Let's skip straight to January.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
It reached 56F yesterday. In January. In Boston. Let's celebrate with some links. Science:
A stunning year in climate science reveals that human civilization is on the precipice. The first anniversary of 'Climategate', Part 1: The media blows the story of the century
U.S. Science-Funding Boost…
The title says it all. Go have a look and let me know what you think. Problem of the eek will make a triumphant return in January. See you then!
The deadline for registering for the next annual meeting of the American Astronomical Society is coming up on wednesday...
It is in Austin, Texas, second week of january.
The annual meeting is mostly a schmoozefest, job market for junior faculty, some random "townhalls" and other communiques from…
[Editor's note: Finally The C.O. is packing up to return to the grueling routine that all those must face who are not retired and relaxing by their lake cabin. It's about time!]
After two weeks of getting sand in the suit by day and stars in the eyes by night, my idyll by the blue water of the…
Woo-hoo, Tim's now ahead of the game...er, the calendar! ;-)
Well, continuing in the forward-looking spirit, I would like to wish Tim a happy New Year :-)
This 'Anthropocene' business is Greek to me.</a.
#3 - or 'I'm an idiot and a bully so listen to me'. Works like teet (to semitranslate an oblique Dutch saying).
I've been trying to remember a quotation and failing, so I'm hoping someone here can help. The comment pertained to political tactics (Republican IIRC) and listed the three elements to be used, one of which was to accuse the opposition of what you do yourself, and the last of which was to be "worse than they can imagine" (or something like that).
A well-known search engine isn't helping - juggling the search terms seems to produce no relevant hits or too many to wade through.
Anyone with a better memory than me recall the source?
Well that is Christmas over, thankfully, having spent the latter part of Christmas Eve and most of Christmas day vomiting with threatened redux in the days following in spite of only eating one quarter of a piece of toast and gingerly sipping water. I am not sure if its over yet. I don't think it was Norwalk as it came on slowly with warning.
FrankD maybe this article will help jog your memory:
Wiki on Lee Atwater
Strom Thurmond has cropped up elsewhere recently, Climate Denial Crock of the Week IIRC.
A hard hitting piece appeared back in December I don't know if it was noticed by the good people here, and the others sure as hell would not bother with it John Pilger | War by Media and the Triumph of Propaganda.
Sums up many of society's ills IMHO.
Thanks for the excellent piece by Pilger, Lionel. He's a shining beacon of truth in these troubling times. I've read most of his books and what he says about the corporate media is spot-on.
Have your trolls repeated the one about a "climate expert" saying that "the poles aren't melting" yet? Virtually every other deliarnier in every other thread on AGW all across the intertubez has repeated this disinformation about Ted Maksym's study that supposedly was reported in "the British Express", despite there being no such thing. The lies apparently originated in an article in the Daily Express that was a mouthpiece for Benny Peiser, and his lies are being attributed to Maksym.
Why are you so proud of being stupid and ignorant, Russell?
For those who haven't twigged yet, Russell's website is satirical.
Those of us who have come across Russell (Seitz) in other lands, e.g. at Eli's (Rabett Run) will recognise much of Russell's output as satire. Sometimes deep and unfathomable satire if you are not in with the 'in jokes'. This latter feature can be tedious for those not familiar with the Ivory Towers of Russell land by which I mean higher US academic circles, the tie gives it away maybe.
Whatever DeepClimate introduced Russel's blog in this article some while back.
Ianam, the poles aren't melting, only the Arctic ice, but it should be gone in 2008:
http://web.archive.org/web/20080427190826/http://environment.newscienti…
Did I hear a toad croak?
Get your dictionary out, Olaus.
Now compare the two words, "could" and "should".
They are not synoyms.
#13 would be nice if that 2008 could be reached again, veritable recovery. Didn't happen at all. Trend to zero is simply continuining.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2014/12/monthly_ice_NH_11-350x2…
Following on #15 and #16, the article talks about the possibility of open sea at the north pole, which does not imply all Arctic sea ice would be gone. Some Arctic sea ice will persist on the Canadian side long after the first time the north pole melts out.
Olaus manages to be wrong three times in seven words. Quite an achievement, even by his execrably low standards.
He's been practising hard. We should acknowledge his very special talent.
Now which country is being referenced there, the clue is at the end.
But for the dim bulbs that don't get climate change, you know who you are as do we, this reveals:
Full text at:
Climate Change’s Calling Card in 2014: Heat
How is Abbott going to maintain his sanity as the cognitive dissonance band tightens its twist? Maybe he could use his fire fighting skills to help reign in this:
Bushfires in Victoria and South Australia threaten homes,
but maybe not. After all he will be a liability to those on the front-line where original thought and cogent speech are required for survival.
Teaming up with that other climate criminal, the one of the North, Harper is sure to lead to the ostracisation of both. A number of leaders in the UK are heading in the same direction whilst paying lip service to green when they are Esso blue.
Which last reminds me of an amusing story. Back in the 1960s a sentry on the gates of a major UK naval air station stopped a person entering for failing to show an ID. This person protested remarking 'but I am the SSO.' (senior security officer) Upon which the sentry replied, 'I don't care if you are Aladdin Pink you are not coming in here without an ID card.'
Aladdin Pink was a Shell brand of paraffin, there was also a Regent Green.
For those of you who still think climate change is not happening or is not down to us then here is a video which collects the many wake-up calls delivered to the UK last year:
Britain's Wildest Weather 2014.
So the oceans aren't warming, seas are not rising, wave heights are not increasing etc., etc. etc. After watching that now what do you think?
Come on OP, GSW, Fudd, RedNoise, Duff, ol' uncle Tom Cobbly an' all, what have you to say for yourselves?
Lieonel A, I know you are feeling very lonely in this deserted space of major unscientificness so I will tell you this again. All and everyone knows that climate changes but only unsientific portentologist like you an Jeff believe that there are tons of people denying this fact.
And like all portentologist you have a problem with scale, perhaps not as much as Jeff, but still very much. :-)
Did that toad just croak again? Careful toady, croak has a finality to it.
More illiterate musings from the meatball (read # 21; it is kindergarten level grammar and the content is utter gibberish). Moreover, he's being a dishonest creep again in saying that "All and everyone [sic] knows that climate changes...". The rest is even worse so I will skip it. But of course what Lionel, me and others mean by climate change is change the falls outside of the range of natural forcing and variation. Needless to say there's abundant evidence of a well funded and organized industry of AGW denial. Meatball knows this, of course, but in his latest drunken musing he thinks he is being clever.
Note to meatball: you aren't remotely clever. You are a dork.
Oh, and while I am at it, for the first time in 2015 I'd like to ask meatball again what his scientific qualifications are. I have asked this dozens of times already, and the answer is always the same:
Silence... silence... more silence... still more silence... followed by witless smears and vacuous humor... then more silence...
In other words, meatball hasn't been anywhere near a science lecture theater in his life. 'Nuff said.
O'Louse
Yes, but *why* does it change?
- Magic?
- Physics?
Please indicate your choice!
Give this anti-vaccinastion poll a kicking:
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/pro-vaccine-lobby-fight-to-st…
The use of homeopathic vaccines, invasive treatment with no proven benefit, must be a crime against the person and considered assault.
Plenty on homeopathy and osteopaths at:
Bad Science, I have the book by that name and read it.
In asimilar vein a couple more introduced here, Singh & Ernst I have and read but not t'other:
Quacks on the rack
Richard Dawkins in his collection 'A Devil's Chaplain' also lays it out.
Bad Science is awesome.
Craig, I read the article you linked to, and made the mistake of reading the article it links to, "Ex-hippies"(sic) blow the whistle on anti-vaccination myths". The comment section on that second article has to be read to be believed. In fact, I've read it and I still don't believe it - sooooo much bat-shit crazy, you'd think someone would develop a vaccine against...oh, hang on....
Reading that "discussion" gave me a sad. But then I thought, "As long as these people are rabidly frothing about vaccines corrupting our precious bodily fluids, they don't have time to be climate change deniers as well. So, yay!
The Anti-vaxxers make our resident nutbars look almost sane.
FrankD
You may not have heard of Melanie Phillips - from Bad Science with 'The MMR sceptic who just doesn’t understand science'.
and on climate change this Question Time clip is a classic: "Global warming is a 'scam' says Melanie Phillips.
Commenter BaSH at the ex-Hippies Blow Whistle article had a description which suits her to a T.
PS. Was it you that engaged with an origin of WW1 series of posts a few months back? If so I have an interesting one for you.
And another thing, for those who have not heard of James Balog (Extreme Ice Survey) and his incredible journey to capture climate change in action in the form of vanishing glaciers then here is a heads up for 2015 and an overview of what is happening now:
Earth Vision Institute, 2014 Impact and Achievements plus video releases and more.
Craig, I participated and clicked the antivaccination page.
Good hint. Thank you
Hello, my little Deltoids, may I wish you all a colder - ooooops, sorry - I mean a warmer year ahead. I think you deserve it because although your congregation has shrunk - hardly surprising given the woeful outcome of your prophesies - still you have managed to keep the chant going. Alas, my local Elim Church has more attendees than you can muster but that's hardly surprising given that your High Priest, who provides this meeting place, can't be bothered to look in every month. Even he's bored stiff!
Duff as per usual displays a clusterfuck of, wishful, thinking skills.
Considering what has been a record year for temperature increases, wild weather related events such that even some of the more fence sitting scientists and lay commentators are now pointing the finger at anthropologically initiated change you have to have your head up seventh rock from the sun.
Check out some of the links above where you will find that the channel that brought us that dire 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' has now produced something completely different. I suspect that Durkin is now hiding away somewhere disguised as a gherkin to match in with all the other gherkins from Fox, Daily Fail, Telegraph, Times etc. Maybe we could send Delingpole a gherkin suit, no need he already wears one.
To come out with that claptrap you spilled out in #32 you just have to be on banned substances, or maybe not yet recovered from over-subscribing to the deadly liquor over the recent holiday period leaving what few brain cells you have left still on their hol's.
I am surprised the right wing Duffer bothers to show his head here after the warmest year (globally and in the UK) since records have been kept. Usually when there's a frost in his neck of the woods he wades in here with his penny's worth of wisdom, but since the data are showing him to be completely wrong, he's tended to crawl back into his shell. Heaven knows what prompted him to slither out of it today.
Duff says, "the woeful outcome of your prophesies".
erm, you mean the "imminent global cooling" prophesied by Spencer, McLean, Lindzen, Michaels and their fans?
How's that "coldest year since 1956" prophesy coming on?
By now, you would hope that Duff had figured out the difference between science (no prophesies, just observations and fact-based projections) and anti-science (non-fact-based prophesies).
Another group of deniers having a bad year so far (on top of the anti-vaxxers and climate-change denialists) are the apologists for the Cult of Mohammed:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/jan/07/shooting-paris-satiri…
What would you really expect from the global political plague originated with a mass-murdering psychopath in the 7th century?
