November Open Thread

More thread

More like this

#92. Firstly, Montford has no interpretation of Salzer. None. He has an interpretation of McIntyre.

Secondly, McIntyre spends most of his time pissing in his own pocket.

Why do you think it's of consequence?

Stu2 seems to have forgotten that he still has some homework due.

We are still wondering, did Stu2 mean mean max and mean min or not. I mean, is it mean to ask what he means, and whether he means to show us that when he says means he means means?

If Stu2 could just give us the four examples he suggested others think about would be enough. Tick-tock, Stu2.


It would be a courtesy to read the thread.




Thank you.

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.

Furthermore all he has to do is read a book such as Driven To Extinction to grasp some of the concepts here.

But of course he would rather drop in here and try to bluff his way through with mindless links to vacuous denial blogs such as that which Cardinal Puff runs.

"You're very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady. "But it's nutters all the way down!"


"One known element of conspiratorial thinking is its 'self-sealing' quality (Keeley 1999, Bale 2007, Sunstein and Vermeule 2009), whereby evidence against a conspiratorial belief is re-interpreted as evidence for that belief. In the case of 'climategate', this self-sealing nature of conspiratorial belief became evident after the scientists in question were exonerated by nine investigations in two countries (including various parliamentary and government committees in the U.S. and U.K.; see table 1), when those exonerations were re-branded as a 'whitewash.' "

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 07 Dec 2014 #permalink

I wonder if McIntyre/Nova/etc... will respond by spitting chips, or just by ignoring this.

"It therefore appears advisable not to mistake the continued conspiratory obsession of the 'skeptic' blogosphere with 'climategate' with widespread public interest. The results of A&G have confirmed other research (e.g., Maibach et al 2012) showing that the wider public astutely lost interest in 'climategate' long ago."

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 07 Dec 2014 #permalink

These uncanny polar bears:

"The west Hudson Bay polar bear population has been used to predict the demise of polar bears due to the impacts of climate change. Activists have used the health of this population to predict all sorts of dire impacts on the Arctic and all of its species, but science is showing the bear population has been healthy,” said Towtongie. “This confirms what Inuit have reported. The predictions that the population would decline were wrong, and this has impacted Inuit lives and property.”…

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 08 Dec 2014 #permalink

....."but science is showing the bear population has been healthy"....

while science is showing that a huge suite of other ecosystems, species and genetically disticnt populations are in serious trouble. Moreover, the western Hudson Bay population is but one of at least 15 Polar Bear populations. Eight are declining. And, as I have said many times, if the Arctic ice continues its death sprial, then at some critcal threshold bear populations will collapse. There are no ifs or buts. The trouble is that simpletons like Olaus and those downplaying the effects of AGW on Polar Bear populations are stuck in the present. They cannot envisage effects mediated by an ongoing loss of key tundra habitat. A simple analogy is this: tropical forests are being cleared in many parts of the world. Species depending on them may be doing fine today, but as the forests continue to be felled, then at some point they will not surivive. Species dmographics are often characterized by tipping points. In the case of habitat loss as a result of AGW and other human-mediated processes, some tipping points have been passed already and others are being approached.

Its the same for the bears.

Good golly, its so easy to utterly demolish AGW deniers here. Is this the best they've got? The best arguments they can throw at me? This is kindergarten level stuff.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 08 Dec 2014 #permalink

Its also interesting that the meatball links to an Inuit site that wants to keep sport hunting of Polar Bears open. This places them at odds with conservationists. But all told, 8 out of 19 global populations of Polar Bears are declining. The West Hudson bay population is stable. For now. There are between 20,000 and 25,000 bears left. It won't take much to cause this to collapse. They are hihgly vulnerable.

As I said yesterday, what deniers do is isolate single examples of focal species in the public eye whose status is discussed in realtion to climate warming. Their strategy is simple: if they can debunk arguments suggesting that AGW threatens that one focal species, then they think they've effectively debunked thousands of other studies they've never read which paint a similar picture for a wide range of other plant and animal species. The scientific literaure is replete with studies showing a range of deleterious effects of AGW on the abundance, reproduction and fitness related parameters of many species. The deniers select one that is prominent in the media (polar bears), apply their sandbox-level knowledge to debunk it, then think they've won the argument.

As I said, debating these idiots is child's play.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 08 Dec 2014 #permalink

Jeff, stay with the first hand spider.

And it isn't realists that have used the polar bear as a poster child for doom and gloom, its the likes of you others with unscientific parmesan between the ears that have. :-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 08 Dec 2014 #permalink

re last page: Uh, given Bishop there isn't a climatologist, his merely having a URL that says "Tree Ring Proxies RIP" says bugger all. ESPECIALLY since the thundering moron is quite happy to use wine brewers ON TAPESTRIES as a "proxy" for temperature in the past...

”but science is showing the bear population has been healthy”

Is it? What about Polar Bears? Dying off by starvation/drowning doesn't sound too healthy to me, but maybe deniers have a different idea of what's healthy than the sane parts of humanity...

Wow, some white, midieval, and priviledged males can't handle the voice of indigenous people, and some can't handle science. Deltoids can't handle any of it.

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 08 Dec 2014 #permalink


Jeff has just explained your latest confusion to you in terms that even I can follow. You have no further argument. Disappear, please.

Oily Prat:

Climate Change affects on Polar Bears

and polar bear problems are having a knock on effect on other species:

Longer ice-free seasons increase the risk of nest depredation by polar bears for colonial breeding birds in the Canadian Arctic

Our findings demonstrate how changes in abiotic conditions caused by climate change have altered predator–prey dynamics and are leading to cascading ecological impacts in Arctic ecosystems.

