All help most welcome....
Sorry BBD @# 42.
It appeared by your post @#28 that you were defending those Weatherzone links as scientific evidence.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Yes those other links are observational.
In what way are you claiming I'm denying that?
I put up a post @#25 that once again explains areas where I can see "something being done about it".
Of course it has nothing to do with some grand political gesture that I believe someone else should do and someone else should pay for and seems to demand a radical dismantling of modern western urbanised society, but nonetheless, it is something that has already produced positive environmental results, from a demographic which I believe could be working hand in hand with environmental scientists.
My questions have always been about that 'something' we should be 'doing about it'.
I don't think the grand political gestures that demand global action for 'the greatest moral challenge of our time' and coin spectacularly stupid terms like 'climate criminals', demonise or dismiss progress and favour 'deliberate global governance' run by some iteration of a benevolent global bureaucratic dictatorship are proving to be particularly successful methods in 'doing something about it', particularly in terms of land use practice and/or helping to solve socio-economic problems that encourage poor land use practices.
My observation is that behaviour is creating divisive arguments and hence political inaction - other than a lot of political grandstanding.
So GSW is laying charges of evidence denial against people who are pointing out that his tiny cherry-pick is not the full set of evidence, and that the full set of evidence indicates a rather different conclusion.
Hillarious how the cultists froth about the number of scientist answering the survey when they find Jeffie's first hand spider a large number enough for top notch climate science. :-)
The shaking tent here at Deltoid, though only a few left (not right), can't handle the reality that has been there all along, ergo that science never was settled and that fire and brimstone procured by politically compromized nutters with napoleon-complexes was a scientific outlier. :-)
#46 So you too concede [n=19] is meaningless except for the purposes of your imaginary 'engagement' with Jeff. That's a giggle.
And you're obviously indifferent to how a couple of media stooges can spin the least statistically meaningful part of a paper into a general--and utterly false-- claim about the scientific community's views. Talk about 'politically compromised nutters'... it's always projection with you sad idiots. And the penny never drops.
Blockquote>Yes those other links are observational.
In what way are you claiming I’m denying that?
#EvidenceDenial
The evidence is set out at #32 #33 and #34. You are *denying* it by refusing to acknowledge it. Denial by avoidance.
The spring weather is extremely unusual, but rather than focus on a single event, I've set out the CONTEXT in which single season events should be viewed.
Since you persist in shut-eyed denial I will repeat #34 for a fourth time:
Extremes are variability around a rising temperature trend which is clearly visible in the data. That is AGW. Records are tumbling left and right because the variability is occurring from an ever-rising baseline.
Read the words, Stu2. Read. Don't blank. Don't deny.
That is AGW and it will carry on, with worse and worse regional impacts for the rest of this century and well beyond. The policy aim is to limit the damage as far as possible, which may not be as much as we’d like.
Denialwon’t stop AGW. Denial makes it worse.
#EvidenceDenial
What we DO about it is reduce CO2 emissions. Now. Forevermore. Because physics. Not politics or 'environmentalism'. Because survival.
Fuck you ideological nonsense. It's getting in the way.
I see Olaus is being unoriginal again. The guy is so thick he cannot even come up with his own insults and smears but has to copy-paste those of others. He must be a hoot (e.g. real bore) at parties. Perhaps its due to his poor education, because it is obvious (or should be) that Olaus isn't the smartest cookie in the pack.
Speaking of hilarious, I wonder why Marc 'right wingnut extremo' Morano didn't make a big deal of the recent article by Bart Verheggen with respect to climate scientists views on GW? Its light years ahead of the n = 19 on the paper Morano trumps. But of course, its obvious why: Morano is a right wing shill and even boasts about it. Yet on Deltoid we have GWS, aka gormless, who seems tol think that most on here are interested in what Climate Dept and GWPF - shills, shills and more shills - have to say about science. Gormless, for those unfamilar with him, is an obnoxious idiot who, along with Olaus, fawns over another scientifically unqualified idiot, Jonas, who was banished toi his own thread on Deltoid. Gormless has been writing into Deltoid for several years, and for some reason keeps coming back even though his arguments are ritually debunked and despite the fact that his dependence on right wing anti-environmental weblogs is obvious. He thinks he is a scientific/intellectual heavyweight because he has a basic degree in chemistry. But that's more than either Jonas or Olaus have, even though one of the loonies (was it Elmer?) once claimed that Olaus was the only person on Deltoid to have scientific knowledge. I am not making this stuff up. This is the kind of people we have to debate as deniers on Deltoid.
Anyway, here's the paper by Bart that blows the GSW bull**** out of the water.
As for Stu2, its clear his understanding of issues in the international arena are poor. I cannot debate and discuss issues if this is the case. I stand by the posts I wrote on Deltoid that he copy-pasted but the implications of which he clearly doesn't understand. I'd thought about making a lengthy reply to it but its not worth the effort.
Wow, our local obsessive-compulsive, OP, really is stupid enough to believe that the spider he simply can't let go of is considered "a large enough number for top notch climate science", because apparently all the other evidence establishing the current understanding of climate science doesn't exist so for that reason Jeff MUST have been trying to argue the case solely from the spider.
One final point: note how AGW deniers like to converse amongst themselves and then post their musings up on blogs for others to see. Usually these conversations are witless quips that they think are funny. Olaus is a master at it (see above #46).
Here in the Netherlands, there was a similar incident involving a well known colleague who upset two climate change deniers a few years ago. These two people actually wrote insulting emails about my colleague and cc'd them to him. They were actually conversing amongst themselves, and not with him, but they made sure he received the emails. This kind of behavior is beneath contempt.
Frank D @ # 99.
In my area, the most obvious example is dry land salinity caused by over clearing.
The original land managers, many of them from other lands with prior experience, strongly argued against completely clearing land as they knew the value of keeping trees and wildlife corridors and also the problems associated with erosion and salinity from over clearing.
The ‘experts” however decreed that all land had to be totally cleared within a set timeframe and if it wasn’t totally cleared, it was legislated that the land holders would have their land and in some cases their water confiscated.
As expected, Stu2 keeps trying to dose us with pablum, when we want something to chew on. There is not a single factual piece of information in that charming, but useless, anecdote. I'm not saying its untrue, only that it is so fact-deficient that it has zero informational content. Where? When? Who? If its been legislated, its in the public space, but Stu2 declines to give enough information to allow his claims to be investigated. He might as well be telling us about a UFO sighting.
So permit me to quote myself, from #99 on the previous page:
Testable, measurable facts from Stu2 are rarer than hens teeth. No more handwaving from Stu2 – lets have some actual documented examples of our sainted farmers lifting their games by flying in the face of so-called experts at their own cost. We’re choking on pablum from Stu2, time for some facts that we can consider, weigh and test.
I am pleased that you brought that up, here is Tom Harris trying to wish the records away:
The records are meaningless.
Here are the stats:
1 - The record for Oct 2014 was set by 1/100 deg C over that for Oct 2003, but the uncertainty in the calculated temperature is 7 times bigger, according to the National Climate Data Center.
2 - the year to date "record" was set over 2010 by 1/100th of a degree C and the uncertainty is 11 times bigger.
So, the records are meaningless.
Tom Harris, B. Eng., M. Eng. (Mech.)
Executive Director,
International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC).
British climate change sceptic Christopher Monckton has thrown his support behind the hard-right, anti-multiculturalism party Rise Up Australia, one of many micro-parties hoping to win a seat in Victoria’s upper house.
Lord Monckton has been in Melbourne for the past three months specifically to help the party with their campaign for the 29 November election.
On Thursday night, Monckton was in the public gallery for the Casey council meeting to support councillor Rosalie Crestani, Rise Up’s upper house candidate for south-east metropolitan region.
Crestani had a motion before the council proposing communications material supporting the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex communities be banned on the grounds it discriminated against heterosexuals.
The council rejected the motion.
Rise Up leader and evangelical Christian pastor Daniel Nalliah is the party’s lead candidate for the region. It is the first time his party has stood in a Victorian election.
Frank D @# 99.
Which bit are you looking for testable facts?
The fact that dry land salinity & erosion was caused by over clearing?
The fact that landholders were required to clear their land by legislation?
The fact that since the '60s farmers have been restoring and repairing the damage caused by over clearing?
The fact that farmers have also been mitigating other issues such as invasive species?
What are you expecting me to add?
Most of the information is archived in local libraries and local & state govt.
There is information available in archived newspapers with accompanying photos.
Older Australian history texts have further info as well.
You can also find information in the diaries of early Australian poets and writers such as Henry Lawson.
Of course much of early Australian history is anecdotal, just as it is in other cultures and countries.
There is no lack of physical evidence of the degradation that was originally caused or the work that has been done to repair it.
Hope that helps?
BBD @#48
The hot, dry windy Spring event was not 'extremely unusual'.
They happen more often than not west of the the Great Dividing Range, sometimes as early as August (late winter).
The less usual, but far from 'extremely unusual' occurrence was that it was a strong enough weather system to reach and affect the coastal fringe.
Stu2 can't really be this stupid....? The bit I quoted back at you of course!
"The experts decreed...set timeframe...legislated"
Which experts?
What decree?
When and where did this occur?
What legislation? Commonwealth or State Law? Which government passed this legislation?
This talk of land confiscation is ... well ... alarming. So I want more specific information to fact check it. There's not need to waffle a half page of lame attempt to recast what I've asked. A few names, a few dates, a place, a few legal instruments. A sub-hundred word answer will cover it.
Perhaps Stu2 is not familiar with the difference between anecdotes and "Testable, measurable facts"? Either that, or this evasion starts to look like Stu2 isn't really here to have a good faith discussion - its on Stu2 to prove otherwise.
Frank D
3 basic answers.
1) NSW govt pre & post federation + federal govt/state govt programs such as soldier settlement programs, the snowy hydro scheme and several other govt sponsored decentralisation schemes .
2) State dept decrees administered by entities such as WC&IC and depts of agriculture
3) Employees of depts from 1 & 2 above who were appointed as experts and authorities.
I agree it is concerning that these people lost land & water if they did not 'comply' and completely clear their land.
My wife's great grandfather, a soldier settler from Scotland, was one of those who defied the govt legislation and refused to clear a low lying area with unique characteristics. He saved that piece of land from clearing but he had part of his land and water 'reallocated' by the govt of the day because he refused to see that low lying area destroyed.
I could continue with many other examples of legislative mistakes that were made that caused degradation.
Unfortunately however, I suspect you're not really that interested in the political history of the settlement of inland NSW .
Tom Harris IMHO needs to take his meds. To argue that October and annual records are meaningless when both earlier ones are very recent shows how desperate he is. He also acknowledges that 2010 was thus far the warmest year on record! Now that 2014 is about to equal or surpass it, all he's done is confirm that the planet is warming, Thanks Tom. If the denila lobby depends of people like you, then you are in deep, deep trouble.
I wonder if this marin biologist, in parts, had Deltoid in mind when writing this article? On the other hand it doesn't mention the priviledged, white, medieval-aged, males with authoritarian personalities and severe self-idolatry issues:
"The rent-seekers, opportunists, third-rate academics, carbon-market scam artists and peddlers of catastrophic prophecy can see the alarmist bubble deflating, so they're trying harder than ever to sustain the scare. Problem is, Mother Nature isn't cooperating."
Walter Stark is a fucking crank, Olaus. A crop circle nut. He knows absolutely nothing about climate science and is in no way whatsoever credentialled to pass comment on it.
Another massive credibility fail. Can't you muppets find anyone to wave at us who can be taken even a little seriously?
Scientists say this year, ocean surface temperatures around the world reached the highest temperature ever recorded, due in large part to the normally chilly North Pacific which has warmed three to four degrees above average — far beyond any recorded value.
As a result warm water has spread along the North Pacific coast releasing enormous amounts of heat into the atmosphere that had been locked up in the western tropical Pacific for nearly a decade shifting hurricane tracks, and weakening trade winds.
Dr Richard Dewey with Ocean Networks Canada says scientists are still trying to figure out what's going on. (CBC)
The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Bill Peterson says it's very unusual.
"We've never seen this before. It's beyond anyone's experience and this is why it's puzzling," he said.
Why should you wish to align yourself with the views of a crank, Olaus? The rational thing to do would be to distance yourself from them. Or run the risk of being written off as a nutter yourself.
Can't you see that?
Nice bit of shut-eyed denial on the *unprecedented* rise in sea surface temperatures btw.
This marine biologist who should be thoroughly ashamed of himself for writing such a scurrilous, irresponsible and fallacious article - but then it is the Quadrant.
But Starck did get one thing right:
As so often, Shakespeare said it best: “A tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”
what is it with these reality inverted types?
All together now, 'It's always projection.'
Oh! And he is starck naked WRT scientific credibility which he has stripped himself of - exhibitionist!
If you have not yet seen Chasing Ice then get a copy and watch it. I have watched it several times and am impressed with Balog's tenacity and courage, and that of his team, in capturing time laps images of ice in melt down. As a photographer myself I found it riveting stuff. What a vision Balog had when he thought this up. Brilliant, just brilliant.
It should leave everybody in no doubt that we are in trouble. Maybe a complimentary read of Zwally et. al. (2002) [and 2005 which spikes later criticism re AR4] is in order:
The Warming Papers - Ice Sheets and Sea Level Rise where one learns that back then in summer melt the ice sheet was lifted by half a metre due to bed melt water pressure increase causing an acceleration of the ice sheet movement.
Starck migh be a nutter, I don’t know, but he for sure has good bearging on clitmate scientology modus Deltoid.
No, Olaus, he's just a science denying crank who believes in crop circles being of nonhuman origin. He isn't qualified to have an opinion on climate science. He is not a climate scientist. Like the vast majority of "sceptics" he has no idea what he is talking about.
When was the last time you heard a climate scientist telling the entire field of marine biology that it had its collective head up its arse? See how utterly bizarre Starck's behaviour really is? See how cranky he is? Why can't you lot understand that you have no scientific argument at all? Your cheerleaders aren't climate scientists, they are cranks and libertarian ideologues.
Well, talks on crop circles and chemtrails are as insubstantional and unscientific as Jeff's frothings about "Elders of Fossil fuel", I'll give you that.
Try not to link to the ravings of cranks in future. This will inevitably limit your field somewhat, but at least you will be spared further humiliation of this type.
BBD.
Walter Starck, despite his one time fascination with crop circles, is a marine biologist.
His career in marine biology has been largely 'hands on' which means he hasn't spent much of his working life in the 'publish or perish' world of academia.
The Quadrant piece is an OP and essentially about Starck's observations and perspective on the politics of climate science.
Your attempt to summarily dismiss him via a personal attack actually helps to confirm one of his observations about the politics of climate science.
Whether people are old or young, nice or not so nice, male or female, charismatic or nerdy, have quirky interests or hobbies, work for themselves, academia, the govt or private enterprise and numerous other permutations of lifetime choices is not really the point.
As Turboblocke points out, Starck's understanding of climate science is profoundly confused. He is not qualified to comment.
This bears repeating: when was the last time you heard a climate scientist telling the entire field of marine biology that it had its collective head up its arse? See how utterly bizarre Starck’s behaviour really is? See how cranky he is?
# 70, Scientists undertaking to present best informed positions, context and background do not resort to Quadrant to present their cases. Quadrant is a soap-box not a journal.
Quadrant is an organ for marginalised right-wing entitled bed-wetters, hysterics and disinformers, technically speaking. That is the editorial policy.
"males with authoritarian personalities and severe self-idolatry issues"
Yes, Olaus, I am glad that you recognize your personal affliction. Its about time, too. You have no scientific qualifications whatsoever, post bullshit up here from shills and cranks and plagiarize others insults. You ought to see a shrink.
It's entirely predictable that Olaus will slavishly point people to pap written by people like Starck, but highly amusing that he does so apparently unaware that he's about a month late to the party. He's not even up to speed in his own speciality - the denialosphere!
#40 'I was commenting on cRR Kampen’s Weatherzone links not your links'
You were denying evidence. You are creating a strawman from the evidence I provided by pretending it was a singular event and, of course, by neglecting the significance of that single event. BBD was so good to do the work you should have done.
A few names, a few dates, a place, a few legal instruments. A sub-hundred word answer will cover it.
Stu2 waffles, adding this by way of syrup:
I could continue with many other examples of legislative mistakes that were made that caused degradation.
"Other examples"? He hasn't even given one yet. Just placed some more icing on his layer cake of anecdote. Without specifics this is, as W.S.Gilbert put it, "merely corroborative detail intended to give artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative".
Stu2's (predictable) evasion is noted.
BTW, based on his little family anecdote, it would appear Stu2 understands the causes of dry land salinity about as well as he does the difference between "governance" and "government" (#44 - suprised BBD didn't take him up on that). Of course, it could just be his habitual (intentional?) lack of clarity...who can tell?
Olaus cites any mickey mouse scientist who promotes the same b* he believes.
But let me make an important point. Olaus is constantly harping on about my supposed 'self-idolatry', whilst somehow ignoring the self-idolatry of the pompous asses on the weblogs he slavishly follows. It should be clear that Jennifer Marohasy, Jonanne Nova, Nigel Lawson, Anthony Watts, Marc Morano, Judith Curry et al. all have major self-idolatry issues, yet the Swedish meatball gives them all a free pass. Also, isn't Marohasy a 'maggotologist' to coin one of meatball's unoriginal quips? Or is her 'maggotology' legit on the basis of her being an AGW sceptic? And you'd think Watts and Morano would exhibit some restraint as neither has an scientific qualifications.
The point is that Olaus is a pure and utter hypocrite. He also suffers from envy: you can bet if he had anything remotely reseambling a scientific background, we'd all know about it. That he doesn't is patently clear. I also recall the other Swedish meatball, Jonas N, constantly boasting of his superior intelligence, yet his self-idolatry was never raised as an issue. And old Jonas has the same scientific background as Olaus. Which means nil.
And then there's GSW calling me an 'activist'. So what are Morano, Watts, Curry, etc? Honest arbiters of the truth? They're all activists. This especailly applies to Morano, who can't tell a mole cricket from a giraffe.
With respect to science, what's clear is that every time Olaus and the others write up something on here, it gets debunked. Olaus wrote at length about a hiatus that isn't. Then he argues that Polar Bears are doing well. they aren't. Citing population data tells us nothing about the per capita fitness of the bears, not of the fact that changes to their Artic tundra habitats are dynamic and ongoing. If one wants to examine the true demographic status opf a population, it is imperative to do more intimate ecophysiological research. One might just as well say that the per capita fitness of 1000 starving people in the Congo is clearly less than 100 healthy people in the United States. Simply rehashing population data tell us nothing about the age-structure of the population nor of the physiological condition of those in the population. Those arguing that Polar Bears are doing fine focus simply on numbers and assume that conditions in the Arctic are static. Those arguing that they aren't doing well look more closely at the population age-structure, the condition of those in the population and the consequences of short-term dynamic conditions in the habitats upon which they depend.
And of course, there are hundreds of other studies showing negative effects of warming on biodiversity. Nature does not begin and end with Polar Bears; they are merely symbolic.
Finally, about the spiders and other arthropods I saw in Algonquin Park during the heart of winter. Amongst other biota I also saw a large number of winter collemboles, which are normally active in late February and early March. I saw dozens of groups and many hundreds of thousands of them in January, 4 weeks ahead of their normal cycles. Given I was with one other person, had there been hundreds of scientists working across a wide swathe of central Ontario during that exceptional winter they would have noted a pandemic of invert activity over many habitats. What Betula and Olaus do is try and belittle my obervations as if what I saw was the only invert activity in the park. Given I covered about 0.000000001 % of it, one can easily imagine that there were millions of normally diapausing arthropods exhibiting activity in just a small area well outside of their normal phenological window. This is indeed significant.
cRR Kampen @#90.
Your links were about a singular weather event.
Whether that weather event was significant evidence of AGW is not present in those chatty little Weatherzone PR pieces.
Neither was that weather event 'extremely unusual'.
It is merely just not common for those type of weather patterns to affect the eastern coastal fringe. They are common west of the divide.
It would be 'extremely unusual' not to have them west of the divide.
Australian Spring weather patterns are highly variable and always have been.
It would be 'extremely unusual' for an Australian Spring to be just average and fit snugly into a GCM.
On any one day the temps nationwide can vary by more than 30℃.
#94, "Neither was that weather event ‘extremely unusual’."
No, it wasn't. It was just the highest temp in the met record there, not for November but for any month.
Good that you see how usual it is for temps to rise higher every fucking year.
How does it feel to fuck a strawman six times per half day, Stupid Too? Why project your pain on me, Stupid Too?
#93 BBD, he does pay attention, like a moron suffering some OCD.
...and you can click back day by day to the start of November to get a grip on the anomalous heat in the eastern half of Australia for the month so far
"The current record-breaking temperatures indicate that the 14-year-long pause in ocean warming has come to an end."
A 14 year "pause" in ocean warming? How could this be? The 18 year "pause" in surface temps was attributed to the heat going into the ocean? So it was a double pause all along?
From Lionel's second link:
"A new lake effect snowstorm is pummeling snow-weary Buffalo, New York once again"
Please explain how a "lake effect" snowstorm is a result of AGW.....thanks.
Regarding Lionel's third link:
I have to admit - The red colors in the "simulation" are scary. Do you think they could make a "simulation" with CO2 depicted as green to see if I feel the same? I'm moody like that...
"Please explain how a “lake effect” snowstorm is a result of AGW…..thanks."
Convection. Those snowfalls will get worse. Until, of course, AGW keeps even winter temps positive, then it will be rain, a LOT of it.
Some years ago we in Holland, Feb 2012, got a Siberian blast which partly went over the North Sea. This sea was like 'steaming hot' after a warm autumn and record warm first half of winter. Result unexpected: up to 7 cm of snow at surface air pressure of 1037 hPa while any precip at such a barometer used to be unthinkable here (except fog).
Interpretating NASA's CO2 simulation, happy Betula forgot a revisionist talking point. Anthropogenic contribution to world CO2 production is about or slighly less than 3% of total production. Doesn't look like much but it accumulates nevertheless. Anyway this is why you'll be hard put to find CO2 sources as industrial and/or coal burning areas.
Betula shows that he has difficulty with complexity:
A 14 year “pause” in ocean warming? How could this be? The 18 year “pause” in surface temps was attributed to the heat going into the ocean? So it was a double pause all along?
You muppet, temperatures rise and heat accumulates asynchronously spatially and temporarily, what the article was referring to was conditions in the North West Pacific.
Please explain how a “lake effect” snowstorm is a result of AGW…..thanks.
Blockhead, read the words in the article:
While last week’s winter blast appears to be the freak offspring of a typhoon-blasted jet stream and a warm Lake Erie, it’s also part of a long-term pattern that shows no sign of changing.
Meteorologists and geographers say that lake-effect snows have increased as temperatures have warmed in recent decades. That means more bizarre early-season storms, though not necessarily as bad as last week’s, are likely in the future as the warming trend continues.
“The current record-breaking temperatures indicate that the 14-year-long pause in ocean warming has come to an end.”
A 14 year “pause” in ocean warming? How could this be? The 18 year “pause” in surface temps was attributed to the heat going into the ocean? So it was a double pause all along?
I noticed that too. Sloppy writing. Not only do they speak of a pause when they mean a slowdown, they have not clearly differentiated between sea surface temperatures and ocean heat content. The rate of increase in SSTs slowed. OHC increase did not.
“Please explain how a “lake effect” snowstorm is a result of AGW…..thanks.”
Hell, my grandad was a trawlerman and even HE knew that it could be *too cold to snow*.
Somehow, only those old fossils who claim AGW is wrong (for any of a number of incompatible and psychotic "reasons" are accepted as having "everyday knowledge".
Any old knowledge that doesn't toe the party line for them is suspect.
You are still engaging in evidence denial despite the records falling all around you as AGW increases the baseline temperature around which seasonal variability occurs.
No other forcing has changed sufficiently to explain the massive accumulation of energy in the climate system. This is not in debate in serious scientific circles and has not been for many years.
It will carry on getting hotter for at least the rest of this century and possibly well beyond unless emissions are significantly reduced in coming decades. If warming goes unabated the human and ecological impacts will be increasingly savage as the century progresses. It's barely started, but already look at weather extremes in Australia. Image how things will be thirty years down the line. Then sixty.
No wonder some people go into denial and refuse to accept the evidence even though it is overwhelming.
I noticed that too. Sloppy writing. Not only do they speak of a pause when they mean a slowdown,
Yes, I noted that too, but then our Met' Office don't have a clean record on this one with their 'The recent pause in warming' 3 part paper which has been mentioned so many times now I thought this point was understood. But I should have known the zombie believers would sail past any explanations again.
Nick.
Did you notice this bit from your link?
“All temperature anomalies are calculated with respect to the average over the 1961 to 1990 reference period”
Is that 31 year time period some type of average temperature utopia for Australia?
Over the longer haul, the anomalies are about the same as BBD’s linked timeline.
BBD.
Did you notice these 2 pieces of information in your timeline ?
"Mean global temperature (1850-1870) is about 13.6°C."
&
2013:
"Mean global temperature is 14.6°C"
Which is a cumulative rise of 1C in the global mean in approx 160 years.
I’m not sure what you claim everyone is ‘denying’ here?
Yes, the mean is 1C warmer and human behaviour likely had some influence.
In an Australian Spring, variability is actually the norm. 2 days ago, it was indeed very hot and uncomfortable, but today, we’re back in long sleeves and sheltering from a chilly wind as yet another Spring weather pattern works its way through Australia. On any one day in Australia, the mean max or mean min for the nation can vary as much as 40 deg C. Trying to average that out may be an interesting exercise, but it is rather meaningless in terms of any AGW significance in an Australian Spring.
The difference in the max temp over the last few weeks just in my region (southern inland NSW) is greater than 25 degs C.
Unsurprisingly, the native flora and fauna are dealing with it as they normally do.
Us mere mortals have all been a bit uncomfortable though.
2 Octobers ago, we had devastating bushfires on the eastern seaboard yet in the same period this year it was cold and even had some snow in exactly those same area.
I think you will find it quite unproductive to try and read alarming AGW significance or trying to ‘tease out’ an alarming AGW significance into Australian Spring weather patterns. Of all of our seasons, Spring is the one to be the most uncooperative of all.
Stu2, a baseline of 'climate' length is necessary to determine climate-scale departures from it...
If you chose 50-81 or 40-71, the current anomalies are higher still...higher, comprendo?
On any one day in Australia, the mean max or mean min for the nation can vary as much as 40 deg C. Trying to average that out may be an interesting exercise, but it is rather meaningless in terms of any AGW significance in an Australian Spring.
On the contrary , it is entirely meaningful! You really are not across any of this data stuff, are you.
Australian spring trends baseline 1961-90...we know what is happening, you seem to be lost somewhere...
But...but...but...Nick, everyone knows that the BOM has questions to answer about them fudging their long term records to make it look like Australia is warming when it really isn't!
Stop denying and look at the data. Let's look at Australia again. That's nearly 1C since 1950 and AGW is only just getting going.
Stop denying the data and think about where this is going. I repeat (because you are still denying): it will carry on getting hotter for at least the rest of this century and possibly well beyond unless emissions are significantly reduced in coming decades. If warming goes unabated the human and ecological impacts will be increasingly savage as the century progresses.
It’s barely started, but already look at weather extremes in Australia. Image how things will be thirty years down the line. Then sixty.
Yes, the mean is 1C warmer and human behaviour likely had some influence.
Not "some". All. The entire ~1C is anthropogenic. There have been no other one-way forcing changes apart from CO2. Physics therefore dictates that the ~1C is entirely anthropogenic.
The climate system doesn't just warm itself up by magic. This is why I keep on talking about physical climatology and forcing changes. That is how it works. That is climate science. And you are denying it. Denying physics is just stupid.
On any one day in Australia, the mean max or mean min for the nation can vary as much as 40 deg C.
"Mean max or mean min" for the nation implies Stu2 is talking about spatially averaged temperatures. In which case this is bullshit on no day in Australia's history has the mean max or mean min been separated by 40 degrees, nor departed from long term means by that much. This is such obvious bullshit that I can't believe he actually meant that. But any attempt to grok Stu2's meaning here only produce sentences that are equally bullshit. What was I saying about "habitual lack of clarity"?
So what the fuck was Stu2 trying to say? Does anyone know?
Here's thje NOAA temperature data covering January-October 2014. Note how many areas are having the warmest year so far on record: that includes most of western Europe and vast swathes of all oceans. I wonder what spin the deniers will place on this.
BBD #13: There have been no other one-way forcing changes apart from CO2.
Quibbling, I know, but on an up-to-millenial scale, the orbital variations collected under the banner "Milankovitch Cycles" are another one way forcing.
Unfortunately for the denier-o-sphere, the current changes add up to a negative forcing, pushing the mild cooling trend seen over the last 10000 years or so.
It is probably safe to say that CO2 is responsible more than 100% of the warming observed over the last 150 years (increasingly so more recently).
human behaviour likely had some influence
Well, I suppose >100% is "some"... LOL, what a muppet.
#14 Stu's just reiterating that he's stumped by the concepts being discussed . He probably means highest max and lowest min on any one day, but of course this is of no relevance to discussion of climate change. He is repeating the 'but look at diurnal variation' argument-from-incredulity seen in denier blogland for years now.
"So what the fuck was Stu2 trying to say? Does anyone know?"
It's one of the more primitive climate revisionist 'arguments', much along lines of e.g. Bob Carter who tries to talk people out of the concept of 'averages' (seen him do that, including his arrogant moronic smirk, by asking the public to average the telephone numbers of Holland and then retorically 'well what could that mean', obviously nothing).