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2015/jan/07/why-le…
This article should be required reading for everyone, especially our so-called decision-makers.
80% of the world's coal reserves and half the world's gas reserves have to stay underground for us to avoid a 50% chance (that's right, only a 50:50 chance) of avoiding more than 2 degrees of warming by the end of the century.
Seems like a Herculean task (and it is). It also has to happen.
Cue the contemptuous dismissals from the COAL-ition and the other vested interests (if they even register the Nature article's (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v517/n7533/full/nature14016.html) existence) - no doubt with cries of "think of the economy", by which they really mean "think of our profits/lucrative company directorships".
All the while ignoring the fact that if we had started the process 30 years ago when scientists and policy-makers first identified the problems and the solutions, the costs to the (overall) economy would have been insignificant. Now, every day they delay, delay, delay means a greater inevitable cost to try and fix the problem in a shorter time.
There are prison cells being built today that will house climate-criminals.
LionelA
I don't recall specifically, but it is a subject I'm prone to witter on about until any interlocutor glazes over, so probably. Lay it on me....
Craig, yes, the Romans chose a most inopportune time to finally win their 700 year war with the Persians. Into the ensuing power vaccum the followers of Mohammed (alayhi as-salām!) expanded from two-bit caravan raiders to a world power. Awesome!
At least the followers of Mohammed (aas) kept the books the Christians had burnt away in those ages, and passed them back on to us when Renaissance showed some European growing up again (the mass book burning ensued again with the Reconquista, e.g. two million works of the library of Granada).
Which is why Craig Thomas, and, alas, Duff can post here. Arab numerals, algorithms, you know.
Now here's a proper scientist. The only mistake he makes is in assuming that all 'scientists', including lab techies like you lot, learn one of the fundamental lessons of modern science:
"When I was at uni, I took a course called “Breakthroughs in Microbiology”. There were about a dozen students, and each of us was randomly assigned a different seminal microbiology paper, on which we had to present a short talk. Nearly all of the papers were decades old, which to me, back then, meant they weren’t very interesting(*), and so I rejoiced to see that the paper I’d been allocated was only a few years old. Virtually hot off the press!
(*) Scientists nowadays often regard any research that is more than about five years old as practically obsolete. At the pace modern science is advancing, it’s all you can do to keep up with the accumulating data. Like many students, I absorbed this attitude uncritically. I’m a little less stupid about it now.
And published in the esteemed journal Nature, no less. The subject was Toll-like receptors (TLRs), which are molecules found oncells of the immune system. The paper showed that one type of TLR, named TLR2, was responsible for identifying a type of molecule that almost all bacteria have on their outer coat, but non-bacterial cells never do. It’s known as lipolysaccheride (LPS). So when TLR2 senses the presence of LPS, it’s a safe bet that bacteria are afoot, and an immune response is necessary.
So far, so good. I read the paper, summarised the findings, and went forth to find a few more recent papers on the subject so that I could provide background and context for my talk, like a good little student. But there I ran into trouble: something was amiss, and I couldn’t tell exactly what. The papers I was reading seemed to be saying weird things that wouldn’t settle neatly into my talk. Several frustrating weeks later, I figured out the cause of my confusion: the other papers were weird because they were directly contradicting my assigned Nature paper. TLR2 doesn’t detect LPS at all; that was an error. A different Toll-like receptor, TLR4, is the one that detects LPS. I know it doesn’t sound much when I put it like that, but this little fact was worth the 2011 Nobel Prize in Medicine.
The Nature experimenters weren’t careful enough. The LPS solution they used wasn’t sufficiently purified and was contaminated with a tiny amount of other bacterial elements, and these contaminants were the ones that provoked the TLR2 reaction. Our course lecturer, that crafty old devil, deliberately gave out an erroneous paper to demonstrate the fallibility of scientific papers (I never worked up the nerve to tell him just how awesome I thought that was.)
This paper wasn’t some sensationalist survey creatively misreported in the science news of a local newspaper. This was serious, respectable research published in Nature, and it was wrong. It took me a while to rid myself of the shudders conjured by the what-if scenario: what if I hadn’t caught on to what was going on? I’d have delivered the talk as if the paper was correct, making a proper fool of myself, and would most likely have had my arse handed to me on a plate. Research, even research published in prestigious journals, can and does produce errors. It’s something every scientist ultimately learns one way or another, and this was a good way of learning it: in a classroom rather than in the real world of research."
"Why Aren't We Dead Yet?" by Idan Ben-Barak
If I hear or read one more 'Warmer' telling me that I don't understand the 'scientific method' and that all their papers are 'peer reviewed' and published in the very best scientific magazines, I'll ram Ben-Barak's book up them where the sun don't shine and then set light to it. See how they like that for 'warming'!
Talking about crappy scientific papers which have been published in journals, it seems Looey has been chopping logs again. This time he has been forced to publish his data which is causing much amusement. It seems to include a response from someone who is 32757 years old, which is probably older than Jeff Harvey, Lenoil and Duffy.
Don't feel left out Craig as it also includes responses from several minors.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2015/1/6/lewandowsky-and-the-pal…
Redknownothing,
Speak for yourself, pal. Age is what you make of it. You clearly have lost a few screws by the crap you read. Nothing written on a denier blog like Bishop's Hill is worth a scintilla of my time. That your world view comes from such sources says a lot about you.
Duffer,
OK. I will say it. You aren't a climate scientist and thus you don't understand the relevant scientific methods. That there is an overwhelming scientific consensus in support of the theory of AGW must surely flummox you. That every major scientific organization and National Academy in every country on Earth supports this view must also confound your weary mind. You write as if you and a few deniers, most of whom are on the academic fringe, have wisdom that somehow eludes the scientific community by-and-large. Or else that there is some huge well organized scientific conspiracy pushing an agenda. Any way you look at it, its people like you who are way, way out of line.
I have looked at your blog a few times and frankly some of the stuff you write is IMHO loony. Like the time you called Barack Obama a Marxist. That one really stuck with me., Its so egregiously and hilariously wrong, yet you actually wrote it up on your blog. Its no small wonder that your views are at odds with the opinion of those doing the research.
That there is an overwhelming scientific consensus in support of the theory of phlogiston must surely flummox you ... oooops, sorry, I miss quoted you!
Sorry Duff, you lost the plot eons ago. You are blinded by your ideological blinkers. Link you Obama Marxist claim and other political nuggets with your views on climate science and policy.
It isn't hard to see why your views are what they are. There's nothing remotely scientific in them; its just that you have to camouflage your political views with science to reatin a shred of credibility. However, most of us here have seen through that.
Duffer and an iron pyrites nugget:
That is patently false as anybody who has ever read a scientific paper of value knows.
Here is a clue Duffer, the long list of pertinent references to earlier papers at the end of any valid paper. Each of those references will lead to more in a similar position in each referred paper, which will then lead to more and always earlier in a cascade of papers.
Note also that many current climate papers will contain references to Fourier, Tyndall, Arrhenius, Plass, Callender, Charney, Keeling, Revelle, Manabe, Weatherald, Wunsch, Broecker, Santer, Zwally, Stoffer et. al.
Of course a clueless clot such as you will fail to consider those points, why, because you are an interpreter of others interpretations, you being not so much a water melon as a gherkin - pickled to insensitivity.
Old JH #42
Could not agree more mate.
Ageism should be discouraged wherever and the views of this 32,757 year old individual should not be just rejected. After all they probably know who was behind the shooting of JR.
I realise it was a bit insensitive recommending you read it up at Bishophill, so have provided a link to the same story at the Blackboard where you can have an equally hilarious time.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2015/the-opinions-of-a-35757-year-old-o…
Rednoise:
Lucia, oh dear, here she is described for what she is, and somewhere recently I found a description of what she has become - one likely to complain of other invoking holocausts:
leve some lettuce and carrots on your way out.
Ah! Yes! I have it:
Lucia's descent.
So how exactly do this wabbit and paranoid Nutter you reference relate to the 32,757 year old in the Loo paper. They might provide insight into how Jules Verne had so much info on how to land a man on the moon. Perhaps they really got there but kept it quiet.
Rednose, it might be wise to finish your chowder before you spill it on the keyboard.
Lionel commenting on the line below taken from my earlier comment:
"(*) Scientists nowadays often regard any research that is more than about five years old as practically obsolete."
He tells me, confidently, that:
"That is patently false as anybody who has ever read a scientific paper of value knows."
Thank you, Lionel, I will pass on your observation to;
"Idan Ben-Barak holds a BSc in medical science and an MSc in microbiology from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and a PhD in the history and philosophy of science at the University of Sydney. His first book, Small Wonders: how microbes rule our world was published by Scribe and translated into five languages. It won the 2010 American Association for the Advancement of Science/Subaru SB&F (Science Books and Films) Prize for Excellence in Science Books, Young Adult category. Idan’s new book is Why Aren’t We Dead Yet? the survivor’s guide to the immune system, published by Scribe. He lives in Melbourne with his wife and two children."
Well, I mean, what does he know about science?!
Perhaps the elderly individual could help with the paleoclimate reconstruction provided their memory is not shot.
Do you find it difficult to think of some catchy name for a blog. Find the right one and it will do wonders for your viewing figures.
My New Year present to Jeff:
"President Obama has emulated Lenin in striving to increase state control over such “commanding heights” of our economy as energy, health care, finance, and education, with smaller forays into food, transportation and undoubtedly some areas I am overlooking.
Besides mimicking some of Lenin’s policy strategies, Obama also has adopted Karl Marx’s strategies for gradually socializing an economy. Before I spell out the Marxian nature of many of Obama’s policies, let me emphasize that I am not calling Obama a “Marxist-Leninist, period.” “Marxist-Leninist” connotes the brutal totalitarian police state of the late, unlamented Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. There is no comparison between Barack Obama’s statism and the genocidal, gulag-riddled regime of the Soviet Communists. That being said, Obama’s economic program is taken directly, if not deliberately, from the Marxist-Leninist playbook, and on that basis one may say that Obama tends toward Marxist-Leninist economics."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhendrickson/2012/07/26/president-obamas…
Oh Dear - Duff is forced to cite an article from a far right rag as support for his water thin b@. We are taliking about the same Guy, are'nt we? The one who received 1.2 billion dollars for his 2008 election from US multinational corporaties, who has increased the size of the military industrial complex, and who has staffed many government Posts with right wing cronies? The article you cite Duffer is pure fantasy. Obama is to the right of Goldwater. He's continued to turn his country into a fully fledged corporate state, continuïng a trend begin under Reagan. I won't lower myself to the level of toch spewed from the pages of a rag like Forbes. That you believe this nonsense shows how utterly thick you are, Duff.
"Obama’s economic program is taken directly, if not deliberately, from the Marxist-Leninist playbook"... what a pile of stinking, risible ordure! Forbes really is an excruciating gutter rag, likely only to appeal to blatant far-Right übercranks like, well, Duffer. Is it still owned by allegedly 'right-on' Bono he wondered aloud?