Now I only had a few minutes to spare ATM but that wasn't hard to find and oh BTW if you get stuff from a place called polarbearscience dot com then that looks suspiciously like disinfo of the look squirrel type.

Bloody simpletons!

Fellas, no one is contesting that climate change affects nature and consequently polar bears also. :-)

But the bears are not drowning or anything. They are doing qute well, in fact.

I'm sure your crystal ball tells you otherwise, but so far it has been very wrong wrt the accelrating global warming and the polar bears. Jeff's spider is of course something else, very sciency little bugger that one. :-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 08 Dec 2014 #permalink

Meatball, read what I said again: 8 out of 19 populations of Polar Bears are declining.

They are NOT doing well.

Moreover, your copycatting of Betula's smear has worn out its welcome. Nobody here is laughing except you at your own lame jokes, and we all know what that is a sure sign of. Of course, given that I continually thrash your feeble arguments, you are left with nothing other than vacuous smears. See if your limited cranial capacity can come up with any new smears. I can't help it if my professional background and knowledge shit all over yours - that's life. Get over it. Your example stinks. See if you can dredge up any more examples whereby AGWs studied effects on biodiversity up to the scale of communities and ecosystems is, in your uneducated opinion, wrong. Since you don't read the primary literature, that's going to be tough for you.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 08 Dec 2014 #permalink

One final point. Michael Mann coined the term 'Serengeti strategy' in his recent book to describe how the climate change denial movement - mostly blogs, think tanks and other related sources - isolates a few prominent scientists they don't like and then attempt to smear them and their work. The strategy is simple: by isolating one scientist, they think that if they can successfully impugn them then by association a huge number of other scientists who agree with the one being smeared will be dismissed by default. Mann's analogy is based on the hunting behavior of lion's in the Serengeti whereby a pride of females will try and isolate one member of a large herd - say a lone Wildebeest or Water Buffalo - to hunt.

Seeing how meatball and his ilk are focusing on Polar Bears its appropriate to use the same analogy. As I said in an earlier, post, the empirical literature is full of studies showing deleterious effects of AGW on biodiversity. I've read a good deal of this primary literature and there are a number of reviews published as well.

Meatball, like other AGW deniers, thinks that by debunking the example relating to Polar Bears and AGW, that this will effectively debunk the thousands of other studies reporting similar negative effects. Its the Serengeti strategy again, but this time focusing on the science. Deniers did it with Mann's 1998 Nature paper (the hockey stick) as well.

Creationists also do the same thing. Its a huge anti-scientific movement driven by a socio-economic agenda.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 08 Dec 2014 #permalink

Clearly Olaus is so intensely stupid that he doesn't understand that the Hudsons Bay bear population isn't the total population and cannot be used as a proxy for the total population.

In fact he's so abysmally thick that he doesn't understand that 8 out of 19 populations are declining even when this is repeated several times.

Nor that present bear populations will crash as warming continues during this century.

He's just too stupid to understand all this stuff. It's like talking to the cat.

More to the point, the site Olaus links to is clearly PR for a lobbying effort aimed at overturning the hunting bans that have resulted in this polar bear population remaining stable.
So, reading between the lines....if polar bears are now more common around settlements (as the PR claims), but the population is only stable, then clearly there is a non-hunting-related pressure on the population that is increasing....what could that be?

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 08 Dec 2014 #permalink

Well Mr Seeney I can honestly say that you have your head up 'seventh rock from the sun' as could be said of any developers, or clients of any developers who show interest in investment there.

Note the comment of one idiot on the article thread from Craig's #17:

But you see, I am old enough to remember the 70's when the scientific consensus then, based on advanced statistical modelling, was that an impending ice age was heading our way. That was scientific fact, and if you didn't believe it, you were a 'denialist'. A fool.

even his/her handle is idiotic 'fossilosopher' - really!

Maybe he/she will provide evidence for that advanced statistical modelling he cited, but then maybe not.

To close comments at that low watermark is absurd!

A major study in Ecological Applications which will burst Olly's thin little bubble:

More to come. AGW is a major driver of biodiversity loss. Along with a suite of other anthropogenic threats, nature is in deep, deep trouble...

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 09 Dec 2014 #permalink

#17 Interventions like this are a Seeney specialty. It usually means a donor is getting a favor.

If turboblocke was a version that OP can understand, perhaps some footage of a few members of the west Hudson Bay population "doing well" following the unseasonably early melt out Hudson Bay in 2010. See how easily they adapt! See how if they can't find their regular food they just scrum down on something else!

WARNING - normal people, who might feel some distress at watching animals suffer, might find it preferable NOT to click on the link. But Olaus, being a cunt, should find it a hoot. Look at the funny bears - why don't they raid a garbage dump like the cubless 1000 pound males do? Silly bear....

Give that a smiley, Olaus...we know you want to.

FrankD, sorry I just could not watch that past the onset of the second of convulsions. Oily Part and Birch Brain are just too ideologically ignorant for words.

I have a card (a thin postcard sized) here from Greenpeace showing an image of a dead female on Svalbard.

The words on the reverse are:

In Svalbard, a team has noticed a steady deterioration in the condition of female bears over the last 20 years. This has serious implications as underweight females give birth to underweight cubs, which are less likely to make it through their first year. Scientists think that the resulting higher mortality rate of cubs may be the principal [sic] reason polar bears are in decline.