Stu2 is trying to say that so long AGW is but a fraction of daily or seasonal variation of temp, AGW doesn't exist.
Remember, it's politics and the merchandising of doubt. This guy knows full well what the reality is.
Yes, orbital forcing is reducing NH high latitude insolation but that's the wrong kind of one-way change for Stu2. Out of kindness, I ignored it :-)
To be correct I should have said that there has been no sustained one-way forcing increase over the C20th except anthro, principally CO2 etc.
It is probably safe to say that CO2 is responsible more than 100% of the warming observed over the last 150 years (increasingly so more recently).
I've had so much trouble getting the climatologically illiterate to understand the planetary energy balance sheet with positive and negative forcings I no longer argue this point, even though it is correct. I just can't face another argument from ignorance and personal incredulity along the lines of "nothing can be responsible for more than 100% of anything blah, blah, blah".
I’ve had so much trouble getting the climatologically illiterate to understand the planetary energy balance sheet with positive and negative forcings I no longer argue this point, even though it is correct. I just can’t face another argument from ignorance and personal incredulity along the lines of “nothing can be responsible for more than 100% of anything blah, blah, blah”.
BBD I am suffering similar limits of patience elsewhere. Denial can be firmly rooted, you pull it out but it springs up again rather like Japanese Knotweed and with about the same level of intelligence. But then one can always poison knotweed but at the risk maybe of introducing more endocrine disruption into the world. Worry yourself by reading 'Our Stolen Future'. I think I will be excused a wiki link on this one.
" I am suffering similar limits of patience elsewhere." - still doing it to ourselves.
* ban the revisionists systematically from respectable blogs;
* where this does not happen, leave and let the blog rot in hell.
BTW BBD, I knew you knew of course, just mentioning for the home viewers.
I've had those discussions too, and while I never claim to have convinced anyone, I've definitely provoked some thought in a few intelligent but disinformed correspondents. Not muppets though.
It helps pull the teeth from the bogus "hiatus" arguments - are you moving slowly when you are running flat knacker up the down escalator?
It's great to see you guys still jerking yourselves off over a miniscule possible increase in OHC. - if it were correctly measured to any real degree of accuracy...ha, ha, ha - it would matter in about 900 years' time. Warmest year EVVVAHHH, says Jeffie. Keep it going, guys, you are comedy gold. And PAGES ios disnitegrating even further by the day. Retraction Watch is waiting....
You are a clown, Elmer. PAGES won't be retracted, McI won't publish anything because he's a charlatan and OHC continues to rise irrespective of the lies emanating from idiots in the denialosphere who don't have the first notion what they are talking about.
Strange (or not) how one of our resident scientific illiterates (Fudd) just cannot grasp the concept of time scales with respect to global temperatures. But, as with Stu2, this guy is so comprehensively stupid that its not worth the effort even trying to engage in a meaningful discussion with him. After Stu2s last kindergarten-level response to me, I decided then and there that he was not worth the effort. Just tooooo thick.
Frank D @ # 14
" on no day in Australia’s history has the mean max or mean min been separated by 40 degrees, nor departed from long term means by that much. "
Think in terms of say the max or mins in Tasmania and the max or mins in NT on singular days in Spring.
Think in terms of Western NSW and Eastern NSW on singular days in Spring.
The ranges can and do vary that much across the nation.
Homogenising all that information into a singular national figure is a very interesting exercise - but in terms of significance re an alarming AGW signal in an Australian Spring? That is questionable.
Anyway, in the interests of moving on with new technology and new evidence and new studies:
I noticed this online this morning filed under science.
– but in terms of significance re an alarming AGW signal in an Australian Spring? That is questionable.
#EvidenceDenial
Do you know what the word 'context' means? You have decided to decontextualise (#6) the extreme spring weather in order to enable your ongoing evidence denial. Do you not realise what you are doing or are you aware of the degree of intellectual dishonesty you are employing here?
* * *
The tiny little samples of Antarctic sea ice viewed by the RV are too few and too small to make any statement about the totality of the sea ice and the researchers made this clear.
Even if it turns out that the sea ice is thicker than expected, it changes absolutely *nothing*. But the denier cheerleaders have latched on to Antarctic sea ice and now the rest of you karaoke for all you are worth because you have nothing else left.
It is a pathetic spectacle to behold, especially as none of you seem to understand that your cheerleaders aren't climate scientists, just hucksters peddling free market fundamentalism in the face of overwhelming evidence.
Re sea ice thickness...I hope you are not misinterpreting the info. New technique suggest that sea ice may be thicker on average than original estimates from other methods... that's all. More caution again needed because of sample area size vs total sea ice extent...but rejectionists are anything but cautious.
I'm seeing people grasping at this info as though it means you can draw conclusions about trend in Antarctic sea ice thickness.
all of the very high resolution alkenone series to date are from upwelling zones and show a precipitous decline (downward HS) in 20th century temperatures. See discussion here. These precipitous declines have been very closely examined by specialists, who conclude, according to my reading, that this is not a “divergence” breakdown of the proxy-temperature relationship, but rather an actual decrease in local SST in the upwelling zone, attributed (plausibly) to increased upwelling.
I bet you spend your life worrying whether the water you wash your cock in in is at 6 degrees or at 6.01degrees. Maybe in 900 years it will be at 7 degrees. Tough shit.
So the increased upwelling that reduced SSTs in the C20th is associated with global warming? Interesting. That would be increased zonal windspeeds driving overturning ocean circulation, presumably.
the scientific methoid still escapes you, doesn’t it, BBD.
You'd need to provide an example or two to back that up, Elmer, and you know you can't.
One other thing. You seem to have forgotten that we don't rely on proxies for C20th temperature reconstructions. The instrumental record provides the data for those.
You seem to come perilously close to denying that there has been a centennial warming trend in the observational data.
I put that those links up because it is about improved technology, new information & a new published article re Antarctic.
It was online this morning (AU EST) filed under the science section.
I also linked up info from WHOI.
Why are you all being so defensive about it?
I thought people here would find it interesting.
yes early winter ice on Lake Superior = warmer than any year EVAHHHHH! Wow...jeffie mu=st be creaming his jeans at this prspect of a hot Winter...his field of interest will be copulating like knives and he will tell us how teriibly sad it all is.
Amusing though it is to watch you refuse to acknowledge the data for page after page after page of comments here, the spectacle is wearing thin.
#EvidenceDenial
Do you know what the word ‘context’ means? You have decided to decontextualise (see #6) the extreme spring weather in order to enable your ongoing evidence denial. This is intellectually dishonest. It is #EvidenceDenial.
It's what you do, all the time.
What I want you to do is admit it. Then this will be over.
Think in terms of say the max or mins in Tasmania and the max or mins in NT on singular days in Spring.
More word salad.
Is Stu2 now talking about the diurnal range at a single location? So WTF were the references to "mean max" and "mean min". Is Stu2 now saying that he didn't mean "mean" at all?
Words have meaning. I presume Stu2 is posting here because he wishes to communicate something. In which case he should replace quantity with quality and say something intelligble.
Think in terms of say the max or mins in Tasmania and the max or mins in NT on singular days in Spring.
Think in terms of Western NSW and Eastern NSW on singular days in Spring.
It's not about what I think, its about what Stu2 says. Perhaps he could give examples of whatever this 40+ degree range is that he is speaking of. One example for each of the Northern Territory, Tasmania, Western NSW and Eastern NSW will do.
Is that 31 year time period some type of average temperature utopia for Australia?
No, Betty, it's just a base line.
A reference point.
Just like "melting point of ice".
Or are you going to complain that "temperature" is just a leftwing scam to take your money and spend it on hemp shoes because it isn't some sort of ideal temperature of the earth???
Why are you all being so defensive about it?
I thought people here would find it interesting.
I'm just flummoxed that, despite your claims that the temperatures haven't changed for 14 years, you have been unable to show where this dataset exists!
But BBD, such graphs aren't fair, they torpedo denier claims. Can't have that now.
I have just had a twerp elsewhere (Morgan Wright aka Morgan Thwirg [1] following a CP post 'Hottest October And Year To Date On Record Globally, NOAA Reports' ) claiming that Arctic sea ice has recovered to 1978 levels.
Using 1978 is a clear cherry pick, for that year is on the early boundary of data at NSIDC but even then it can be seen to be false.
"bat it offg…the beetles are dying or some other nonsense…keep it coming, guys"
Yes, we're dealing with a first grade imbecile here folks. The Warner Bros. cartoon version of Elmer Fudd is a veritable genius compared with our version.
In Australia, the climate-denying, coal-subsidising Liberal Victorian State Government has been defeated in an election.
For Australians, this is a very clear message to the Australian Federal Government that they are getting it wrong: the Liberal budget is a shambles, the deficit has doubled, and the old Liberal wheeze of selling off assets to provide one-off budget-balancing benefits isn't as effective as it used to be.
Coal-subsidies and climate denial go hand-in-hand with pisspoor economic management, as demonstrated in Australia.
All indications are that Tony Abbott and his pack of buffoons will be out on their arses in about 18 months.
"All indications are that Tony Abbott and his pack of buffoons will be out on their arses in about 18 months."
I hope not. The electorate chose him now suck it out and burn. I'd even be okay with some rough handling of protests against him. Aussies chose him, aussies will suck it out and burn.
So Down Under got the hottest spring ever. Well that was about time. Last record was way back in 2013.
Yes Craig, that is indeed interesting. It seems like the 3 Swedish meatballs who have written in here over the past few years are spending an unhealthy amount of time on her blog.
I wonder if the Scandinavian 'Troll Collective' would make any sense out of a very evocative chapter, 'A Garden Inclosed' in Richard Dawkins' excellent 'Climbing Mount Improbable'.
Sure informs on the delicately balanced interdependence of species.
I seem to have re-acquired a taste for exposing myself to the dangerous levels of stupidity on display at JOanne Codling's kook-blog.
What a collection of retards. They are moronic. It's like a blog for people trying to cope with acquired brain injuries - a lot of poorly-constrained emotions and uncontrolled spurts of aggression.
"It’s like a blog for people trying to cope with acquired brain injuries – a lot of poorly-constrained emotions and uncontrolled spurts of aggression."
Wow, observation.
I thought for a while, only at first, that Judith Curry was suffering from some tragic early onset of dementia.
Wow, OP is now about two months behind the rest of the denialosphere! If he keeps this up by early next year he'll be reposting articles that were misinterpreted by the usual suspects way back in 2013!
Given that the denialosphere (as pointed out above) isn't exactly filled with the best and brightest brains what does being so far behind them say about OP's faculties?
OP, the problem with being two months behind even the denialati is that you're also two months behind on the corrections of their misperceptions, which means you tend to confidently repeat their incorrect interpretations, which just makes you look even more ignorant and unintelligent than they are. At least the first time around they had the excuse that the errors in their position had not been pointed out - yet.
#66 didn't read that. I did. Nothing new there. "Coauthor Felix Landerer of JPL noted that during the same period warming in the top half of the ocean continued unabated, an unequivocal sign that our planet is heating up. "
By October some months had already set new global records.
Like October did then, and the year will do.
Something strange going on here, the graph, they showed, with a red line, in the news bulletin item had a right hand peak rather higher than the preceding ones of this century. But that is a minor thing.
Note that is the same David Shukman who often used to drop in let out comments for the likes of WUWTters to latch on to in his weather & climate reports. And it was his buddy Roger Harrabin who tricked Phil Jones into saying there had been '...no statistically significant warming...' (the hand of Lindzen is thought to have been behind that ambush, as it was precisely phrased using almost a Lindzenism ) which played to the ignorati such as you.
On a general note, why is it that deniers cannot sort out the various depths in the ocean in their minds? The abyssal deep is not the upper ocean layer, nor the mixed subsurface layer nor the surface skin layer etc.
Nobody ever argued that the warming of the abyssal deep was expected or required under AGW - or at least not for millennia. The warming occurs in the upper ocean layer (0 - 2000m). It has continued and is indeed increasing.
You are *wrong* about everything, Olaus. Wrong and directly contradicted by observations. You are literally in the position of the man who asserts that the moon is made of green cheese despite lunar regolith being returned to Earth for study decades ago.
Or perhaps you deny the authenticity of the moon landings too. I wouldn't be slightly surprised if you did.
Aussies chose him, aussies will suck it out and burn.
Perhaps this First Dog on the Moon cartoon will help alleviate some of that crankiness. As FDOTM puts it: "No one is more embarrassed about our PM than we are and we are really really sorry."
Still not sure how you develop this into a contrarian argument.
Millennial climate reconstructions use lots of proxies: ice core, sediment core (depositional variation; isotopic analyses; species assay from forams to molluscs to pollen and terrestrial insects, speleotherm (stalagmite/stalactite core).
Taking issue with a single dendro proxy (Sheep Mountain) doesn't even undermine the general case for dendro proxies, let alone the millennial climate reconstructions based on all the other proxies as well.
I wish BBD would remove his thumb from his arse and start to look around. See this on an historical event he has never heard of:
Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum
Quotes
“The increase in mammalian abundance is intriguing. There is no evidence of any increased extinction rate among the terrestrial biota. Increased CO2 levels may have promoted dwarfing[32][33] – which may have encouraged speciation. Many major mammalian orders – including the Artiodactyla, horses, and primates horses, and primates – appeared and spread around the globe 13,000 to 22,000 years after the initiation of the PETM.[32]
Sounds like it was good to be alive then. Should Jeffie worry about shrinking Alpine goats? Of course he will. He has empathy, but no knowledge.
"Millennial climate reconstructions use lots of proxies: ice core, sediment core (depositional variation; isotopic analyses; species assay from forams to molluscs to pollen and terrestrial insects, speleotherm (stalagmite/stalactite core). "
As long as we agree the tree ring based ones are pile of poop as in "“Tree ring proxies RIP” then we're all singing from the same flagpole, metaphorically speaking that is- So much for "The Science(TM)" - MBH and derivatives been hung out to dry, unprecedentedly you'll find.
;)
As long as we agree the tree ring based ones are pile of poop...
Pretending that other people agree with you when they quite clearly don't comes across as either indulging in fantasy or failing at basic English comprehension. Which is it in your case?
18 years of divergence at Sheep Mountain and dendro is thus poop?
How much more of Bishop Hill's self-ridicule will you swallow?
The man wrote a fantasy reconstruction of part of the field and has been hanging on grimly on his bloggy hilltop. What better example of irrelevance and self-deception is there?
"Should Jeffie worry about shrinking Alpine goats? Of course he will. He has empathy, but no knowledge"
I have a billion times more knowledge and expertise than you ever will, Fiuddy Duddy. Let's see again; what is your profession? Certainly it ain't science. My guess is that, like Jonas, you are confined to a padded cell somewhere where they give you computer privileges.
With respect to declining body masses in animals as well as the myriad of other ecophysiological effects as a result of AGW, you are doing what every idiot denier does: isolate one example and ridicule it. If this is the extent of your debating 'skills' no wonder you lot are largely confined to the outer fringes of the blogosphere. Of course you don't read (or understand) the primary literature, which is full of studies showing a range of worrying effects from organisms to ecosystems, covering a wide range of scales. But, like the other clowns who write in here, you won't even attempt to take me on in discussing these, so you'll make another vacuous smear and move on. That's what you do.
Again, my professional qualifications poop all over yours. Get used to it, moron.
Ya also gotta laugh at GSW for his "Tree Ring Proxies: RIP" which comes not from the scientific literature but from a denier blog run by an unqualified hack. Again, this is the depths to which these clots stoop. This is 'it' for them. With 2014 set to be the warmest year on record, they are getting increasingly desperate. Its going to be interesting seeing what straws they will be clutching at next.
I wish BBD would remove his thumb from his arse and start to look around. See this on an historical event he has never heard of:
Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum
If you removed your thumb from 'seventh rock from the sun' you would realise that it is you who are unaware the BBD has known about the PETMA for a long while. But then maybe YOU do not understand what palaeoclimatology is.
OTOH you are just being insanely provocative.
You don't even get a zed grade for effort here. Solitary beckons perhaps.
MBH and derivatives been hung out to dry, unprecedentedly you’ll find
Cobblers.
Let's try reading my comment again:
Taking issue with a single dendro proxy (Sheep Mountain) doesn’t even undermine the general case for dendro proxies, let alone the millennial climate reconstructions based on all the other proxies as well.
One final thing. There is nothing - not a single paper - that overturns what we know about millennial climate change which can be summed up as follows (PAGES 2K Consortium 2013):
Past global climate changes had strong regional expression. To elucidate their spatio-temporal pattern, we reconstructed past temperatures for seven continental-scale regions during the past one to two millennia. The most coherent feature in nearly all of the regional temperature reconstructions is a long-term cooling trend, which ended late in the nineteenth century. At multi-decadal to centennial scales, temperature variability shows distinctly different regional patterns, with more similarity within each hemisphere than between them. There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age, but all reconstructions show generally cold conditions between ad 1580 and 1880, punctuated in some regions by warm decades during the eighteenth century. The transition to these colder conditions occurred earlier in the Arctic, Europe and Asia than in North America or the Southern Hemisphere regions. Recent warming reversed the long-term cooling; during the period ad 1971–2000, the area-weighted average reconstructed temperature was higher than any other time in nearly 1,400 years.
McI hasn't published anything and unless he does, scientifically speaking, he hasn't said anything. Personally, I think the revised Arctic reconstruction (McKay & Kaufman 2014) is probably an improvement on the original but I don't think McI has integrated it with the other reconstructions making up the full global PAGES 2K reconstruction correctly. I think he has got the area weighting wrong. And even if he is correct, as I have said before, he will have achieved only this: "the area-weighted average reconstructed temperature was higher than any other time in nearly 1,400 1,100 years." Hardly an overturning of the entire field of climate science or even of the little bit of paleoclimatology concerned with millennial reconstructions.
Finally, can I remind people that if you are arguing for a hot 'MWP' you are arguing for high climate sensitivity. The science from MBH99 - PAGES 2K tells much the same story. No global and synchronous 'MWP'.
I wish BBD would remove his thumb from his arse and start to look around.
Just out of curiosity, how many paleoclimate textbooks have you read?
See this on an historical event he has never heard of:
This is more worrying. I often used the PETM as an example of evidence that GHGs can and do force massive temperature change (hyperthermal events). I have written about this regularly in comments here. Whatever gives you the idea that I've never heard of the PETM?
Here are a few more for you: ETM-2 (aka H-1 and ELMO); MECO. Just for fun, why don't you tell me the approximate dates for these hyperthermals?
I seem to have lost the end of this paragraph. Let's try again:
Finally, can I remind people that if you are arguing for a hot ‘MWP’ you are arguing for high climate sensitivity. The science from MBH99 – PAGES 2K tells much the same story. No global and synchronous ‘MWP’. If I was rooting for a low climate sensitivity, I'd be backing the evidence suggesting that there was no global and synchronous 'MWP'. I'd want to get rid of the MWP. And at the moment, I'd be looking to find fault with McI's analysis, not backing it.
Of course 'rooting' for a hypothesis isn't at all scientific and objective, but I appreciate that 'sceptics' know that they are right and the experts and their decades of research are all wrong.
Jeff Harvey @# 84.
The discussion emanates fom a publication by Salzer et al.
Are you claiming they're unqualified hacks who hang around denier blogs?
Their qualifications and the published paper are easily accessible.
The link provided by GSW came from the professional ignoramus Andrew Montford, trying to sell his hero Macintyre's concern trolling. It's spin, and spin from bad-faith actors with no domain expertise. They don't speak for Salzer and colleagues.
@#91.
Therefore better to focus on the Salzer et al publication and/ or demonstrate what is specifically amiss with Montford's & Macintyre's interpretation of the Salzer et al work perhaps?
Better to focus on the publication, unless and until someone demonstrates that the interpretation of people with a long history of almost always purveying misinterpretations through to outright howlers have THIS TIME managed to make a justifiable interpretation.
What do we start with this month?
The Abbott-appointed boss of CSIRO is a water-dowser -
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-20/nrn-csiro-ceo-water-divining-dows…
Or The Quadrant's "expert" on climate change is a crop circle fanatic:
http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2014/10/time-put-warmists-…
http://theconversation.org/archive/c-walterstarck.html
I see patterns, people, distinct patterns.....what's the bet Tony Abbott has been known to visit a chiropractor?
Oh, and here's a good one that applies to Andrew Bolt, TOny Abbott, and fellow idiots:
http://scienceblogs.com/confessions/2014/10/31/my-talk-evidence-vs-ideo…
"Decision-based evidence-making".
#2
“Decision-based evidence-making”. Neat.
But Abbott is not even bothering to 'make' evidence. He is now issuing decrees such as "for the forseeable future coal is the foundation of our prosperity"...which of course is just his dutiful presentation of coal industry talking points. As he has sold his sight and soul to coal, he forsees nothing, except shouting down a massed choir of scientific foresight.
Silver-tongued Tony's .... got it .... all under control. .... He's going to ... Um.. use the leftover coal .... dust to soak up .... the rise ... rise in sea levels .... Um .... His fall back ... Um ... plan .... is to channel ... channel ... the rise .... rise in sea levels .... into disused open-cut ... Um ... mines, .... disused underground ... ... that's ... underground mines, .... public ... note public, ... not private .... swimming pools, ... Um ... bath tubs ... in multi-bathroom .... residences. ... And he'll stress .... stress .... that it won't .... won't .... involve ... Um .... any big .... bad .... taxes.
Craig @ # 1
According to CSIRO, this is how Marshall was appointed:
http://www.csiro.au/Portals/Media/International-technology-innovator-to…
And this is CSIRO's summary of his experience:
http://www.csiro.au/Portals/About-CSIRO/Who-we-are/Executive/Dr-Larry-M…
The main thrust of that article you linked is that he believes that more investment will be directed into Agricultural research and Australia and CSIRO is well placed:
" "What's interesting to me is that in the last year, the top tier US venture capitalists, the people at the very peak of the pyramid who lend the trends, they've started asking me and others about agriculture.
" "So my prediction is that in the next 10 years, a lot of that venture money is going to get redeployed because, after all, how many times can we reinvent the internet?
"That money will get redeployed to solve real world problems on the land and I think CSIRO is in an amazing position to benefit from that and to capitalise on that."
His comment about dowsing is speculating if there is something behind dowsing:
""When I see that as a scientist, it makes me question, 'is there instrumentality that we could create that would enable a machine to find that water?'
"I've always wondered whether there's something in the electromagnetic field, or gravitation anomaly."
Quadrant does not say that Starck is a 'climate expert".
That quadrant piece is an OP written by Starck and Quadrant says:
" Walter Starck is one of Australia’s most experienced marine biologists, with a particular interest in coral-reef and marine-fishery ecosystems "
Whether he has been fascinated by crop circles at some point is really not relevant to either his career as a marine biologist or his personal opinion about science and the scientific method.
People can and people do become fascinated by all sorts of different things. It doesn't stop them from being good at their work and neither does it prevent them from being employed by such entities as CSIRO.
Of course if they allow their other interests or some other speculative theories and ideas to interfere with their work - then that is a completely different matter.
Starck is a IMHO a wannabe. H'e's got more soiled connections than an earthworm. Stu2 is correct when he claims that 'people can and people do become fascinated by all sorts of different things'. In Starcks case, it appears that ego and ideology certainly fascinate him. Heck, he's listed as one of the Heartland Institutes 'experts'.
Stu2, where do you dig these losers up? I've been around in science a long time and I have never heard of most of these people (Botkin excepted) until you mention them. And in virtually every case, they are either egregiously naive (Botkin) or wrong (both).
I'm wondering why Craig @ # 2 implies that this person is more worthy of attention than someone like Marshall?
http://www.yorku.ca/jdupuis/
Most of this talk is more about government focus and policy measures and doesn't really offer any practical solutions - just advocacy and rather a lot of negative finger pointing. He does also seem to be overly obsessed with the fact that some career academics and scientists feel marginalised and unappreciated by governments and by the general public.
http://yfile.news.yorku.ca/2014/10/27/next-sts-seminar-looks-at-the-can…
OTOH, despite his perhaps quirky fascination with dowsing, Marshall is clearly focused on looking at opportunities for scientific research at CSIRO.
Jeff Harvey @ # 6
You are of course entitled to your personal opinion.
But it isn't all that difficult to find out who Starck is.
http://www.goldendolphin.com/wstarck.htm
or Botkin:
http://www.danielbbotkin.com/about/
or perhaps for that matter Dr Jeff Harvey?
https://nioo.knaw.nl/en/employees/jeff-harvey
I have no doubt that all of you have something worthwhile to contribute, but perhaps you could consider desisting from what Starck called 'an academic pissing contest' ?
Stu2, If I was Starck, or if I had any common sense, which he apparently doesn't, I wouldn't go near an agenda driven right wing anti-environmental think tank like Heartland in a million years. If they are paying him for his 'services', then I think we ought to know.
If I am a lawyer, and you pay me big bucks, I am working for you. It doesn't matter if you are guilty of a crime, and I know it, I will still try and get you off. Why should it be any different for scientists? Starck is damaged goods. Botkin is naive as hell (or also damaged). That you cannot see this is why I look at your posts like a well scripted but utterly innocent essay by a precocious 10 year old.
OK. I looked up Starck on the Web of Science. He's hardly published anything in the massive list of journals on it - I found 3 since 1966 - yes,3!!!!! With 17 citations. This is IMO beyond a joke. He is dismissed.
Botkin has 63 publications on the WoS since 1968, with 3487 citations and an h-factor of 22. Not bad, but hardly Earth shattering either. Yet both of these guys are being plugged relentlessly by the AGW denialosphere.
By contrast, I am called everything under the sun here - a maggotologist, an expert on gastropod penis structure, 'Hardley' et al. Yet here's my current standing: 144 publications on WoS (since 1993, with 7 more in press), 4032 citations and an h-factor of 36. Clearly my work is liked by a lot of my peers in science. The most citations of Botkins work in a single year was 162; I had 602 in 2012 and will probably exceed that this year.
The key to remaining anonymous in science is to be good and keep your mouth shut. The key to gaining celebrity is to speak in ways that resonate positively with those who have power, wealth and privilege. You don't need to be good, just to stand out from your peers. This describes many of the scientists whose reputations are exaggerated on the internet by AGW sceptics and anti-environmentalists. And the way to being a pariah is to be good but speak the truth even when it conflicts with the interests of the privileged few. Look at Mann, Hansen, Trenberth, Ehrlich, Diamond, Wilson, Lovejoy and many others. These are scientists whose qualifications rank them at or near the very top of their fields - and they are the ones being smeared left right and center on blogs and by think tanks and corporate-funded front groups.
To summarize what I wrote above, it is so easy to squash the nonsensical posts of people like Stu2. Yet they persist. I don't know if they have some kind of mental blind spot or if they are so indoctrinated that they will believe anything that fits in with their value systems. The main point is that Botkin is an outlier. For every Botkin there are 1000 more qualified ecologists who disagree with him and his approach. So why is Botkin singled out? Why is he to be believed when his views are at odds with the overwhelming majority of other people in his field? This is where Stu2 is all at sea. He is clueless.
As an anology, I go to an expert on some medical ailment. He does tests and comes back with a diagnosis. I am not convinced and go to 500 other experts in that field. They all concur with the original diagnosis. But I still don't believe them so I go on searching and searching. I eventually stumble upon a doctor who isn't necessarily qualified in that field, but he gives a different diagnosis anyway.
Who do I believe? If I am Stu2, I'll downplay the views of the 500 experts and go along with the lone dissenter. Now one as to ask themself: is this logical? Of course not - unless you think like Stu2. Sadly, many people clearly do, as evidenced by the myopic views of a few on Deltoid and many, many more across the blogosphere.
Botkin is not an atmospheric physicist or a palaeoclimatologist. He is pontificating outside his sphere of competence which is something competent scientists do not usually do. All this has been pointed out by Jeff and Lotharsson.
The only people who pay attention to this sort of behaviour are those with an anti-science agenda who are flailing for something - anything - to bolster their evidence denial. It looks stupid because it is stupid.
I'm going back a couple of months and 2stew is trying very hard to wrest the "Dumbest Deltoid Denier Troll" crown away from Olap. He doesn't quite manage it (which is not really a compliment), but he gets very close. He gets skewered by Lotharson and comes back with the very substantive, "I'm not interested in you say, he says"; unquestioningly follows the Moronhassy crusade against BoM but can't tell us what questions BoM needs to answer; tells us cold spell are bad for rice growing but strangely doesn't say anything about hot spell and how that will affect all crops. Just like all deniers: clueless, thick and dishonest.
Then the two inbred nordic sheep, Olap and GSW, turn up. Very suspiciously at the same time; now we know they're an item. I'd like to say that it's nice of them to take a break from fondling each other and pay a visit, just so they can regale us with more brainless, emoticon-filled twaddle, but I'd be lying. Poor GSW, as vacuuous as ever. And he's been trying so hard over all these years to say something remotely intelligent, or informative, or even vaguely interesting. Sorry to break it to you morrons, but emoticons won't mask your stupidity and lack of substance.
I see that Betula is back, craving for some attention. And he's brought with him another dumb, vacuous cretin who calls himself Elmer Crud. And a cretin with attitude to boot. How lucky is Deltoid! I see Elmer Crud likes to get down in the gutter and fling shit _ I mean fling pieces of himself _ at his opponents, especially BBD. He tells him not to breed. If we must talk about breeding, I think every denier cretin's mother is guilty of a crime against humanity by breeding. In Crud's case, not only was its mother too stupid and irresponsible to take contraception but when it fell out she let it live instead of squashing it. As for Betula, I wonder if he is going to play the victim card again, telling BBD how mean he is for not wanting to come to his help if he got beaten up. Maybe Betula will beat himself up, hoping that someone will come to his rescue; or maybe even set himself on fire and wait for someone to come running over and piss on him.