Here we go, "Clikmate change occurred in the past, therefore it can't by humans effecting it in the present":
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/395921/climate-changes-instructiv…
Denialists are defintely a couple of snags short of a barbie.
Usual depressingly dimwitted comments accompany...
Here's a good analysis of what Steve Forbes and his magazine is all about:
http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Forbes_Steve
Trust old Duffer to cite bilge from that source as evidence of Obama being a Marxist'...
Right, OK, so what you're saying, Jeff, is that Obama is NOT "striving to increase state control over such “commanding heights” of our economy as energy, health care, finance, and education, with smaller forays into food, transportation".
Coulda' fooled me!
Seeing as I looked it up last night but the hour being late for composing a post I'll drop this in as a back-up for Jeff's revealing article:
Steve Forbes @ SourceWatch.
You may want to look up PNAC in the context of 'A New Pearl Harbour' and consider the Reichstag, Zimmerman Telegram etc. this is what I am on about (this in the light of Rednoise's inability to grasp the context of my links maybe he was just too lazy to read all and think):
The First Question to Ask After Any Terror Attack: Was It a False Flag?.
Sure, as with the London bombings (where there has been evidence of image tampering) there will be suspects arrested or shot, they will be the 'patsies' their motivations having been wound up by indoctrination and then set in motion. Not easy to identify and find these people as the authorities knew who they were because they created them. How long did it take for the US to come out with the IDs of the 'terrorists' of 9/11? Some identified from their DNA, which miraculously survived fierce blazes and explosive destruction (research tempertaures at which DNA is destroyed if you don't know) or by a passport that somehow transported from a disintegrating cockpit to land undamaged on the ground.
Duff,
To attempt to use Idan Ben-Barak's findings (and I might just look that book up some time once I have done a little research of mine own) about immune systems and the papers that have been generated to explain them as a source of failing for the whole edifice of science is crass in the extreme.
In response I could ram the entire contents of this list (and some others that are not on it) up seventh rock from the sun:
Books of Interest.
You really need to work your way through that list before making any other post here, that is study the books not just scan the list.
Yes Duffer old boy, that is exactly what I am saying. His health care package was underwritten by the Heritage Foundation. As for the rest, he's largely ceded power to a large part of the corporate sector. He bailed out the banks with public money. He's vastly increased military expenditure over what even Bush and the neocons were spending. He would never have been allowed within miles of the White House if he would have been a threat to corporate interests.
Problem is that you are too indoctrinated (and stupid) to realize it.
Thank you, Jeff, for the information that the Heritage Foundation underwrote 'Obamacare' but I remain a little confused:
"America's health care system needs reform, but not the sort of changes enacted under the new health care law. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (commonly referred to as "Obamacare") asserts federal control over health care benefits and financing, establishes a complex one-size-fits-all health system, and centralizes America's health care decisions in Washington."
Or, if you prefer:
"Obamacare puts the health care system on the wrong track and will expand the role of the federal government in every component of Americans’ health care. To get the health care system on the right track that empowers patients, reduces cost, and ensures access, Obamacare must be defunded and repealed."
Both from the, er, Heritage Foundation. Perhaps I am not the only 'confused' one around here!
#60
Are you arguing that he authorities are conspiring to mislead us proles by falsifying the evidence lenoil? Its so difficult to believe they would do such a thing.
Perhaps that wise old 32,000 year old person can advise us on the best course of action. They must have seen all this before.
They have done this for hundreds of years, but then lacking a knowledge of history you would not understand this.
The other aspect is that when one has knowledge of relevant science, engineering, aviation and image manipulation one can see the lies for what they are.
Its nice to be able to copy-paste an article by Chris Hedges to silence a clot like Duff:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_real_health_care_debate_20120409
Read the fine print, Duff. And give it up. You know diddly squat about what you're talking about. First Forbes, and then the latest charade. Your views are far to the right. End of story. You have no credibility.
By the way, some excitable, little Deltoid up there somewhere reckoned this had been the warmest year for ever and a day - oh, I do wish he was right! - so I thought I would cool him down by reminding him that "On the RSS satellite data [the most reliable], there has been no global warming statistically distinguishable from zero for more than 26 years."
Mind you, one of these days it will happen because that's just how our irritating globe is, it's like a woman - it warms, it cools, then it warms again, but the main thing is that the influence of the human race is miniscule.
"Hello, my little Deltoids, may I wish you all a colder – ooooops, sorry – I mean a warmer year ahead. I think you deserve it because although your congregation has shrunk – hardly surprising given the woeful outcome of your prophesies "
You mean where this winter has been one of the warmest ones in history in the UK, duffski?
Tell me, how have your denier pals "scientific" predictions turned out? Has the 2003-2013 average dropped to the 1950-2000 average as one prediction your mates made occurred?
No?
Then how is there any in your congregation of the faithful and clueless? Or is the second part of that description the reason..?
Such indoctrination being why duffski, lappers and redarse keep turning up here with lame crows of "success" for "their side"...
The pathology is remarkably similar.
"Here is a law that had its origin in the right-wing Heritage Foundation, was first put into practice in 2006 in **Massachusetts by then-Gov. Mitt Romney** and was solidified into federal law after corporate lobbyists wrote legislation with more than 2,000 pages. [My emphasis]
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
"The filmmaker Michael Moore has, through his fine documentary Sicko and other public arguments, done a great deal to bring attention to the deficiencies of the American health-care system. His New York Times op-ed on the occasion of the first day of the Affordable Care Act's exchanges repeats some of these important points. However, his essay also repeats a pernicious lie: the idea that the Affordable Care Act is essentially a Republican plan based on a Heritage Foundation blueprint. This argument is very wrong. It is both unfair to the ACA and far too fair to American conservatives.
..................................................
"The filmmaker Michael Moore has, through his fine documentary Sicko and other public arguments, done a great deal to bring attention to the deficiencies of the American health-care system. His New York Times op-ed on the occasion of the first day of the Affordable Care Act's exchanges repeats some of these important points. However, his essay also repeats a pernicious lie: the idea that the Affordable Care Act is essentially a Republican plan based on a Heritage Foundation blueprint. This argument is very wrong. It is both unfair to the ACA and far too fair to American conservatives."
So, Jeff, you say potatoes, I say spuds - let's call the whole thing off!
(Sorry for the repetitious glitch!)
#65 lineol
They have done this for hundreds of years
Do you think they could have faked Roswell and the moon landings, maybe even the benefits of wind turbines. Lol
Loniel
You will be telling me next you have a stash of supplies laid up in a bunker somewhere safe, just in case.
"“On the RSS satellite data [the most reliable], there has been no global warming statistically distinguishable from zero for more than 26 years.”
Try telling that to natural systems and biodiversity which are responding. There's piles of evidence showing this to be the case; no need to list even a fraction of it here.
You lose again Duffer. Golly gee, you aren't much of a challenge. Is this the best that you can do?
One last point: at least I have partially weaned Duff off of the right wing garbage (e.g. Forbes) he normally reads. He now knows of Chris Hedges! I am thankful for small mercies.
"natural systems and biodiversity"?
Nah, I'll stick to satellite readings, thanks all the same.
“On the RSS satellite data [the most reliable], there has been no global warming statistically distinguishable from zero for more than 26 years.
Oh dear have the deniers fallen out with Christy and UAH?
Pesky scientists, what do they know?
"Two of three scientists at a session on climate change and society at the Indian Science Congress on Tuesday felt fears of man-made global warming were greatly exaggerated."
................................
"Rajesh Agnihotri senior scientist at the Radio and Atmospheric Science Division, National Physics Laboratory, who mapped changing trends in India's monsoons, said there was nothing to suggest that this was because of man-made climate change.
Hypothetically, even if man stopped industrial activity, stopped using cars and stopped using air-conditioners, monsoon patterns would still change," said Agnihotri."
..................................
See what I mean?
Read more at:
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/45786412.cms?utm_source…
You know, there's really no point in wasting your time 'debating' daft and nasty - yes, that's the exact word I'm looking for here - old men.
Excellent advice, Bill, us 'oldies' can lash out unexpectedly with our zimmer frames!
By the way this is what another of those pesky Indian scientists had to say:
""While I agree that glaciers are melting because of global warming, if this is because of man, then what was the reason for the melting of the glaciers in the Gondwana period long before man arrived on the planet?" asked Dhruv Sen Singh, Centre of Advanced Study in Geology, University of Lucknow."
"According to him, fears of climate change amount to propaganda and "unnecessarily cause panic. The Cretaceous period 65 million years ago was the hottest in the history of the earth. Man was not around at the time," he added."
" गिरावट छुपाएं "
(That's Hindi for 'Hide the Decline', well, I do think it's good manners to print your motto at every opportunity!)
Good grief Duff you are DUMB. Or should I more accurately say IGNORANT. I have to emphasize the capital letters. Why would artificial (man-made) measurements of temperatures be more accurate than biotic proxies? Species respond to changes to abiotic conditions by altering various aspects of their biology and ecology. We are witnessing a huge number of phenological responses, increases in generations per year in arthropods, range shifts polewards and to higher elevations and these changes are ongoing. If you truly believe that satellite measurements give a more accurate estimation of global change than evidence from natural systems, then you are well and truly more dopey than even I thought before. The again, you can't debate your way out of a wet paper bag. Your Obama/Marxist gobbledegook is proof of that.
Idiots like you are a waste of time. You clearly do not understand much about what you piffle on about. I can tell you that the scientific community closely monitors biotic responses to AGW and takes them very seriously.
Your latest response is even funnier. You somehow again fail to understand basic physical properties of the environment and the importance of scale. No one denies that it has been warmer on the planet in previous times. But these temperatures were not reached in less than a century - it took the planet thousands and thousands of years to get there. Similarly, previous glacial loss occurred over thousands of years and not in less than a century. Its the rate of change you nincompoop. Not change per se. My guess is that your pesky little Indian scientist is on the academic fringe and probably has about 10 papers in his academic career. That would not at all surprise me. It seems like deniers look under every rock they can find to scrape up mediocre scientists to rehash the same discredited nonsense.
The reason I write in here as a scientist is that I hate to see clowns like you get away with comments that are loony. The scientific evidence for AGW is overwhelming and is growing. Get used to it.
Now here is an interesting one. Is the so called increase in "weird weather" claimed to be due to "exceptional warming" in the Arctic and "terminal decline" in sea ice, causing a slow down or speeding up of the jet stream.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/
Answer
a) speeding up
b) slowing down
c) both at once
d) haven't a fecking clue
Please, please please do not complete when you are pissed and be honest about your age.
David, why do you say RSS is the most reliable at measuring temperatures? What attributes make it more accurate than other temperature series, in your opinion?