This is what we see in that film except it is worse, the female and cubs are too week to even move away from the den.

As older bears die then there will be fewer, or no, younger populations to replace them and we will then see a more rapid decline in numbers. This trend has already been noted.

When you remove a keystone species, such as the Polar Bear then there will be consequences across the ecosystem of the area. It is this sort of thing that the myopic attitude of the ignorati.

Thanks Lionel, Frank and cRR for further demolishing meatball's latest nonsense. Polar Bears are in trouble for sure. Recruitment in the population is way down in almost half of the world's populations and these populations are seeing their demographics skewed towards older animals.

And of course, Polar Bears are symbolic for nature as a whole. Climate change in concert with other global changes will drive extinction rates to levels unseen since the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 10 Dec 2014 #permalink

Wow, some white, midieval, and priviledged males can’t handle the voice of indigenous people

Indeed, this is true.

However, it has nothing to do with anything here, Lappers.

Care to keep on some sort of relevant "thought" train, dearie?

But the bears are not drowning or anything. They are doing qute well, in fact.

No, bears are drowning and the species is doing badly.

Sorry, just because you repeat some load of bollocks doesn't make it true, dear.

Clearly Olaus is so intensely stupid that he doesn’t understand that the Hudsons Bay bear population isn’t the total population and cannot be used as a proxy for the total population.

Lappers also doesn't know about immigration increasing the population of one area when it comes to polar bears.

When it comes to "foreigners taking our jobs" however, he's well up on the idea. Indeed the little shithead can't stop bleating about it.

It's a syndrome.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 11 Dec 2014 #permalink

Where's the December Open Thread?

By citizenschallenge (not verified) on 11 Dec 2014 #permalink

I was too quick and posted this in October, I should have posted it in December's Open Thread, but can't find it - guess I'm stuck with November ; - ?)
Since I do have these ideas I want to share and discuss.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

What do you think about skepticism?
How about the art of debate?

I would suggest:

There are two kinds of skeptics,
complete skeptic (that includes self-skepticism) and
one-directional skeptic (aka contrarian types)

There are two kinds of debate,
one where
learning is the goal,
the other
debate for debate {and fortune’$} sake.

In the first
you listen to and weigh your opponent’s information and arguments, with the goal being to use opposing arguments to better understand one’s own reasoning and justifications.

To learn from evidence and arguments… allowing the best to inspire reevaluating our own understanding. That’s how we learn, and evolve, how we get better and move forward as we travel through our short lives. Hey and sometimes it hurts and our egos get bruised but that’s part of the game of life and growing… know what I mean?

The second is
all about personal point scoring
relying on tricks rather than a serious dialogue
it has no interest in learning or truth,
only in “winning”.

By citizenschallenge (not verified) on 12 Dec 2014 #permalink


I would say there is only one type of skeptic, the incomplete one. This is the honest skeptic, who questions some of what they hear and is willing to reconsider existing knowledge or belief in the light of new evidence. But no-one is completely skeptical, all of the time - to be so would push one into a dysfunctional paralysis - and all are subject, to some extent, to preconceptions and bias. Few, if any, are completely unskeptical, which would also be a dysfunctional position. So that one "type" of skeptic is the only genuine skeptic, but not all are equal in that type.

Your other class of skeptic is not skeptical at all. The individual still fits somewhere on the spectrum above, but the behaviour you are describing is neither skeptical nor unskeptical, it is something else - it has no more to do with skepticism than "mushrooms" or "purple".

The "debate" that plays out here is thus not between the two groups you identify, or even between two stripes of your "one-directional skeptic". It has nothing to do with skepticism whatsoever.

While debate can be a learning tool, I personally find it a counterproductive one in general discussion. For, say, the advancement of science it is excellent - the careful formulation of argument and deployment of supporting data is useful because it is conducted according to unspoken rules of conduct which all parties accept. An argument that is found to be deficient leads its supporter to seek more evidence or change their position. While that supporter might feel chastened, they are likely to remain open to improvement, because what has transpired fit within their paradigm. No sportsman likes to lose a match, but they accept the result or they stop playing.

But in the real world, there are deep assymetries in style, skill and resources. A person who is run over in a debate - even in the politest, most considerate way - by someone whose style, skill or resources are superior is unlikely to feel inclined either to seek more evidence or change their position. At best they are likely to become disengaged, at worst bitter and entrenched. The honest ones stop playing and the dishonest ones become either weasels or blockheads.

This is why I believe that no argument, however good-faith, however well-intentioned, however polite, can ever convince a contrarian of the reality of AGW. And thus, on boards like this, I don't bother. I'm not trying to "win" the argument, because this argument can't be "won". And I don't expect myself or the other party to learn anything of consequence, for various reasons. Discussions here and on many other blogs satisfy neither of your definitions, nor do my motivations for posting here.

What I do believe is productive in discussing a subject where there is disagreement is to ask questions. To be asked forces me to question my interpretation or data in ways that being argued with does not. To ask allows me to acquire new information without risk of "losing face". And vice versa. The ONLY productive AGW discussions I've had, where I have learned things or my protagonist has (or both), have been couched around "why do you say that?", or "how does that work?", or "have you also factored in x?".

Again, to consider discussions here, it is worth noting that, while genuine questions to anagonists are somewhat rare, such as there are come only from one "side". (Stu2's habitual "are you saying..." are not questions but simple verballing). And that the other "side" invariably evades or ignores those questions.