What a sad bunch of brainless cock-heads. They have nothing intelligent to contribute, but they keep on trolling, totally oblivious to their own stupidity and lack of substance. It's possibly a survival mechanism where there's an inverse relationship between stupidity and self-awareness; as the stupidity increases, the level of self-awareness decreases. If they were aware of how worthless they really are, they'd all kill themselves in despair ... which would be the best outcome for the planet.
Inbred n°2 says, "Thanks Olaus, good article from Nature". Poor idiot obviously didn't read it or understood what the gist of the article is, which is, in large part, that the global surface temp index is not adequate to give a true representation of the state of the climate considering that most of the energy is going into the oceans, and therefore to give a more realistic measure of global warming, emphasis on global, something more representative of the earth's energy budget is required.
"Science is about evidence !", our cretinous inbred nordic sheep, GSW, bleats _ with an exclamation mark _ at the same time as his inbred buddy Olap references an article in a very scientific publication _ CNSNEW.COM _ which quotes one of their disinformation gurus, Christy, saying that the heat could be escaping into space, to explain the supposed pause. I recall Olap telling us that he believes in the science; I never had any doubts. I always knew he was very scientific because he always goes to the most scientific and reputable sources, such as the one mentioned and of course WTFUWT and Joanne(knownothing)Nova. Even Elmer Crud says he's the most scientific person on this blog. It must be true.
As a knownothing, nonscience person myself, I'd like answers to some questions:
Why is it only during the last 18 years that that extra heat is escaping into space?
How does this self-regulating mechanism operate?
Why wasn't it escaping into space prior to that?
So during the decades that the temperature rises, the heat stops escaping to space? _ and then when there's a bit of a "pause", it's because it's escaped again?
Any evidence for that escaping heat? Any evidence that the warming is natural? Any evidence of low climate sensitivity? Any evidence of any fuckwit denier talking point having any substance?
But then again it's a bit hard for GSW to see evidence of anything, being part of the long conga line of denier sheep, each one's head firmly stuck up the arse of the one in front. Even if GSW's head was yanked out and evidence shoved in front of him, he'd be too dim to understand it anyway. And there lies the problem: how do you reason with and convince a bunch of sheep who don't possess the intelligence to understand whatever is presented to them, or too intellectually dishonest to admit it if they did understand but it went against their ideological indoctrination.
Still waiting patiently for Olap's insights into the pause. And so is BBD, who asked him a bunch of questions about 8 months ago. Come on Olap, I don't know much about the science and I want to be educated on this global warming/cooling thing; it would be a privilege to read some real analysis which I'm sure you and your physicist boyfriend GSW can provide. Tell us where all the heat is going _ or don't you believe in the greenhouse effect? I'm disappointed that your boyfriend has been too timid to demonstrate his grasp of the science, like, you know, equations and stuff. Actually, strangely enough, I barely see any deniers arguing on a scientific level at blogs like Andthentheresphyiscs or Science of doom or Tamino's. I would have thought they'd be all too keen to show how wrong the alarmist science is. I've observed that when those well trained in science, like the bloggers just mentioned open a thread with lots of maths and physics, there's hardly a denier to be seen. It's like holding a cross to a vampire. Funny that.
Actually, I'm wrong; Olap has answered. He's counted all the horizontal bits, the pauses, he could find and added them up. Yep. That proves there's been no warming. So when Olap looks at a set of stairs, he adds up the flat bits, the treads, and concludes _ after a lot of thinking _ that stairs don't go up... it's an optical illusion...all stairs are flat. What a fucking dummy.
Meanwhile....in the "Village of the Inbred", somewhere in scandinavia, they're having a debate in the town hall. The most contentious issue in the history of the village has split the population: should they join the modern world and have flushing toilets? GSW's mother says "No!" She stands up and slams her seven-fingered hand on the table in front of her, nearly smashing it, to the consternation of people watching the debate.
"We've done very well without them so far, and we don't need them now!", she bellows.
"And all those tourists writing negative comments in our visitor's book and complaining about the smell are just whingers."
She then becomes emotional; "My poor GSW wouldn't be alive if we had a flushing toilet. I didn't even know I was pregnant...he just fell out when I was on our squat toilet and I didn't even know. Poor GSW. Two days later I noticed something moving on the bottom and rescued him."
Olap's mother, wearing a revealing top revealing the cleavage of her three breasts nods and sobs. Her two-headed cousin comforts her.
Those sitting opposite, eyes wide-opened and transfixed, lose their train of thought and end up losing the debate.
Olap's mother, very emotional, then tells everyone how the same thing happened to her little baby Olap. "It was even worse for Olap, he was floating at the bottom of the latrine for four days before I noticed him. Had we had a proper toilet he would have been gone forever," she sobs.
"When I picked him up, I thought he would have been starving but he wasn't even hungry. Since that day I've been feeding him his own poo and he's been happy and thriving."
Sorry for poking and taunting the denier turds, guys, and for the language, but as far as I'm concerned it's a waste of time trying to talk logically or reason with these dumb fucks. It should be clear to everyone that these fuckwits fall somewhere on a spectrum of 'totally brainless' at one end and 'totally dishonest' at the other. You cannot have a reasonable discourse with these creatures.
JP welcome back into Deltoid! Glad to see you've caught up with the bilge from Betula, GSW, Olaus, and our new pin-up boy for stupidity, elmer. Olaus is multi-tasking between his adoration for Jonas and now GSW. And he has his eyes on Betula and his bark.
Elmer is actually a laugh. When he called Olly the most scientific person on the blog, then I knew he was into self parody, BIG TIME. I find his posts hilarious in their simplicity, hence he's comic relief.
Now Betula is a different kettle of fish. He writes well enough but his brain is seriously fixated in areas where he knows little if anything. He appears to be worried about some global left wing socialist conspiracy that aims to impoverish the rich nations (and especially the good ol' USA!) whilst apparently acknowledging that his country has been looting and stealing resources from ther poor countries anyway. Its just that he thinks many wrongs don't make a right. Looting; fine; plundering, fine; inequality, fine; exporting environmental footprints and damage, fine; social justice, accountability and reparations, NOT fine. How does one argue with this level of debate?
He also searches for everything he can find out about me. Even I don;t do that. Some of the stuff he's flund I didn't even know existed!
It's great to see the scientivists hard at work refuting the ideas of the denialists such as BBD:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL061541/abstract
Authors include Solomon and Santer. It is inerestingly another paper about the pause that BBD strongly asserts does not exist and makes yet another attempt to account for the divergence between GCM projections and actual temperatures, another thing that BBD strongly denies.
"currently available satellite databases neglect substantial amounts of volcanic aerosol between the tropopause and 15 km at mid to high latitudes"
Note only at mid to high latitudes and only above the tropopause. That's an important point since there is little sign of any aerosol effect in the Mauna Loa data. These are real sneaky stealth aerosols that only fly higher than airliners and avoid overflying places where they could be measured. And they were also not detected by geologists. Now that really is sneaky
Sorry Elmer's Glue, we have no evidence you have the capacity to understand the work of Solomon and Santer enough to make a claim on it that can be in any way relied upon.
Elmer
You are a tool. The first line of the abstract of the paper you link is:
The authors specifically *do not* speak of a hiatus or pause.
The sloppy use of language even by scientists doesn't alter the fact that it is technically incorrect to describe a slowdown in the rate of surface warming as either a pause or hiatus. Which is all I have ever said on this matter.
You obviously haven't read any science ever, so let me fill you in on the background. This is the latest of several studies examining previously undetected volcanic aerosols at altitude. The first is Vernier et al. (2011). If you bother to look, you will see that Vernier is a co-author of the study you linked but did not read.
The key insights from V11 are that there are more volcanic aerosols at altitude than previously suspected, that they originate from tropical volcanism and are carried aloft by the Brewer-Dobson circulation and eventually circulated to higher latitudes. These aerosols have a negative forcing which appears to be a component in the slowing of the rate of surface warming since ~2000.
A simple lie.
What I have pointed out is that the divergence between models and observations since ~2000 is most likely a consequence of incorrect forcings being applied to the models. These errors - including the underestimate of volcanic forcing - were corrected and then used to force CMIP5 models which came into much better agreement with observations Schmidt et al. (2014). This suggests that the model physics is good and that much of the problem does indeed lie with incorrect forcing estimates.
The rest of the divergence is almost certainly down to a transient change in ocean heat uptake driven by variability in the wind driven ocean circulation of the tropical Pacific.
Isn't it noteworthy that those who use a non-word such as 'scientivists' always fail the acid test when any sources they cite are correctly interpreted.
This non-word seems to crop up at Cardinal Puff's, did this cream originate in that fairy cake tale land? A land which appears as a cross between the imaginings of the Brothers Grimm and Charles Lutwidge Dodgson where thoughts such as this appear:
with an air of smug self congratulation as if something good has been achieved.
Loathsome.
Are you thinking what I am thinking about the identity of this sticky smelly (as if of animal origin) sock?
JP - "maybe even set himself on fire and wait for someone to come running over and piss on him."
You're imaginary pissing has reopened an imaginary wound. You can imagine my pain...
"Your"....you an see the pain I'm in.
Sorry Betula. I was a bit over the top.
BBD - how do you explain being in such fundamental disagreement with Sir Kev and Madam Solomon? It is you against them. I think you are all deluded fools and need to ask Olauf for some basic science lessons. Forget the scientivism.
lol....undetected aerosols...such as the undetected mid trop hot spot and the undetected oceanic warming. Take a bow, BBD...Top Banana of scientivism.
Teh!
Elmer Fudd:
"... there is little sign of any aerosol effect in the Mauna Loa data. "
Please explain this comment.
What data are you referring to?
#33 Elmer Dudd is horrified that flasks at Mauna Loa at 4000m are not collecting SO2 above 10000m. It's an outrage.
I'm sure we're looking forward to the 'explanation', or at least as much of one as a copy-paste chummonkey can give!...
#21, "Understanding the cooling effect of recent volcanoes is of particular interest in the context of the post-2000 slowing of the rate of global warming."
First sentence of abstract of Santer et al is clear. No pause, troll. Which is why 2014 will be #1.
Fruitloops and socio-paths strike again by banning Climate Change addition to G20 talks in Brisbane:
Before G20 Summit In Australia, Host City Airport Bans Climate Billboard.
Yeah right!
Maybe it isn't over yet.
oh boy...still denying the pause although all the top "dogs" of climate science are trying to explain it. maybe Jeffie has a way of justifying it. Pause, hiatus, slowdown.....which models projected it over so long a duration/ Answer.....NONE...they must be fucking good, trustworthy models then...
Explanation still outstanding, Dudd. Dance, chummonkey, dance!
Nope duddy boy, there is no pause. The time frame is way too short and effects in the short term are masked by internal variability. BTW, 2014 will be the warmest year on record.
The reason the 'top dogs' in CS are trying to explain it is because they have to somehow educate idiots like you whose scientific education ended in the sandbox. They also have to try and teach those in power basic science in the face of a determined effort by the denial lobby to obfuscate the science in promotion of nakedly political agendas. Amongst themselves, CS know there is no hiatus. Dopes like you believe it because you want to and because it also nicely fits in with your pre-determined world views. You also believe it because you do not understand the concepts of deterministic versus stochastic processes. Its hardly a surprise that in the 10 years I have been reading and writing into not a single AGW denier who has written here has a job (or indeed education) that is remotely close to Earth or environmental science. Not one. And yet you lot wade in here as if you have something useful t say.
You don't. On the other hand, I do find some of your posts on here so ridiculously absurd that I enjoy them. They provide comic relief for me on busy days.
into Deltoid, that is....
#38
Teh!
Elmer Fudd:
“… there is little sign of any aerosol effect in the Mauna Loa data. ”
Seriously - I really want to know what this means. Elmer, please explain.
You know, Duddster, the lurkers are beginning to suspect that you just blurt out these glib slogans you've picked up from denier blogs, but you haven't the faintest clue what they mean.
(Assuming they mean anything at all, of course, but you don't appear to be in any position to judge that.)
Putting you in 'good' company with the Scanditrolls in particular!...
Jeff Harvey @# 10 & 11
I submitted a longer reply but mistyped my email & therefore it did not appear.
In summary:
1) Perhaps you don't understand what Starck meant by 'an academic kissing contest?
2) Your analogy fails to recognise the difference between diagnosis of an ailment and treatment to cure the ailment.
3) You are 'uplaying' the consensus. The consensus is that the human race has the ability to impact. The consensus is not that we are all going to he'll in a handbasket.
4) Lionel's post @# 37 is contradicting your post @# 40 and your post @# 40 is contradictory anyway. Seasonal heat waves of course damage crops (including grapes) but so do seasonal cold snaps. Seasonal variability is a feature of weather and natural internal variability and not a signal of AGW. Making claims about 2014 and records looks more like something that belongs in a sports report than anything that supports climate on the timescales you also highlight. That claim also has a timescale issue and a issue of degree.We can indeed measure race records to fractions of seconds but that is not the case with global average temps.
& lastly, I agree that the issue is an argument over the treatment rather than the ailment but I don't agree that only one side of the political debate is guilty of misrepresentation. Both sides are guilty and they are therefore part of the problem and in no way part of any solution ( which was largely Botkin's point)
'academic kissing contest'?
My apologies.
Auto correct!
For he'll - substitute hell.
For kissing- substitute pissing.
Very fetish.
Anybody feel like a vomit?
http://www.peabodyenergy.com/mm/files/21st-Century-Coal%27s-Role-in-the…
You'll need to get several pages in.....
Stu 2, and you fail to recognise why a non-expert who makes a very dubious claim to being a "scientist", with virtually no research to his name, doesn't get to offer an opinion we need to take seriously when it contradicts the opinions of those with some actual expertise in the area. What's more, his blitherings on the subject of crop circles are a major detraction from what little credibility he may have laid claim to.
I am busy, but I will demolish Stu2's nonsense again.
First we have tis nugget: "Perhaps you don’t understand what Starck meant by ‘an academic kissing contest?"
Sure I know what it means. It means that Starck is trying to cover his ass in that he has no real expertise in relevant fields. It also means that he is covering the fact that his qualifications IMHO stink. Three papers since 1966 with 17 citations? This is beyond a joke. He's smaller than a minnow is a scientific ocean. That the AGW denial lobby would scrape up such a bottom feeder and promote him as being qualified tells us everything we need to know about their desperation.
The you get worse, "ou are ‘uplaying’ the consensus. The consensus is that the human race has the ability to impact. The consensus is not that we are all going to he’ll in a handbasket".
This is a classic strawman. You set up the worst possible scenario and than argue that it isn't so, as if this makes everything appear rosy. Lomborg would be proud of you! Its too bad that its bull****. The fact is that there is a broad consensus among scientists that humanity faces a suite of very serious environmental threats and that the longer we wait to deal with them, the more costly they will be for future generations.
Finally, what the hell do you know about a consensus any way? Your whole post stinks of Dunning-Kruger. You are lecturing me, a scientist, on the state of the environment and whether there is a consensus over AGW and other threats or not. And you have no relevant qualifications to lecture me about the scientific perspective. The fact that you have to scrape up dinosaurs like Starck or Botkin whose views lie well outside the mainstream says it all - or should.
Stu2
The consensus is that we cause increasingly severe negative impacts during this century and well beyond unless emissions are structurally reduced at a global level, starting now.
Carrying on the 2stupid, or is it mendacity:
But increasing frequency combined with increasing extremes are a signal of warming and physics and carbon budgeting tell us why it is happening. This is what makes it AGW produced climate change.
Climate change - shifting of climates geographically is another signal as is the movement of species away from the equator and up the mountains, for that part of the biological system that can. Jeff has been over this time and time again thus for you to still be trotting out your same ol' same ol' is dishonest.
And by coming to the conclusion that my #37 has any connection with Jeff's #40 indicates that you truly are nucking futs.
Thanks Lionel. Its because of you, BBD, Bill and others that I persist here. Its amazing how much banality there is the comments of Stu2, willfull ignorance in those of Betula, and plain insanity in those of elmer. As for Olaus, they have ingredients of all thre...
Keep up the good fight!
And here is another Lomborg, Toll style poster child, with the emphasis on child:
Max Roser,
an anymouse at Eli's linked to a piece by him at the 'Business Insider'Anyone Depressed About The State Of The World Needs To Look At These Stunning Charts.
Groan!
And here is another Lomborg, Toll style poster child, with the emphasis on child:
Max Roser,
an anymouse at Eli's linked to a piece by him at the 'Business Insider'Anyone Depressed About The State Of The World Needs To Look At These Stunning Charts.
Groan!
Groan again for the borked link.
oh dear, even Bob Ward is losing his mojo.....
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/05/met_office_2014_was_fifteenth_w…
Teh Register is confusing teh UK with teh world, FUDd.
They is not the same thing!
Ah BBD, our resident cabbagivist. The one who's confused about Uk/World etc is you.
"Ward warned that the crushing heat seen this summer and during other, much hotter summers dating back more than a century could throw a massive burden on the NHS"
That would be the UK's NHS not the world's BBD. And from the Guardian piece.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/04/britain-warmest-wettest-…
"He[Ward] accused the government of failing to get to grips with climate change and said the coalition urgently needed to plough more money into beefing up Britain’s flood defences.
So, Lewis Page, The Register, The Guardian and Ward himself all knew the references were to the UK, but BBD thinks everyone else is confused.
You really are a dopey piece of work BBD.
;)
"You really are a dopey piece of work BBD"
...says an idiot who happily believes anything the GWPF tells him.
But it gets worse. Old Anthony 'scale? what is scale? Watts is bleating on about conditions in the Cretaceous, and how C02 levels and the significantly higher global temperatures and conditions were suitable for dinosaurs. He then appears to argue (this is where his vacuity becomes REALLY apparent) that if those conditions allowed animal and plant life to prosper, then there's nothing at all for Homo sapiens to worry about with lower temperatures and C02 concentrations; in fact, we should envy those 65 million year-old conditions.
Now, of course, such musings would be laughed out of any academic institution. They are so blindingly naive and ignorant that they really don't merit a response, but the problem is that the Olaus's, GSW's, Betula's, Elmer's et al of this world will actually believe it. Already I have read dozens of comments by Watt's supine followers making similar remarks, including one Dutch moron who said he dreamed we had 1000 ppm of C02 in the atmosphere and temperatures 7 C higher than now globally because it works in Dutch greenhouses so it would be a wonderful boon to nature.
Let me get straight to the point: if atmospheric conditions across the biosphere became remotely like the late Cretaceous now in the time frame envisaged by Watts and Co, then we would be staring our own extinction squarely in the eye. No ifs or buts. Species have evolved over many millions of years to adapt to conditions within certain abiotic windows. To expect such adaptive radiation of plants and animals across the planet's biomes to a shift to Cretaceous conditions in less than a century is so utterly stupid, its lamentable. Moreover, warmth is not an essential pre-requisite for high species diversity. The planet had evolved more species and genetic diversity in its history when modern man arrived on the scene. Species of plants and animals that roamed the Cretaceous landscape were for the most part completely different from those today. They were adapted to those conditions. Natural selection and phenotypic changes do not occur overnight. In vertebrates such macro-evolution takes many, many thousands of years. To expect a complex array of contemporary ecological processes to suddenly adapt to a massive forcing in terms of temperature and C02, whilst ignoring the attendant effects, is so utterly stupid that it is almost beyond comprehension. But that doesn't stop a veritable army of ignorant bloggers suggesting its benefits.
Species that are strongly adapted to an array of conditions - such as boreal forests in the northern hemisphere to long winters and cool summers, as well as acid soils and specific soil organisms - and the species that depend on them - would be utterly wiped out in the blink of an eye. But this catastrophe would rupture ecosystems across the planet. If the changes occurred over tens or even hundreds of thousands of years, then the perturbations would be less dramatic, but when any idiot suggests that they wish these conditions were suddenly imposed on natural systems now, they are doing nothing more than reflecting their complete lack of intelligence.
This won't stop the ignoranti from wading back in here thinking that they can debate me on the subject, and that their lack of any relevant education can stand up against my career over 25 years in population and evolutionary biology.
Look at the trend, GSW. The black dashed line. It's warming.
UK summer mean temperature
Lots of noise, year by year, but the trend is unmistakable in the data. "Sceptical" hacks never mention this. Why do you think that is?
Ok BBD, teh [your] claim about teh Register being teh confused between teh UK and teh World, do you accept that teh was you just getting everything arse about tit as teh usual? ;) If you're not not prepared to read or understand whats sadi, tehn wyh bthoer cmmeonting as ouy od? ouy Dcki ehad ;)
GSW
No comment on that UK summer warming trend?
You would need to provide several examples of me getting everything arse-about-tit to justify the claim of "as usual".
Can you do that?
BBD
Eyeballing the graph 2 observations.
1) The summer mean max temp has deviated by less than 1℃(compared to 1981- 2010 average)
2) The plateau or pause or hiatus or slowdown (or whatever you want to call it) of the last 10 - 20 years is evident in these UK Summer mean max temps, especially in the smoothed dotted plot line.
But nonetheless, over the longer timeframe a slight warming trend has been graphed.
The CO2 causal link is missing from this graph.
Here's the comedy piece by Watts:
https://archive.today/IMQKJ
...and read some of the comments below it. They are equally hilarious. The last one (Dr. Stranglove) claims that the Cambrian explosion occurred because C02 concentrations were 7000 ppm; from that he goes on to call C02 the 'life gas'.
Again, to these twits, the concept of scale never enters into their understanding of evolutionary biology. They think the Cambrian explosion probably occurred over a few decades or centuries, and that adaptive radiation (a term of course they've never read about) is a therefore a short-term process.
But we are literally talking about millions of years versus 50 or so. If by some twist of fate atmospheric concentrations of C02 reached even 1000 ppm in the current century, this would exacerbate the extinction spasm already rippling across the biosphere. We would witness ecosystems collapsing left, right and center, and huge numbers of species and populations disappearing in an instant. The simple,reason is because they did not evolve under these conditions. They evolved under relatively low C02 levels and temperatures far lower than in past epochs. If warmth was the only pre-requisite for life, then we wouldn't find high diversity in temperate habitats. And plants today have also evolved to accommodate various nutrients, of which carbon is one. But excess carbon, given their evolutionary history and phylogeny, would upset the balance of other essential nutrients (N, P) and this would have profound consequences for trophic webs and ecological communities.
There are a million reasons why high C02 levels and rising temperatures will drive extinction. The main one is the time scale involved in the change. If it was gradual, occurring over tens of thousands of years or more, then natural systems may be able to adapt to it. But we are talking about a century over even less.
What Watts and his minions prove is that a little knowledge is dangerous. People writing in there, as well as Watts himself, think they know more than they do. Everyone is an ecologist or a climate scientist; no formal education required. In truth, they are cement heads.
Stu2
Physics denial.
Stu2
Summer UK mean temperatures have risen by almost 1C in just 50 years. That is astonishing.
So? Nobody disputes the slowdown in the rate of warming and nobody who understands physical climatology argues that it can last. The system is experiencing a sustained and growing radiative imbalance. It can only warm. Natural variability will modulate the long term trend but it will not stop it. #PhysicDenial.
BBD.
What is 'astonishing' about a 1℃ rise in national UK average of mean Summer temps in 50 years?
Every day in Summer has a range far greater than 1℃.
The temp can change in Summer by more than 1℃ in a few seconds.
The % of that 1℃ caused by human emissions of CO2 is not quantified in the graph of UK Summer mean temps.
My comment was about the graph - not the physics of 'radiative imbalance'.
Stu2
The rapidity of the increase in UK mean summer temperature.
The graph shows the effects of radiative imbalance.
It's all of it. Look at these regional comparisons of observations vs models forced with and without anthropogenic forcings.
What do you see?
What has this to do with the forced long term trend? I am astonished that think there is any relevance.
1) The summer mean max temp has deviated by less than 1℃(compared to 1981- 2010 average)
Note that's the 1981-2010 average!
Turboblocke @ # 72,
It was indeed noted.
Note also that is 29 years & not the 50 years BBD captures nor the 100 years that is graphically represented.
If you graph the last 18 years against the 1981 -2010 (29 year average), that will also vary the results.
Some would call all of that 'cherry picking' but I think that is unfair and displays a measure of ignorance about this type of work. By its nature, all of it 'cherry picks' as it uses varying start/stop points and tweaks the variables to create a range of results.
BBD @ # 70
Those models are generated similarly to complex economic models. Tweaking (or forcing) a commodity price or a cost input and graphing them against a static 'no change' scenario, creates similar graphic representations.
There is much less 'noise' in economic modelling and much greater confidence about the influence of inputs, yet they are regularly incorrect in their projections (like a GFC for example).
Further, those models do not represent UK Summers.
& @ # 71,
If we're talking about impacts to something or someone from a rise of 1deg C in average heat in Summer in the UK, I am astonished that you see no relevance.
All species in the UK, including humans, are fully able to cope with a far larger range of temp in Summer in just a few seconds on any typical UK Summers' day. A 1degC average rise of Summer temps in fifty years will not be noticed in a UK Summer and of course neither would a 1degC drop in averaged Summer temps in the UK.
...says the guy who cited Starck in a piece where Starck pissed all over academic findings with his own non-academic assessment.
Need a bigger irony meter.
Or better trolls.
Oh, my.
Oh my, oh my!
Oh my, oh my, oh my!
Oh my, oh my fucking my!
Need a stronger DKE meter. A much stronger one. The first quote blew mine out and the others got more and more intense!
BBD #66, #67, Lotharsson #75.
I know, right - un-fucking-believable. But you missed:
My, oh my, indeed - given that national temperatures were being discussed, this is also quite remarkable.
The only way normal people can get that muchmagic into their thinking is to do a few terms at Hogwarts.
Aye, FrankD!
In my defence, it was an awfully target rich environment, and I was running out of the letters m and y! ;-)
Stu2
So you deny that CO2 is an efficacious climate forcing despite the copious paleoclimate evidence demonstrating that it is.
You deny that CO2 is the principal driver of modern warming despite the complete absence of any other substantial forcing change that could be responsible.
You deny the model vs observational studies that demonstrate this. You deny that the modelled studies I linked - though regional - are directly relevant to UK climate change.
FInally, you introduce a particularly fucking stupid squirrel about UK summertime temperatures. Here is the UK *annual mean* temperature data. Exhibiting much the same warming trend for exactly the same underlying cause - physics. CO2 forcing. Planetary energy imbalance. You see exactly the same thing in all the regional observations I linked above. Please *look* at that link again, properly. As in the UK, so everywhere else in the world. That's why we call it 'global warming'.
You are a physics denier.
FrankD
Lotharsson
[Head in hands]
I've just thought of the neology for this kind of nonsense. It's not a dialogue, it's a denialogue.
#73 I think that you misunderstood my point about the 1981-2010 average.
Denialogue
Apparently, this thought was thought before. :-(
#81
What point?
You wanted to note what was already noted - the 1981 to 2010 average?
Tragically, the ABC has seen fit to air a fourteen minute Gish Gallop of predictable swill from Patrick Moore, in an 'interview' with the hapless Michael Condon of ABC Rural.
Moore named checked George Christensen...as well he may because the script was near identical. No dishonesty was left unregurgitated. He finished with a call for a royal commission into BOMs data methods, prefaced with mind-boggling dishonesty about the evil mystery that is data homogenisation.
Send complaints the ABC Audience & Consumer Affairs
If ever we were unsure about 2Stupid's grasp of climate science there is now no doubt that he is wilfully ignorant, how else to explain the stupid ignorance driving his #73 above.
You could do worse than to start your education on climate models here 2Stew, for you sure as hell need it.
Other sources will be required to address the form of Gish Gallop on display in #73.
Lionel, IIRC Chameleon used to spout almost exactly the same line about climate models being like economic models, etc. I think it more likely than not that they're not the same person, but they either share the same brain cell or get many of their confident assertions from the same reliably unreliable sources.
#83: take a look at the rising dotted black line, then realise that the period used for the average finished a scant 4 years ago. Now look at where we are today compared to that average. If you consider that trivial then you clearly don't know what's going on.
oh boy…still denying the pause
Tell me, Glue-boy, do you also deride people who deny the monsters under your bed exist?
Because they are about as real as the pause you keep ignorantly blathering about.
Even the other deniers can't manage to deny it's warmed any more and have moved over to "Well, it's so small!".
BBD
I sympathise with you now that your world is breaking apart. Now we even have Nick Stokesadmitting that GCMs are basically useless.
even worse, Eduardo Zorita is displaying his usual scepticism, unlike those scientists who have become scientivists:
So Zorita - a voluble contrarian and piss-poor scientist - doesn't know what he is talking about. I knew this alread, FUDd.
Can't you find somebody who isn't a joke to wave at us?
FUDd
You have utterly failed to understand Nick's post, which says exactly what I have been saying - models aren't designed to *forecast or predict* actual Earth climate behaviour a decade ahead.
You are clueless. You have demonstrated your complete inability to understand any aspect of the CC "debate" over and over again here. You have just entertained us with yet another pratfall.
No Homer Fludd, Nick Stokes is not admitting GCMs are useless, he is explaining in simple terms for simpletons like you, or maybe those who are taken in by the you, what climate models are for and how they are set up and run.
You also need to start here.
Now maybe you could describe a few of the many types of climate model.
I am so glad to hear that you all agree that GCMs are useless and without any value. This is a rare incursion of reality in your mindsets
We agreed nothing of the sort. You are living in a fantasy world.