Riiiiiiight, Jeff, I think I'm getting it now. So, what you're saying is - instrument figures BAD, proxy figures GOOD! OK, I think I see where you're coming from, er, but, hang on, then again, why did Michael Mann graft instrumental figures onto proxy figures (without telling anyone) in order to achieve that wonderful 'erection' at the end of his hockey stick?
Duffski:
This 'scientist' (not behaving like a scientist who would take into consideration the sum total of our knowledge of Earth's geological past and not display selective amnesia) is not considering the different climatic boundary conditions back then, nor is he factoring in the fact that back then there were no advanced human civilizations, in the sense of engineering and social structure whilst at the same time and in general lacking the necessary cognitive skills required to properly asses the economic-ecological balance necessary for long term survival of civilization as we know it.
But of course I doubt you know what boundary conditions are.
What does past climate change tell us about global warming?.
Any scientist commenting on this topic worth his salt would know this and be conversant with the information and knowledge revealed by palaeoclimatology.
But then 'ologys' are not your strong suit are they.
Oh, sorry, sorry, Lionel, you mean scientists actually make mistakes - 'whodathunkit'?
Well, 'whodathunkit' reading the absolute certainties that fill these comment threads!
why did Michael Mann graft instrumental figures onto proxy figures (without telling anyone)
Firstly it is mentioned in MBH98: 2. The network includes (Fig. 1a) the collection of annualresolution
dendroclimatic, ice core, ice melt, and long historical
records used by Bradley and Jones6 combined with other coral, icecore, dendroclimatic, and long instrumental records. See also Figure 7 Panels, (top to bottom) as
follows. ‘NH’, reconstructed NH temperature series from 1610–1980, updated with instrumental data from 1981–95. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/mbh98.pdf
And secondly, and this is the real puzzle: the instrument records are also proxies for temperature and as shown above they used other proxies as well. There is no single proxy that continuously covers the period, so the plot prior to the instrument record is a series of grafts. So why do the deniers object to grafting the instrument record but not te others. I suggest that it isn't the principle but rather it's the result that they don't like.
Thirdly: let's be honest, the hockey stick war finished years ago with Muller and the BEST project, bringing it up again is just being silly.
Singh said that if climate change was the cause of glaciers retreating, they should all be retreating at the same rate. "But in reality they are retreating at different rates, and some were advancing," said Singh.
Seriously? He said that? They should all be retreating at the same rate? What a wassock.
Of course with the mangled quoting of Duffski it is difficult impossible to see by this bog alone what Singh actually said.
However it is know that a few glaciers are advancing as is the reason for this. I wonder if Duffski can offer anything sensible?
As for Mann and his temperature reconstructions again, Duffski is following the lead of his tin-pot heroes and engaging in the Serengeti strategy
full context here and also found at SkS.
Duff, you are a disgusting witch hunt follower, in earlier times your type would use a ducking stool in a display of ideological ignorance, you being little more evolved than European early modern humans (Cro-magnon to you).
David Duff #67
Hello again
So prominent sceptical scientists Roy Spencer and John Christy who prepare the UAH satellite reconstruction using the same data as RSS are faking their results? To show more warming than RSS!?!
RSS vs UAH TLT full record
RSS vs UAH TLT
RSS vs UAH TLT 1989 - present
That RSS trend doesn't look like warming indistinguishable from zero to me, btw.
How many fr****** times have we been around this RSS malarkey? How many times have I called out that graph that Monkeytunes uses on his web-bog (that is not a typo BTW?
Duff is as Duff does.
The hard question is: why?
Duff's Gallop looks pretty desperate, especially since he's merely rehashing zombie arguments and (once again!) demonstrating he can be bested in logic by a ten year old.
I have to admit I enjoy seeing Duff annihilated here. It is heart warming.
He thinks that biotic proxies as he calls them are unreliable, when in recent years scientific journals are stocked with them. its warming? But what old dishonest uninformed Duff is doing is trying to downplay AGW in two ways - first, using instrumental records, to claim that it isn't happening, and then, accepting that it is warming, to claim that its due to natural forcings. In other words, he can't even make his friggin' mind up.
Jeff, my dear friend, as always you invent you own reality. Duff is very correct when stating that proxies, inlcuding your "biotic responses" are unreliable when it comes to measure temperatures directly. Thermometers, RSS, etc are much more suited for that task than "biotic responses".
And again, and knowing fully well that you can't understand what I will state now: This doesn't mean that biotic responses are worthless when it comes to detect climate change or increased warming. On the contrary, they have to be included in the picture. But if you want to measure how warm or cold it is, thermometers, RSS, are way better tools than "frist hand spiders" and so forth.
That said (again), you can reply again frothing away about that I (and Duff) think biotic responses always say nill about climate change and global warming. :-)
OP
Maybe you should consider that a thermometer response is a proxy for temperature change. Not only that any temperature measuring device has to be calibrated against a known and reliable agreed standard.
Same as with other measuring devices such as rules, scales, clocks and electrical multimeters and so on and so on.
As for biotic responses not displaying an accurate reflection of temperature change your source for that information is....?
Maybe you should read up on ice core and sediment core analysis and the methods used therein. You will be surprised, that is if you can even grasp the concepts.
Olaus, you dopey meatball,
Duff is incorrect in claiming that the Earth's surface is not warming when numerous (e.g. many thousands) of biotic indicators prove without a doubt that it is. Species and populations respond to abiotic changes. If we see a widespread change in the seasonal phenology of organisms (plants, animals), as well as range and altitudinal shifts occurring at the same time, and in the same general direction, then this is proof positive that something in the abiotic environment is responsible. In this case, it is due to warming. There are no ifs, ands or buts. And again, I am not talking about spiders, but about thousands of studies with all kidns of plant, vertebrate and invertebrate taxa.
End of story. I do find it amusing when utter laymen (you, Duff) wade into fields like this that are well beyond your competence. You actually think you know something. Sadly, you don't.
The worst part is that all of this comes after the warmest year on record. How long will you clowns stick to your denialist meme? What's it going to take to wake you up to reality?
Olaus, just to clarify, you are saying RSS is superior to biotic proxies for measuring temperatures directly. Is that right?
Frank, my friend,I say that temperatures and an accelerating global warming are best detected via "thermometers, RSS, etc" not via biotic proxies. I told dear Jeff (though he didn't register of course) that mother nature adapts/reacts to climate change or gobal warming.
I really don't understand why Jeff instist on that sticking a thermometer up the ass of a first hand spider can say anything of value wrt the hiatus of the accelarting global warming.
Maybe you can explain? :-)
OP:
And therein lies your tragedy,those very adaptations - reactions as you like to describe it tells that the Earth is warming and further that some parts, the further from the equator one goes in general, are warming faster than others.
You really are an ineducable ignoramus.
By "biotic indicators", Jeff, do you mean things like the giant bivalve clam found in the South China Sea? Oh goodie, then you will be fascinated with this:
"Two recent papers, one is in Earth-Science Reviews and the other is in Chinese Science Bulletin, have studied key chemical contents in micro-drilled giant clams shells and coral samples to demonstrate that in the South China Sea the warm period of the Middle Ages was warmer than the present.
The scientists examined surveys of the ratio of strontium to calcium content and heavy oxygen isotopes, both are sensitive recorders of sea surface temperatures past and present. The aragonite bicarbonate of the Tridacna gigas clam-shell is so fine-grained that daily growth-lines are exposed by micro-drilling with an exceptionally fine drill-bit, allowing an exceptionally detailed time-series of sea-temperature changes to be compiled – a feat of detection worthy of Sherlock Holmes himself.
Changing patterns of winter and summer temperature variation were also detected, disproving the notion that until the warming of the 20th century there had been little change in global temperatures for at least 1000 years, and confirming that – at least in the South China Sea – there is nothing exceptional about today’s temperatures."
By using overlaps between successive generations of giant clams and corals, the three scientists – Hong Yan of the Institute of Earth Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and Yuhong Wang of Fudan University, Shanghai – reconstructed a record of sea-surface temperature changes going back 2500 years".
I dunno, Jeff, these pesky Indian and now Chinese scientists keep coming up with contrary evidence, what are we going to do about them? I mean, Are they 'beyond their competence'?
Willie Soon. Now there's a name that rings a bell...
Anyway, even if the paper isn't the usual crap we get from Soon, there are some important things to remember:
1/ The MCA was strongly regionally expressed but there was no global and synchronous warm event as warm as or warmer than the present.
2/ The South China Sea is not the world. It is a small part (region) of the world.
3/ Nobody argues that there were not brief periods during the MCA when average temperatures in a particular region (in the NH) equalled or exceeded modern global average temperatures.
4/ Let's imagine, for the sake of argument, that there actually *was* a global and synchronous 'MWP' as warm as or warmer than the present. This would be very strong evidence that the climate system is relatively sensitive to radiative perturbation and therefore that the risk posed by CO2 emissions is considerable.
Olaus, previous page:
Right Lionel. Now Duff's had to call in one of the most discredited deniers of the lot - Willie Soon. No more needs to be said, except that Soon is a major laughingstock amongst laughingstocks.
Duff, you old codger, your feet must seriously be injured by now after the dozens of times you have shot them.
It can't get much worse then this:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Willie_Soon
Ouch Duff. The pain! The pain! You are such an incompetent debater.
I could not believe that Duff is so ignorant that he knows not of Soon's reputation, see here Duffski:
Willie Wei-Hock Soon.
He only now has to call on Sallie Baliunas and the Idsos (of CO2Science) to have a Poker hand of denial.
Duff has done a (HMS) Trinidad.
Better trolls please.
Thank you, Jeff, for taking the trouble to provide me with a link to Dr, Soon which I read but, alas, nowhere in it could I see a reference to any, er, 'scientific' paper claiming, let alone proving, that his research was flawed.
I do hope you are not accusing those poor little bi-valve clams of lying!
Yes, BBD, that was one of my considerations in asking Olaus to clarify his jibber-jabber. The other, of course, to confirm that he thinks RSS measure surface temperatures*, when it measures something other than temperatures, somewhere other than the surface.
*At least, thats what his words suggest. It could just be his not-as-good-as-he-pretends English skills letting him down. I'd extend him the benefit of the doubt, but with a list of priors as long as his, that doesn't really extend far enough.
Duffer:
It seems that not only are you ignorant about the mechanisms and effects of climate change but also of the history of denial and the dirty tricks the denialists use.
Unfortunately your attempts at clever rhetoric fail logic tests, apart from the obvious one that it is not the clams that lie but those who interpret their structure in a particular way and extrapolate the findings from one locale to inform about a larger regional, i.e. Northern Hemisphere, shift in temperature.
Looking at records of surface temperatures across this larger region turns up evidence that as some areas warm others cool due to climatic shifts. In other words out of phase temporal and regional shifts in temperature records are to be expected. I doubt very much that the Arctic region as a whole was warmer in the putted Medieval Climate Optimum than it is now, or has been for the last several decades.
Soon is once again trying to cover his arse after the debacle that was Soon (2003) - warning for those who already have a copy this is a PDF link.