On this thread, for example, I see Jp, BBD, Craig, Nick, Jeff, myself and now you asking genuine questions (sorry if I missed anyone, and I'm only talking about this thread). Often pretty blunt, even downright rude, but genuine and worthy of genuine responses. Number of genuine responses? Nil. OTOH, the only contrarian question I could find that looked genuine was from GSW on page 3, and it rapidly turned out that was a tolerably well-masked byt ultimately lame failed "gotcha" attempt.

So while I think your questions are interesting, and hope to see others responses, I also think your framing is askew. It seems to me, you are proposing heads-or-tails alternatives, when the discussion landscape also includes double-zeroes, busted flushes and six-deck shoes - lots of different players with different skin in different games.

#33, that would be all the bully can come up with? Tsk, tsk.

Anyway the climate conference is a farce again because the silly old white whiskey drinking men want their waste cleared by the brownies they drop cluster bombs on and, well, the brownies don't comply again. Bad, bad brownies.
O and who cares for Lima, itself running out of water, most of those 20 million people are brownies you know.

The bully, like Petri, a typical racist. It's a syndrome.

The thing I really hate these days is that rain in California. O well, they might drown coming year or so, I'm okay with that. We know the next drought will be even better.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 12 Dec 2014 #permalink

You can detect anything (bad) from nothing. Proof is secondary.

Do I detect a hint of projection there?!?!


I'm quite happy to add a +1 to FrankD's response above ;-)

*Sigh* Note how Olaus, whose Polar Bear nonsense was utterly demolished, is left with some unoriginal smears. This is typical of those who lose debates - they run off to the corner to lick their wounds whimpering all the way.

It was actually refreshing reading Deltoid comments for a few days in which the Swedish meatball was absent. I wondered what piffle he's write when he returned. I was not surprised at the puerile level of his latest waffle.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 13 Dec 2014 #permalink


Nobody cares about Wadham's predictions. The trend in Arctic sea ice extent and volume is so inarguably rapidly down that it speaks for itself without interpretation.

See for yourself.

What AW is doing here is narrowing the focus down to a trivial and unimportant detail so that the more stupid of his herd fail to notice the massive downward trend in ASI extent and volume.

A trend in far steeper and more rapid decline that any projected by the climate models which are supposedly over-sensitive to CO2 forcing.

But, but BBD that Arctic Ice mass has an up-tick at the extreme right, next year it could go higher still.

Just kiddin, but I figure you guessed that, after all next year comes summer again and with an El Niño in the offing too.

Do you recall some talking about 'useless eaters', IMHO none come more useless than OP and his kind.

Now I notice an interesting post at Eli's to do with certain Curried Graphs, Curry doing a Monckton has got to be a new low for her just when I thought she was at bottom.

Any idea where the Rob Honeycutt reference tracks to, I have been looking and turned up some very interesting threads (like one or two at Greg Laden's) along the way but not found the definitive.

Perhaps our troll collective need to have this put under their schnozzles again:

Human influence important factor in possible global and UK temperature records, not long before those 'possible' become reality.

<blockquote.Any idea where the Rob Honeycutt reference tracks to

I'm afraid not. The Rabett is being oblique again.

johnl #43

Thanks I was looking for the Rob Huneycutt input, I had already found Judith's blog post and what a train wreck that is with WUWT class nutters mixing it and Judith doing nothing to keep it sane.

I was trying hard not to go there again. It is becoming increasingly clear, well it has been clear for some time (probably since the 2010 House Science Committee hearings where Lindzen, Curry and Michaels deviated from their written testimonies because hearsay you can get away with) what Curry is really up to and the visitations by Loehle and Mosher confirm that her blog is not science. It is advocacy of the worst kind because many are taken in by her spin.

Meatball, its not only about bears drowning. Its about bears suffering a reduction in inclusive fitness, reproductive capacity and recruitment. Its about bears receiving suboptimal nutrition as a result of warming. Its about the demographics becoming increasingly skewed towards older animals.

Of course, since basic ecophysiology is way over your head, I might as well be speaking to a wall. Furthermore, lest I have to repeat it again, I don't read blogs set up by second rate weathermen with no relevant academic qualifications. I read the primary literature. Its too bad you don't read it and could not understand it even if you did. You spend an unhealthy amount of time on climate change denial blogs. Its because of this that you spew bull**** here about alleged hiatuses and healthy polar bear population dynamics. If you sourced the proper research done by real scientists and not the crap done by those on the academic fringe, you might learn something. But instead, you parrot third rate bilge simply because it suits your pre-determined worldview.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 13 Dec 2014 #permalink

With respect to Professor Wadham's predictions, lets just say that it would be a global environmental disaster if the Arctic is ice-free by the summer of 2050, let alone 2020. The time scales involved are so small they are inconsequential. Watts, as is typical of the man, is making a mountain out of a molehill. Like most so-called skeptics, he just has no clue about the importance of scale. No matter how much this is made clear, the same arguments crop up again and again, suggesting that 50 years is a long time when it is actually the blink of a geological and evolutionary eye.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 13 Dec 2014 #permalink

Jeff, my dear friend, it's you ideology driven portentologists that have a huge problem with time scale and making difference between weather and climate.

But I have told you as much so many times. :-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 14 Dec 2014 #permalink

Meatball, my dear non-friend, you just do not have a clue as to what constitutes scale in terms of stochastic versus deterministic phenomena. That's OK for the most part, as its clear your science education stopped in grade 3, as is clear when I read the content of your posts. Some of the stuff you write is truly cringe-inducing for anyone who has even basic education in relevant fields. Given my education is light years ahead of yours in environmental science, I wonder why you even try and raise some of the points that you do. My only guess is that you're a sucker for punishment.