Someone that tells you to your face that you've just said "black" when you and everyone else can see you just said "white" is admitting that they don't come here for the hunting.
You mean they are a lying sack of shit?
:-)
...and they come here to make that obvious to all and sundry ;-)
Homer Fludd
#94 tells it is time for your med's you may then be allowed to take off your funny hat.
Oh dear, PAGES2K is not only bad it is even worse than we thought (as the climate scientivists love to say). Not only don’t they know for certain which way to orient the proxies – hey, scientivists, maybe they are not good proxies – but now it seems that they model Australasia on a total of zero proxies from Australia (why bother including the largest land-mass in the reconstruction?) but with some help from some Indonesian islands north of the equator, where the climate is rather different. Thank God for teleconnections.
Perhaps it is just a coincidence that they plot the results in SD units, based on the standard deviation of a subset of the whole series. A sceptic would say that they do this to try to guarantee the emergence of the canonical and desired “hockey-stick”. Will any scientivist call them out on it? LMFAO. Any published reconstruction has to match the hockey-stick, otherwise the scientivists will refuse to publish it.
Admit it, the corruption is endemic. Either they did not know that this procedure would guarantee a hockey-stick, which would make them dim even by the low standards of climate scientivism, or they they knew…which makes them fraudsters. But then, of course, that puts them in line with the behaviour of Mann the Merciless. Trebles all round. Help yourself, BBD old fruit.
Still making up words (as well as reality) to suit your own self-idolatry, glue-boy?
Stuck in the same groove ever since he was 6.
It's been a long 8 years for the kid...
Or they knew more than you and knew no such eventuality would ensue.
Which to take?
The word of a glue-sniffer
Or actual paid scientists who've spent decades looking at learning.
So we're back to the grand conspiracy theory where the entire field of millennial temperature reconstructions is corrupt.
Or correct, which seems inherently more plausible that the generally incorrect McI seeing farther than an entire discipline.
As I have said before, if his insights are so devastating to the field, why then does he not publish them in a high-impact climate journal. It would instantly give him the kudos he so clearly and desperately craves, so why not publish?
I can think of only one reason. He knows that he is wrong and he knows that his confected nonsense would not pass peer review.
Otherwise, why not publish?
Casting my mind back, I don't recall FUDd answering a very important question I posed about physical climatology.
The "sceptics" who argue (in the face of *all* the evidence) that there was a global and synchronous "MWP" as warm as or warmer than the present do so because they argue that modern warming isn't exceptional, at least on a millennial timescale.
But there is a problem with this. There is no evidence for a major net increase in forcings ~900CE - 1300CE. So this putative global warming event would be strong evidence that the climate system is very sensitive to radiative perturbations.
The sharp and ongoing increase in GHG forcing since the second half of the C20th constitutes such a radiative perturbation. So a 'hot MWP' implies a significant warming response to rising CO2 over the course of this century.
Yet "sceptics" violently contest that this will happen.
I cannot for the life of me reconcile the apparent and profound contradiction here.
So please, FUDd, I ask again - explain how this works. You keep on dodging this question, which is a source of increasing interest in and of itself. I begin to suspect (you see) that you dimly recognise that "sceptics" have got horribly muddled up in the creation of their narrative about corrupt scientists 'getting rid of the MWP' to make modern warming look more exceptional.
What's going on, FUDd? Physics won't let you have it both ways.
Wow
"
Either they did not know that this procedure would guarantee a hockey-stick,
Or they knew more than you and knew no such eventuality would ensue.
Which to take?
The word of a glue-sniffer
Or actual paid scientists who’ve spent decades looking at learning.
"
They are frauds...admit it.
BBD
Still fretting...
"about physical climatology.
The “sceptics” who argue (in the face of *all* the evidence) that there was a global and synchronous “MWP” as warm as or warmer than the present do so because they argue that modern warming isn’t exceptional, at least on a millennial timescale."
I have no stake in this MWP that you are so scared of. All I know is that we know sod all about climate over more than about 100 years. paleo is shit shit shit...and even more shit than that. We DO NOT KNOW. Does that explain my position?
take a few series...monte carlo and do the SD test....and watch the Mannian hockey-stick emerge.
Wake up, you moonies. Ask Jeffie for support
Woo! Now that *is* revealing.
Agnosia is denial in a mask. So yes, it explains your "position". You are an evidence denier.
And like every single denier I have ever met, you are violently allergic to paleoclimate evidence.
* * *
Watching you desperately try and sound as though you have a clue is painful and funny at the same time. If you prefer not to be laughed at, then stop.
Nerp! Nerp! Nerp!
Conspiracy theory detected! Seal the room!
Talking of frauds, what is the deal with testimonials? What can you get away with?
Here is a healthcare provider with testimonials that appear entirely fictitious:
http://stangerhealthcare.com/
Is this fraud?
"Does that explain my position?"
Dpn't worry, Fudge, we knew your position i.e. mental state some time ago. I'd describe it as deranged.
With respect to science, given that you are a complete and utter nobody with no formal qualifications in anything higher than tiddly winks, your 'position' means diddly squat.
#7, revisionists will never do the work themselves. They can't or they know they are liars.
At the risk of getting the cold shoulder, it's starting to feel a lot like Algonquin around here...
http://atlanta.cbslocal.com/2014/11/13/all-50-states-will-see-freezing-…
The excursions of frigid polar air are part of an ongoing change in the behaviour of high-latitude atmospheric circulation:
An increasing number of researchers agree that this is probably being driven by AGW which is altering atmospheric circulation in ways not predicted by models. I find this troubling, not reassuring, but YMMV.
"Probably" driven by AGW. Of course it is...
"altering atmospheric circulation in ways not predicted by models"....
Not predicted by models? Preposterous!
Disquieting.
@BBD, Betula
“altering atmospheric circulation in ways not predicted by models”….
I think you'll find it's "projected" by models. According to the loony brigade, model outputs are "projections" not "predictions".
Theory's make "predictions" in Science and are falsifiable. Climate models are exempt from science because their outputs are"projections" apparently.
;)
#13
See this for some context:
A global perspective on the recent storms and floods in the UK
and yes it is applicable, note the word 'Global'
and this
The Omega block
and
three relevant articles on this page.
So remember, global warming causes climate change. Simple.
"At the risk of getting the cold shoulder, it’s starting to feel a lot like Algonquin around here"
Well, if Batty wants to play the weather game, so will I. Its downright balmy over here in Europe, temperatures way above normal and set to stay that way for the remainder of the mont. No frosts yet in the Netherlands, weeks past when they would normally have been expected to occur.
So whats the point? There is none. Its weather. AGW is real.
Climate isn't a "theory", GSW, it's a set of observations.
A climate model is an analysis of that set of observations. Still not a "theory".
Reckon GSW will ever get the hang of this science thingie?
#17 Doh GSW. Of course models don't make predictions, they are not crystal balls. To make a climate prediction you would have to know in advance all the factors that affect climate: solar variation, volcanoes, albedo changes, vegetation changes, aerosols, GHG emissions etc for the whole of the time period of the prediction. You would also need perfect knowledge of the starting conditions and perfect knowledge of how all the factors interact.
In other words an identical replica of the Earth. Since we don't have a big enough budget for that we have to make do with models that project what would happen if some parameters are changed.
Modelling of a simple system will predict everything.
I don't believe anybody asserts that modelling climate is anything like simple, therefore there is little expectation that climate models will provide predictions.
What a climate model "does not predict" is 1,000,000x more interesting to science than what it does, because this helps pinpoint missing inputs or faulty methods.
Lionel -
1. Thanks for the first link:
"As yet, there is no definitive answer on the possible contribution of climate change to the recent storminess, rainfall amounts and the consequent flooding"
"More research is urgently needed to deliver robust detection of changes in storminess and daily/hourly rain rates and this is an area of active research in the Met Office. The attribution of these changes to anthropogenic global warming requires climate models of sufficient resolution to capture storms and their associated rainfall."
2. Thanks for the 2nd link:
"Jet stream weirdness happens all the time Lots of historical examples of this kind of thing."
"Important to remember – though just about everyone agrees that the jet is behaving strangely, not everyone agrees on the cause"
3. And thanks for the third link, which says nothing.
Hardley - "Well, if Batty wants to play the weather game, so will I"
You always do, thus the Algonquin reference.
@Craig
"Reckon GSW will ever get the hang of this science thingie?"
Oh, I'm doing fine Craig. It's you lot tripping over your own "definitions" that has us all amused. Just tell us again why the climate models are doing a shit job of "projecting" future climates - That's one of my favourites.
;)
Jeffie at his best:
"Well, if Batty wants to play the weather game, so will I. Its downright balmy over here in Europe, temperatures way above normal and set to stay that way for the remainder of the mont. No frosts yet in the Netherlands, weeks past when they would normally have been expected to occur. "
lots of frost in England, Jeffie. Just be pleased that your snails haven't yet frozen
Lew is at it again...the gift that just cannot stop giving
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/9/11/111004/article%20%E2%80%A6
Betula: " Just tell us again why the climate models are doing a shit job of “projecting” future climates – That’s one of my favourites."
It's a fave because you are stupid. Dumb as a birch stump.
Projection for 2100 cannot be judged as 'doing a shit job' just right now. Do you understand? It's 2014 and the emissions path we take has not run. You'll have to wait.
And a little history tells us that early projections are well and truly close enough. The ones that have failed were the no warming assertions from industry stooges, god-botherers and other flotsam that clogs the global airwaves. As for the coolers....
Classic Fudd: "lots of frost in England, Jeffie. Just be pleased that your snails haven’t yet frozen"
Actually, there hasn't been. You're lying. Only in the far north of the UK has frost been evident. In virtually all of central and southern England there have been no frosts yet, a month after they would normally be expected to occur. Oh. and to drill this through your thick head: I don't work with snails. Does that resonate, you clot?
Betula, and Fudge:
2014 is going to be the warmest year on record. All of the ten warmest years on record have occurred since 1998. That's climate. Much of Europe is also having its warmest year on record - that includes the UK, Fuddy-duddy. Oh, by the way, while I am at it, Fudd, what are your scientific qualifications again? At least Betula gets out of the house a bit in his tree-shearing business; what's your excuse? With the exception of Batty and gormelss, both of whom blow their limited qualifications in science out of all proportion, the other denier quacks on here refuse to tell us their day jobs. Its not like you are going to blow your cover. The only reason you don't is because you'll look like even bigger idiots than you already are when you have to admit that you've never been near a science lecture in your lives.
The reason I discussed Algonquin Park is because it lies at the edge of two major biomes. These are the zones at most risk from AGW. Plants and species cannot merely shift northwards if conditions become unsuitable for them - there are a myriad of ecological constraints - such as soil chemistry and biology - that act as major impediments for dispersal. Yesterday I attended a lecture where the speaker described a UK study looking at the distributions of insects over the past 50 years. Since the 1980s, a large number of species have been moving northwards and the rate of movement is increasing. Weedy forbs from southern Europe are also expanding their ranges to the north. The empirical literature is full of examples of range shifts. Warming is occurring fro sure. The deniers are left with nothing but hyperbole, smears and rhetoric.
Nick,
GSW thinks that climate models should be able to predict political choices by as-yet-unborn voters, and technological developments by as-yet-unborn inventors, in addition to merely modelling extremely complex physics. That would be the bare minimum to be able to fine down the range of emission scenarios to a single path and come close to something GSW might call a prediction.
It is touching that he has such faith in models that he thinks the good ones should do this, but he wants something that only exists in science fiction.
Normal people, better acquainted with the realities of science fact appreciate the actual capabilities of models, and value them for what they can tell us, and even what we learn from any divergence from observations.
GSW probably thinks a climate model imperfect if it doesn't pick up his dry cleaning and cook his dinner too. But then, GSW is an idiot, so who cares?
Birch Block:
#24 part 1
Of course by providing you with a source I would have expected you to read it in full honestly and take everything in context and not only within the context of this one document but also the wider body of evidence which is showing that climate has shifted gear as the world continues to warm. But oh no, you show yourself for what you are a cherry picking numpty who avoided this:
Birch Block:
#24 part 2
Once again we see a cherry pick avoiding, amongst many other examples the if produced will show you for what you are, a denier. The evidence is presented and yet you deny, deny, deny.
The underlying reason for the anomalous jet stream behaviour is to do with the mounting heat energy [1] in the global systems, what is not yet clear is which of the postulated mechanisms it is that trigger this behaviour of the jet stream.
See The recent pause in warming and note the 'Global' context.
Maybe it is too much to expect a see no evil like yourself to understand the relevant parts in that last and why they are so.
Now as for my 3rd link - reports of anomalous weather events probably due to the jet stream disturbance mentioned in 1 & 2. So you closed your eyes or shut off your brain.
Homer Fludd:
England is not Scotland BTW., but even then where is the frost:
BBC Weather warnings
UK temps early hours Friday 14th November 2014
Link at #28 fails, but then that is you, a cognitive failure.
Yes. Disquieting.
While it snows somewhere in the US autumn for us in Holland is showing Ice Age signs too. It is only the second mildest in at least four centuries, colder than autumn waaaayyyyy back in 2006.
But the year is simply #1 unless some record cold December month does something about it, even then 2014 will win a medal. Bye, 2006, 2007.
It's called Stuck Pattern Syndrome. By cRR, so be careful to quote cRR when using this term. US stuck in trough, Europe up to far into Russia and the Arctic stuck in eternal balmy subtropical fucking shit malaria air.
There may be issues with that Met Office link which I would only be sure about once posting link and then testing. It appears to be rather clunky on scrolling and magnification but then I note my net connection is playing up a bit ATM.
Thus I made a screen grab.
Nick @29 - You assign a quote by GSW to me and then call me as dumb as a stump because you imagine I said it.
Very entertaining.....and the reason I keep coming back.
"Very entertaining…..and the reason I keep coming back"
No, there are two reasons you keep coming back:
1) Because you are a sucker for punishment and enjoy seeing your vacuous points demolished;
2) You actually think you're clever and are capable of changing the minds of readers who are on the fence. I guess that is what being an ex-marine and tree pruner does for you. It gives you a Dunning-Krugeresque sense on intellectual confidence in spite of the fact that you have not got a clue what you are talking about, and instead are guided by your own personal right wing ideology.
Whatever makes you happy. But when it comes to science, you are as thick as a stump. Nick got that right.
Hardley - "You actually think you’re clever and are capable of changing the minds of readers who are on the fence"
Hysterical! There are only a few readers here, and none are on the fence. Your ego is fooling you into believing you have an audience...
So, as far as trying to change someone's mindset on Deltoid, unlike you, I realize it's a mute point. However, I must admit I do enjoy exposing your mindset.... because it is both fun and easy.
Yes - "moot"
The latest scientific place for ecologists to lookie, lookie for the missing heat:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/14/friday-funny-australians-bury-the…
"However, I must admit I do enjoy exposing your mindset…. because it is both fun and easy"
That goes two ways, Batty. You are as easy to read as a book. Right wing idealogue.
As for people, I reach a lot more than you do. Many, many more. Think about it.
Olaus, this is the same Watts who argued recently that conditions in the Cretaceous were great for dinosaurs, so why not for humans? The comment was so infantile and scientifically vacuous it was priceless. All Watts does whenever he wades into anything remotely scientific is show what a simpleton he is. I laughed out loud at that for hours and could not resist telling my colleagues. Again, it was a gem of stupidity.
I won't even begin to try and deconstruct his comedy piece. It was soooooo baddddddd that I think a kindergarten child could see through it. Not so sure about you, though. Nor Betula and Fuddy. I am sure the three of you will think its informed. That's the level of scientific ability you all possess.
...and the comments underneath it were even funnier. Good grief, WUWT is full of idiots. If I ever need a bit of a laugh, I go there. That's one thing the AGW denialosphere has done for me and my peers in science; given us a good laugh when we need it. These sites are so abyssmal its beyond parody. The GWPF was promoting Susan Crockford's latest crock of s*** with respect to AGW and Polar Bears and Walruses last week. Comedy gold. But Crockford is, of course, a zoological luminary - 14 papers on the Web of Science in her career. No wonder the GWPF (along with Morano) cite her.
#41 wot, wot?
http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/g20-brisbane-world-leaders-swelter-a…
There it is, moron.
Wot, wot???!
http://www.weatherzone.com.au/nt/alice-springs/alice-springs
Scroll down, moron. Note: 44.9° C. Note the difference with the old November record, waaaaayyyyyyy back in 2009, moron. GTFO.
And, #41, please note GTFO. I do not want the T.
Hint Jeff, the joke was on you. ;-)
And the polar bears are doing just fine, just like your first hand spider, or was it snail? And yes, bugs reacts to climate change.
#47, let's destroy the entire globe's taiga. There's a bit to do in Siberia.
http://news.sciencemag.org/2012/03/climate-change-sends-beetles-overdri…
Planning to bust the Brisbane November record during the G20 :)
cRR Kampen @# 45 & #49.
You must not understand Aussie Spring weather?
That system has passed through where I live yesterday. Today is vastly different. It is now cool and about to rain.
Yesterday all the harvesters were asked to stop and the receival sheds were closed to avoid accidental fires.
Today they are all out again.
All fire services were on alert and there was a total fire ban.
That is not unprecedented for OZ in November.
Brisbane will have one hot windy day too as the system passes through.
They will be uncomfortable if they're outside just as we were yesterday. They will also need to watch for fire hazards just as we did yesterday.
The following day will be much cooler.
Claiming a singular hot windy day or, for that matter, a singular
cold blustery system is just commenting on weather.
It's the Aussie Spring doing its thing and it is no more the friend of sceptics than it is the friend of CAGW proponents.
Hardley - "As for people, I reach a lot more than you do. Many, many more. Think about it"
Um, if my purpose was to reach a lot of people, would this be the place? Think about it.
Besides, I could never compete with the amount of people your ego inflated imagination reaches...
"Besides, I could never compete with the amount of people your ego inflated imagination reaches…"
Says an idiot who boasts about being an ex-marine, and having a degree and his own business at age 24...
Talk about pot, kettle, black....
Your ego is pretty bloated, Betula, otherwise you wouldn't write the crap you do with such confidence. I recall you once going on about the benefits of the fertilization effect of C02 until that was completely debunked; then your white-tailed deer/wild turkey example was debunked, and then you move onto the political arena.
What a dork.
I see Olaus is being a copycat again.. cannot even come up with how own insults. He has to copy those of the other denier halfwits on here. Good grief, Olaus, how pathetic are you? Clearly very.
And Polar Bears are most certainly NOT doing fine. The most recent population demographics shows that recruitment is down and that the population is becoming increasingly skewed towards older animals. Moreover, the weight gain of juveniles is also slowing. If the current trend continues, the species will be another example of the living dead; the only saving grace right now is that the bears are at the extreme end of the k-selection continuum and are long lived. This means there may yet be time to shift the age-structure back towards a healthy balance of age demographics.
Of course, even this little discussion is over the head of Olaus. But I don't aim it at him. Betula is equally daft; when I said I reach a lot more people I was of course not referring to Deltoid but in my job as a scientist and the academic and public lectures that I give. But he has spent too much time in his birch bark canoe to even understand this basic point.
Stu2, So please then explain why the two hottest years in Australia have been since 2009? Is that the Aussie weather doing its 'normal thing'?
Good heavens, the deniers on Deltoid are DUMB. Is this the best crop of intellects that they can throw at us? That being said, I read the comments on WUWT from time to time and they are equally hilarious and vacuous. Its just that WUWT is populated by more of them. Its Dunning-Kruger writ large there; they have run amok.
#50, "It’s the Aussie Spring doing its thing", o, look, a moron! Breaking the records again, 'its thing'.
O and look around for your missing heat, it is everywhere. October 2014 took the gold again (= hiatus: only records, records only).
#50, I lived a couple of years there, dearie, but this is irrelevant.
"Says an idiot who boasts about being an ex-marine, and having a degree and his own business at age 24"
Never said that.
If you can screw up something that simple, imagine what you can screw up reading a research paper...
"So please then explain why the two hottest years in Australia have been since 2009?"
Correction Professor Hardley - I'm sure you meant the hottest years in the short period of time it's been recorded. Please continue...
Jeffie, my dear friend, the polar bears are doing just fine, at least in relation to the sea ice extent:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
And that's good, isn't i?
I'm more worried about the empreror penguines that are threatend by the huge loss of sea ice in Antarctica, you know the ice loss caused by the accelerating global warming. :-)
Hi Olaus,
Yeah, the Polar "Alarm" seems to be over. As far as we can tell they're, as you say, doing just fine.
GWPF/Crockford video below,
"Healthy Polar Bears, Less Than Healthy Science"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eg7R2GYvQz8
Nice to hear from level headed Scientists for a change, as opposed the weirdos.
;)
Sorry "as opposed *to* the weirdos"
;)
Hi GSW,
yes it's intersting how the nostradamianism works:
“At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions.” (NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally, 2007)
And Jeffie is the ecolocist in the coal mine. He dies instantly when traces of science come his way. :-)
Olaus,
"He dies instantly when traces of science come his way."
Ha! very good.
:)
Oily Prat
Look at the year that Jay Zwally wrote, or said, “At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions.”
Now tell us what happened to Arctic sea ice that year.
More context: Arctic Sea Ice Gone in Summer Within Five Years?
now compare that to where we are now:
study in particular Figure 3.
Unfortunate use of the word 'predictions' aside, note the 'at this rate' as pertinent to 2007.
One this is for sure, Arctic ice is melting faster than projections of just a decade ago. Furthermore you are unlikely to be able to point to Antarctica to support your rhetorical devices for much longer: New study shows warm waters are melting Antarctica from below.
Mark well GSW if all you can do is call on the Global Worming Policing Federation for support. Who you trying to kid?
Global warming Crockford of the decade, aided and abetted by one who should know better on this polar bear thing.
The owls are doing fine, everything you clowns OP, GSW, Betula & co. & co. regurgitate is a Hoot.
The more the idiots like GSW write, the more idiotic they look.
After everything that's been said, he posts up a video from the GWPF (shills, shills and more shills) and Crockford, the big-time zoologist/Heartland Institute darling with 14 career papers. Good grief, how stupid can GSW get? Obviously a lot. I have already seen the crappy presentation, gormless (last week); its so full of bullshit that I found it hard to stomach the whole thing, but I got to the end. Don't expect it to appear in a peer-reviewed journal any time soon.
And there's our insult copy-cat Olly having the audacity to talk about scientific acumen. I have to admit, that we do have bonafide denier dopes on Deltoid. If this lot is symptomatic of the broader denial movement, then woe betide them.
As for the ex-marine, I'll leave him to his deciduous trees.
GSW
Genuinely insane.
Genuinely insane indeed, they have been told the trains acoming, and now we can see it coming around the curve and yet we still see this s*** posted from the suspects usual.
@GSW
Jeff died again. Cause known.
Lionel, will the train come in a Zwallyish way or in a scientific way?
GSW, shall we be worried that Jeff has been e-mailing professor Happer?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCDOf8Khiko
Lets see what a bonafide peer reviewed article by actual researchers working in the area and who aren't apparently shills for Heartland and the GWPF have to say:
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/40511782?uid=3738736&uid=2&uid=4&…
And, metaphorically speaking, this study is the tip of the iceberg. The empirical literature is full of studies reporting negative effects of rapid AGW on biodiversity. And at least I write as a qualified population ecologist. None of the deniers here (as expected) have anything remotely resembling relevant expertise.
Two things stand out. First, the fact that decidedly anti-environmental right wing front groups use environmentally friendly names to mislead the public (the GWPF is a good example); second, given that these front groups are generally set up and/or staffed by non-scientists, its amazing how they scrape up a few mediocre scientists to argue that AGW is not a problem, whilst ignoring a sea of peer-reviewed studies and the opinions of the vast majority of the scientific community (including scientists whose qualifications put people like Crockford into the shade).
If it isn't blatantly obvious that they care diddly squat about the science, then it ought to be. And its remarkable that any scientists who disagree with the deniers - meaning me and >95% of my peers and colleagues who think that AGW is very real and a problem - are smeared as Olly and GSW do to me above. Again, it would be precious to stand in a debate with either of those two twits on the ecological effects of warming in front of a large audience. First thing that would happen is the moderator would describe our respective professional backgrounds. I'd love to see the face of the audience once those of the three of us are described. At this point I am sure that someone in the audience would politely ask, "Why are those two (GSW and Olly) even here? On what basis were they invited to participate?"
Of course, these debates would never happen. Sure I would be (and have been) invited to debate the effects of AGW on nature, and I have lectured at universities, workshops and conferences on the subject. Old Olly and gormless have never even studied the field, let alone lectured it.
This is one reason I find their participation here and their continual attempts to claim the scientific high ground both comical and amusing.
I see Olly has scraped up another old denier as if his views represent the mainstream. *Sigh*
Whose he going to dig up next? The list of qualified deniers will dry up very quickly.
Finally, why doesn't this surprise me?
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=William_Happer
Try again Olly. You fail.
You silly boy, it is just gonna run you down, and Will Happer too. Why? Because you cannot see it.
On #72 PDF.
Jeff Harvey @#54.
If you're looking for vacuous, cRR Kampen's link re Brisbane & the G20 @#45 is a prime example.
It is a chatty little piece about the current weather in QLD.
Meanwhile in southern NSW & Vic, it is cold and blustery today after temps in the 40s 2 days ago.
What does any of that prove other than the weather in Spring in Australia is highly variable?
Averaging it nationally, from a relatively short data set, is not conclusive proof of anything particularly alarming.
The Aussie Spring weather is not behaving in an unprecedented
manner.
Heat waves and cold snaps are not uncommon in November in Australia.
Claiming either as proof of anything re climate trends is bordering on nonsense.
It would be unusual if everyday in Spring was average.
Interesting things are happening on a global scale too.
It is possible that the IPO has switched back to its positive mode, which would mean a reversion to the pronounced warming seen from the seventies to the turn of the century.
BBD.
The Aussie weather is not a sporting event or a top 100 music chart.
We can measure a singular race within fractions of a second and claim broken records.
Singular sales records are broken fractiinally in the music industry.
Fractions of degrees averaged over a whole continent for a
whole calendar year is an entirely different matter.
It would be 'unprecedented' if the Aussie weather was always average.
It is, after all, the land 'of drought and flooding rains'.
Claiming singular Australian weather events as proof of anything other than what they are is nonsense.
The link supplied @#45 is an example.
That's shut-eyed denial, Stu2.
FractiOnally!
Missed that error before I submitted.
BBD,
The possibility that the IPO will switch back to its positive mode does indeed mean that the weather patterns could possibly revert to a previous pattern.
That is not a new concept or unprecedented.
Are you suggesting that the IPO can be controlled this time around if it does switch back?
I don't think it's particularly interested in conforming, confirming or being anyone's political ally.
When I last checked (yesterday) it was described as neutral.
BBD?
Shut eyed denial?
Are you claiming that link @#45 is something other than a chat about the current weather in QLD that means it's a bit uncomfortable for everyone involved in the G20?
Do you claim that comparing it to the averaged national trend is proof of something else?
The evidence is clear, Stu2. The rest is up to you.
BBD.
Perhaps you didn't understand the question?
Are you claiming the link @#45 re current weather in QLD is clear evidence?
How do you match that up with the current cold and blustery weather in the southern states?
2 days ago, it was hot and windy in the south. The temps were in the 40s. Today in southern NSW, it didn't make it to 20 & we're all back in winter clothes.
BTW, the rice crops bounded ahead in that warm weather a few days ago along with the corn, soy, cotton, vegs and several other summer crops. They don't like this cold snap as much - especially the rice crops.
Lionel, when will I see it, the train of death I mean. Or shall I ask Dr. Zwally?
Stu2, You can try and obfuscate all you like, but the two warmest years ever recorded down under have been since 2009. Globally, the 10 warmest recorded years have been since 1998. You and Betula are picking at hairs. The planet is warming, and humanity is responsible.
Note also how our Swedish meatball has left the Polar Bear/biodiversity/Happer discussion and slithered into a new direction. Its what deniers do: they are pretty much an uneducated lot, at least in relevant fields, and when their arguments are systematically demolished they simply produce new ones. Its a never ending cycle.
And Olly still hasn't told us what his day job/profession is. That's because, as we all know, it has nix to do with anything remotely scientific. The fact that eh relies of WUWT etc. for his 'education' is indeed alarming.
Lake Superior – the fastest warming lake on the planet – has had som ice on it today.
Dr. Zwally or Lionel can read this portent, I assue. I guess its a fast coming train?
I see Olly is writing in semi-literate grammatically incompetent misspelled English again.
I think he needs a spell-check.
But then again, he's as daft as a brush so that isn't going to help. He's also bypassing the latest demolition of his nonsense. I see he's also not talking about current Greenland temperatures - some 10 C above normal.
Olly, it's over; you've been humiliated once too many times. Time for you to crawl back under your slimy rock.
Jeff, my friend, is it Greenland that is on fastforward during the absence of the accelerating global warming, not Lake Superior?
HTML fail!
Very unlikely, given that we’ve altered the atmosphere in the meantime to slow down the rate of outgoing longwave radiation. It’s likely to be distinctly warmer this time around than the last time the IPO was positive.
This is incredibly stupid or it’s wilful denial. It seems that Stu 2 has an awful lot of trouble with distinguishing science from politics, or finds it more convenient not to. That might explain his near-constant confusion.
Olaus keeps trying. The point is that warming is greater the further one moves polewards. This was predicted based on global circulation models by Keeling and Revelle back in the 1950s, and is being borne out today. The Arctic is warming at rates much greater than biomes to to the south towards the poles. There, other climatic factors are being affected as well, such as precipitation regimes.