There are a number of places to pick up the trail on this, which as can be seen in the article linked next, helped trigger Climategate - which was a witch hunt:
Climategate: Perverting Peer Review? and do read through the comments.
But of course if you restrict your info to sources such as The Daily Fail or blogs such as WUWT then of course your knowledge level isn't going to be much above that of somebody who restricts his reading to The Beano.
David Duff
You will notice that I was careful to allow for the possibility that this latest study is sound in what I wrote above. However, ever other paper Soon has published on climate change has been multiply flawed, so you can see why expectations are low. Soon is also heavily funded by the fossil fuel industry to peddle his crap, so one expects the usual biases and errors which attract his sponsors.
DD
I couldn't help but notice that you decided to red herring about Soon's competence instead of addressing the four points I set out at #2. Why not have another go?
Duffer:
Now somebody genuinely interested in researching this would follow links in the article to which Jeff linked. You should have noticed one prominent red light entry (that is if you knew any history of denial but your ignorance is clearly wilful) 'Greening Earth Society'. If you had followed that link you would have realised why Soon is so selective about his findings, he is being paid to be, as were other associates there amongst whom are listed:
Sallie Baliunas
Robert C. Balling, Jr.
Patrick J. Michaels
Willie Soon
Now go find out about each of those and the reactions from the true scientific community to the various antics of those paid deniers. Pat Michaels has admitted to camera that he has been paid by fossil fuel interests.
At this juncture it is probably a good idea for you to do lots of research and reading on both aspects on which you show such astounding ignorance, astounding because you keep pitching up here with lies, fabrications and distortions you being an interpreter of other peoples interpretations, mostly at several removes.
With so many clear signs that something is up with the climate and the certain knowledge from two centuries of scientific study that it is our activities that is causing this shift it beggars belief that some such as you can still come here trying to avoid the obvious.
Right, so that's it then, is it? No-one has actually faulted any of his papers scientifically but - SHLOCK-HORROR! - he accepts payments from fossil fuel companies who are, as any 'fule do kno', evil, evil, evil men - well, yeah, they do heat our homes and make our cars runs and enable lorries to deliver our food and provide electric light and all that - but still, they are evil, I tell you evil. (Excuse me while I just wipe the spittle from my lips - ah, that's better.)
And where do 'Warmer' scientists get their money? Mostly from Big Government - oh, so that's alright then!
I noted that once again Duffer quotes something without citation, but this is the typical laziness or lack of full education that we expect from his type. Whatever just look at the hype in this statement - emphasised:
Duff, have you ever studied the papers of the teams who captured other time series in ice cores and sediment cores, with the latter of both ocean bed and limnic system origin?
Then there are studies of corals and limestone formations in caves that provide others.
I suspect that is all we will see of Duff on this episode but he will return with more bilge in a month or so.
Duffer:
So, clearly you cannot read for if you could you would know that you have just made yet another false statement.
How Soon is now?
Get it now DobbleDuff?
More to shake out here:
Peer Review: A Necessary But Not Sufficient Condition
Riight, Duffski, I'm getting it now. So what you're saying is that the ONLY instrumental record is RSS.
So how can be be "the most accurate" when there's no other record you consider exists to compare against???
Weird how deniers ridicule peer review as worthless, but will gleefully accept that something passed peer review as "proven more accurate than thousands of other papers which also passed peer review" when that paper pretends to claim that it's not warming...
And who were the authors of the intellectually rigorous critique of Prof. Soon on which little Lionel sets his heart? Why, none other than Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann.
Need one say more?
Nah, not really!
Oh, and 'peer review', you mean getting your mates to authenticate your rubbish! Yeah, that's worked well in the past as 'Climategate' told us!
He still believes in Climategate!!!
Duff,
So you didn't GET the memo despite being sent to it!
It was not just Schmidt and Mann.
As I wrote, you are wilfully ignorant.
The real crimes of climategate were the original theft and then the stirred up media circus stoked by climate criminals like Delingpole and others. The others being anybody who twisted words out of context so as to delay action on climate change. This is a collective crime against humanity of which you are yourself guilty.
DD
Lying again, Duff. All his climate papers are error-riddled garbage. You can find out the details yourself if you care enough to bother to look.
That's how Soon & Baliunas got published. Read the fucking links. Google Chris de Freitas. Do some work you lazy tool.
DD
Let's get something straight. Soon is an industry shill. This is a matter of fact. If you deny this, you will be denying an established, documented, undisputed matter of fact. That would be fairly solid evidence that you are insane or so utterly dishonest that I would hesitate to piss on you.
Soon's not a Professor Duff. Get that through your head. I am. He's not earned it. Moreover, if I am a lawyer and you pay me, I am working for you. What is the difference with scientists? They receive bags of corporate money and they say what their paymasters want to hear. Soon's on the corporate payroll. Why do you think they fund him? If he argued in support of the IPCC and defended the evidence for AGW they wouldn't touch him with a barge pole.
Again, Duff, your debating skills stink. You really need to hone up on them before trying to impress us here any further with your 'wisdom'.
Notice that Duffer is still chasing red herrings and diligently ignoring #2.
This is what deniers do with inconvenient facts. They blank them. It's a nasty little bit of intellectual dishonesty that should never be tolerated in any conversation about climate change.
In fact, Soon is one of the most blatant of the AGW deniers to be on the corporate payroll:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/11/05/1253239/-Boston-Globe-Exposes-…
Trust Duff to cite him. They don't come much worse than Soon.
Soon 's latest shell game gambit is a palaeoproxy paper focusing on Giant Clams
Stand by for pomposity squared, nay, POMPOSITY to the power of ten:
"Soon’s not a Professor Duff. Get that through your head. I am."
Well, 'PROF. Jeff', I cringe, Sir, I cringe and grovel at your feet!
Have you even the slightest idea of what a pompous ass that makes you sound? And have you ever run through the countless numbers of 'professors' in all sorts of academic areas who have been completely and utterly wrong in their prognostications?
By the way, whatever happened to peak oil? Heh, heh, heh!
If it makes me sound pompous Duff, so be it. What irks me is how deniers try to bloat the qualifications of scientists on the academic fringe, like Soon, to try and legitimize their fatuous arguments. Since Stuart Pimm and I very critically reviewed Lomborg's appalling tome back in 2001 for Nature I have been called everything under the sun by the broadly anti-environmental lobby. Some of the smears I have been the recipient of are quite remarkable. That includes blogs, think tanks, and front groups. I take a lot of it on here from the likes of Olaus, Jonas and company, whilst at the same time they swoon at the feet of a few bought-and-paid for scientists like Soon.
Look at the way Soon responds to the legitimate questions asked to him about his sources of funding on the videos we linked. He's arrogant and rude in the extreme. He expects the audience to accept his garbage and then to shut up. The same goes for Joseph Bast of the Heritage Foundation. Compete and utter arrogance.
I don't see deniers wrenching their hearts out over the appalling smears levied at scientists like Michael Mann, James Hansen, Ben Santer and in my field Paul Ehrlich, Edward O. Wilson and others who have been attacked relentlessly by the climate change denial/anti environmental mob. So if I am tetchy, I think that I have a good reason. I get tired at seeing you lot cite bottom-feeding scientists as if they have some imbued wisdom that escapes the rest of the scientific community.
Re: oil, prices tell us nothing about availability; of course there is less oil now than when prices were higher. Moreover, the stone age didn't end because we ran out of rocks. Think about that, Duffer, if you can.
German January record was 19.5° C waaaaaayyyyyyy back in 2007, is now +20.5° C.
Swiss record went, too.
/chatty
Care to tell us all who "bought and paid for" you, Prof. Jeff?
It wouldn't be government or a government proxy, would it? I ask because if it is then that means me, as in ME, ME, ME, and I want my money back!
Sorry, Professor, but there is *more* oil/gas available now than there was 20 years ago, that's why it is so cheap. Do try and keep up!
As to "the appalling smears levied at scientists like Michael Mann, James Hansen, Ben Santer and in my field Paul Ehrlich, Edward O. Wilson", alas, I cannot speak of Mr. Santer (dare not call him 'Prof' in case he isn't one!) but the other four are proven pillocks! Especially Ehrlich and his ludicrous forecasts concerning the end of the world due to population growth.
Honestly, Prof. Jeff, I worry about the company you keep!
Note that Duffer is still refusing to deal with #2.
#DishonestLittleShit
'Crusty The Clown' Duff displayed mental disturbance with this:
You should ask yourself, and look around if you cannot answer immediately, why the OPECs should be so keen on dumping oil on the market. There are a number of clues including to do with alternative technologies and economics. Cui bono, it is not the consumer or average citizen in the long run.
Now on the Soon issue, as has been pointed out repeatedly above Soon is not to be trusted when it comes to conclusions of any of the papers with which he is associated, at #9 above I mused:
Well it looks like Russell at #24 has put some meat on that.
And another thing, have you actually read any Ehrlich & Ehrlich? I don't think so for your utterances smack of interpreting the interpretations of others and getting the wrong end of the stick, which of course was the intention of those devious interpreters who prey upon the less cognitively able in society to further the agendas of those who pay such interpreters.
On this occasion I think Wiki will suffice to get the message across on what was unfortunately (publishers can sometimes be a pain as many authors will attest) titled 'The Population Bomb'
here is one quote which makes a point but do study it all (your recent behaviour with the rapidity of your response does not indicate that you have bothered to study the sources cited):
You only have to look around the world to see the effects of local populations being too high for the resources in their area. This is brought out by successive droughts, civil wars partly driven by lack of resources with factions being supported by those in local power and maybe acting on behalf of multinational (or transnational) corporations asset stripping mineral and biological resources.
Why do you think many in the Horn of Africa and adjacent regions have taken to piracy?
One reason is that the fish stocks that once sustained them have been overexploited by richer countries deploying huge factory fishing vessels with which the natives (nuance meaning here) could not compete.
What is going to happen when the glaciers, say in the US Glacier National Park, can no longer supply the Colorado and Lake Mead and Lake Powell upon which huge communities in Nevada, California and Arizona depend for water supply and hydro electric power? Also California, which supplies the fruit and veg for communities across the developed world. Look up an article on Slate 'The Decline of California Agriculture Has Begun' for lexical jumping points.
It is you that is proving yourself to be a narrow minded, pulp media driven ignoramus of a pillock. That you should accuse the Erlichs of being such is another case of p*********. You can fill in the blank maybe, a simple cloze exercise for you, one with a hint at that.
LOL. Duff lectures us on pomposity. Free-thinking readers* may care to ask themselves which sounds more pompous:
1. A professor saying, "I'm a professor."
2. The guy who isn't a professor trying to school the professor in the professors own field?
People who have a taste for the unconscious humour of someone who doesn't realise he is basically Alf Garnett without the benefit of the skills of Johnny Speight or Warren Mitchell might want to take a look at David's well-attended blog. Post a hello and help him reach 100 Comments! Hold your sides as you read his catalogue of jokes that weren't funny when they were coined 70 years ago!