Your latest attempt to confabulate weather and climate is the latest one. Given the immense spatial scales involved, any change in the mean average surface temperatures of the Earth would require some massive forcing if we link those with observed changes over a very short period of time. Inbuilt variability drives short term stochastic fluctuations, as we see in temperature and ice-extent in the Arctic, for example, but at slightly longer temporal scales we see one clearly increasing (temperature) and one clearly decreasing (ice extent). What people like you do is play up short term variability, as if this invalidates the theory of AGW. Most statured scientists have moved well beyond this childish exercise, and realize that even medium-term trends reveal patterns that are indeed of profound concern.

You also cannot separate qualitative versus quantitative phenomena. Thus, you think that stable Polar Bear numbers is indicative of healthy populations without looking more closely at the age-strcuture of the population, recruitment or per capita fitness or fitness correlates (e.g. size, physical condition, etc). In terms of ice in the Arctic, you cannot separate extent and thickness: in your simple lexicon, if the Arctic was covered completely in ice only 1 cm thick, then you'd simply say that the Arctic is not losing ice. You'd ignore the fact that the age-cohorts of ice in the Arctic region have shown a continued decrease in the age of the ice there, meaning that it is having to be reformed annually (kind of like living off of capital rather than income).

I cannot really blame you for your willful ignorance, because its clear that your science education and knowledge are shallow. What I do blame you for is letting your clear ideological biases cloud your ability to try and understand reason and real science. You rely on anti-science skeptical blogs for much of your information, and appear oblivious to the fact that the rank-and-file of the scientific community who agree that AGW is real and poses a serious threat to humanity do so on the basis of the empirical evidence.

By jeff Harvey (not verified) on 14 Dec 2014 #permalink

Dear friend Jeff, your training in maggotology is well known, but that doesn't prevent you from making stuff up, turing portents into science, adore yourself and and hate anybody that your conspiracy driven and authoritarian mindset identify as enemies.

In other words you are an unscientific apocalyps nutter that is rather scary.

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 14 Dec 2014 #permalink

Jeffie, when you run into a first hand spider or a low/high placed birdnest in a tree, read this for instance, and mantrasize "remember the time scale not the illuminati":

"There is argument as to the extent to which there has been an increase over the past few decades in the frequency of the extremes of climatic parameters, such as temperature, storminess, precipitation, etc, an obvious point being that Global Warming might be responsible. Here we report results on those parameters of which we have had experience during the last few years: Global surface temperature, Cloud Cover and the MODIS Liquid Cloud Fraction. In no case we have found indications that fluctuations of these parameters have increased with time."

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 14 Dec 2014 #permalink

...turing portents into science...

And there we have it, we are arguing with a would be 'Turing Machine' clear signs that we are arguing with a robot.

Now did our resident crippled Turing Machine bother to read the paper itself? I don't think so. I don't think it parsed, 'In no case we have found indications that fluctuations of these parameters have increased with time.' either.

In the paper we find:

A general remark that can be made concerns the well-known sensitivity of ’climate’ to small changes of in-put parameters: atmospheric and oceanic circulation, precipitation etc. caused by positive feedbacks.


Concerning ’heat waves’, although the fluctuations in temperature about their bi-decadal means have not changed (Figure3 ) the frequency of appreciable numbers of months having temperature greater than a particular absolute temperature has, of course, increased with time.

There's Olaus again, hiding his jealousy with smears. He claims I make things up; Show me where, meatball. Put up or shut up. You write about an alleged hiatus; me and others on here shoot that down. The you write more piffle about the status of Polar Bears. I shoot that down. Then its back to smears about spiders and dipteran larvae, neither of which I work with in my professional career. I once did a study with dipteran pupae, but that was in the 1990s. And, as I have said, ther Diptera are a very important insect order, certainly worth more to the economy than you are. Your feeble attempt at humor and smearing falls totally flat. You aren't even original. As I have also said, you simply parrot smears from other deniers. Your little meatball brain lacks even a tad of originality. In layman's terms you are a dolt.

I am waiting for you to spin a fairy tale about your professional background, metball, or are you worried that your lies would be uncovered? I have asked you dozens of times what your day job is, and every time the response is silence. Which means you don't go anywhere near a science lab at a university or a research institute.

But do keep on trying with your smears Olly. Oh, and throw up some more of your kindergarten level science from denier blogs here for us to demolish. Its fun.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 14 Dec 2014 #permalink

By the way, meatball didn't read or could clearly not understand the conclusions of the paper he linked (probably the latter, given his grasp of English is, at best, tenuous):

"None of the foregoing is atvariance with the conclusion of the IPCC Report,indeed it is supportive of it in pointing up the
importance of distinguishing between oceanic and land changes.Concerning ‘heatwaves’, although the fluctuations in temperature about their bi-decadal means have not changed (Fig. 3) the frequency of appreciable numbers of months having temperature greater than a particular absolute temperature has, of course, increased with time".

Two points. First, this is one study. Like otehr deniers, meatball will flout the findings of single studies they like and ignore many hundreds of others they don't. Its what we call cherry picking. The deniers are excellent at it. Second, the authors in no way dispute the reality of AGW. They suppoort the IPCC findings. It is alos notable that one of the authors withdrew his name from the paper anyway. Clearly there were disagreements amongst the authors in terms of the paper's content.