And again, its vital to keep scale in the discussion. I recall Watts saying back in 2010 that the Arctic ice was recovering in extent, no worries, and then along came 2012. The process is non-linear in the short term. We can only honestly regress data sets at appropriate spatial and temporal scales. Its warming and it hasn't stopped. Short term variation drives upwards and downwards cycles, but the longer term trends are undeniable. The number of record warm temperatures worldwide exceeds cold records by a ratio of 5 to 1. The 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1998. Species are moving polewards or to higher elevations, or are increasing the number of generations they have per year. Its warming. There's no two ways around it.
Against the mounting evidence we have the shills and right wing ideologues saying "It ain't so! It ain't so!!!".
I know Jeff, the accelrating global warming is all over the place. :-)
Another vacuous post from Oily Prat:
Now is it winter in the Northern Hemisphere or have I missed something?
Once again YOU OP miss lots of somethings.
Climate change will lead to some areas getting colder but with spatial and temporal moves away from what was once considered normal.
Other places will get warmer, once again with spatial and temporal idiosyncrasies.
You clearly don't bother reading posts that are not directly addressed at you, or if you do you have poor short term memory and/or poor comprehension. Writing which does not rule out both afflictions.
Now go pick up on the first two links in my #18 above. I doubt you will be able to sort out the relevant bits at Jeff Masters' blog accessed via the third link.
Now OP can you tell us all the effect on freezing point of ocean waters as it is freshened, say by melting ice including additions from faster flowing glaciers?
Why is this relevant to the history of the Arctic ice melt/freeze cycle?
Which tropical ocean has greater salinity, the Atlantic or the Pacific?
Bonus for 10, explain why there is the difference indicated in that last question.
If this is about right (and I suspect the refutation part will prove to be) the recent Loehle paper looks like it might actually be an own goal for the denialists. The last sentence of the abstract is particularly scathing if you understand basic academic speak.
No doubt it will still get trumpeted triumphantly by the usual suspects...
It is little short of incredible that the muppets fail to understand a very simple fact: low sensitivity is incompatible with paleoclimate behaviour. So every single one of these studies that lowballs the estimate is obviously wrong.
It really is that simple.
Stu 2
No, I did not argue that #45 is clear evidence. Your strawman.
Why not go back and read what I wrote - including the linked BOM September 2013 report - oh, and this too - and consider the problem of your shut-eyed denial a little more honestly.
Extremes are variability around a rising temperature trend which is clearly visible in the data. That is AGW. Records are tumbling left and right because the variability is occurring from an ever-rising baseline.
The rising temperature trend shows up all around the world. That's why it is called 'global warming'. It is inexplicable unless the increased radiative forcing from CO2 is responsible, as the atmospheric physicists have been telling us it is since 1859.
No other forcing has changed sufficiently to explain the massive accumulation of energy in the climate system. This is not in debate in serious scientific circles and has not been for many years.
You can carry on denying and denying and denying, but the evidence keeps on piling up. It must be a huge mental effort maintaining your stance these days. I don't envy you.
Oh No, BBD says:
"It is possible that the IPO has switched back to its positive mode, which would mean a reversion to the pronounced warming seen from the seventies to the turn of the century."
So he now believes in natural variability. What will he say to Tamino and Gavib and Uncle Steph and big boss Kev?
Lovely to see him banging on the big bad sensitivity ndrum as always. While all the palaeo temperature studies rapidly submerge under their scientivistic incompetence.
Homer Fludd, first quoting BBD:
Of course he does but this is not what he is indicating, what is being pointed out is that a new step in the up escalator is in progress for natural variability to swing either side of.
What is it with the 'suspects usual' and comprehension?
It must be a huge mental effort maintaining your stance these days
The huge mental effort involved with Stu et al is in staying away from observation and evidence. A moments examination of easily accessed climate records puts feeble 'what abouts' into real context: this spring heatwave is a lot pointier than any coolness behind a southern cold frontal system. I can only conclude these idiots do not know how to access weather and climate data. Or why they should do so.
Elmer
When did I not? All I've ever said eg. about the slowdown in the rate of surface warming is that it demonstrates natural variability overprinting the long-term forced trend.
When are you going to answer the question?
You can't just step back and say 'I never cared about the MCA' because the MCA is the only argument that modern warming might not be exceptional in the last 1000y.
Expanding the focus somewhat, consider the implications for climate sensitivity of the Plio-Pleistocene glacial cycles.
If S is very low, how does a mere spatial and seasonal reorganisation of TSI - with barley any net increase - trigger glaciation and deglaciation?
Think about this carefully. Low sensitivity means that the climate system is dominated by negative feedbacks which reduce the effect of any forcing change. If this were the case, then even if the climate system somehow came to be in a glacial phase, how could the regional effects of orbital forcing (Milankovitch) trigger a huge, global shift in climate state?
The negative feedbacks should have prevented this from happening. The only way deglaciation under orbital forcing can work is if the climate system is dominated by positive feedbacks (the definition of a sensitive climate system) which amplify and globalise the effects of regional TSI change.
Or do you deny that there was a glaciation that ended ~11.5ka and that we are now in the Holocene interglacial?
the palaeo studies are shit
you are locked into a cycle of believing unbelievably bad science. You do not need to do it. there are alternatives. You could become a rpofessor of maggetology somewhere - as Jeffie shows, no qualifications are required. You could sell ice-ceams at a cinema, but I guess the tips are less than Jeffie requires.
we are stilllocked in the question, BBD...fraud or mere incompetence?
The paper is unravelling as I debate and you deny....
Olaus
Jeff is trying to get a reputation by measuring penguins. But he does not know where to find them.
Oh here we go... the copycat smears go on. What an unoriginal bunch. Should I ask Fuddo what his esteemed qualifications are in any scientific field? Of course he doesn't have any; besides, how can one do science when they are confined to a padded cell...
Fuddo claims the paleo studies are 'shit'...no evidence required. Then out come a few more smears, then no-sequiters, and then more smears. Note how the small band of idiots on Deltoid also 'hang out' together.... I suppose they need all the support that they can get. No worries. We will get fuddo booted out of here sooner or later so he can draw on the white walls of his cell all day.
Earth to fuddo: you are an outlier, an anomaly. And again, please tell us your scientific qualifications. We are all eager to read them. Mine blow yours out of the water. Nuff' said.
Your typical Australian spring. It's snowing bats again.
http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/a-heatwave-kills-thousands-of-bats-a…
@The Idiot
Asserted like the denialist buffoon you are.
Now answer the fucking question. How can you square indisputably known paleoclimate behaviour like deglaciation under orbital forcing with low sensitivity?
Come on, answer the question instead of dodging around like a panicked rat.
Answer.
If you are still on about McIntliar and PAGES 2K, I don't think you have any idea how weak his supposed criticisms actually are.
I'll make a bet with you. McI will never publish a response to P2K in a mainstream climate journal. Never.
There's literally only one possible explanation for not doing so, which is that he knows his critique is too flimsy to pass peer review.
Hi BBD,
Interested in your #9,
"indisputably known paleoclimate behaviour like deglaciation under orbital forcing with low sensitivity?"
Do you have a reference for it being "indisputable"? Sounds as though your reaching to me, but happy to take a look - "indisputable" doesn't sound very "sciency" language more advocacy - check with jeff hes the expert.
;)
It means GTFO, GSW.
GSW
The classic paper (after Milankovitch, 1941) is Hays, Imbrie & Shackleton (1976) Variations in the Earth's Orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages.
There are limits, GSW. I'm not going to argue about the orbitally forced trigger for deglaciation with you. Your denialism is a wast of my time.
Of course paleoclimate behaviour isn't indisputable - I wish BBD would stick to the script...We're all ice-age deniers at Deltoid.
Except for GSW of course. He knows all about these so-called "Ice Ages". Strangely he just can't tell us how he knows this....
Let me know when you get tired of reliving that highlight, GSW.
Thanks BBD,
I'll have a browse tonight - so you're claiming this paper states that Climate Sensitivity is high and that this is "indisputable" (?). I've also noted that this is a paper from 1976(?).
Not read thru it yet, just checking you believe this paper backs up your statements.
GSW
Jeebuz. No.
Why can't you muppets read plain English?
Try again.
The Hay, Imbrie & Shackleton paper deals with the orbital pacing of deglaciation. Which you seemed to be questioning but I think what you actually did was mangle, misread and partially quote a sentence of mine and in the process imposed your own unique 'meaning' on it.
This is what I wrote, and I said what I meant:
Now answer the fucking question. How can you square indisputably known paleoclimate behaviour like deglaciation under orbital forcing with low sensitivity?
Note the use of italic in the original for added clarity. Still, nothing's muppet-proof, apparently.
FrankD
Sadly, before my time ;-)
It isn't just climate that never changes, eh?
Ya gotta give gormless (GSW) some credit. He's been mucking around the blogosphere for several years now spreading his delusions about AGW. Along the ways he's met up with some equally daft people (Jonas, Olaus, etc) who he's taken to heart and idolized. GSW is the only clot now still writing into Jonas's asylum thread to give the silly twit a boost.
He also claims that most of his friends are scientists; now that IS funny. He's trying to suggest that they either take his arguments seriously and in that vein are AGW sceptics. Given that the vast majority of scientists agree that humans are driving climate change, these friends of his must also be on the fringe.
In fact, I just checked up on the insanity thread and there is Jonas, muttering vacuous ripostes to me over the course of the past 2 months. What a loser. He's trying to tell the world, "Listen to me! Listen to me! Jeffie isn't a scientist! He's not! Listen to me!".
Since then I've had my Professor oration in Amsterdam, taught a course there, and published 16 papers this year. My work has thus far been cited on the WoS 447 times in 2014. Now, let's see Jonas' tally in the same year..... and then decide who the 'real' scientist is...'
BTW, I am reading James Hansen's outstanding 2009 book, "Storms of My Grandchildren". Excellent. It leaves no doubt whatsoever as to the reality of AGW.
Ok BBD, I think that's as close to an admission that your claim was just downright wrong as we're gonna get - "Indisputable" & "High Climate Sensitivity". The bullshit detector goes off every time you post.
Jeff, we've been thru this at length before, YOU'RE AN ACTIVIST before you're anything else - that, and an unpleasant personality, colours everthing you say or do.
At some point in your life you opted for the path of motivated ignorance and it's too late to expect you to change now.
Jeff
That's a very good book. Hansen understands very clearly what paleoclimate data tell us about probable future climate change. If only more "sceptics" would do the properly sceptical thing and look at all the information (eg Hansen's book) not just the mangled and lying nonsense that comes out of "sceptic" blogs and right-wing front groups masquerading as "think tanks" and educational charities.
GSW
What is "downright wrong"? Be specific.
Ah, so that explains your posting history! You've wired it back to front.
"Jeff, we’ve been thru this at length before, YOU’RE AN ACTIVIST before you’re anything else – that, and an unpleasant personality"
Thanks for the complments, GSW. That you call me an activist is a real hoot. And with respect to my personality, my colleagues and friends like me - but I just don't have time for obnoxious Dunning-Kruger wannabes who attack mainstream science and scientists.
You are very much in the latter camp.
Yes BBD, its a great book and has taught me a lot about the basics of climate science. Hansen is a wonderful, compassionate scientist and a role model for many of us.
I *did* enjoy his twisting when being asked repeatedly HOW he knew there were Ice Ages.
Poor thing KNEW there was a reason but KNEW that any reason that he could find was "devastating to his case", to co-opt a phrase.
Lovely.
FrankD's link to an old Deltoid thread in #14 above is revealing on not only GSW's ignorance, wilful ignorance by now surely, but also his agenda.
But this is not my main point, luminous beauty @ #18 there linked to one of my favourite video segments which not only shows denier's lack of raiment but also how they set out to deceive.
There are at least three strands this exposure, one being the extent of Michaels deviation from his own written testimony, how he distorted the message and the manner in which he tried to rake up an old controversy which he, and Dick Lindzen, tried to create at the time of the 1995 IPCC report publication. I'll not go into it here as there is plenty on this available elsewhere and yes I know where, which shows unequivocally how Michaels was playing foul then, that the manner of his unmasking still rankles - well good.
I watched all of this long running House Science Committee Hearing (suffering through the long rambling baffle-gab of Ralph Hall fromTexas - surprise, surprise) and downloaded each of the panel members written testimony for comparison, it was striking how certain individuals deviated from their own scripts. Here is a link to the whole segment, hopefully ( I am sure Virgin and throttling video - red bar data drop outs kick in soon after starting).
Santer had his chance to show up Michaels, which was his intent nothing more, and thanked Michaels for giving him the opportunity.
It should be noted that at this stage Santer was still engaged in studying aspects of climate science whereas Michaels had been reduced to venting through mainstream media, which he still does. Mark his name well.
GSW Watch and learn - lots.
The late and much missed Rick Piltz produced an informative introductory back in November 2010 which is worth a visit.
Look around there too GSW and learn lots more, you really need to up your game.
Well, Michaels is a gen-you-wine paid industry shill, so he lies, misrepresents and repeats because that's what he's there to do.
Special corner of hell for people like that.
@#8.
Instead of posting chatty pieces about a Spring weather event, perhaps you could research how much trouble that particular species of bats have been causing in that area? They are in plague proportions and are responsible for spreading viruses such as the Hendra virus.
They're particularly unwelcome near the primary schools and
childcare centres.
This is also not unprecedented. Even WWF has some info on bats and heat waves.
#30...warming the global climate seems to be an expensive way of dealing with an alleged bat problem. Bat numbers are down on pre- anglo settlement estimates. Fact is, white settlement often agreed with fruit bats on ideal roost sites. Lismore has always had bat colonies, as long as whites have been there...and since the countryside was stripped of woodlands and dry rainforest by the early 20th century, peri-urban reserves and remnant vegetation became vital for bat colonies.
That 'Spring weather event' was a little more than you might like to concede. 44.1C at Casino on Saturday was the hottest ever recorded there. 50,000km2 of country experienced maxima 10C and more above the mean on Saturday, about 15,000km2 on Sunday, many records fell.
I think it's time to retrieve this from the previous page:
Stu2 bleats denial:
But Australian weather *is* behaving in an unprecedented manner (within the observational record). 2013 was the hottest year since records began in 1910. And lots of records were broken. Lifted directly from the BOM September 2013 report:
Australia’s warmest month on record (January)
Australia’s warmest September on record
Australia’s largest positive monthly anomaly on record (September)
Australia’s warmest summer on record (December 2012 to February 2013)
Australia’s warmest January to September period on record
Australia’s warmest 12-month period on record (broken twice, for the periods ending August and September)
Indeed, Australia’s warmest period on record for all periods 1 to 18 months long ending September 2013
Two significant daily maximum temperature records were also set this year:
Australia’s hottest summer day on record (7 January)
Australia’s warmest winter day on record (31 August)
The periods inclusive of September 2013 have also resulted in numerous State and Territory mean temperature records including:
Warmest September on record for South Australia, Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland and the Northern Territory
Largest positive monthly anomaly on record for South Australia and Queensland (September)
The warmest January to September period on record for South Australia, Victoria, New South Wales and the Northern Territory, and also for Melbourne, Sydney and Adelaide
The warmest 12-month period on record for South Australia, the Northern Territory, and southern Australia
@ Stu2 continued:
Why not go back and read what I wrote – including the linked BOM September 2013 report – oh, and this too – and consider the problem of your shut-eyed denial a little more honestly.
Extremes are variability around a rising temperature trend which is clearly visible in the data. That is AGW. Records are tumbling left and right because the variability is occurring from an ever-rising baseline.
The rising temperature trend shows up all around the world. That’s why it is called ‘global warming’. It is inexplicable unless the increased radiative forcing from CO2 is responsible, as the atmospheric physicists have been telling us it is since 1859.
No other forcing has changed sufficiently to explain the massive accumulation of energy in the climate system. This is not in debate in serious scientific circles and has not been for many years.
You can carry on denying and denying and denying, but the evidence keeps on piling up. It must be a huge mental effort maintaining your stance these days. I don’t envy you.
Since Stu2 is in the shut-eyed denial business, I'll risk the patience of other commenters by repeating part of the above for a third time:
Extremes are variability around a rising temperature trend which is clearly visible in the data. That is AGW. Records are tumbling left and right because the variability is occurring from an ever-rising baseline.
Read the words, Stu2.
Now look at the data.
That is AGW and it will carry on, with worse and worse regional impacts for the rest of this century and well beyond. The policy aim is to limit the damage as far as possible, which may not be as much as we'd like.
Denial won't stop AGW. Denial makes it worse.
#30 so if it dies it must have been a pest.
Are you already aware what I'd like to drive at now, Stupid Two?
You've never been in AUS.
Stu2's tried-and-true, no wait, tried-and-false "fake it till you make it" ruse. Perhaps you should tell us, Stu. Because I did research, and AFAICT, the answer is none.
All the pictures I've seen show Black Flying Foxes (Pteropus alecto). Number of Hendra infections traced to Black Flying Foxes in New South Wales? 0. Number of dead flying foxes in this heat wave? 5000.
"They are in plague proportions" - alarmist crap. Hysterical handwaving, to justify a fatuous claim that AGW is our friend because it keeps down those nasty bats. Except, as ever, Stu2's moronically one-dimensional worldview misses the sting in the tail: Heat-stress increases viral loads in host bats, so even if the BFF was a carrier, this heatwave would make subsequent transmission more more likely, not less.
What a moron.
This Canadian Football team should change their name to the "Spiders"...
http://tinyurl.com/mrw9x6q
Spotted first foot by Jeff, of course. :-)
I'm sure Jeffie can read the portent properly for us.
So on this blog, 'look! A squirrel!' has morphed into 'look! A spider!'
Did somebody say 'fuckwits'?
Saying the bleeding obvious that BBD.
I note a suspect usual has once again slalomed around your question, this after I had also prompted it.
Batty, What will you call the Greenland team while you are at it - the amazons? Temperatures there are some 10-15 C above normal... as are temperatures across much of the Canadian Arctic.
but there's another of our resident scientific illiterates thinking some short term cold snap negates AGW. No wonder he's in a job thats light years away from anything remotely scientific...
By the way Olaus, just what are your scientific credentials again? Uh? uh? Do I hear the sound of silence again?
@#35 & 36.
You're kidding?
cRR Kampen has twice linked chatty little weatherzone pieces about a weather event in Australia.
The first discusses that it made it a bit unpleasant for all those involved in the G20.
The second was about the well known fact that hot dry Spring
heat waves in Australia kill flying foxes.
I don't deny either of those observations in those chatty little pieces.
I do however question the 'uplaying' of a weather event, including reporting the weather like it's some type of Olympic running race.
Records of all descriptions get broken, including weather records.
At the same time Northern NSW & QLD was experiencing that hot,windy, dry weather event, it had already passed through here in Southern NSW & Vic, and we were freezing in cold, showery blustery weather.
And cRR Kampen. I don't know why it should matter, but I am indeed an Aussie with a first fleet generational background and even a small dash of aboriginal heritage. I live and work in regional Australia and as mentioned at an earlier thread, I work in Agricultural research.
My questions and comments have always been about the 'something' that we should doing about the negative environmental impacts caused by human activity.
In my line of work I have seen plenty of good stuff that has been done, including the reparation of native fauna and flora habitat and 'doing more with less' in terms of resources and yields.
Bill at some point here also revealed that he has done 'something about it' in terms of native trees.
I don't believe a global ETS or a global tax would stop an Australian Spring heat wave from killing flying foxes or keep those involved in the recent G20 more comfortable, whether it breaks a previous record or not.
Stu2, take some advice from a scientist: when your arguments are demolished, as Frank does @36, accept it and graciously withdraw. First of all, increased numbers of heat waves are predicted under AGW scenarios. Is it warming in Australia Sure is. Its a slam dunk. Second, for all of your pontificating about the benefits of AGW killing off those nasty critters that we humans don't like, there are a huge number of other species of plants and animals that play an important role in the functioning of ecosystems that are adversely affected as well. Its typical of deniers to do everything they can to exaggerate the supposed benefits of global anthropogenic changes on nature, whilst downplaying or ignoring a vastly greater number of harmful effects.
You can't debate your way out of a soaking wet paper bag, as your last response shows. Why do you even try?
And Stu2 provides another balls-out demo of shut-eyed denial by completely blanking #32 #3 and #34.
It's mind-boggling to behold. This is mental illness, people.
Jeff Harvey.
You need to give over on the straw man arguments.
I have never denied that human behaviour impacts the environment - it does.
My questions have always been about that "IT" that we should be doing about it.
People like you have successfully alienated the demographic
that you would need to have working with you to help mitigate the negative impacts- the land managers.
Chatty PR pieces about the weather are nothing other than chatty pieces about the weather.
Flying foxes die in the circumstances that occured in Eastern Australia last week - they always have.
The main problem was the lack of humidity caused by the weather pattern - it is not a new phenomenon.
A global tax or a global ETS will not prevent something like that happening.
The majority of people who work on the land are laughing at attitudes like yours.
That's a pity because the overwhelming majority in places like Australia care deeply about the environment, but unlike you, they understand that R&D and land managers need to work together on a suite of practical measures.
Stupid Two #42 - "At the same time Northern NSW & QLD was experiencing that hot,windy, dry weather event, it had already passed through here in Southern NSW & Vic, and we were freezing in cold, showery blustery weather."
You fucking liar. You mean you got a Sunday of normal with, of course, the extra convectiveness belonging to AGW, while as of now this region is getting a scorcher AGAIN for fucking days on end. More inland another 44+ bat killer in the weekend too.
Does Stu2 think that "undeniable human impacts on the environment" have made, and will go on making, heat waves more common and extreme, or less?
And attentive readers note that he is suddenly silent on the subject of the "plague" of killer bats coming to infect the children of northern New South Wales...
Oh, no, it's suddenly "Global Tax and ETS", subjects which only he has raised....obvious deflections is obvious, much?
"Look! A squirrel"...
The main problem was the lack of humidity caused by the weather pattern – it is not a new phenomenon.
Huh? The main problem was it hit 44.1 degrees Celsius in...an all time record high temperature for Casino, any month....and it was still 42.3C at 3PM.... and it was over 40 [38.4 at 3PM] the next day. And the flying foxes had recently given birth, it being spring. Unseasonal extreme spring heat over two days caught out an animal with a breeding season evolved to avoid summer heat. Given the extreme heat, the humidity held up pretty well....it was the fact that the 3 PM temperatures were almost 15C above the mean for November 15th and 11C above on the 16th.
Meanwhile, something that might qualify as marginally more interesting that Stu2's fatuous handwaving...(but anything would)...
BOM have raised the El Nino status to "Alert", meaning a 70% or greater chance of entering El Nino conditions in the forecast period. More heat for S and E Australia then...
Stu2
It's AGW. Variability around a rising baseline. Records tumble. Bushfires rage. Bats die.
It's AGW and it will carry on getting worse and worse and worse.
I agree that a carbon tax won't stop it. The pity of it is you don't realise how right you are. But thanks to the tireless efforts of vested interest we are now two decades behind where we could have been on implementing a phased reduction in fossil fuel use. Mentally ill idiots and liars like you have not helped. Or rather, you have helped the wrong fucking team. You will have this on your conscience for the rest of your life, which I sincerely hope is long enough for you to realise what you have helped to do.
"You will have this on your conscience for the rest of your life, which I sincerely hope is long enough for you to realise what you have helped to do."
And I for one will remind you & ilk every fucking day - especially the day of party when your house goes out in flood or fire and your economy crashes on commodity prices. And you'll party with me because that is what you wished for.
#51 - 'you & ilk' is the blob of climate revisionists, to be perfectly clear.
In that case they are laughing the laugh of the village idiot who shot his own foot out of boredom, denied he did it, and apparently found the whole episode immensely amusing.
Meanwhile nature is laughing at them because we're clearly not doing enough to combat the problem and they're rejecting the knowledge of people who understand what's happening, what impacts it will likely have, and what needs to be done about it because they don't like "their attitude" (and if you are at all representative of them, have ideological objections rather than scientific ones that they keep trying to pretend are really not ideological).
All of that really is the wisdom of the village idiot speaking.
Interesting-looking paper from Schwartz and co.
It seems:
1) Climate sensitivity and model forcings do not match measured temperatures.
2) The factors that influence this are many and varied - the factors cannot be understood or modelled "at this time".
3) Concludes with the "hope" that more work is carried out to understand the reasons for the inconsistencies - so that models of the future better match the measured climate response.
And you guys are so convinced that the science is "settled".
@Loth
I saw something a while back about farmers being more sceptical of CAGW than the general public. I'm not sure where the orignal was, but I found this on the Farming Futures site.
http://www.farmingfutures.org.uk/blog/farmers%E2%80%99-perception-clima…
"The impacts of climate change are not seen as a pressing threat, nor are extreme weather events regular enough for the majority of farmers to invest time and resources into taking immediate action. Farmers are working to prevent the impacts of short-term impacts and maximise opportunities rather than mitigate long-term risks. "
"The majority of farmers are sceptical about long-term projections of climate change noting they’re confusing lacking consistency and clarity. Instead farmers are likely to take actions based on their own perception of short-term variations in weather."
I'm not going to read too much into it, but it's more supportive of Stu 2's position than yours.
BBD and Hardley: Climate Change....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSUwC8hWj8o
Fuddy Duddy
"And you guys are so convinced that the science is “settled”."
Strawman.
Also link failed.
#55, only Britain, where rising temps and a precip rise of up to 35% over last century makes for a longer farming season. In some regions CC can be beneficial.
But if you look at what struck the main agrarian area of Britain last winter you could suspect with me that farmers might feel some alarm as to too much precipitation.
Find some farmer's perspectives from the SW US, or India, or most of Africa, or the eastern two thirds of Australia, or Indonesia, or Brazil. Please come back with some of that.
Btw are you aware rice/acre is dropping considerably in semiequatorial regions because of nothing else than temperature rise?
" a precip rise of up to 35% over last century " - that should be HALF century.
Fuddy Duddy (aka Andrew wearing a village idiot mask)
TCR or ECS is it?
I see you probably came via Cardinal Puff with this one on Schwartz. It seems that the deniers have loved to clag onto papers by Schwartz for a long time grasping at a low climate sensitivity straw as chewed on at Real Climate and Real Climate
Also note the response by Gavin to this post:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/how-to-cook-a-gra…
FUDd
The EBM-based estimates always lowball, hence the spread when compared with proper work done with AOGCMs and with paleoclimate data. EBMs only do linear feedbacks and the real climate system doesn't operate like that. They are toy models.
I thought you lot didn't like climate models anyway? How is it that underestimates of S derived from toy models suddenly come top of the pops with the skeptikoids?
You are nothing if not inconsistent (remember the muddle over the MCA and sensitivity? I do).
I don't think it's just the UK cRR,
http://theconversation.com/the-three-ps-of-climate-change-and-agricultu…
"Opinions on anthropogenic climate change vary greatly across society, and it appears that Australia’s farmers remain largely sceptical about the causes of climate change."
and,
http://news.ncsu.edu/2014/05/farmers-skeptical-about-validity-of-climat…
“Knowing that producers are likely climate change skeptics is important information to scientists and extension personnel promoting climate change mitigation and adaptation practices,” Rejesus said. “It may be advisable to just not mention ‘climate change’ when engaging farmers, but rather talk about how these mitigation and adaptation practices can economically benefit their operations.”
The more you look, the more support there seems to be for Stu 2's position.
Pointing out that lots of farmers are AGW deniers doesn't support Stu2's 'position'. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Stop being a moron.
Which guarantees that they will be royally fucked in the long term which is the scale on which climate change is operating.
It's so simple, really.
That's precisely what I was getting at with the shooting their own foot and denying it analogy...
GooSeWing
We kinda got that message when the late, and much lamented, Stephen Schneider visited Down Under: Stephen Schneider talks to 52 Climate Change Skeptics [PART 1] find part two yourself GooSeWing.
You clown BBD, Stu 2 said this to hardley'
"The majority of people who work on the land are laughing at attitudes like yours."
And these links certainly backup the claim that, should jeff turn up. accompanied by the four horsemen of the apocalypse, with the portent that "he saw a spider" and witness'ed " climate change first hand", there's going to be a certain amount of guffawing isn't there?
The Oz agricultural community does not have a reputation for suffering fools gladly.
;)
^ ... in which GSW completely misrepresents the comment by Jeff that Stu 2 was replying to, thereby enthusiastically cheering on the bandwagon of those shooting their feet and cackling manically about it.
Par for the course.
Things are warming up in Mann versus Steyn !
@Loth
You mean the "Globul worming is real and we're all doomed" attitude Loth, and jeff's being misrepresented(?)
In any event, he'd get a giggle most places I would have thought.
;)
Denial is as denial does. You should know.
Oh, for pity's sake BBD, does someone have to draw you a diagram? it's not hard to follow
A. "people who work on the land" == Farmers.
B. majority==majority
C. See links in #55 and #62, e.g.
" it appears that Australia’s farmers remain largely sceptical about the causes of climate change."
"It may be advisable to just not mention ‘climate change’ when engaging farmers"
== "laughing at attitudes like yours[jeff]"
Your,
"Denial is as denial does"
I think you'll find, as Loth is always keen to point out, that that is "Projection". Dumb Ass.
;)
Nope, climate change denial among ignorant, short-term-fixated farmers is the same as climate change denial amongst ignorant short-term-fixated fuckwits everywhere.
They are living in the past and so are you, GSW.