And gosh, David can you really speak as well as write? Can I hear how the Battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton from someone whose greatest regret seems to be that he has been to both places only as a tourist? Really? There is nothing I would rather!
Nothing, that is, except experimental bowel surgery.
And, well, everything...
* That's as opposed to thinking-free readers, of whom Olaus, GSW and David himself are examplars
And if Duff has the temerity to return here again here is some meat behind my thoughts about the current 'oil boom':
The Weekend Wonk: The Saudis, Stones, and the End of the Age of Oil
Which leads on to this:
North Dakota Boom Shaken by Oil Price Collapse.
Duff calls 4 of the world's leading scientists 'pillocks'.
There you go. This is the intellectual level we are dealing with here. Ehrlich never made the claims Duff says. He's taken snippets from anti-environmental blogs and used those. Typical. He's not worth it.
Duff claims there is more oil/gas than there was 20 years ago. But of course there isn't. More has been made accessible through increased technologies that enable us to ravage the environment more effectively to get at it, but there most certainly is not more. To claim this shows how utterly deluded Duff is.
Moreover, one thing about being funded by government is that I am left to make scientific decisions based on my own perceptions of the world and not on some profit-motivated contingency. If Soon argued in favor of the IPCC and the broad scientific consensus on CC then his corporate funding would dry up in a second. If he had a shred of integrity he'wouldn't touch their dirty money with a ten foot barge pole. His credibility is totally shot by the company he keeps. That's why he's a laughingstock.
You are so right wing Duff that your views are totally twisted.
Alas, Prof. Jeff, you may be a highly qualified swot but your reading is not too good.
You write, " Duff claims there is more oil/gas than there was 20 years ago."
No I did not! I wrote, "Sorry, Professor, but there is *more* oil/gas **available** now than there was 20 years ago." [My added emphasis] And I can remember telling sundry doom-mongers more than ten years ago when they assured me on the back of their considerable scientific expertise that peak oil had been or was about to be reached and that the end of the world was nigh, that they were talking tosh and that new, undreamed of extraction methods and new sites would be developed. I was right, they were wrong!
You also write that you "are being funded by government." Wrong again! You are being funded by ME! An old-age pensioner trying to live on a declining income. Therefore, as I am your employer I am fully entitled to call you a pillock, too, along with those other swots, mentioned above, whose main predictions have failed and failed and failed again.
As for your innocent notion that as a government employee you are free to "make scientific decisions based on my own perceptions of the world", you try getting a job at the Met Office if you raise even the teeniest-weeniest doubts concerning global warming!
I worry about you, Prof. Jeff, but I am glad that you are safely cossetted inside the government machine because I fear you would not last five minutes in the real world.
Duff:
Really, has somebody found another planet from hence we can extract oil?
Your weasel word 'available' does not cut the mustard here at all. Available means existing EOS!
Unless of course you are a subscriber to abiotic oil, another figment of fevered imagination like an expanding planet.
You are digging a hole.
Oops. Swollen finger syndrome with lack of feel, correction:
'Really, has somebody found another planet from whence we can extract oil?'
Duff
4/ Let’s imagine, for the sake of argument, that there actually *was* a global and synchronous ‘MWP’ as warm as or warmer than the present. This would be very strong evidence that the climate system is relatively sensitive to radiative perturbation and therefore that the risk posed by CO2 emissions is considerable.
Why don't you say something about this?
You started the page with a long ramble about Soon's latest attempt to confuse and mislead over the extent, nature and modern relevance of the MCA. Then... nothing.
Intellectual dishonesty, much?
Come on Duff, answer BBD at #40, overhanging from #2 with reminders at #30, #22 and #11. Stop being an evasive jerk for once.
Whilst you are cogitating that here is something, for OP too, on how ecosystems are struggling with temperature rise, Climate Change Messing with Mother Nature’s Timetable
Now fill your boots with the list here - you may come across a familiar name.
Now, one of the books I really enjoyed reading was 'Climbing Mount Improbable' by Richard Dawkins (I enjoyed, and still do, all of his books) in which there is a description of a magical and fragile ecological environment in the chapter 'A Garden Inclosed'.
Before reading that I had at times pondered on the distinctive flavour of figs and wondered where it came from. Now I know. Can you work out what that flavour origin is?
Duff, you don't pay one cent for me. I am in Holland. You can breathe more easily now.
As for 'being cosseted inside the government machine', that's a real laugh. I've been to far more places and met far more people in my 57 years than I'll be you have. As for peak oil, : we've got about 60 more years of the stuff. Then we have to switch. To reiterate: the stone age did not end because we ran out of rocks. Given the enormous social, political economic and environmental consequences of relying on fossil fuels, I think its high time our species tried to find alternatives.
As for being called a pillock, well, from one pillock to another, I have had far worse.
Austrian January record smashed as well (from 20.6 in 2002 to 21.7 on the 10th).
Holland!!! Oh thank God for that! Well, Prof. Jeff, I hope you really love it there and that you will stay for as long as possible! And thanks for moving the peak oil disaster date off for another 60 years. Only a dozen or so years back your 'Greenie' predecessors were assuring me that it was imminent! So, you and yours, so to speak, couldn't get oil reserves right, couldn't get global temperature forecasts right, Ehrlich's population bomb fizzled out and none of you forecast the current hiatus in global temps. I wonder how you manage to get dressed in the mornings!
Lionel, you are rapidly resembling the little boy at the back of the class who keeps jumping up and down to attract the attention of teacher even though what you have to say is excitable gibberish. Do try and calm down, dear!
BBD, if you are trying to get me to admit that sometimes the globe warms up and sometimes it cools down, then, yes, of course it does! It always has and it always will do. What is obvious now, unless you are purblind, is that CO2 emissions have very, very little effect. After all, the Asians have been pumping the stuff out at phenomenal rates for the past 20 years and guess what? Global temps have barely moved.
'WHODATHUNKIT"? Well, none of you lot, that's for sure!
If it is gibberish then it is more a comment on your state of ignorance and damned bad manners in not answering questions posed to you.
That is pure dishonesty, you have been shown numerous times that heat has accumulated in Earth’s systems with much more of it going sub-surface into the oceans. The oceans thermal capacity is huge WRT that of the thin atmosphere, water having a greater heat capacity at that to further amplify the difference. Temperature is not heat.
Scientific analysis has demonstrated unequivocally that without the human added CO2 (or CH4) component then the Earth would not have increased its heat content as it has.
You have been shown this many times now, that you can still come here with these old canards is demonstrable proof of you acting dishonestly. Either that or you are incredibly thick.
This is who you're (wasting your time) arguing with.
And this is what they're all like.
Duff rants on like a crazy old loon and accuses Lionel of 'jumping up and down like a boy at the back of the class' trying to get attention of the reader. Talk about pot, kettle black.
Here's how Ehrlich's Population Bomb fizzled out:
there are more people starving today than there were people alive in the 1930s;
One in seven of the world's people receive such little nutrition that their minds are literally wasting away (this equates to around a billion people);
The most recent Living Planet Index reported that humans have used up almost 50% of natural capital since 1970;
Every natural indicator of planetary ehalth is in decline; the Milennium Ecosystem Assessment showed that humans are unsustainably using over 60% of vital ecosystem services
You know what Duff? You are an idiot. A right wing fool. You cannot debate your way out of a soaking wet paper bag. That's because you know diddly squat about the topics you write in about. The worst thing is that you write in here as if you have something uselful to say.
You don't. Never did, either. Go back to the John Birch Society script or Tea Party manifesto or whatever other b* you read.
Thanks Bill. That's very informative. Duff is way, way out there.
Duff
No, I am trying to get you to understand that a hot, synchronous, global 'MWP' would imply a relatively high climate sensitivity. This in turn would mean that the climate system response to CO2 forcing will be fairly large. You cannot have one without the other. Try and think for once.
That is ignorant crap that has been explained too many times now to bear another repetition. You have wilfully ignored the explanations in favour of repeating garbage. This makes you either dishonest or moronic or both.
.
Same question as for your co-imbecile Olaus - why?
- Magic?
- Physics?
Pick one.
Not much more need be said about Duff, he needs his own padded cell. Scratch that, an echo chamber so that he can drive himself more insane with his inane utterances.
Prof. Jeff, at his most mournful:
"there are more people starving today than there were people alive in the 1930s;
One in seven of the world’s people receive such little nutrition that their minds are literally wasting away (this equates to around a billion people)"
But then some swots at Harvard (led by a professor - so that's alright, then!), plus the World health Organisation, said this:
""With the exception of the year or two just before death, people are healthier than they used to be. Effectively, the period of time in which we're in poor health is being compressed until just before the end of life. So where we used to see people who are very, very sick for the final six or seven years of their life, that's now far less common. People are living to older ages and we are adding healthy years, not debilitated ones," said David Cutler, Harvard University Professor and lead author of the study.
Previous research from the World Health Organization claimed that people are living longer, healthier lives now than they did in the past. The global life expectancy increased from around 64 years in 1990 to about 70 years in 2011."
And our own, very dearly beloved Royal Geographic Society says this:
"It is likely that life expectancy of the most developed countries will continue to slowly advance and then reach a peak in the range of the mid-80s. According to UN statistics for the period 2005 - 2010, Japan (82.6 years) has the world's highest life expectancy followed by Hong Kong (82.2 years) and Iceland (81.8 years). The world average is 67.2 years and the UK average is 79.4 years."
And in the age of the 'BRICS' the number of developing nations has grown apace so life expectancy will continue to grow. However, one caveat, it is governments usually who cause famines and thus condemn millions of people to an early death. There is not, I think, a single sensible government in the entire continent of Africa and thus it is poised to go down the toilet during this century taking 'zillions' of its own people with it. Still, I expect you lot will be blaming it all on 'BIG BUSINESS'!
What is obvious is that this statement above is a load of horse-puckey.
Wasn't one of the predictions of the deniers that if we cut the use of oil/etc, that the price would drop and we'd have someone else using all the oil?
We're using less oil.
The price dropped.
The use of oil has not increased elsewhere.
Another denier failed prediction?
Magic or physics, Duff? Don't just blank the question *again* because the answer might punch a hole through your nonsense.
* * *
Where to begin? Shall we just say that corrupt African kleptocracies do not exist in a vacuum. You will find - whenever you bother to investigate - that there are dense, often historic, links with multinational corporations and often the governments of developed economies which foster the corruption and prop up the tyrannies.
You just don't know anything because you are too fucking lazy to investigate.
Duff's "With the exception of the year or two just before death, people are healthier than they used to be. Effectively, the period of time in which we’re in poor health is being compressed until just before the end of life...." refers to the USA only.