Try again meatball.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 14 Dec 2014 #permalink


Can't speak for all the variables examined in Erlykin et al, but it appears to be directly contradicted by a number of studies when it comes to extreme hot events.

For example Christidis et al. (2014) Dramatically increasing chance of extremely hot summers since the 2003 European heatwave:

Socio-economic stress from the unequivocal warming of the global climate system1 could be mostly felt by societies through weather and climate extremes. The vulnerability of European citizens was made evident during the summer heatwave of 2003 when the heat-related death toll ran into tens of thousands. Human influence at least doubled the chances of the event according to the first formal event attribution study, which also made the ominous forecast that severe heatwaves could become commonplace by the 2040s. Here we investigate how the likelihood of having another extremely hot summer in one of the worst affected parts of Europe has changed ten years after the original study was published, given an observed summer temperature increase of 0.81 K since then. Our analysis benefits from the availability of new observations and data from several new models. Using a previously employed temperature threshold to define extremely hot summers, we find that events that would occur twice a century in the early 2000s are now expected to occur twice a decade. For the more extreme threshold observed in 2003, the return time reduces from thousands of years in the late twentieth century to about a hundred years in little over a decade.

Expand the focus to the entire NH land surface and we have Hansen Sato & Ruedy (2012) Public perception of climate change and the new climate dice

“Climate dice,” describing the chance of unusually warm or cool seasons, have become more and more “loaded” in the past 30 y, coincident with rapid global warming. The distribution of seasonal mean temperature anomalies has shifted toward higher temperatures and the range of anomalies has increased. An important change is the emergence of a category of summertime extremely hot outliers, more than three standard deviations (3σ) warmer than the climatology of the 1951–1980 base period. This hot extreme, which covered much less than 1% of Earth’s surface during the base period, now typically covers about 10% of the land area. It follows that we can state, with a high degree of confidence, that extreme anomalies such as those in Texas and Oklahoma in 2011 and Moscow in 2010 were a consequence of global warming because their likelihood in the absence of global warming was exceedingly small. We discuss practical implications of this substantial, growing, climate change.

More recently there's the global-scale analysis undertaken in Seneviratne et al. (2014) No pause in the increase of hot temperature extremes:

Observational data show a continued increase of hot extremes over land during the so-called global warming hiatus. This tendency is greater for the most extreme events and thus more relevant for impacts than changes in global mean temperature.…

"he study found that the ice sheet shed about 243 gigatons of ice per year from 2003-09, which agrees with other studies using different techniques. The study was published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The study suggests that current ice sheet modeling is too simplistic to accurately predict the future contribution of the Greenland ice sheet to sea level rise, and that current models may underestimate ice loss in the near future."

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 16 Dec 2014 #permalink

Things were getting a bit too raw. Sorry bout that

By Eli Rabett (not verified) on 16 Dec 2014 #permalink

So OP, do you accept his other findings?

By turboblocke (not verified) on 17 Dec 2014 #permalink

Now we have something new - a 'mathane bomb'.... another example of the Swedish meatball's illiteracy (e.g. mathane does not exist). I think our resident dope is referring to methane. Remember that word, meatball - METHANE. Write it out on a blackboard 1000 times so that you can remember how to spell it. But then again, that may be too much for you, give your deep level of rank stupidity.

Then he tries to disprove that there is a well funded industry of denial with respect to climate change by citing an article on - you guessed it - a right wing blog staffed largely by a group of anti-environmentalists. Quite a hoot, our meatball is.

Sometimes when meatball writes in here I don't know whether to laugh or cry. He is so profoundly ignorant, and yet he thinks he is witty and clever and that his posts will change minds. They probably do - in the opposite direction. No matter how many times people on here tell him that WUWT is heavily biased, he comes back here with links to it. Essentially, meatball's arguments are systematically shot down one by one. The alleged hiatus, Polar Bear status, you name it, his arguments are vanquished. Note how he stays away from those topics now after being soundly spanked. Now he's on about mathane - oops - methane.

Finally, Turboblocke asks a very reasonable question. Meatball cires Gavin Schmidt in allegedly arguing that the so-called mathane - ooops - methane - threat from melting permafrost is based on poor science. But this is only a small aspect of Schmidt's views on AGW, which of course he perceives as being very real and a serious problem. My guess is that meatball is cherry-picking views - he'll defend Schmidt on the mathane - there I go again - methane issue,. but quietly ignore all of Schmidt's other views. This is what deniers do. They are a dishonest bunch of liars.

Tp quote meatball earlier, I wish he would go instinct. Ooops, I mean extinct. Glad this man doesn't teach me proper English. His stinks.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 18 Dec 2014 #permalink

Of course there has been a hugely financed industry of AGW denial aimed at influencing public opinion:…

Tis is hardly rocket science. Those denying its existence are living in a bubble. I have presented many lectures on the topic of corporate funding of anti-environmental groups, and if one puts it all together we are talking not millions, but billions of dollars. Again, that meatball denies it shows how utterly naive he is. The above story is just one of many sources. Indeed, many of the right wing groups are even open about it.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 18 Dec 2014 #permalink

Petri #33 get on topic of gtfo.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 18 Dec 2014 #permalink

Jeff, WRT your Guardian link @#65 to that article 'Secret funding helped build vast network of climate denial thinktanks' on reading this:

A top recipient of the secret funds on Wednesday put out a point-by-point critique of the climate content in the president's state of the union address.

I just had to see if my hunch on the identity of that 'climate criminal' was correct.

It was, being none other than motor-mouth Morano - so have a bucket and head vice handy before visiting.