All this trollish diversionary blether is pushing us away from what it is that deniers (including horny-handed sons of the soil) are denying. See #32 #33 and #34 above. I suspect this is being done on purpose because the deafening silence greeting those comments was impressive.
But AGW is reality. It is also the future for farmers, fuckwits and financiers alike. We all have to live under the same sky.
BBD.
Laughing at the attitude has nothing to do with denial.
Australian farmers as a general demographic are practical people and they care deeply about their environment.
They are also acutely aware of cause and effect as their
livelihoods depend on it.
When they see hand waving pieces like the ones cRR linked,
they find it amusing.
They also found it amusing when people such as Milne coined
the term 'climate criminals' on the basis of the bushfire disaster last Spring.
Farmers know that you can't control a bushfire with a carbon
tax. They know that bushfires will rage out of control if the fuel loads have been poorly managed.
Most of the poor land management last century in Australia was
caused by the ignorance of so called 'experts' who refused to
listen to the people on the land, including aboriginal people.
Unfortunately that ignorant attitude has not changed and has
been on display at this blog since my last comment.
Real progress can happen when so called experts listen to and
work with land managers.
They are the ones who will often come up with the practical
management solutions and they are the ones who can often deliver measurable results.
The 'there is only one way' attitude of people like Jeff Harvey along with the underlying negative and misanthropist meme that claims that only elitist scientists have the answers is not producing positive or practical results.
Further, political placard waving by people who live and work in cloistered academia and do indeed engage in what Starck called an 'academic pissing contest' is just exacerbating political inaction.
People like Australian farmers are far more interested in taking sensible, practical action and whether you understand it or not, they often find the antics of the 'experts' highly amusing.
It would be far better to have the land managers working on side with your cause.
Ironically, the prevailing attitude has put them off side when the general demographic could quite easily be the strongest allies.
They will naturally do what is demonstrably beneficial to their natural environment.
Stu2
You are in full denial mode, as always. The truth is #32 #33 #34.
Face up to it. Diversionary bollocks changes nothing.
No they won't, because they are in denial. So they will go down, hard, fast and all together, when the extremes pass a certain level of ferocity and frequency.
Farmers know that you can’t control a bushfire with a carbon tax
You sound like Barnaby Joyce. Rhetoric, all the time.
Just don't ask Barnaby to actually say anything or make a decision. Well, they have made a decision....do nothing about climate change, and never challenge News Ltds disinformation campaign about climate science and the BOM. They don't really want to admit to that sort of stuff.
They will naturally do what is demonstrably beneficial to their natural environment
Only if the market lets them. If you've got a spare lifetime I can show the 'demonstrably beneficial' degradation of my country brought about because economics is really crap at costing farming activity.
This guy is looking out for Jeffie's spider in the thing of the past.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qnv-MbzTvVg
:-)
Nick @#79.
I actually concur with that comment, it is part of the same problem.
I too can show you many examples of degradation that occurred last century because 'expert' economists along with other 'experts' were (and unfortunately still are) crap at costing the long term realities of farming activities.
It is part of the reason why those who could easily be on side with environmentally responsible practices are not willing to work with the 'experts'.
Ironically, in many, many regions throughout Australia, the land managers have done much in the reparation of those mistakes that were made last century. Most of it has been done at their own expense.
The failure of the academic 'experts' to recognise that work is also a large part of the problem.
oh dear...yet more denial from BBD
read the paper, BBD old fruit. Charnley was involved. Yes...that fuckwit. The models are bullshit. The palaeo studies you rely on are tripe. Is "sensitivity" a variable? is it a constant? does it mean anything? In a world with logarithmic feedbacks...or so the "jeffies" assert, you contend that CO2 is a problem rather than an opportunity. Words fail me. Humanity could combine to be the new race of world leaders...taking over from the beetles...does jeffie know about beetles?
Lionel A...get yourself a better link nsince this site des not like regular links....http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1002/2014EF000273/
I hope this works...but it might make you weep for the weakness in clisci...
The brilliance of this paper is in exposing the inconsistent choices of aerosol forcing and equilibrium climate sensitivity in AR5. The authors (who include Charlson, the grand old man of atmospheric sciences) show that AR4 and Otto et al produce best estimates of ECS that are completely in line with their choices of aerosol forcing, but that the AR5 range is wildly exaggerated on the upper end. As far as I can tell from their Figure 1, the actual ECS that AR5 should have produced given their choice of aerosol forcing is somewhere around 1.6 or 1.7, barely within their range of 1.5-4.5.
Now I believe I understand why the AR5 seemed to take a bit of a backward step compared to AR4, reducing their lower bound from 2 to 1.5--it's because they KNEW their best estimate would be in this range from 1.5-2. AR5 famously refused to come up with a best estimate, just presenting the range of 1.5 to 4.5, which to most readers would indicate that their best estimate is still around 3 as in all previous IPCC reports.
hey BBD...scare ourseles shitless and stop mucking women because cimate sensitivty is high...You should stop it from sheer altrusim. Your stupidty genes (and jeffies) should not be needed
is senstivity a meaningful quantity? In the absence of meaningful measurements, at least.
watches jeffie tug handfuls out of his ecological beard
+1 Olaus...sooner or laer we might get these guys to be scientists rather than scientivists....it's a long way to go
I really loventhe way that BBD asks me to explain to him why his theory is wrong....is he that stupid?
Except when it comes to climate change as a cause, if you are to be believed. And that was the whole point of the pushback to your claim on behalf of the majority of farmers.
Thereby providing another illustration of (a) massive sophistry deployed in the service of denial and (b) the pretence that climate change isn't one of the significant causal factors that contributes to bush fires and bush fire danger levels.
They can't do that if they're in denial about some of the relevant factors, which was the point of the pushback.
... is a fiction created by your refusal to correct your misunderstanding, even after that misunderstanding has been pointed out several times.
Stu 2, this all shows that you're either not bright enough to understand the problem with your argument or you refuse to understand. And the irony is that in doing so you're laughing at the foot you shot and preparing to shoot the other.
Rubbish Lotharsson.
Those pieces linked by cRR Kampen are nothing other than chatty pieces about a weather event.
I do not deny the observations made in those pieces:
1) That it made the participants in the G20 a bit uncomfortable and
2) That the hot, dry windy weather pattern caused the death of flying foxes.
I have not noticed farmers denying that mistakes were made in the past.
Neither have I noticed farmers denying that CC can be a contributing factor in conditions favourable to bush fires.
You seem to be working hard at missing the point.
Jeff Harvey did indeed summarily dismiss local, regional and national grass roots programs in rural and regional Australia in favour of his 'there is only one way' that apparently has something to do with a group of elite scientists.
He later attempted to 'downplay' that comment.
It is also laughable that he believes that people who work in Agriculture in Australia don't listen to or understand science & technology including their ability to read weather and climate information.
If people like Jeff Harvey and you could ever manage to take your blinkers off you might discover that viilifying Australian Agriculture is not helping your cause. You would have far more success if they were willing to work with you.
Says you, missing the point AGAIN whilst projecting on to me. You're really really really really dedicated to not understanding it. We all get that - you don't have to do more to convince us of that point!
BULLSHIT!
(And this has been pointed out to you multiple times now.)
He said that something was necessarily part of any program that aims to successfully deal with the long term issues that we face, because without it certain of those issues will eventually overwhelm and defeat the intended good effects of other actions. That's not the same as saying that something is the entire program, and the only program that will be effective.
It's like saying that "continuing to eat is necessarily a part of treating tuberculosis, because if you don't do that the effects of malnutrition will overwhelm the health improvements gained by fighting the TB". It's NOT like saying "the only way to treat TB is to eat properly", which is analogous to your interpretation.
If you don't understand the difference between "is necessarily part of" and "is the only way" you aren't equipped to criticise what was said.
It's not at all laughable when you claim to be speaking from experience on behalf of the majority of farmers and you repeatedly and determinedly spout half-baked notions all the way through to arrant denialist nonsense about climate change. One hopes you truly aren't representative.
I don't see anyone here vilifying agriculture, except perhaps you by associating it with climate change denialism. I'd certainly hope the average Aussie farmer has a much better picture of the current scientific understanding than you do, and spent a lot less time spouting ideologically motivated unscientific objections and distractions to that understanding.
Stu2, you are a complete and utter liar. I never said any of the stuff that you claim above. Thanks to Lotharsson for clarifying it. To be honest, you last post is so utterly contemptible that it does not deserve a polite response. You've out 1 and 1 together and come up with 20.
Farmers are in many cases like fishermen - they claim to know a lot more about the 'habitats' on which they work that the scientists who study them. Of course, in the UK, for example, the farming community by-and-large doesn't want to face up to the fact that intensive agriculture has been a major driver of biodiversity loss. The same goes for the North Sea fishing fleet, continually arguing that cod stocks are doing just fine. In both cases, the answers, of course, ar every different. Unsustainable agricultural practices are a major reason that we are losing biodiversity. Its telling that in areas of Europe where extensive agriculture is still practiced, biodiversity is doing better. There are certainly some farmers, however, who are working to ensure that diversity is enhanced, because they know that a reduction in biodiversity is concomitant with a reduction in vital ecosystem services that are important in agriculture. But in much of the developed world this is the exception rather than the rule.
And for gormless, who gives a rat's ass what farmers think about climate change, any more than bankers, accountants, taxi drivers or shop workers? They've all been duped by a huge well-funded propaganda machine. So what if they don't believe it?
As for Fudd, what an a*******. A profoundly ignorant, right wing one at that. Like Olaus, he won't tell us his day job either. Perhaps not easy when you are writing from an asylum in a padded cell (like Jonas).
One last, but most important point.
Let's make things clear. Humans are simplifying vast swathes of the biosphere. This is occurring through a vast array of human-mediated processes. We are well into the 6th great extinction even in the planet's history and the first to be caused by one of its evolved inhabitants. The planet already has a reduced capacity to support man. We know this from studies showing that critical ecosystem services are being reduced. The Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (2006) made that clear. And since then, things have continued to go in reverse. If we look at just one vital ecosystem service that is vital to much of our agriculture - pollination - we see profoundly worrying signs. Across much of the world wild pollinators are disappearing. Honey bee colonies are in freefall. In western Europe, there has been a collapse in numbers of solitary bees that are important pollinators. This is one service that we do not have effective technology to replicate. And of course, a loss of pollinators is not just harmful to agro-ecosystems but to natural ones as well. These systems generate a wealth of other services that are also vital for humanity. If we see a widespread collapse in systems from ther bottom up, the pollinator crisis is a good place to start. And much of this almost certainly has to do with the overuse and overreliance on pesticides, part of the 'green revolution' that is increasingly rebounding on us in negative ways. Humans and nature have long been on a collision course.
Climate change indeed may be the final nail in our coffin. All of the noble things Stu2 goes on about will mean bloody nothing if we don't deal with climate change. All of these programs that are aimed to help us become more sustainable in small ways will be vanquished quickly if we do not do everything to halt the runaway greenhouse effect.
What is so utterly comical and futile for me writing as a senior scientist on here is that a few deniers write in as if they hold the scientific high ground. On a blog, its easy to write in piffle and to give the impression that the science is on your side. This is what GSW, Stu2, Betula, Olaus, Fudd do endlessly here: none of them are scientists or do anything remotely scientific in their professional lives, yet they write in here as if they know more than the scientists doing the research do. They talk about 'stupidity genes' (Note how Fudd misspelled stupidity as well; he's not the brightest bulb on the Chrimstmas tree) in describing me, whereas my views as a scientist are shared by the vast majority of my peers. So, by association, Fudd is saying that most of the scientists in the world who in large measure agree that humans are the main drivers behind climate change are 'stupid'.
The following are examples of the level of their intellectual discouse. GSW once argued that there are few if any examples of biodiversity being harmed by warming. He focused on amphibian declines for some reason. That argument was easy to debunk. He hasn't read the primary literaure. Betula once argued that increased atmospheric concentrations of C02 were probably beneficial to nature, based on an add he read on greenhouse conditions. This argument of course is also nonsense if one explores more complex ecophysiological processes. Olaus argues that polar bears are doing well. Notwithstanding that there is a huge body of published literature showing negative effects of warming on biodiversity in many different biogeographical regions, which Olaus clearly hasn't read, he's also wrong about polar bears. Then Stu2 downplays clear warming in Australia as an example of weather, and shifts the argument to talk about all of the noble things landowners are doing to protect nature in the country. This has nix to do with climate change, but heck, this lot are good at shifting the goalposts over and over again. Fudd, for his part, has no arguments at all except to impugn scientists as a whole because he doesn't like what the data says and what we interpret from it. He's the worst of the lot. Ultimately, as their arguments are shot down one by one, the small army of deniers on here shift into smear mode. Betula and Olaus started early, given that their arguments were utterly simple. Betula, realizing he couldn't debate oen of my Master's student on ecological effects of AGW, then began by trying to create the impression that AGW was part of some left-wing conspiracy to redistribute wealth. Olaus was left on a small piece of floating ice with his polar bear meme. GSW is all over the place, but none of it is scientific. All three of them post up links to right wing anti-environmental blogs, as if they are useful sources of information. The primary literaure is nowhere in sight.
One thing is certain. My views on AGW and its potential consequences are shared by the vast majority of the scientific community. If even a few more were writing into this blog, then the small coterie of deniers would be out of here in a second. This explains why they pollute the blogosphere. First, they can remain anonymous. Second, if they went anywhere near a university lecture hall or a workshop or a conference venue, they'd be laughingstocks. I've told several of my colleagues and students about my writing into Deltoid. Some have read the smears from Betula, Olaus, Fudd etc. and ask me why I am wasting my valuable time on these nobodies. Its a good point, and something I need to ponder. I do appreciate the views of BBD, Lotharsson, Lionel, crrKampen, FrankD, Nick et al, who are defending the science. But I have to wonder whether its worth it, given the total vacuity of the views of what amounts to a small number of scientific illiterates who write in here.
Elmer
You have once again demonstrated your complete lack of understanding of the topic.
From Schwartz et al.:
[1] is known - see eg. Ridley et al. (2014)
[2] is known - profound solar minimum of SC24 *not* included in CMIP5 forcings
[3] zero evidence for this; lots against - please explain how deglaciation occurs under orbital forcing if S is low. You haven't yet and I'm fed up with waiting
[4] is known Llovel et al. (2014)
[5] is well known - EMBs are simple toy models that assume linear feedbacks
So Schwartz et al.'s conclusion is reasonable - it is possible to underestimate S by using incomplete data and toy models.
Oh, and Elmer
You *plagiarised* your #84 verbatim from a commenter at Bishop Hill. Not only are you a moron, you are so dishonest you have to steal your crap arguments from another fool. Did you think I wouldn't notice? Do you think I don't know that you are incapable of stringing together a comment like that yourself?
Even amongst deniers, blatant plagiarism is utterly unacceptable. If you have no original argument to make to me here, then go away.
BBD, well spotted! Elmer's been reduced to plagiarizing denier anti-environmental sites. This is the depths to which deniers stoop. They are so profoundly stupid that they have to copy-paste garbage from blogs run by non-scientists. How pathetic.
Sorry Andrew Elmer but that will not wash.
We have few problems using links here if the surrounding html tags are correct, the most common failure is a typo with one of the html delimiters.
Let me try it here:
Schwartz and co..
I will only know once posted so that I can test, short of trying this post on another site which allows a preview - and going no further at that site, that is the only bugbear here with html lack of preview to test links.
Looks like doing 'a Wegman' has rebounded on you. It was only a matter of time before your sock began to stink. Not a surprise given the drivel and incompetence you demonstrate.
Yes please! Testable, measurable facts from Stu2 are rarer than hens teeth. No more handwaving from Stu2 - lets have some actual documented examples of our sainted farmers lifting their games by flying in the face of so-called experts at their own cost. We're choking on pablum from Stu2, time for some facts that we can consider, weigh and test.
This ought to be fun.*
*I'll assign a vastly lower, but non-zero, probability of it being informative and corrective. Stu2 might surprise, but thats not where the smart money is.
Goodness! The Glue Sniffer (tm) and the Old Establishment (tm) are REALLY trying to bury #32,#33,#34...
Of course, to StuPid, " The ‘there is only one way’ attitude of people like Jeff Harvey …" is meant in the same way as The Tick's comment on sanity:
StuPid and GlueSniffer (et al) all want us to Open Our Minds (r) (tm) to the Multiple Ways Of Insanity, just like they have!
#100 (last page) " I’ll risk the patience" - not at all. Besides a re-read and re again of Jeff's great #94 truly sooths.
Something from that, "... ask me why I am wasting my valuable time on these nobodies. Its a good point, and something I need to ponder."
About two years ago I absolutely gave up on serious confronting climate revisionism; as to gaining knowledge there are better venues anyway than infested blogs like this one.
Instead I use climate revisionists solely for my amusement. Bully the bullies.
Meantime I've taken up the attribution question (as in 'weather can be climate change induced and wouldn't exist otherwise') with those on 'our side' of the 'debate' (Holland only, for now). This begets more interesting discussions of course.
Wow
They're really, really not going to have anything to do with #32 #33 and #34, are they?
At this rate I'll have to carry them over to yet *another* page... So that the denialati can pretend they don't exist for *another* 97 comments...
Denial is a mental illness, isn't it?
"Denial is a mental illness, isn’t it?" - No, it is political. But let them decide.
Actually couple of years ago I pondered the possibility that there was a serious health issue emerging with J. Curry. But it's right wing politics. Now that kind of politics could be deranged but it's a bloody big pandemice then.
(for wow, 'pandemic'. Not 'pandemice').
This article in newsbusters caught my eye today,
"Only 50% Of Scientists Blame Mankind for Climate Change In New Study"
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/sean-long/2014/11/20/only-50-scientists-bl…
"Contrary to the repeated insistence of both climate alarmists and the media, scientists do not all agree on the standard climate alarmism talking points. A Purdue University scholar, surveying scientists in the agricultural sector including climatologists, found surprising disagreement on humanity’s role in climate change. These findings, though contrary to popular narrative on climate change, are unsurprising to anyone familiar with the prevalence of dissent in the scientific community."
I think the interesting thing here is not so much the findings of this American Meteorological Society paper, but the fact that "non-consensus" views are beginning to make their way thru to publication.
We live in interesting times.
(H/T Marc Morano at ClimateDepot)
There's a pre-release of the paper here,
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00172.1
I think we all know where the agricultural workers stand after yesterday, but looking at the climatologists grouping (n=19),
In answer to the question, "There is increasing discussion about climate change and its potential impacts. Please select the statement that best reflects your beliefs about climate change"
Only 53% selected the response,
"Climate change is occurring, and it is caused mostly by human activities"
Which I wouldn't have said was unequivocal - but then I think we all know that was never more than a politcal statement from the activists.
GSW
The relevant inquiry is how many climate scientists agree that modern warming is caused by increasing CO2 forcing. The opinions of non-specialists carry no weight at all.
I'm sure you've read your own reference before posting it, so can you tell us how many *climate scientists* in the survey agreed with the statement:
“Climate change is occurring, and it is caused mostly by human activities”
Thanks.
Could Viscount Monckton be behind NASA's bouncy comet cock-up?
@BBD
Hey BBD, I'm just reporting the paper as it is. I'll leave the wiggling to you. ;)
53%'s kind of low for something that's supposed to be "unequivocal" I'd have thought.
Enjoy!
OH GSW you card you. You did look at the survey didn't you, so you know that only 19 climatologists participated.
https://news.uns.purdue.edu/images/2014/prokopy-climatetable.pdf
and that actually over 80% of the 121 cross disciplinary scientists think that mankind have a role in climate change
GSW, thanks for illustrating the Morano Method: make up some misdirection about a paper, and imply that 19 'climatologists' is a number of some utility to make a finding 'contrary to a popular narrative'....and Newsbusters is in the same business of killing understanding.
Morano turns this:
"In 2012, a total of 22 state and
extension climatologists were selected through a purposive sample to represent main outlets of
publicly available and location-specific climate information in the region. Nineteen of these
climatologists completed a pre-interview survey that included the climate change question (see
Wilke 2013). Consistent with the many disciplinary scientists in the two USDA-NIFA projects,
over 90% of the climatologists agreed that climate change is occurring while none believed that
it is not occurring (Table 1).
Fifty-three percent attributed climate change primarily to human activities."
Into this:
Only 53% selected the response,
“Climate change is occurring, and it is caused mostly by human activities”
The 53% of 19 may well believe that that it is partly caused by HA, but the question wasn't asked,.....while for Newsbusters it becomes "only 50% of Scientists blame mankind for climate change in new study".
Great moments in right-wing media. Turning information into shit, 24 / 7.
Comment from 'Ben Franklin' under the Newsbusters piece:
Just to be clear, the authors surveyed 19 climatologists -- not a very large number. Of those 19 climatologists, 17 thought that climate change is occuring and that it was either caused mostly by human activities (10) or by both human activities and natural changes (7). 1 climatologists thought climate change is occuring and it is due to natural changes; and 1 climatologist thought there is not sufficient evidence to know. See Table 1 in the actual report: http://journals.ametsoc.org/do...
This is a very small sample of climatologists and appears to be miss used by the author of this Newsbuster piece.
Pfft.
You clot turbo, that's what n=19 means, and the statement "mankind have a role in climate change" is so innocuous as to be not even worth stating - it's a far cry from saying we're all doomed in the CO2 induced "thermogeddon" you lot are hoping for.
There's a queue for the wiggling, BBD's ahead of you.
;)
You clot turbo, that’s what n=19 means, and the statement “mankind have a role in climate change” is so innocuous as to be not even worth stating – it’s a far cry from saying we’re all doomed in the CO2 induced “thermogeddon” you lot are hoping
That is the wiggling of the first order, GSW.
Newsbusters wiggling amounted to turning the 19 climatologists into '50% of scientists'.
Newsbusters wiggling amounted to turning the 19 climatologists into ‘50% of scientists’.
Of course, it's even more cretinous: only 10 of the 19 become '50% of scientists'...
@Nick
"Newsbusters wiggling amounted to turning the 19 climatologists into ‘50% of scientists’"
Yes Nick, that was a comprehension fail on your part. They surveyed 19 climatologists, ~50% of them endorsed the "consensus position".
You really are all a complete a mess aren't you? No wonder you get the big stuff wrong, even the little things cause you problems! uh... what does n=19 mean GSW? uh... I fink 50% of scientists is more than 19 GSW, wait while I counts 'em on me webbed fingers and toes.
;)
Actually my "have a role in climate change" encompasses "mostly caused by human activities" and more or less equally human activities and natural causes.
BTW GSW, FYI my post #11 was written in response to your #6, before you posted your #7.
#15: I did correct myself promptly, dimwit.
The comprehension fail on your part, GSW was to even consider posting the link, and to consider ten respondents to a specific question as somehow usefully equivalent to the findings of literature surveys that cover 10,000 plus. Not even wrong, as they say. But good enough for the bad-faith US 'media' to dedicate their efforts...and they got you wiggling.
I can see from that display of heart-breaking helplessness how you can decide I'm 'a complete mess'... it makes perfect sense. The usual projection.
@turbo,
Please turbo, have a word with BBD, I think your 121 CSCAP team members (The Corn-based Cropping Systems Coordinated Agricultural Project), which includes "social scientists", are unlikely to pass BBD's climate scientists speak only test.
Guys, if you're going to wiggle, can you try and make them consistent so you all agree with each other at least.
Thanks ;)
:@Nick,
"#15: I did correct myself promptly, dimwit."
Yeah, but what was so difficult to understand in the first place? Numbers not your thing I'm guessing. And hey, they did a survey, a snap shot of a opinion, and they presented the results they got, so what?
You may not like the answer, but I don't think anyone's that bothered whether you like it not.
;)
So, GSW, any thoughts on why you'd link to Marc Morano and Newsbusters, trumpeting their framing, then helpfully link to the paper that ruins that framing? The very paper they use for their unsupportable twaddle....
What point were you trying to make? It's not news to anybody much that Morano is persistently-stupid-for-cash. Or that Newsbusters really does destroy news.
What point, again?
GSW
This is all a bit confusing. Did all 19 *climate scientists* agree that:
“Climate change is occurring, and it is caused mostly by human activities”
#20
You may not like the answer, but I don’t think anyone’s that bothered whether you like it not.
What 'answer'? There is no significance in the sample size, you said so yourself. So no one's 'bothered 'with the survey, never mind my opinion. You've admitted it amounts to nothing, but it's got you posturing with glee, even after you destroyed the idiot framing of Morano and Newsbusters. It seems your act was inadvertent...
Will the real GSW please step forward?
Scratch that. I see that 53% of the self-identified sample of 'climate scientists' agreed with that statement and 37% agreed that:
"Climate change is occurring, and it is caused more or less equally by natural changes in the environment and human
activities"
Unless these 37% of respondents can provide an evidentially-supported case for that natural component, they are on their own.
Frank D @ # 99.
In my area, the most obvious example is dry land salinity caused by over clearing.
The original land managers, many of them from other lands with prior experience, strongly argued against completely clearing land as they knew the value of keeping trees and wildlife corridors and also the problems associated with erosion and salinity from over clearing.
The 'experts'' however decreed that all land had to be totally cleared within a set timeframe and if it wasn't totally cleared, it was legislated that the land holders would have their land and in some cases their water confiscated.
That was a grim choice for the people who had been put out in these areas by the government of the day. In order to survive and in order to keep their land, they mostly did as the 'experts' had demanded and legislated. It was further hastened by the government of the day providing cheap migrant labour, particularly Chinese, to facilitate the work.
Since then, it has become obvious that the original landholders were correct and that the country should not have been cleared in the manner it was. Since the 1960's and mostly at their own expense, landholders have been quietly and responsibly restoring native trees, mitigating erosion and encouraging native fauna.
It is ironic that NRM bureaucracies under the guise of 'experts' blaming farmers for over clearing are now legislating in the opposite direction and placing caveats over these landholdings which is further preventing land managers from sensibly managing their properties according to triple bottom line principles.
This is only one example, there are others associated with ground water use, creek and river bank management, invasion of pests species etc. If you actually seriously thought about it, you would understand that farmers would of course want to do the right thing by their environment.
Jeff Harvey @# 93 & 94:
"they claim to know a lot more about the ‘habitats’ on which they work that the scientists who study them"
That statement is pure nonsense.
Farmers claim, quite rightly, that they too have valuable generational knowledge about the land they manage that 'academics' could benefit and learn from.
Dismissive attitudes like yours are alienating the very people who should be working hand in hand with environmental scientists.
Here is some of that attitude from the last 2 months:
1.Jeff Harvey
October 10, 2014
Stu2’s posts get dumber and dumber. His response to climate change is thusly summed up: “I actually do practical, measureable stuff about repairing & enhancing native flora and fauna”.
The only way we are going to stave off the disastrous effects of overconsumption of natural capital, social injustice and systemic collapse of ecosystems associated with this and processes linked to it including habitat loss and degradation, overharvesting, climate change etc. is to address the political and socio-economci factors underlying it. You appear to be too naive to understand this. Many eminent scientists have written about it over the years, but you appear the approach which is akin to giving a terminally ill patient with pneumonia better tissues on which to blow their nose. You like to deal on small scales with the symptoms and not the disease, which is the combined effects of the human enterprise.
All your posts reveal Stu2 is that you do not know very much about global change biology and the measures needed to address it. I may as well be corresponding with a mediocre high school student."
&
1.Jeff Harvey
October 11, 2014
1.Its no use for me or anyone else fort that matter to try and discuss any of this with you. You are stuck in your little sandbox. Well done.
& more recently this:
Then Stu2 downplays clear warming in Australia as an example of weather, and shifts the argument to talk about all of the noble things landowners are doing to protect nature in the country. This has nix to do with climate change, but heck, this lot are good at shifting the goalposts over and over again.
So my question to Jeff Harvey is this:
In what way is things that landowners are doing to protect nature in their country so unimportant that you claim makes those (noble) things "nix to do with climate change", especially considering your repeated concerns about poor land management practices and their contribution to climate change?
It is not particularly hard for a 'scientist' like you to come out into these areas and compare photos from last century to modern day land use practices.
It is indeed possible to be productive and environmentally responsible at the same time and in many cases, farmers in the developed nations are the ones who could teach others in countries that are barely past subsistence or slash and burn land practices.
And BTW, cRR Kampen's links were not scientific evidence of clear warming in Australia, they were chatty little Weatherzone PR pieces about an Australian Spring weather event. I think cRR Kampen et al were 'uplaying' a weather event rather than anyone 'downplaying' warming. That is no more helpful or scientific than those you call 'deniers 'uplaying' a Spring cold weather event.
Apologies to the moderator.
I mistyped my email address.
Here it is again.
Frank D @ # 99.
In my area, the most obvious example is dry land salinity caused by over clearing.
The original land managers, many of them from other lands with prior experience, strongly argued against completely clearing land as they knew the value of keeping trees and wildlife corridors and also the problems associated with erosion and salinity from over clearing.
The ‘experts” however decreed that all land had to be totally cleared within a set timeframe and if it wasn’t totally cleared, it was legislated that the land holders would have their land and in some cases their water confiscated.
That was a grim choice for the people who had been put out in these areas by the government of the day. In order to survive and in order to keep their land, they mostly did as the ‘experts’ had demanded and legislated. It was further hastened by the government of the day providing cheap migrant labour, particularly Chinese, to facilitate the work.
Since then, it has become obvious that the original landholders were correct and that the country should not have been cleared in the manner it was. Since the 1960’s and mostly at their own expense, landholders have been quietly and responsibly restoring native trees, mitigating erosion and encouraging native fauna.