The RGS also sai, "During the twentieth century, life expectancy rose dramatically amongst the world's wealthiest populations from around 50 to over 75 years. This increase can be attributed to a number of factors including improvements in public health, nutrition and medicine. Vaccinations and antibiotics greatly reduced deaths in childhood, health and safety in manual workplaces improved and fewer people smoked. As a result of this - coupled with a decline in the fertility rate (the average number of children that women have in their lifetime) - many major industrial countries are facing an ageing population."
Like the good little Munchkin he is Duff only reads what he wants to read and clearly he missed the message in my #31 answer to his 'Population Bomb' false analysis which was once again the product of selective reading.
Duff is a lost cause. Ineducable.
Ineducable?
Yes, he is.
As is any lurker likely to sympathise with him, if, indeed, such an unlikely beast even exists any more.
Because all the semi, or potentially, or quasi - rational detritus has already been worn away from his tribe's glorious cause, leaving behind only the inflamed, radiant nub of True Unbelievers, spirits aloft as their motley charabanc rumbles drunkenly on towards the cliff; even this last unable to dent the cheery mood of imperturbable self-congratulation, via the simple, well-practised expedient of denying its very existence. This is what they do. As impervious to reason and inconvenient fact as any zealot in history...
In short: his reactionary tribal identity simply makes it impossible for him to learn. Ditto for any putative lurker sympathiser. In the golden words of Terry Pratchett, there are some minds you could not change with a hatchet. Why bother to try?
By Jove, Bill, I was beginning to wonder what you were on with that, er, 'stream of unconsciousness'' literary style you affected above. But then you mentioned Mr. Terry Pratchett, the well-known fantasist, and suddenly all was clear. Still, at least yours read better than spotty Lionel's infantile efforts.
"Pratchett, the well-known fantasist"
More pot, kettle black. Reading some of the fantical comments on your page Duff indictes your level of sanity. Unhinged would describe it well. Bill gives some good examples above. When I saw you caliming that corporate-president Obama was a 'Marxist' a couple of years ago I knew even then that you were living in some parallel universe. Then you gave some indication of your primary sources of information. It got worse then. You are completely dazed and confused. Hats off to Jimmy Page for that approrpiate description of you.
"I got a letter from Screw Fix Direct thanking me for my interest, but explaining they were not a dating agency."
Nice one.
Just finished wiping the coffee off my laptop
The problem for you Duff is that Pratchett is an intentional fantasist whereas your musings here are signs of a disordered mind, one so brain washed as to not recognise the signs of wilful ignorance and cognitive dissonance. That latter has to be the case seeing as you persist with inane propaganda whilst the effects of climate change become more frequent and obvious and the science that explains it becomes ever more sure.
If your bubble ever does burst it is going to be very painful for you, maybe that nagging certainty is worrying away at your subconscious causing the mental disturbance you exhibit.
Actually, Bill, # 46, there are much worse if you pick away the top scabby layer. His remarks about Gillard, for example (if you can be bothered going back that far) are simply the rantings of a pompous misogynistic old bigot, who doesn't let his complete ignorance of Australia or anything about it stand in the way of his rambling.
Duff projects himself as if some minor gentlemen freshly back from a cavalry squadron and a spot of tiger hunting in the Raj. He refers to his wife constantly as "memsahib" and much of his rantings are filled with showing the darkies (or little yellow chappies) what ho. He apes a vaguely olde-worlde style that he thinks makes him sound like a wit (well, he's half right), and pines for the days when Britain was Best and the sun never set on the Empah, don'cha know.
Jeff, Duff is not unhinged. His mind is rusted shut, a common consequence of being 80 in the shade. The pic reminds me a bit of my dear old dad, except that he chose to spend his twilight years continuing his own learning and teaching others. Unlike Duff, who opted for his own little poisonous disinformation campaign, simply to salve his own icky felling stemming from the unadmitted knowledge that he and his help really screw the world.
Yes, David, you have been part of the problem. No, David, there is no requirement for you to go on being part of the problem. Even at your age, you can adopt new behaviours and mindsets, if you choose to.
"Duff projects himself as if some minor gentlemen freshly back from a cavalry squadron and a spot of tiger hunting in the Raj."
No, Frank, and not that my background has anything to do with my amusement at swivel-eyed 'Greenies' gathering in tabernacles and chanting their creed, but actually I have made it perfectly clear on my blog from time to time that it took me nine years to make the rank of, er, well, corporal, actually - substantive mind! And no again, it was not with some posh cavalry outfit but with the Parachute Regiment who are not posh and on occasions can be not nice to know, and then I was with the Intelligence Corps. And yes, I do know the one about 'army intelligence' being the greatest oxymoron.
Now, when are any of you going to own up to the fact that none of you forecast the 17-year pause in global temps?
Forecasts don't forecast statistically insignificant variations from trend.
Well that explains why your heads up seventh rock from the sun', one drop (in more ways than one) too many.
Well you have certainly been living up to that assessment over the years here, haven't you junior. Thus making a case for a return of 'corporal' punishment - time to clean the brasses on the quarterdeck and don't forget to salute as you step upon same.
"statistically insignificant variations from trend"
But ... but ... you mean all those pretty diagrams from the IPCC showing the temps going "up, up and away" which the chorus here at the 'Deltoid Tabernacle' never stopped waving and singing were just a "trend" and not to be taken seriously?
Well, OK, I never did take them seriously, so that's OK. However, I'm still waiting for any little Deltoid to own up and admit they he or she never dreamed that the rise in temps would grind to a halt for 17 years. I mean, sooooooo embarrassing!
And your evidence to support this doubtful assertion is?
Come on, stop F-AA!
Oh alright then, if you insist:
"Ø The RSS satellite dataset shows no global warming at all for 219 months from October 1996 to December 2014 – more than half the 432-month satellite record.
Ø The global warming trend since 1900 is equivalent to 0.8 Cº per century. This is well within natural variability and may not have much to do with us.
Ø Since 1950, when a human influence on global temperature first became theoretically possible, the global warming trend has been equivalent to below 1.2 Cº per century.
Ø The fastest warming rate lasting ten years or more since 1950 occurred over the 33 years from 1974 to 2006. It was equivalent to 2.0 Cº per century.
Ø In 1990, the IPCC’s mid-range prediction of near-term warming was equivalent to 2.8 Cº per century, higher by two-thirds than its current prediction of 1.7 Cº/century.
Ø The global warming trend since 1990, when the IPCC wrote its first report, is equivalent to below 1.4 Cº per century – half of what the IPCC had then predicted.
Ø Though the IPCC has cut its near-term warming prediction, it has not cut its high-end business as usual centennial warming prediction of 4.8 Cº warming to 2100.
Ø The IPCC’s predicted 4.8 Cº warming by 2100 is well over twice the greatest rate of warming lasting more than ten years that has been measured since 1950.
Ø The IPCC’s 4.8 Cº-by-2100 prediction is almost four times the observed real-world warming trend since we might in theory have begun influencing it in 1950.
Ø From September 2001 to November 2014, the warming trend on the mean of the 5 global-temperature datasets is nil. No warming for 13 years 3 months.
Ø Recent extreme weather cannot be blamed on global warming, because there has not been any global warming. It is as simple as that.
But RSS is clearly an outlier and so not informative. You cannot build an argument on an outlier. Completely unscientific.
No it isn't. You need a fistful of references to back this up and I bet you cannot even find one. Earlier I asked you whether climate changed because of magic or physics and as usual you declined to answer. Climate changes because forcings change - a physical mechanism is required. There has been no forcing change apart from GHG increase sufficient to drive the observed centennial warming trend.
Human influence on climate has been possible for thousands of years (eg. Ruddiman hypothesis). Forcing since ~1950 has grown and is still growing so you *cannot* use the historical trend to describe future change under much higher levels of forcing. Idiotic error.
Same as previous. Stupid error. Past forcing and rate of forcing increase are much lower than future forcing and rate of forcing increase so you cannot extrapolate like this.
Just wrong. Reference this garbage.
Short term natural variability overprints the centennial forced trend so you cannot use short term trends to make claims like this about the long term trend. Same stupid, unscientific error as before.
Etc. Can't be bothered with the rest.
This is a Gish gallop of denier bollocks. Get real, Duff.
Heck, a Gish Gallop of uncredited crap, trust you Duff. Unless you cite sources, or source of that copy paste, then that is just interpretations and from others who have their heads up their arses, like ClimateDesperate and that Wishful Thinking morass.
That RSS claim at the start was a give away, you do know what is wrong with that don't you. Hit it is why Lord Malarkey likes to use it on his site.
I'll tear each one apart but heck these have already been answered. Not my problem if you cannot recall.
Deceit, deceit, deceit!
Actually individual model runs do show long periods of stagnant or even falling surface temperature. However, what is generally published is the average of an ensemble of runs/models, so they are not visible.
BTW: only the deniers make predictions, the mainstream scientists make projections.
Duff,
RSS and other datasets Sept 1996 to Dec 2014
Essentially your statement is propaganda regurgitated.
Duff, seeing as you cheated by getting all your points verbatim and in one block from a bullet point list at one well known denier site, not masked here so that others can avoid:
Climate Depot link was here but the post failed to appear, clearly trapped.
You are beneath contempt. Try providing independent and valid arguments to support those assertions and stop jerking us around!
Duff pulled up that b* straight from the GWPF or some other front group.
I also question why he begins his data analysis in 1998. Why not 1999 or 2000? Or 1997? Why regress data from a cherry picked starting point? Oh! I geddit! 1998 was an exceptionally warm year driven by the strongest El Nino on record! Seriously folks, Duff claimed a few posts ago that he was well aware of the 'scientific method' but then he does regression analyses be deliberately picking one year. If he did this in a talk, he's be laughed off the stage. The fact is that of course the warming never stopped if the data are properly analyzed. Moreover, all 10 of the warmest years on record have occurred since 1998; the two warmest are in fact in the last 5 (2010 and 2014). And as I said before, there are piles of studies showing biotic responses to the warming that are ongoing.
The weirdest thing is that Duff writes in here as if he is aware of all of the facts and can stand his own in a debate. He's actually worse than useless. His views are so at odds with the scientific community as to be laughable. He clearly spends too much of his pension time reading anti-environmental blogs.
Jeff,
I had attempted to show a link to the article from which Duff lifted his Gish Gallop and put a place holder text in place because Deltoid blanked the post, see my #76 above.
Climate Depot link was here but the post failed to appear, clearly trapped.
My hunch about that RSS being a give away was spot on for the Climate Depot (CD) article is titled:
Sure enough Duff copies the Monckton graph (at GWPF site, or was last time I looked), here is the caption to the graph under that article header:
Which as has been said many times totally, and deliberately, misleading.
The bullet point list is there to see.
Duff, once again you are outed as a dishonest, deceitful ignoramus and bigot, here is a lesson for you Duff , the epithet used at the end applies to you too, and some.
What irritates me is that this RSS crap was addressed directly at # 3 on this very page.
Duff, I hope you were a better detail man when you were in the Parachute Regiment. Because if not, you probably got people killed.
So, Rednose, by way of proving my point about your tribe, just how 'hilarious' is the taser rape 'joke'?