Now why did I give him that sobriquet? Here is a clue.
Note how Morano over-talks and shouts down. That's all he has got. Thus I have to agree with Andrew Watson's final assessment of Morano. If Morano has children then they may come to describing their father as such.

Even Mike Hulme, mentioned in that clip, has taken Morano apart.

Mike Hulme sets Lawrence Solomon and Marc Morano straight

OP why don't you go find yourself something intriguing to study, here is a suggestion: ' Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid' by Douglas R. Hofstadter.

Here is a link to a PDF, that should keep you quiet.

You cruddy, smuddy, blinking, blooming, bally and ruddy idiot OP.

Spring snow cover in Eurasia reached a record low in April. Arctic summer sea ice, while not setting a new record, continued a long-term, steady decline. And Greenland set a record in August for the least amount of sunlight reflected in that month, said the peer-reviewed report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and other agencies.

From Arctic Report Card: It’s Getting Dark in Here.


the Indian Elephant in the room its pal, the larger African, is down t'other end of the Earth.

The accelerating decelarating global warming is very interesting Lionel, my friend.

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 18 Dec 2014 #permalink

Not still confusing the troposphere with the climate system as a whole are you Olaus? After all the dozens and dozens of times I've explained it for you here in comments?

You must be quite astonishingly stupid.


I'll give you a clue, your two links in #69 were from Peter Sinclair's "climate crocks" blog and the "Carbon Brief", you'll be citing grauniad environment articles next.

Olaus' link was to DMI and a graph showing the apparent 'bounceback' of this years sea ice, which is looking somewhat healthier (to the extent that sea ice can be viewed as healthy and a "good thing" as you lot believe). A time for you lot to celebrate, invoke your gods and dance around your teepees I would have thought.

On a more serious note, when did Katharine Hayhoe metamorphize into Ozzie Osbourne?…




P.S. Chek gone AWOL? He used to be all over this blog.

Olaus’ link was to DMI and a graph showing the apparent ‘bounceback’ of this years sea ice, which is looking somewhat healthier (to the extent that sea ice can be viewed as healthy and a “good thing” as you lot believe).

Natural variability around a steep and increasing downward trend. A trend so obvious as to be impossible to deny. Or so you would think.

Let's just take another look:

Arctic sea ice volume.

Not really the signature of an impending ice age, is it, GSW? Although the Holocene was slowly cooling down until the Industrial Revolution came along. And we all know what happened next: jolly hockey sticks!

And what might have caused that? Do a little ice core analysis and take a look at modern atmospheric sampling data and throw in a bit of radiative physics and there's your answer.

Undeniable, or so you would think.

"...(to the extent that sea ice can be viewed as healthy and a “good thing” as you lot believe)..."

That asinine statement says it all about GSW. Its a waste of time discussing anything with him. 'You lot' would include pretty much the entire scientific community and for reasons that should be obvious. Clearly, to a bottom-feeder like GSW they aren't clear at all. Says it all, really.

I'm sure he'd also say 'tropical forests can be viewed as healthy and a "good thing" as you lot believe'... or substitute any number of ecosystems: coral reefs, wetlands, boreal forests, et al. Why not? he's apparently telling us that the Arctic ice ecosystem is not valuable as it is and is therefore expendable; or more so, the loss of ice is even a good thing.

I'd love to see GSW present a lecture at a conference in which he makes a similar remark about Arctic ice. He's be roasted.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 19 Dec 2014 #permalink

Turbo, my friend, I agree, the Arctic sea didn't dissapear in the summer of 2014.

The death spiral spirals a lot slower than previously understood, it seems. Good settled news, me thinks.

And the sea ice around Antarctica increased. Also good, at least for the emperor penguins that where going to die out from the lack of sea ice.

Also good news.

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 19 Dec 2014 #permalink

#71, OP do you have a problem with second derivatives?

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 19 Dec 2014 #permalink


I’ll give you a clue, your two links in #69 were from Peter Sinclair’s “climate crocks” blog and the “Carbon Brief”, you’ll be citing grauniad environment articles next.

You GlueSniffingWeasel, I am well aware of the source for those links of mine which happen to be informing from the perspective of scientists working in the field.

For a GlueSniffingWeasel like you to extract the urine from Katherine Hayhoe in such a low manner speaks volumes of the total bankruptcy of your position and also of your morals.

The graph you cited is suspect for it goes against this one from the NSIDC see 'Arctic Sea Ice Extent' graph top right, study of which makes it clear that extent (note that this tells little about area let alone volume) is tracking well below the 1981-2010 average with time yet for it to intersect with and go below the 2012-2013 track.

You wished for a Guardian piece, be careful what you wish for:

New satellite maps show polar ice caps melting at 'unprecedented rate'

And if that isn't enough Arctic is warming at twice the rate of anywhere else on Earth.

cRR, OP has a problem with any form of reality including, you know, words.

I see that Olaus is conflating short-term variation with deterministic long term projections again. He's also ignoring the fact that 2014 is set to be the warmest year since records began. I also see he's gone deathly quiet about the cold spell in North America - probably because temperatures over most of the continent have been way above normal for several weeks now. The Arctic death spiral continues unabated...

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 19 Dec 2014 #permalink

... apparent ‘bounceback’ of this years sea ice, ...A time for you lot to celebrate... I would have thought.

GSW thinks that an apparent bounceback should be cause for celebration. But this is because he only sees how things appear, not how they are. For GSW its as though that part of an iceberg below the waterline does not exist.