It is ironic that NRM bureaucracies under the guise of ‘experts’ blaming farmers for over clearing are now legislating in the opposite direction and placing caveats over these landholdings which is further preventing land managers from sensibly managing their properties according to triple bottom line principles.
This is only one example, there are others associated with ground water use, creek and river bank management, invasion of pests species etc. If you actually seriously thought about it, you would understand that farmers would of course want to do the right thing by their environment.
Jeff Harvey @# 93 & 94:
“they claim to know a lot more about the ‘habitats’ on which they work that the scientists who study them”
That statement is pure nonsense.
Farmers claim, quite rightly, that they too posses valuable generational knowledge about the land they manage that ‘academics’ could benefit and learn from.
Dismissive attitudes like yours are alienating the very people who should be working hand in hand with environmental scientists.
Here is some of that attitude from the last 2 months:
1. Jeff Harvey
October 10, 2014
Stu2’s posts get dumber and dumber. His response to climate change is thusly summed up: “I actually do practical, measureable stuff about repairing & enhancing native flora and fauna”.
The only way we are going to stave off the disastrous effects of overconsumption of natural capital, social injustice and systemic collapse of ecosystems associated with this and processes linked to it including habitat loss and degradation, overharvesting, climate change etc. is to address the political and socio-economci factors underlying it. You appear to be too naive to understand this. Many eminent scientists have written about it over the years, but you appear the approach which is akin to giving a terminally ill patient with pneumonia better tissues on which to blow their nose. You like to deal on small scales with the symptoms and not the disease, which is the combined effects of the human enterprise.
All your posts reveal Stu2 is that you do not know very much about global change biology and the measures needed to address it. I may as well be corresponding with a mediocre high school student.”
&
1. Jeff Harvey
October 11, 2014
1. Its no use for me or anyone else fort that matter to try and discuss any of this with you. You are stuck in your little sandbox. Well done.
& more recently this:
Then Stu2 downplays clear warming in Australia as an example of weather, and shifts the argument to talk about all of the noble things landowners are doing to protect nature in the country. This has nix to do with climate change, but heck, this lot are good at shifting the goalposts over and over again.
So my question to Jeff Harvey is this:
In what way is things that landowners are doing to protect nature in their country so unimportant that you claim makes those (noble) things “nix to do with climate change”, especially considering your repeated concerns about poor land management practices and their contribution to climate change?
It is not particularly hard for a ‘scientist’ like you to come out into these areas and compare photos from last century to modern day land use practices.
It is indeed possible to be productive and environmentally responsible at the same time and in many cases, farmers in the developed nations are the ones who could teach others in countries that are barely past subsistence or slash and burn land practices.
And BTW, cRR Kampen’s links were not scientific evidence of clear warming in Australia, they were chatty little Weatherzone PR pieces about an Australian Spring weather event. I think cRR Kampen et al were ‘uplaying’ a weather event rather than anyone ‘downplaying’ warming. That is no more helpful or scientific than those you call ‘deniers ‘uplaying’ a Spring cold weather event.
#25
I think cRR Kampen et al were ‘uplaying’ a weather event rather than anyone ‘downplaying’ warming. That is no more helpful or scientific than those you call ‘deniers ‘uplaying’ a Spring cold weather event.
Well, that was October 2014 nationally...
@BBD #22
"This is all a bit confusing"
You probably are a bit confused BBD, we've come to accept it as your natural state.
@BBD #24
"Unless these 37% of respondents can provide an evidentially-supported case for that natural component, they are on their own."
Ok, so it's still only a 53% endorsement for the "consensus" position then.
@Nick #23
The paper is what it is, they did a survey of various groups, they presented their results, they issued a press release with their results, articles were written about their results, people on blogs discussed their results - are you with it so far?
Either way, if you have an issue with the paper, contact them, tell them where they went wrong, email the American Meteorological Society, let them know how you would have done it.
It's been "peer reviewed" Nick. I thought you lot considered that the "Gold Standard" for "stuff".
Dummkopf!
;)
Stu2
#32 #33 #34
#EvidenceDenial
@BBD
“#EvidenceDenial”
#Projection
;)
GSW
The scientific consensus on AGW is an expert consensus. The survey you are waving about is *not* a survey of experts. Therefore it cannot be used to demonstrate weakness in the expert consensus.
Think about it. Please.
@BBD
#EvidenceDenial
Ha! Ha!
;)
#27 GSW chirps:
if you have an issue with the paper, contact them, tell them where they went wrong,
Try to stay somewhere in the area you marked out, GSW...I have no issues with the paper, the fun is with the 'framing'.....It is clear you have unwittingly destroyed Newsbusters and Morano's 'interpretation'. Well done, you!
How long have you been suffering from involuntary self-debunking disorder? It goes back a long way, no?
GSW
No, the #EvidenceDenial problem is that observational evidence of Australian climate change is being denied.
The problem with your survey-waving is explained at #30.
False equivalence is a logical fallacy. Please, think about it.
@BBD #30
All joking aside BBD, can I just check your "position"?
You're saying that, in your view, climatologists are not "expert" enough to hold a valid opinion on "climate change"? is that where you're at with this?
I was following when you said you were a bit confused, that had the ring of truth to it, but you think climatologists are expert in what? car maintenance? decorating perhaps? NOT climate, is that it?
Go on, I could do with the entertainment.
;)
Go on, I could do with the entertainment.
;)
You are the entertainment.
Yesterday you were dismissing the opinions of the agricultural community. Today, its the climatologists that are getting the "treatment", and turbo wants to beef-up the concensus numbers by head counting the social scientists.
As I said earlier, you're all a bit of mess aren't you? Got save us from environmental activists. Not a brain cell between 'em.
Sorry, should be consensus.
GSW
It's simple enough. The *expert* consensus among climate scientists is virtually unanimous. This suggests that the self-identified sample of 'climate scientists' in the survey may not be representative of expert knowledge in the field.
Meanwhile, #EvidenceDenial
#32 #33# #34
Observations. Data. Records. Facts. Not surveys of opinion.
False equivalence is a logical fallacy. Please, think about this.
@BBD
"False equivalence is a logical fallacy. Please, think about this."
If I'm being honest BBD, what I'm thinking about, at this precise moment, is what a complete moron you are.
A logical fallacy of false equivalence.
BBD @#28
I was commenting on cRR Kampen's Weatherzone links not your links @ #32 #33 #34
Where do you claim that I denied that the participants at the G20 got a bit uncomfortable or that a hot dry windy weather pattern on the coastal fringe has killed flying foxes?
Are you claiming those Weatherzone links are scientific evidence of clear warming in Australia?
Today, its the climatologists that are getting the “treatment"
'the climatologists' = a subset of 19....oh, dear. We look at the data link provided by turbo at #11
19 responded. 10 agreed that human activity was main contributor, 7 agreed that human influence was about half, 1 agreed that it's mostly natural and one [1] thought we did not have enough evidence to know with certainty that climate change is occurring or not.
In the face of that, GSW is untroubled by this framing of the results: "Only 50% of scientists blame mankind for climate change in new study".
And further, GSW cannot see the fallacious equivalence of comparing this tiny sample of responses to questions with papers that drew their conclusions for literature surveys of paper abstracts with sample sizes of 10,000+.....
As I said earlier, you’re all a bit of mess aren’t you?
It's always projection. Indeed, denial is a mental illness.
Stu2
No.
The clear evidence of warming in Australia is linked at #32 #33 #34.
It is very clear observational evidence. And you are <b<denying it..
Hence the:
#EvidenceDenial
Denial is as denial does, as dear old Granny used to say.
Calling all denier-debunkers! Please bookmark this site and visit frequently to attack the many deniers that swarm this popular site:
http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2014/11/uk-tories-abbott-is-a-16th-cent…
If you enjoy thrashing deniers here, there's lots of work for you at Macrobusiness!
Thanks fellas.
Guys, you are needed at Macrobusiness (Australian site). It's being infested with paid deniers supporting the coal mining industry. All help most welcome....
Sorry BBD @# 42.
It appeared by your post @#28 that you were defending those Weatherzone links as scientific evidence.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Yes those other links are observational.
In what way are you claiming I'm denying that?
I put up a post @#25 that once again explains areas where I can see "something being done about it".
Of course it has nothing to do with some grand political gesture that I believe someone else should do and someone else should pay for and seems to demand a radical dismantling of modern western urbanised society, but nonetheless, it is something that has already produced positive environmental results, from a demographic which I believe could be working hand in hand with environmental scientists.
My questions have always been about that 'something' we should be 'doing about it'.
I don't think the grand political gestures that demand global action for 'the greatest moral challenge of our time' and coin spectacularly stupid terms like 'climate criminals', demonise or dismiss progress and favour 'deliberate global governance' run by some iteration of a benevolent global bureaucratic dictatorship are proving to be particularly successful methods in 'doing something about it', particularly in terms of land use practice and/or helping to solve socio-economic problems that encourage poor land use practices.
My observation is that behaviour is creating divisive arguments and hence political inaction - other than a lot of political grandstanding.
So GSW is laying charges of evidence denial against people who are pointing out that his tiny cherry-pick is not the full set of evidence, and that the full set of evidence indicates a rather different conclusion.
It's always projection.
@GSW
Hillarious how the cultists froth about the number of scientist answering the survey when they find Jeffie's first hand spider a large number enough for top notch climate science. :-)
The shaking tent here at Deltoid, though only a few left (not right), can't handle the reality that has been there all along, ergo that science never was settled and that fire and brimstone procured by politically compromized nutters with napoleon-complexes was a scientific outlier. :-)
#46 So you too concede [n=19] is meaningless except for the purposes of your imaginary 'engagement' with Jeff. That's a giggle.
And you're obviously indifferent to how a couple of media stooges can spin the least statistically meaningful part of a paper into a general--and utterly false-- claim about the scientific community's views. Talk about 'politically compromised nutters'... it's always projection with you sad idiots. And the penny never drops.
Stu2
Blockquote>Yes those other links are observational.
In what way are you claiming I’m denying that?
#EvidenceDenial
The evidence is set out at #32 #33 and #34. You are *denying* it by refusing to acknowledge it. Denial by avoidance.
The spring weather is extremely unusual, but rather than focus on a single event, I've set out the CONTEXT in which single season events should be viewed.
Since you persist in shut-eyed denial I will repeat #34 for a fourth time:
Extremes are variability around a rising temperature trend which is clearly visible in the data. That is AGW. Records are tumbling left and right because the variability is occurring from an ever-rising baseline.
Read the words, Stu2. Read. Don't blank. Don't deny.
Now look at the data.
Don't blank. Don't deny.
That is AGW and it will carry on, with worse and worse regional impacts for the rest of this century and well beyond. The policy aim is to limit the damage as far as possible, which may not be as much as we’d like.
Denialwon’t stop AGW. Denial makes it worse.
#EvidenceDenial
What we DO about it is reduce CO2 emissions. Now. Forevermore. Because physics. Not politics or 'environmentalism'. Because survival.
Fuck you ideological nonsense. It's getting in the way.
A fucking lie, Stu. Nobody is proposing this. But right wing ideologues use this *alarmist* strawman as an argument for doing nothing.
Lies and denial. It's getting in the way.
I see Olaus is being unoriginal again. The guy is so thick he cannot even come up with his own insults and smears but has to copy-paste those of others. He must be a hoot (e.g. real bore) at parties. Perhaps its due to his poor education, because it is obvious (or should be) that Olaus isn't the smartest cookie in the pack.
Speaking of hilarious, I wonder why Marc 'right wingnut extremo' Morano didn't make a big deal of the recent article by Bart Verheggen with respect to climate scientists views on GW? Its light years ahead of the n = 19 on the paper Morano trumps. But of course, its obvious why: Morano is a right wing shill and even boasts about it. Yet on Deltoid we have GWS, aka gormless, who seems tol think that most on here are interested in what Climate Dept and GWPF - shills, shills and more shills - have to say about science. Gormless, for those unfamilar with him, is an obnoxious idiot who, along with Olaus, fawns over another scientifically unqualified idiot, Jonas, who was banished toi his own thread on Deltoid. Gormless has been writing into Deltoid for several years, and for some reason keeps coming back even though his arguments are ritually debunked and despite the fact that his dependence on right wing anti-environmental weblogs is obvious. He thinks he is a scientific/intellectual heavyweight because he has a basic degree in chemistry. But that's more than either Jonas or Olaus have, even though one of the loonies (was it Elmer?) once claimed that Olaus was the only person on Deltoid to have scientific knowledge. I am not making this stuff up. This is the kind of people we have to debate as deniers on Deltoid.
Anyway, here's the paper by Bart that blows the GSW bull**** out of the water.
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/ipdf/10.1021/es501998e
Bye bye gormless. Try again.
As for Stu2, its clear his understanding of issues in the international arena are poor. I cannot debate and discuss issues if this is the case. I stand by the posts I wrote on Deltoid that he copy-pasted but the implications of which he clearly doesn't understand. I'd thought about making a lengthy reply to it but its not worth the effort.
Wow, our local obsessive-compulsive, OP, really is stupid enough to believe that the spider he simply can't let go of is considered "a large enough number for top notch climate science", because apparently all the other evidence establishing the current understanding of climate science doesn't exist so for that reason Jeff MUST have been trying to argue the case solely from the spider.
There's no cure for deep stupid or rank denial.
One final point: note how AGW deniers like to converse amongst themselves and then post their musings up on blogs for others to see. Usually these conversations are witless quips that they think are funny. Olaus is a master at it (see above #46).
Here in the Netherlands, there was a similar incident involving a well known colleague who upset two climate change deniers a few years ago. These two people actually wrote insulting emails about my colleague and cc'd them to him. They were actually conversing amongst themselves, and not with him, but they made sure he received the emails. This kind of behavior is beneath contempt.
Jeff
Vermin is as vermin does, as dear old Granny used to say.
October warmest ever recorded, and January-October warmest on record:
http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/msg/1416503384.html
So much for the much vaunted 'hiatus'....
The hiatus does exist. It is the time of only record hot months.
As expected, Stu2 keeps trying to dose us with pablum, when we want something to chew on. There is not a single factual piece of information in that charming, but useless, anecdote. I'm not saying its untrue, only that it is so fact-deficient that it has zero informational content. Where? When? Who? If its been legislated, its in the public space, but Stu2 declines to give enough information to allow his claims to be investigated. He might as well be telling us about a UFO sighting.
So permit me to quote myself, from #99 on the previous page:
...and August, September, and October are ALL the warmest of those months recorded globally. Three months, 3 records, all in a row.
And against this we have the shills and deniers arguing that it ain't so! It ain't so!
I actually like the idea of pandemice.
It would be pronounced Panda Mice. Mice that look like pandas.
Aaaaw!
Jeff @#58
I am pleased that you brought that up, here is Tom Harris trying to wish the records away:
See at:
Hottest October And Year To Date On Record Globally, NOAA Reports
Tom Harris has appeared here before:
Now Really Secret Payments posted by Tim Lambert
Just an aside, but the Potty Peer is once again meddling in Australian affairs:
I would like to apologise on behalf of the UK.
Lionel A
Ha. None other than Tom Harris the paid energy industry shill.
It's funny how the idiots hereabouts and generally never seem to realise that most of their more vocal spokesmen are paid industry shills.
You'd think they'd be embarrassed, and more importantly, *sceptical* about the money and the message, but no, they parrot it all the same.
Frank D @# 99.
Which bit are you looking for testable facts?
The fact that dry land salinity & erosion was caused by over clearing?
The fact that landholders were required to clear their land by legislation?
The fact that since the '60s farmers have been restoring and repairing the damage caused by over clearing?
The fact that farmers have also been mitigating other issues such as invasive species?
What are you expecting me to add?
Most of the information is archived in local libraries and local & state govt.
There is information available in archived newspapers with accompanying photos.
Older Australian history texts have further info as well.
You can also find information in the diaries of early Australian poets and writers such as Henry Lawson.
Of course much of early Australian history is anecdotal, just as it is in other cultures and countries.
There is no lack of physical evidence of the degradation that was originally caused or the work that has been done to repair it.
Hope that helps?
BBD @#48
The hot, dry windy Spring event was not 'extremely unusual'.
They happen more often than not west of the the Great Dividing Range, sometimes as early as August (late winter).
The less usual, but far from 'extremely unusual' occurrence was that it was a strong enough weather system to reach and affect the coastal fringe.
You are denying the bigger picture. Still.
And you know it, really.
Spring temperatures, Australia. Instrumental record.
Stu2 can't really be this stupid....? The bit I quoted back at you of course!
"The experts decreed...set timeframe...legislated"
Which experts?
What decree?
When and where did this occur?
What legislation? Commonwealth or State Law? Which government passed this legislation?
This talk of land confiscation is ... well ... alarming. So I want more specific information to fact check it. There's not need to waffle a half page of lame attempt to recast what I've asked. A few names, a few dates, a place, a few legal instruments. A sub-hundred word answer will cover it.
Perhaps Stu2 is not familiar with the difference between anecdotes and "Testable, measurable facts"? Either that, or this evasion starts to look like Stu2 isn't really here to have a good faith discussion - its on Stu2 to prove otherwise.
Frank D
3 basic answers.
1) NSW govt pre & post federation + federal govt/state govt programs such as soldier settlement programs, the snowy hydro scheme and several other govt sponsored decentralisation schemes .
2) State dept decrees administered by entities such as WC&IC and depts of agriculture
3) Employees of depts from 1 & 2 above who were appointed as experts and authorities.
I agree it is concerning that these people lost land & water if they did not 'comply' and completely clear their land.
My wife's great grandfather, a soldier settler from Scotland, was one of those who defied the govt legislation and refused to clear a low lying area with unique characteristics. He saved that piece of land from clearing but he had part of his land and water 'reallocated' by the govt of the day because he refused to see that low lying area destroyed.
I could continue with many other examples of legislative mistakes that were made that caused degradation.
Unfortunately however, I suspect you're not really that interested in the political history of the settlement of inland NSW .
Tom Harris IMHO needs to take his meds. To argue that October and annual records are meaningless when both earlier ones are very recent shows how desperate he is. He also acknowledges that 2010 was thus far the warmest year on record! Now that 2014 is about to equal or surpass it, all he's done is confirm that the planet is warming, Thanks Tom. If the denila lobby depends of people like you, then you are in deep, deep trouble.
I wonder if this marin biologist, in parts, had Deltoid in mind when writing this article? On the other hand it doesn't mention the priviledged, white, medieval-aged, males with authoritarian personalities and severe self-idolatry issues:
"The rent-seekers, opportunists, third-rate academics, carbon-market scam artists and peddlers of catastrophic prophecy can see the alarmist bubble deflating, so they're trying harder than ever to sustain the scare. Problem is, Mother Nature isn't cooperating."
https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2014/11/climate-scams-mel…
Walter Stark is a fucking crank, Olaus. A crop circle nut. He knows absolutely nothing about climate science and is in no way whatsoever credentialled to pass comment on it.
Another massive credibility fail. Can't you muppets find anyone to wave at us who can be taken even a little seriously?
Energy is conserved:
This was always going to happen.
BBD, a simple yes to my query was enough. :-)
Why should you wish to align yourself with the views of a crank, Olaus? The rational thing to do would be to distance yourself from them. Or run the risk of being written off as a nutter yourself.
Can't you see that?
Nice bit of shut-eyed denial on the *unprecedented* rise in sea surface temperatures btw.
Does Mother Nature include the oceans, Olaus?
Perhaps the crank Starck mis-spoke?
This marine biologist who should be thoroughly ashamed of himself for writing such a scurrilous, irresponsible and fallacious article - but then it is the Quadrant.
But Starck did get one thing right:
what is it with these reality inverted types?
All together now, 'It's always projection.'
Oh! And he is starck naked WRT scientific credibility which he has stripped himself of - exhibitionist!
Starck migh be a nutter, I don't know, but he for sure has good bearging on clitmate scientology modus Deltoid.
Meanwhile more worthy of attention:
James Balog and Extreme Ice Survey's latest project watch the short video.
If you have not yet seen Chasing Ice then get a copy and watch it. I have watched it several times and am impressed with Balog's tenacity and courage, and that of his team, in capturing time laps images of ice in melt down. As a photographer myself I found it riveting stuff. What a vision Balog had when he thought this up. Brilliant, just brilliant.
It should leave everybody in no doubt that we are in trouble. Maybe a complimentary read of Zwally et. al. (2002) [and 2005 which spikes later criticism re AR4] is in order:
The Warming Papers - Ice Sheets and Sea Level Rise where one learns that back then in summer melt the ice sheet was lifted by half a metre due to bed melt water pressure increase causing an acceleration of the ice sheet movement.
Writes one nutter about another.
No, Olaus, he's just a science denying crank who believes in crop circles being of nonhuman origin. He isn't qualified to have an opinion on climate science. He is not a climate scientist. Like the vast majority of "sceptics" he has no idea what he is talking about.
When was the last time you heard a climate scientist telling the entire field of marine biology that it had its collective head up its arse? See how utterly bizarre Starck's behaviour really is? See how cranky he is? Why can't you lot understand that you have no scientific argument at all? Your cheerleaders aren't climate scientists, they are cranks and libertarian ideologues.
Well, talks on crop circles and chemtrails are as insubstantional and unscientific as Jeff's frothings about "Elders of Fossil fuel", I'll give you that.
And it is of course also on par with Jeff's unscientific portentology, first hand spiders and all.
Oh dear Olaus. Weak. Very weak.
Try not to link to the ravings of cranks in future. This will inevitably limit your field somewhat, but at least you will be spared further humiliation of this type.
BBD.
Walter Starck, despite his one time fascination with crop circles, is a marine biologist.
His career in marine biology has been largely 'hands on' which means he hasn't spent much of his working life in the 'publish or perish' world of academia.
The Quadrant piece is an OP and essentially about Starck's observations and perspective on the politics of climate science.
Your attempt to summarily dismiss him via a personal attack actually helps to confirm one of his observations about the politics of climate science.
Whether people are old or young, nice or not so nice, male or female, charismatic or nerdy, have quirky interests or hobbies, work for themselves, academia, the govt or private enterprise and numerous other permutations of lifetime choices is not really the point.
The Quadrant piece is an OP and essentially about Starck’s observations and perspective on the politics of climate science.
No it's not. He repeats the no warming myth. He believed the Hockey stick has been demolished by.... WUWT. LOL And he fell for Climategate.
Stu2
As Turboblocke points out, Starck's understanding of climate science is profoundly confused. He is not qualified to comment.
This bears repeating: when was the last time you heard a climate scientist telling the entire field of marine biology that it had its collective head up its arse? See how utterly bizarre Starck’s behaviour really is? See how cranky he is?
# 70, Scientists undertaking to present best informed positions, context and background do not resort to Quadrant to present their cases. Quadrant is a soap-box not a journal.
Quadrant is an organ for marginalised right-wing entitled bed-wetters, hysterics and disinformers, technically speaking. That is the editorial policy.
"males with authoritarian personalities and severe self-idolatry issues"
Yes, Olaus, I am glad that you recognize your personal affliction. Its about time, too. You have no scientific qualifications whatsoever, post bullshit up here from shills and cranks and plagiarize others insults. You ought to see a shrink.
It's entirely predictable that Olaus will slavishly point people to pap written by people like Starck, but highly amusing that he does so apparently unaware that he's about a month late to the party. He's not even up to speed in his own speciality - the denialosphere!
#40 'I was commenting on cRR Kampen’s Weatherzone links not your links'
You were denying evidence. You are creating a strawman from the evidence I provided by pretending it was a singular event and, of course, by neglecting the significance of that single event. BBD was so good to do the work you should have done.
Me:
Stu2 waffles, adding this by way of syrup:
"Other examples"? He hasn't even given one yet. Just placed some more icing on his layer cake of anecdote. Without specifics this is, as W.S.Gilbert put it, "merely corroborative detail intended to give artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative".
Stu2's (predictable) evasion is noted.
BTW, based on his little family anecdote, it would appear Stu2 understands the causes of dry land salinity about as well as he does the difference between "governance" and "government" (#44 - suprised BBD didn't take him up on that). Of course, it could just be his habitual (intentional?) lack of clarity...who can tell?
Olaus cites any mickey mouse scientist who promotes the same b* he believes.
But let me make an important point. Olaus is constantly harping on about my supposed 'self-idolatry', whilst somehow ignoring the self-idolatry of the pompous asses on the weblogs he slavishly follows. It should be clear that Jennifer Marohasy, Jonanne Nova, Nigel Lawson, Anthony Watts, Marc Morano, Judith Curry et al. all have major self-idolatry issues, yet the Swedish meatball gives them all a free pass. Also, isn't Marohasy a 'maggotologist' to coin one of meatball's unoriginal quips? Or is her 'maggotology' legit on the basis of her being an AGW sceptic? And you'd think Watts and Morano would exhibit some restraint as neither has an scientific qualifications.
The point is that Olaus is a pure and utter hypocrite. He also suffers from envy: you can bet if he had anything remotely reseambling a scientific background, we'd all know about it. That he doesn't is patently clear. I also recall the other Swedish meatball, Jonas N, constantly boasting of his superior intelligence, yet his self-idolatry was never raised as an issue. And old Jonas has the same scientific background as Olaus. Which means nil.
And then there's GSW calling me an 'activist'. So what are Morano, Watts, Curry, etc? Honest arbiters of the truth? They're all activists. This especailly applies to Morano, who can't tell a mole cricket from a giraffe.
With respect to science, what's clear is that every time Olaus and the others write up something on here, it gets debunked. Olaus wrote at length about a hiatus that isn't. Then he argues that Polar Bears are doing well. they aren't. Citing population data tells us nothing about the per capita fitness of the bears, not of the fact that changes to their Artic tundra habitats are dynamic and ongoing. If one wants to examine the true demographic status opf a population, it is imperative to do more intimate ecophysiological research. One might just as well say that the per capita fitness of 1000 starving people in the Congo is clearly less than 100 healthy people in the United States. Simply rehashing population data tell us nothing about the age-structure of the population nor of the physiological condition of those in the population. Those arguing that Polar Bears are doing fine focus simply on numbers and assume that conditions in the Arctic are static. Those arguing that they aren't doing well look more closely at the population age-structure, the condition of those in the population and the consequences of short-term dynamic conditions in the habitats upon which they depend.
And of course, there are hundreds of other studies showing negative effects of warming on biodiversity. Nature does not begin and end with Polar Bears; they are merely symbolic.
Finally, about the spiders and other arthropods I saw in Algonquin Park during the heart of winter. Amongst other biota I also saw a large number of winter collemboles, which are normally active in late February and early March. I saw dozens of groups and many hundreds of thousands of them in January, 4 weeks ahead of their normal cycles. Given I was with one other person, had there been hundreds of scientists working across a wide swathe of central Ontario during that exceptional winter they would have noted a pandemic of invert activity over many habitats. What Betula and Olaus do is try and belittle my obervations as if what I saw was the only invert activity in the park. Given I covered about 0.000000001 % of it, one can easily imagine that there were millions of normally diapausing arthropods exhibiting activity in just a small area well outside of their normal phenological window. This is indeed significant.
As Mother Nature has been invoked perhaps she has another smack in the teeth for North America,
North Pacific Warm Spot Worries Scientists. this after this round 2 event:
New Lake Effect Snowstorm Pounding Buffalo With an Additional 2 - 3 Feet of Snow.
Now why is this, well in this is one visualization:
Supercomputer Update: Climate Models and a CO2 Snapshot .
Even I get sick of correcting Stu2 shite sometimes. He doesn't pay attention.
cRR Kampen @#90.
Your links were about a singular weather event.
Whether that weather event was significant evidence of AGW is not present in those chatty little Weatherzone PR pieces.
Neither was that weather event 'extremely unusual'.
It is merely just not common for those type of weather patterns to affect the eastern coastal fringe. They are common west of the divide.
It would be 'extremely unusual' not to have them west of the divide.
Australian Spring weather patterns are highly variable and always have been.
It would be 'extremely unusual' for an Australian Spring to be just average and fit snugly into a GCM.
On any one day the temps nationwide can vary by more than 30℃.
#94, "Neither was that weather event ‘extremely unusual’."
No, it wasn't. It was just the highest temp in the met record there, not for November but for any month.
Good that you see how usual it is for temps to rise higher every fucking year.
How does it feel to fuck a strawman six times per half day, Stupid Too? Why project your pain on me, Stupid Too?
#93 BBD, he does pay attention, like a moron suffering some OCD.
For STU2, for the second time:
This was October---31 days---nationally
That was yesterday
...and you can click back day by day to the start of November to get a grip on the anomalous heat in the eastern half of Australia for the month so far
IIRC it's been done several times now. I assume most people just take it as read now ;-)
From Lionel's first link -
"The current record-breaking temperatures indicate that the 14-year-long pause in ocean warming has come to an end."
A 14 year "pause" in ocean warming? How could this be? The 18 year "pause" in surface temps was attributed to the heat going into the ocean? So it was a double pause all along?
From Lionel's second link:
"A new lake effect snowstorm is pummeling snow-weary Buffalo, New York once again"
Please explain how a "lake effect" snowstorm is a result of AGW.....thanks.
Regarding Lionel's third link:
I have to admit - The red colors in the "simulation" are scary. Do you think they could make a "simulation" with CO2 depicted as green to see if I feel the same? I'm moody like that...
Thanks for the great links.
"Please explain how a “lake effect” snowstorm is a result of AGW…..thanks."
Convection. Those snowfalls will get worse. Until, of course, AGW keeps even winter temps positive, then it will be rain, a LOT of it.
Some years ago we in Holland, Feb 2012, got a Siberian blast which partly went over the North Sea. This sea was like 'steaming hot' after a warm autumn and record warm first half of winter. Result unexpected: up to 7 cm of snow at surface air pressure of 1037 hPa while any precip at such a barometer used to be unthinkable here (except fog).
Interpretating NASA's CO2 simulation, happy Betula forgot a revisionist talking point. Anthropogenic contribution to world CO2 production is about or slighly less than 3% of total production. Doesn't look like much but it accumulates nevertheless. Anyway this is why you'll be hard put to find CO2 sources as industrial and/or coal burning areas.
Betula shows that he has difficulty with complexity:
You muppet, temperatures rise and heat accumulates asynchronously spatially and temporarily, what the article was referring to was conditions in the North West Pacific.
Blockhead, read the words in the article:
Correction:
'...what the article was referring to was conditions in the North Pacific.'
Betula
I noticed that too. Sloppy writing. Not only do they speak of a pause when they mean a slowdown, they have not clearly differentiated between sea surface temperatures and ocean heat content. The rate of increase in SSTs slowed. OHC increase did not.
“Please explain how a “lake effect” snowstorm is a result of AGW…..thanks.”
Hell, my grandad was a trawlerman and even HE knew that it could be *too cold to snow*.
Somehow, only those old fossils who claim AGW is wrong (for any of a number of incompatible and psychotic "reasons" are accepted as having "everyday knowledge".
Any old knowledge that doesn't toe the party line for them is suspect.
Conspiracy nuts the lot of them.
Stu2
#EvidenceDenial
You just won't face it, will you?
You are still engaging in evidence denial despite the records falling all around you as AGW increases the baseline temperature around which seasonal variability occurs.
Australian spring temperatures.
Australian annual mean temperatures.
The rising temperature trend shows up all around the world. That’s why it is called ‘global warming’. It is inexplicable unless the increased radiative forcing from CO2 is responsible, as the atmospheric physicists have been telling us it is since 1859.
No other forcing has changed sufficiently to explain the massive accumulation of energy in the climate system. This is not in debate in serious scientific circles and has not been for many years.
It will carry on getting hotter for at least the rest of this century and possibly well beyond unless emissions are significantly reduced in coming decades. If warming goes unabated the human and ecological impacts will be increasingly savage as the century progresses. It's barely started, but already look at weather extremes in Australia. Image how things will be thirty years down the line. Then sixty.
No wonder some people go into denial and refuse to accept the evidence even though it is overwhelming.
You're telling us that for 14 years the ocean was exactly static in temperature?!?!?!?!?!
WHERE????
Yes, I noted that too, but then our Met' Office don't have a clean record on this one with their 'The recent pause in warming' 3 part paper which has been mentioned so many times now I thought this point was understood. But I should have known the zombie believers would sail past any explanations again.
Nick.
Did you notice this bit from your link?
“All temperature anomalies are calculated with respect to the average over the 1961 to 1990 reference period”
Is that 31 year time period some type of average temperature utopia for Australia?
Over the longer haul, the anomalies are about the same as BBD’s linked timeline.
BBD.
Did you notice these 2 pieces of information in your timeline ?
"Mean global temperature (1850-1870) is about 13.6°C."
&
2013:
"Mean global temperature is 14.6°C"
Which is a cumulative rise of 1C in the global mean in approx 160 years.
I’m not sure what you claim everyone is ‘denying’ here?
Yes, the mean is 1C warmer and human behaviour likely had some influence.
In an Australian Spring, variability is actually the norm. 2 days ago, it was indeed very hot and uncomfortable, but today, we’re back in long sleeves and sheltering from a chilly wind as yet another Spring weather pattern works its way through Australia. On any one day in Australia, the mean max or mean min for the nation can vary as much as 40 deg C. Trying to average that out may be an interesting exercise, but it is rather meaningless in terms of any AGW significance in an Australian Spring.
The difference in the max temp over the last few weeks just in my region (southern inland NSW) is greater than 25 degs C.
Unsurprisingly, the native flora and fauna are dealing with it as they normally do.
Us mere mortals have all been a bit uncomfortable though.
2 Octobers ago, we had devastating bushfires on the eastern seaboard yet in the same period this year it was cold and even had some snow in exactly those same area.
I think you will find it quite unproductive to try and read alarming AGW significance or trying to ‘tease out’ an alarming AGW significance into Australian Spring weather patterns. Of all of our seasons, Spring is the one to be the most uncooperative of all.
Stu2, a baseline of 'climate' length is necessary to determine climate-scale departures from it...
If you chose 50-81 or 40-71, the current anomalies are higher still...higher, comprendo?
On any one day in Australia, the mean max or mean min for the nation can vary as much as 40 deg C. Trying to average that out may be an interesting exercise, but it is rather meaningless in terms of any AGW significance in an Australian Spring.
On the contrary , it is entirely meaningful! You really are not across any of this data stuff, are you.
Australian spring trends baseline 1961-90...we know what is happening, you seem to be lost somewhere...
But...but...but...Nick, everyone knows that the BOM has questions to answer about them fudging their long term records to make it look like Australia is warming when it really isn't!
Stu2
#EvidenceDenial
Stop denying and look at the data. Let's look at Australia again. That's nearly 1C since 1950 and AGW is only just getting going.
Stop denying the data and think about where this is going. I repeat (because you are still denying): it will carry on getting hotter for at least the rest of this century and possibly well beyond unless emissions are significantly reduced in coming decades. If warming goes unabated the human and ecological impacts will be increasingly savage as the century progresses.
It’s barely started, but already look at weather extremes in Australia. Image how things will be thirty years down the line. Then sixty.
You are in denial.
Not "some". All. The entire ~1C is anthropogenic. There have been no other one-way forcing changes apart from CO2. Physics therefore dictates that the ~1C is entirely anthropogenic.
The climate system doesn't just warm itself up by magic. This is why I keep on talking about physical climatology and forcing changes. That is how it works. That is climate science. And you are denying it. Denying physics is just stupid.
"Mean max or mean min" for the nation implies Stu2 is talking about spatially averaged temperatures. In which case this is bullshit on no day in Australia's history has the mean max or mean min been separated by 40 degrees, nor departed from long term means by that much. This is such obvious bullshit that I can't believe he actually meant that. But any attempt to grok Stu2's meaning here only produce sentences that are equally bullshit. What was I saying about "habitual lack of clarity"?
So what the fuck was Stu2 trying to say? Does anyone know?
Sorry, misplaced the close quotes in the first sentence. Should read “Mean max or mean min for the nation" implies...
Here's thje NOAA temperature data covering January-October 2014. Note how many areas are having the warmest year so far on record: that includes most of western Europe and vast swathes of all oceans. I wonder what spin the deniers will place on this.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/map-percentile-mntp/201401…
BBD #13: There have been no other one-way forcing changes apart from CO2.
Quibbling, I know, but on an up-to-millenial scale, the orbital variations collected under the banner "Milankovitch Cycles" are another one way forcing.
Unfortunately for the denier-o-sphere, the current changes add up to a negative forcing, pushing the mild cooling trend seen over the last 10000 years or so.
It is probably safe to say that CO2 is responsible more than 100% of the warming observed over the last 150 years (increasingly so more recently).
Well, I suppose >100% is "some"... LOL, what a muppet.
#14 Stu's just reiterating that he's stumped by the concepts being discussed . He probably means highest max and lowest min on any one day, but of course this is of no relevance to discussion of climate change. He is repeating the 'but look at diurnal variation' argument-from-incredulity seen in denier blogland for years now.
"So what the fuck was Stu2 trying to say? Does anyone know?"
It's one of the more primitive climate revisionist 'arguments', much along lines of e.g. Bob Carter who tries to talk people out of the concept of 'averages' (seen him do that, including his arrogant moronic smirk, by asking the public to average the telephone numbers of Holland and then retorically 'well what could that mean', obviously nothing).
Stu2 is trying to say that so long AGW is but a fraction of daily or seasonal variation of temp, AGW doesn't exist.
Remember, it's politics and the merchandising of doubt. This guy knows full well what the reality is.
FrankD
Yes, orbital forcing is reducing NH high latitude insolation but that's the wrong kind of one-way change for Stu2. Out of kindness, I ignored it :-)
To be correct I should have said that there has been no sustained one-way forcing increase over the C20th except anthro, principally CO2 etc.
I've had so much trouble getting the climatologically illiterate to understand the planetary energy balance sheet with positive and negative forcings I no longer argue this point, even though it is correct. I just can't face another argument from ignorance and personal incredulity along the lines of "nothing can be responsible for more than 100% of anything blah, blah, blah".
BBD I am suffering similar limits of patience elsewhere. Denial can be firmly rooted, you pull it out but it springs up again rather like Japanese Knotweed and with about the same level of intelligence. But then one can always poison knotweed but at the risk maybe of introducing more endocrine disruption into the world. Worry yourself by reading 'Our Stolen Future'. I think I will be excused a wiki link on this one.
" I am suffering similar limits of patience elsewhere." - still doing it to ourselves.
* ban the revisionists systematically from respectable blogs;
* where this does not happen, leave and let the blog rot in hell.
Else, well, hit ur limits every day again.
BTW BBD, I knew you knew of course, just mentioning for the home viewers.
I've had those discussions too, and while I never claim to have convinced anyone, I've definitely provoked some thought in a few intelligent but disinformed correspondents. Not muppets though.
It helps pull the teeth from the bogus "hiatus" arguments - are you moving slowly when you are running flat knacker up the down escalator?
It's great to see you guys still jerking yourselves off over a miniscule possible increase in OHC. - if it were correctly measured to any real degree of accuracy...ha, ha, ha - it would matter in about 900 years' time. Warmest year EVVVAHHH, says Jeffie. Keep it going, guys, you are comedy gold. And PAGES ios disnitegrating even further by the day. Retraction Watch is waiting....
You are a clown, Elmer. PAGES won't be retracted, McI won't publish anything because he's a charlatan and OHC continues to rise irrespective of the lies emanating from idiots in the denialosphere who don't have the first notion what they are talking about.
Homer Fludd, something tells me that you are another who does not know the difference between temperature and heat.
Maybe you can save your reputation (Hah!) by providing a satisfactory explanation which includes quantifying the increase in OHC.
I suspect we will see another dive away.
Strange (or not) how one of our resident scientific illiterates (Fudd) just cannot grasp the concept of time scales with respect to global temperatures. But, as with Stu2, this guy is so comprehensively stupid that its not worth the effort even trying to engage in a meaningful discussion with him. After Stu2s last kindergarten-level response to me, I decided then and there that he was not worth the effort. Just tooooo thick.
Frank D @ # 14
" on no day in Australia’s history has the mean max or mean min been separated by 40 degrees, nor departed from long term means by that much. "
Think in terms of say the max or mins in Tasmania and the max or mins in NT on singular days in Spring.
Think in terms of Western NSW and Eastern NSW on singular days in Spring.
The ranges can and do vary that much across the nation.
Homogenising all that information into a singular national figure is a very interesting exercise - but in terms of significance re an alarming AGW signal in an Australian Spring? That is questionable.
Anyway, in the interests of moving on with new technology and new evidence and new studies:
I noticed this online this morning filed under science.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/25/penguinpowered_robot_finds_anta…
http://www.whoi.edu/news-release/SeabedAntarctic
#EvidenceDenial
Do you know what the word 'context' means? You have decided to decontextualise (#6) the extreme spring weather in order to enable your ongoing evidence denial. Do you not realise what you are doing or are you aware of the degree of intellectual dishonesty you are employing here?
* * *
The tiny little samples of Antarctic sea ice viewed by the RV are too few and too small to make any statement about the totality of the sea ice and the researchers made this clear.
Even if it turns out that the sea ice is thicker than expected, it changes absolutely *nothing*. But the denier cheerleaders have latched on to Antarctic sea ice and now the rest of you karaoke for all you are worth because you have nothing else left.
It is a pathetic spectacle to behold, especially as none of you seem to understand that your cheerleaders aren't climate scientists, just hucksters peddling free market fundamentalism in the face of overwhelming evidence.
#28...Repeating yourself? Still getting nowhere.
Re sea ice thickness...I hope you are not misinterpreting the info. New technique suggest that sea ice may be thicker on average than original estimates from other methods... that's all. More caution again needed because of sample area size vs total sea ice extent...but rejectionists are anything but cautious.
I'm seeing people grasping at this info as though it means you can draw conclusions about trend in Antarctic sea ice thickness.
cli"-sci"...
the gift that keps on giving...
all of the very high resolution alkenone series to date are from upwelling zones and show a precipitous decline (downward HS) in 20th century temperatures. See discussion here. These precipitous declines have been very closely examined by specialists, who conclude, according to my reading, that this is not a “divergence” breakdown of the proxy-temperature relationship, but rather an actual decrease in local SST in the upwelling zone, attributed (plausibly) to increased upwelling.
http://climateaudit.org/2014/11/25/new-data-and-upside-down-moberg/
bat it offg...the beetles are dying or some other nonsense...keep it coming, guys
Lionel A
I bet you spend your life worrying whether the water you wash your cock in in is at 6 degrees or at 6.01degrees. Maybe in 900 years it will be at 7 degrees. Tough shit.
I just get on with life.
what way up do the proxies go, BBD...?
the scientific methoid still escapes you, doesn't it, BBD. It is not about being maximally scared. it is about being rational. Try to think for once.
Take your sunbed to Antarctica...dress up in your mankini and try to get tanned...
jeffie...just enjoy watching the molluscs die off...the beetles will inherit the Earth
Elmer
So the increased upwelling that reduced SSTs in the C20th is associated with global warming? Interesting. That would be increased zonal windspeeds driving overturning ocean circulation, presumably.
You'd need to provide an example or two to back that up, Elmer, and you know you can't.
Elmer
One other thing. You seem to have forgotten that we don't rely on proxies for C20th temperature reconstructions. The instrumental record provides the data for those.
You seem to come perilously close to denying that there has been a centennial warming trend in the observational data.
I put that those links up because it is about improved technology, new information & a new published article re Antarctic.
It was online this morning (AU EST) filed under the science section.
I also linked up info from WHOI.
Why are you all being so defensive about it?
I thought people here would find it interesting.
yes early winter ice on Lake Superior = warmer than any year EVAHHHHH! Wow...jeffie mu=st be creaming his jeans at this prspect of a hot Winter...his field of interest will be copulating like knives and he will tell us how teriibly sad it all is.
Elmer Befuddled: "when Steve McI fumbles about, all palaeo is shit"...
Elmer Dudd: "when it snows in Buffalo it's freezing all over the world"
Yep, "it's about being rational"
#39 'Defensive'? Huh? Where?
Deniers on the loose at Macrobusiness site. Denier-killers most welcome!
Stu2
Lying troll.
#32 "I just get on with life." followed by spam and more spam, what a 'life'.
Stu?
Amusing though it is to watch you refuse to acknowledge the data for page after page after page of comments here, the spectacle is wearing thin.
#EvidenceDenial
Do you know what the word ‘context’ means? You have decided to decontextualise (see #6) the extreme spring weather in order to enable your ongoing evidence denial. This is intellectually dishonest. It is #EvidenceDenial.
It's what you do, all the time.
What I want you to do is admit it. Then this will be over.
More word salad.
Is Stu2 now talking about the diurnal range at a single location? So WTF were the references to "mean max" and "mean min". Is Stu2 now saying that he didn't mean "mean" at all?
Words have meaning. I presume Stu2 is posting here because he wishes to communicate something. In which case he should replace quantity with quality and say something intelligble.
It's not about what I think, its about what Stu2 says. Perhaps he could give examples of whatever this 40+ degree range is that he is speaking of. One example for each of the Northern Territory, Tasmania, Western NSW and Eastern NSW will do.
"I presume Stu2 is posting here because he wishes to communicate something." - yeah, denial.
So Homer Fludd, you still do not grasp the essence of the argument.
Life maybe, but not as WE know it, after all lichens have life and probably as sentient as you.
Well lookee, the Rabett said it:
Purposeful avoidance of truth is sufficient to establish actual malice.
You know. Hear, hear. Again:
Purposeful avoidance of truth is sufficient to establish actual malice.
So climate revisionists are recognized by their first, sometimes but at most second, post. So far so good, now deal with it. See #22.
No, Betty, it's just a base line.
A reference point.
Just like "melting point of ice".
Or are you going to complain that "temperature" is just a leftwing scam to take your money and spend it on hemp shoes because it isn't some sort of ideal temperature of the earth???
I'm just flummoxed that, despite your claims that the temperatures haven't changed for 14 years, you have been unable to show where this dataset exists!
HadSST global anomalies, 2000 - present is too short to be informative, but the trend is positive.
Better to look at the 30 year climatology:
HadSST global anomalies, 1984 - present
Unequivocally positive.
But BBD, such graphs aren't fair, they torpedo denier claims. Can't have that now.
I have just had a twerp elsewhere (Morgan Wright aka Morgan Thwirg [1] following a CP post 'Hottest October And Year To Date On Record Globally, NOAA Reports' ) claiming that Arctic sea ice has recovered to 1978 levels.
Using 1978 is a clear cherry pick, for that year is on the early boundary of data at NSIDC but even then it can be seen to be false.
See you had fun at the Rabett's, a1 stuff(ed).
[1] Now changed to Gwirth I see.
From Fudd:
"bat it offg…the beetles are dying or some other nonsense…keep it coming, guys"
Yes, we're dealing with a first grade imbecile here folks. The Warner Bros. cartoon version of Elmer Fudd is a veritable genius compared with our version.
This Thanksgiving, Anthony Watt's has again unwittingly given climate scientists something to be thankful for .
In Australia, the climate-denying, coal-subsidising Liberal Victorian State Government has been defeated in an election.
For Australians, this is a very clear message to the Australian Federal Government that they are getting it wrong: the Liberal budget is a shambles, the deficit has doubled, and the old Liberal wheeze of selling off assets to provide one-off budget-balancing benefits isn't as effective as it used to be.
Coal-subsidies and climate denial go hand-in-hand with pisspoor economic management, as demonstrated in Australia.
All indications are that Tony Abbott and his pack of buffoons will be out on their arses in about 18 months.
http://www.tallyroom.vic.gov.au/vtr/tallyroom.html
Probably just in time for a science-denying Republican administration to take up residence in the White House...
"All indications are that Tony Abbott and his pack of buffoons will be out on their arses in about 18 months."
I hope not. The electorate chose him now suck it out and burn. I'd even be okay with some rough handling of protests against him. Aussies chose him, aussies will suck it out and burn.
So Down Under got the hottest spring ever. Well that was about time. Last record was way back in 2013.
Here's something interesting:
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/joannenova.com.au
Notice Sweden...
Yes Craig, that is indeed interesting. It seems like the 3 Swedish meatballs who have written in here over the past few years are spending an unhealthy amount of time on her blog.
I wonder if the Scandinavian 'Troll Collective' would make any sense out of a very evocative chapter, 'A Garden Inclosed' in Richard Dawkins' excellent 'Climbing Mount Improbable'.
Sure informs on the delicately balanced interdependence of species.
If the 3 Swedish meatballs represent 22% of Joanne Nova's traffic, that would indicate Joanne Codling's blog has a readership of about 14 people.
Lol. "Science communicator"
Just thought I would share with you the magnificent contribution that Anthony Watts is making towards science:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-vb2DKQbI8JI/UBcY9N17vdI/AAAAAAAAC-o/kKiDo_DEy…
I seem to have re-acquired a taste for exposing myself to the dangerous levels of stupidity on display at JOanne Codling's kook-blog.
What a collection of retards. They are moronic. It's like a blog for people trying to cope with acquired brain injuries - a lot of poorly-constrained emotions and uncontrolled spurts of aggression.
"It’s like a blog for people trying to cope with acquired brain injuries – a lot of poorly-constrained emotions and uncontrolled spurts of aggression."
Wow, observation.
I thought for a while, only at first, that Judith Curry was suffering from some tragic early onset of dementia.
Fellas, the missing heat is almost as missing as the activity here Deltoid:
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2014/06oct_abyss/
Wow, OP is now about two months behind the rest of the denialosphere! If he keeps this up by early next year he'll be reposting articles that were misinterpreted by the usual suspects way back in 2013!
Given that the denialosphere (as pointed out above) isn't exactly filled with the best and brightest brains what does being so far behind them say about OP's faculties?
Dear Loth, but the missing thang is still missing. No accelerating global warming, you know. ;-)
OP, the problem with being two months behind even the denialati is that you're also two months behind on the corrections of their misperceptions, which means you tend to confidently repeat their incorrect interpretations, which just makes you look even more ignorant and unintelligent than they are. At least the first time around they had the excuse that the errors in their position had not been pointed out - yet.
Loth, its only in your head that global warming is accelerating. And the heat is still missing. :-)
#66 didn't read that. I did. Nothing new there.
"Coauthor Felix Landerer of JPL noted that during the same period warming in the top half of the ocean continued unabated, an unequivocal sign that our planet is heating up. "
By October some months had already set new global records.
Like October did then, and the year will do.
Oily Prat
You are really behind the curve, the one here:
World on course for warmest year
Something strange going on here, the graph, they showed, with a red line, in the news bulletin item had a right hand peak rather higher than the preceding ones of this century. But that is a minor thing.
Note that is the same David Shukman who often used to drop in let out comments for the likes of WUWTters to latch on to in his weather & climate reports. And it was his buddy Roger Harrabin who tricked Phil Jones into saying there had been '...no statistically significant warming...' (the hand of Lindzen is thought to have been behind that ambush, as it was precisely phrased using almost a Lindzenism ) which played to the ignorati such as you.
Olaus
What Lotharsson said. Catch up, please.
On a general note, why is it that deniers cannot sort out the various depths in the ocean in their minds? The abyssal deep is not the upper ocean layer, nor the mixed subsurface layer nor the surface skin layer etc.
Nobody ever argued that the warming of the abyssal deep was expected or required under AGW - or at least not for millennia. The warming occurs in the upper ocean layer (0 - 2000m). It has continued and is indeed increasing.
You are *wrong* about everything, Olaus. Wrong and directly contradicted by observations. You are literally in the position of the man who asserts that the moon is made of green cheese despite lunar regolith being returned to Earth for study decades ago.
Or perhaps you deny the authenticity of the moon landings too. I wouldn't be slightly surprised if you did.
cRR Kampen #58
Perhaps this First Dog on the Moon cartoon will help alleviate some of that crankiness. As FDOTM puts it: "No one is more embarrassed about our PM than we are and we are really really sorry."
Well, about 45% of the electorate, anyway....
A little OT maybe but a report on another environmental hazard:
Here’s What Happens To Sewage On Cruise Lines
the full report can be downloaded in one lump if required. Worth a read.
oh dear,
"Tree ring proxies RIP"
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2014/12/5/tree-ring-proxies-rip…
;)
Still not sure how you develop this into a contrarian argument.
Millennial climate reconstructions use lots of proxies: ice core, sediment core (depositional variation; isotopic analyses; species assay from forams to molluscs to pollen and terrestrial insects, speleotherm (stalagmite/stalactite core).
Taking issue with a single dendro proxy (Sheep Mountain) doesn't even undermine the general case for dendro proxies, let alone the millennial climate reconstructions based on all the other proxies as well.
I just love wiki sometimes.
I wish BBD would remove his thumb from his arse and start to look around. See this on an historical event he has never heard of:
Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum
Quotes
“The increase in mammalian abundance is intriguing. There is no evidence of any increased extinction rate among the terrestrial biota. Increased CO2 levels may have promoted dwarfing[32][33] – which may have encouraged speciation. Many major mammalian orders – including the Artiodactyla, horses, and primates horses, and primates – appeared and spread around the globe 13,000 to 22,000 years after the initiation of the PETM.[32]
Sounds like it was good to be alive then. Should Jeffie worry about shrinking Alpine goats? Of course he will. He has empathy, but no knowledge.
Fair enough BBD
"Millennial climate reconstructions use lots of proxies: ice core, sediment core (depositional variation; isotopic analyses; species assay from forams to molluscs to pollen and terrestrial insects, speleotherm (stalagmite/stalactite core). "
As long as we agree the tree ring based ones are pile of poop as in "“Tree ring proxies RIP” then we're all singing from the same flagpole, metaphorically speaking that is- So much for "The Science(TM)" - MBH and derivatives been hung out to dry, unprecedentedly you'll find.
;)
sorry GSw=GSW
;)
Pretending that other people agree with you when they quite clearly don't comes across as either indulging in fantasy or failing at basic English comprehension. Which is it in your case?
18 years of divergence at Sheep Mountain and dendro is thus poop?
How much more of Bishop Hill's self-ridicule will you swallow?
The man wrote a fantasy reconstruction of part of the field and has been hanging on grimly on his bloggy hilltop. What better example of irrelevance and self-deception is there?
"Should Jeffie worry about shrinking Alpine goats? Of course he will. He has empathy, but no knowledge"
I have a billion times more knowledge and expertise than you ever will, Fiuddy Duddy. Let's see again; what is your profession? Certainly it ain't science. My guess is that, like Jonas, you are confined to a padded cell somewhere where they give you computer privileges.
With respect to declining body masses in animals as well as the myriad of other ecophysiological effects as a result of AGW, you are doing what every idiot denier does: isolate one example and ridicule it. If this is the extent of your debating 'skills' no wonder you lot are largely confined to the outer fringes of the blogosphere. Of course you don't read (or understand) the primary literature, which is full of studies showing a range of worrying effects from organisms to ecosystems, covering a wide range of scales. But, like the other clowns who write in here, you won't even attempt to take me on in discussing these, so you'll make another vacuous smear and move on. That's what you do.
Again, my professional qualifications poop all over yours. Get used to it, moron.
Ya also gotta laugh at GSW for his "Tree Ring Proxies: RIP" which comes not from the scientific literature but from a denier blog run by an unqualified hack. Again, this is the depths to which these clots stoop. This is 'it' for them. With 2014 set to be the warmest year on record, they are getting increasingly desperate. Its going to be interesting seeing what straws they will be clutching at next.
Oh Elmer, who are you trying to kid:
If you removed your thumb from 'seventh rock from the sun' you would realise that it is you who are unaware the BBD has known about the PETMA for a long while. But then maybe YOU do not understand what palaeoclimatology is.
OTOH you are just being insanely provocative.
You don't even get a zed grade for effort here. Solitary beckons perhaps.
Elmer
That has to be one of your funnier (and most idiotic) comments ever.
Ask yourself this: how fast was the onset of the PETM? How fast is modern anthropogenic temperature rise by comparison?
You do know (I hope) that it is the rapidity of temperature change that is acutely dangerous to ecosystems habitutated to Holocene norms?
Jeff Harvey, a credentialled expert, will correct me if I have mis-spoken here.
GSW
Cobblers.
Let's try reading my comment again:
Taking issue with a single dendro proxy (Sheep Mountain) doesn’t even undermine the general case for dendro proxies, let alone the millennial climate reconstructions based on all the other proxies as well.
One final thing. There is nothing - not a single paper - that overturns what we know about millennial climate change which can be summed up as follows (PAGES 2K Consortium 2013):
McI hasn't published anything and unless he does, scientifically speaking, he hasn't said anything. Personally, I think the revised Arctic reconstruction (McKay & Kaufman 2014) is probably an improvement on the original but I don't think McI has integrated it with the other reconstructions making up the full global PAGES 2K reconstruction correctly. I think he has got the area weighting wrong. And even if he is correct, as I have said before, he will have achieved only this: "the area-weighted average reconstructed temperature was higher than any other time in nearly 1,400 1,100 years." Hardly an overturning of the entire field of climate science or even of the little bit of paleoclimatology concerned with millennial reconstructions.
Finally, can I remind people that if you are arguing for a hot 'MWP' you are arguing for high climate sensitivity. The science from MBH99 - PAGES 2K tells much the same story. No global and synchronous 'MWP'.
Elmer
Just out of curiosity, how many paleoclimate textbooks have you read?
This is more worrying. I often used the PETM as an example of evidence that GHGs can and do force massive temperature change (hyperthermal events). I have written about this regularly in comments here. Whatever gives you the idea that I've never heard of the PETM?
Here are a few more for you: ETM-2 (aka H-1 and ELMO); MECO. Just for fun, why don't you tell me the approximate dates for these hyperthermals?
:-)
I seem to have lost the end of this paragraph. Let's try again:
Finally, can I remind people that if you are arguing for a hot ‘MWP’ you are arguing for high climate sensitivity. The science from MBH99 – PAGES 2K tells much the same story. No global and synchronous ‘MWP’. If I was rooting for a low climate sensitivity, I'd be backing the evidence suggesting that there was no global and synchronous 'MWP'. I'd want to get rid of the MWP. And at the moment, I'd be looking to find fault with McI's analysis, not backing it.
Of course 'rooting' for a hypothesis isn't at all scientific and objective, but I appreciate that 'sceptics' know that they are right and the experts and their decades of research are all wrong.
Jeff Harvey @# 84.
The discussion emanates fom a publication by Salzer et al.
Are you claiming they're unqualified hacks who hang around denier blogs?
Their qualifications and the published paper are easily accessible.
#90...and?
The link provided by GSW came from the professional ignoramus Andrew Montford, trying to sell his hero Macintyre's concern trolling. It's spin, and spin from bad-faith actors with no domain expertise. They don't speak for Salzer and colleagues.
Why would sane people take any notice?
@#91.
Therefore better to focus on the Salzer et al publication and/ or demonstrate what is specifically amiss with Montford's & Macintyre's interpretation of the Salzer et al work perhaps?
Better to focus on the publication, unless and until someone demonstrates that the interpretation of people with a long history of almost always purveying misinterpretations through to outright howlers have THIS TIME managed to make a justifiable interpretation.