This difference between appearance and reality seems to constantly defeat poor simple-minded GSW who is, in Paul Keatings words, "all tip and no iceberg".

Those with a better understanding of that difference are reacting appropriately, whether GSW understands why or not.

Lads, be happy with the results and stop sulking. The settled robust science has both given penguines record sea ice instead of lack of sea ice AND prolonged the death spiral of the Arctic sea ice.

Must be a good thing, surely?

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 19 Dec 2014 #permalink

"The settled robust science has both given penguines record sea ice instead of lack of sea ice" - thanks to calamitous land ice loss plus circulation changes caused by AGW.

'... rolonged the death spiral of the Arctic sea ice.' - no sign of that. See #85. All one can say is 'Wal, didn't happen this year, then'. Clearly the spiral even now is a lot faster than AR5 would have us believe.

In the end all is summed up with 2014 becoming #1 hottest year. The 'no global warming since...'-meme is now empty like it always was. Cu next year.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 19 Dec 2014 #permalink

Clown Olaus


Read the words. I arranged them in that order for a reason.

Meatball's arguments are so utterly shallow because they reveal a true inability to understand the dynamic nature of the environment. Simon Levin wrote about this way back in 1999 in his book 'Fragile Dominion: Complexity and the Commons' which I reviewed for the journal Nature. In the book he argued that ecological systems have proven to be remarkably resilient to the anthropogenic onslaught, and still are able to function sufficiently well to generate a range of conditions ('services') that permit humans to exist and persist. However, he went on, that we have no idea how much more we can continue to stress natural systems before they break down.

Therein lies the rub. Meatball links to a talk at a conference arguing that sea ice in the Arctic rebounds from warming over very short time scales. That is indeed good news. But how much longer will it be able to do this if the warming continues? I am sure the authors of the talk will add that caveat. The waring is not stopping but is expected to continue. Its the same thing Levin was saying in Fragile Dominion. Natural systems do prove to be resilient t change to a point then thresholds are reached and systems suddenly collapse (what Martin Scheffer and colleagues at Wageningen University refer to as 'tipping points').

The main point is that meatball writes about processes that are out of his depth. That is evident in his musings.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 20 Dec 2014 #permalink

Lappers, are you trying to claim someone doesn't believe oil has a price?!?!?!?

@wow. No.

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 21 Dec 2014 #permalink

So there is no such thing as an oil-price-skeptic, hence your link can contain absolutely, and literally, nothing.

I do take the message from Larry Barnett, after all read the story of IBM, or Standard Oil and what goes around comes around. There may well well be something in what he writes.

Conspiracy theory, hum go search on Greenbrier, kinda bows a hole in arguments that big things cannot be kept secret. I am sure modern counterparts of that installation exist on both sides of the pond.

"Any idea where the Rob Honeycutt reference tracks to, I have been looking and turned up some very interesting threads (like one or two at Greg Laden’s) along the way but not found the definitive".

Personal communication

By Eli Rabett (not verified) on 22 Dec 2014 #permalink

Eli that had me going earlier and must have followed a similar trail to you, e.g. via Greg Laden but ended up trawling through SkS without success.

BTW I wrote a missive in reply to Russel's tobacco smoke only to have it lost in cyberspace when Wordpress blew it away by not recognising my User ID which works elsewhere. It is a mangled version of another I used but then WP decided I could not use either. I have not set up other mechanism have too many passwords for comfort now as it is?

Before seeing the one comment indicate, at my first view, I just knew it had to be from Russell and was expecting John Mashey to drop by at some time.

I thought I had sussed my WordPress blockage at Eli's but it seems not as I tried, and failed, to post this reply to John Mashey in the…


John Mashey, by an odd coincidence I looked over a copy of Rupert Darwall's 'The Age of Global Warming: A History' in a bookshop just two days ago. The name Darwall ringing faint bell's I was curious as to the slant this book would take. It didn't take me long to find occurrences of expressions such as 'alarmists', a sure sign of a denial polemic. I didn't feel like contributing to Mr Darwall's pension fund so left this one on the shelf as I had done some years back with Plimer's 'Heaven And Earth: Global Warming - The Missing Science'.

Soon after returning home I looked up this book on Amazon's UK site curious about reviews. It seems that the denial camp has been out in force on this one as indeed they have been with Andrew Montford's 'The Hockey Stick Illusion'.

One of the favourable reviews boasted of the books many pages of notes, judging by your comment many of these are likely to be of similar quality to those found in Plimer and Lomborg.

It is interesting to note the authors of titles under the 'Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought' section. The names are familiar, James Delingpole, Donna Laframboise, Tim Ball, Rupert Darwall, Bob Tisdale, Nigel Lawson, Patrick Moore, David Archibald, Patrick J Michaels, Steve Mosher, Christopher Booker and a certain Dr. Robert a new name to me but his 'The Climate Conspiracy' is probably worth a miss.

On Darwall's at I find expressions such as 'arch-charlatan Gore' and 'Monbiot-esque vitriol' which betrays the level of thinking of these reviewers who are the real dupes. Of course there may be a sprinkling of 'guns for hire' amongst them and it takes time to counter each and every one.

I see that you have commented on reviews of Darwall at…

I followed the link to the Salby and found one favourable reviewer who I have crossed arguments with elsewhere, a certain Morgan Wright who uses a number of alternatives for the second element of his handle. His arrogant hostility now makes sense.

It may be of interest to others. Darwall has a profile at DeSmogBlog:…

For some bizarre reason, you folks continue to converse with the stupidbot. (If OP is not a computer program, it certainly could be.)