Bill, I'd be equally interested to hear his defence of his paedophilia 'joke'.
Duff, I didn't say you claimed to be an officer, I said that was the persona you project through your anachronistic use of imperial expressions and attitudes. Your failure to comprehend a simple English sentence is consistent with your failure to comprehend other simple English sentences such as Chris O'Neill's "Forecasts don’t forecast statistically insignificant variations from trend", so I can't say this surprises. Ever resilient in the face of unpleasant truths, eh David? That's what made the Empah great, don'cha know?
Still, aping the behaviours of ones betters* has ever been the failing of the British lower classes*.
* For most of us, such notions are as archaic as the Duff's behaviours.
Interesting things in this article concerning the gravitational anomaly impact of melting ice sheets:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/20…
*crickets* on the defense of the indefensible, I note - is it possible that you are actually capable of experiencing shame?
#80
Nah. Don't find that funny.
But the new Loo paper referred to on the last page which relied on the response by someone 32757 years old, now that's amusing.
How could a paper with such crap data have been published?
What do you think Bill?
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2015/1/6/lewandowsky-and-the-pal…
Let me guess; this irrelevant error, if it really exists, somehow proves that you guys aren't all tinfoil hat conspiracy cranks and can sort of be stretched out, if you're inclined to that sort of thing, to somehow imply that AGW ain't real.
How am I doing?
Better than this little pointless chum nugget is, at any rate, because it's sunk out of sight quicker than Climategate 2 and 3... But you're winning; no, you really are, so DO keep going...
Rednose
Please explain to us how the single-field error affects the results of the paper.
Thanks.
#85
Feel better after that rant
#86
Also responses from several minors included.
Including the questionable data apparently shows little correlation between age and conspiracy items.
Excluding this questionable data and there is significant correlation between age and the conspiracy items.
Explained here
http://www.joseduarte.com/blog/how-one-paleo-participant-can-change-the…
I was greatly amused by Duff telling someone else they don't read very well, right after Duff had comprehensively demonstrated his apparent lack of reading comprehension(*) on this thread in several different ways.
Self-awareness really isn't his strong suit, is it?
(*) Apparent, on the rather generous assumption that he's not outright lying...
FrankD at #81
Duff doubtlessly is one of those who still prefers using a 1950s era Atlas where much of the world is coloured pink, it just cannot be any other way. I find his use of 'Raj language' not only anachronistic but in bad taste. The evils perpetrated during the days of Empire in India [1] are as symptomatic of a cruel indifference as his publishing of jokes on bad behaviour.
Which brings me on to the origins of WW1. I think I mentioned 'The Long Fuse: An Interpretation of the Origins of World War I' by Laurence Lafore which I read the initial edition back in the early 1960s. I have since taken up some of the titles you mentioned but there is another book, 'Hidden History: The Secret Origins of the First World War' that has generated this considerable comment trail at Amazon UK. I hope that link works as intended.
The origins of WW1 are extremely complex, as is that of 'The Balkans' (Title of interesting book by Misha Glenny) region which provide the spark.
It is not beyond the bounds of possibility, given the well documented empire building antics of Cecil Rhodes and Alfred Milner as recorded by Thomas Pakenham (Earl of Longford) in 'The Scramble for Africa' and 'The Boer War', that a highly placed cabal, which included later Lord Escher (a behind the scenes puppet master who pulled the strings of Churchill and Lloyd George) and Sir Edward Grey should have influenced the course of history.
Having written that, Germany's drive for overseas empire was bound to come up against that of Britain sooner or later.
I have here a number of volumes covering the history, technical and political, of WW1 and also of the Battle of Jutland (dare I dig into what Duff has written on this topic) one of which, a simple overview, by George Bonney (the image showing purported survivors survivors from sunken ships at Jutland is suspect as many are wearing 'HMS Natal' cap tallies, these are more likely from that armoured cruiser that was destroyed by magazine explosion) has some interesting images of the movers and shakers of the British effort.
One of these is of the various Admirals who played prominent parts in the proceedings but the more relevant one to this discussion is reproduced on page 26 and is from a painting 'Statesmen of the First World War' by Sir James Guthrie.
[1] This little know book 'Late Victorian Holocausts: El Niño Famines and the Making of the Third World' by Mike Davis would be an enlightening read - for those such as Duff (certain phrases of 'Corporal Jones' spring to mind) steeped in Biggles standard histories.
Do you really not get it, Rednose? Like many others I just snorted and then said 'Well Duh!' when Lewandowsky's paper first came out, and then didn't give it another thought; and then you clowns proved him right beyond hope of disproof by reacting - which is, after all, what you do - in exactly the manner that a bunch of paranoid, conspiracy-minded cranks would! Because, you see, turns out it was all a plot against you! No, really! It's A Fact!
You all kindly provided Lewandowsky's QED for him.
And, guess what? AGW remains a fact, no matter how many pins you imagine you've sunk into your fetish dolly incarnations of him. Or Mike Mann.
It sucks to be you.
Well done, little Lionel, and thank you for changing the subject from all that tedious temperature-taking and moving us on to a really fascinating subject.
Alas, your theories concerning "secret cabals" and all that sort of thing sounds like something from the pen of Mr. Dan Brown! However, assuming that you are really interested in proper academic history then I would urge you to try these:
"The War That Ended Peace" by Prof. Margaret MacMillan. This has met with near universal praise and has the added attraction that if you buy the hard-cover edition you can use it to exercise with!
Not to be missed is Fritz Fischer's controversial book - well, controversial in Germany! - entitled "Germany's Aims in the First World War". He places the blame fairly and squarely on the lunatic 'cabal' that ran Germany after that shrewd old Prussian bully, Bismarck, was sacked by Wilhelm II.
If you fancy a highly detailed analysis of exactly what happened before, during and after the battle of Jutland look no further than "The Rules of the Game: Jutland and British Naval Command" by Andrew Gordon. This book is exhaustive but fascinating as it describes, amongst other things, how a 19th century naval command struggled to come to terms with a 20th century fighting system.
Forget our differences over AGW, if you are truly interested in the subject, I really do recommend these books - and believe me I could recommend a whole lot more!
#90
Another rant.
You seem to be snorting and ranting rather a lot Bill
Duff, as ever, you have missed my comments on each of those you cite. I actually attended a seminar session in the Historic Dockyard (in a room above the museum) where Andrew Gordon expanded on his 'The Rules of the Game' of course I have a copy - signed at that.
I have talked with Eric Grove, Geoff Hunt and others at the same venue, but also on other occasions.
From one old fart to a somewhat older old fart what is more an older old fart who is displaying extraordinary intellectual dishonesty by pushing Morano memes WRT climate.
I will not discuss the origins or conduct of WW1 with you further. I really do not care what you think so don't take this as an excuse to go off on a tangent.
Good news for Jeff. His pals, Lord M and Soon, seem to have published some interesting stuff not dealing with maggots.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/16/peer-reviewed-pocket-calculator-c…
Let us hope that Jeff's colonial heritage doesn't make him go bananas, disqualifying the journal because its Chinese. :-:
Any comments on the content, friends?
Oh, and a link to the article in q: http://www.scibull.com:8080/EN/abstract/abstract509579.shtml
Rednoise
Sorry, but Jose Duarte doesn't show that the single error has a substantive effect on the paper's conclusions.
In your own words, why don't you walk us through this?
Thanks.
Olaus
Yes. It's utter bollocks.
If sensitivity were tiny, as Monckton claims, then the climate system would be almost devoid of variability, past or present. There would be no ice ages and no interglacials, and events like the Cenozoic hyperthermals would be physically impossible.
Since we have solid evidence that paleoclimate was in fact highly variable, Monckton's claim is falsified.
Duff
That's enough lies from you. *You* are the one who has desperately avoided answering direct question after direct question right down this page.
Your dishonesty is fucking contemptible. You are a disgrace to your former regiment.
Duff, Lionel and I are picking up the threads of an earlier conversation. I suggest if you wish to make a useful contribution to it you may wish to review earlier threads - I think it was probably last discussed in August or September.
As to your choices, we have McMillan who seems to think that comparisons to modern day politics are helpful, such as comparing the Bosnian-Serb terrorists to Al Qaeda. That is complete balls, and wins the book an instant fail (beyond its claimed merits for bicep building). As for Fischer, is was a interesting and provoking book 50 years ago. Anyone who claims it still is is smoking something. Or should be.
I don't doubt you could recommend more. But I'd be more impressed if you would recommend better.
#96
Lionel I've only skimmed the materielschlacht over Michael Carragher's review, but on balance, I think he is generally right and Hof generally wrong.
Can you do us a solid and explain how the existence of the shadowy cabal (which I wont question, for now) led to WW1 breaking out? I'm looking for a causal chain here - if one is going to say they caused it, it's not enough to say that this or that event was welcome to them. (And note, I'm not trying to put you on the spot, just to get a sense of your take-away from the book).
If the argument is that the caused the actual war which developed, they would need to show active support (by the cabal) of Narodna Odbrana (or infiltration of several cabinets!) and sufficient foresight to be able to predict a complex series of decisions that even the participants were vacillating about.
If the argument is that any war would have done (and it just happened to be the one that stemmed from FF's assasination), one would need to show how decisions could be forced on dozens of individuals in at least four foreign powers, or their options so constrained that their decisions were a foregone conclusion. That seems a bit of a stretch.
So can you enlighten us a little? As I said a while back, this seems like classic conspiracy ideation, where I prefer Hanlon's razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." (adequately is particularly noteworthy in this context.
Which linkes back to climate change - the behaviour of many of the deniatariat is not adequately explained by stupidity, and malice comes into play.
“Age turned out not to correlate with any of the indicator variables.”
That is trivial. I said substantive effect on the paper's conclusions for a reason, Rednoise. You haven't even read Duarte's crap, let alone the original paper, have you?
As usual, the clowns are making a fuss over nothing because they have no actual argument.
I couldn't help but notice that the apparently insane Duarte makes an accusation of academic misconduct against Lewandowski. He should be careful with that.
#2
You mean the Duarte critique of Loo's paper which included:
"Too many of their items are of very low psychometric quality. They're often vague, double-barrelled, and politically biased"
and
"•Their composite variables are somewhat arbitrary and don't survive factor analysis "
And
•They deleted hundreds of participants – a full 28% of their data – including anyone who did not answer every single question. No one is obligated to answer every question, nor will they necessarily have opinions on bizarre theories they've never heard of, "
And
"•They've known for more than a year that there was a 32,757-year-old and seven minors in their data, and did nothing. This suggests a somewhat broad lack of concern about data quality and truth."
All good stuff.
which were longer than 17 years long...
Of course, Duffski has no point, so won't get this one either.
Rednoise
Duarte is a nutter making a lot of noise about nothing. If you, in your own words, cannot explain to us how a single-field error had a substantive effect on the conclusions of the paper, then that's that.
Amazingly enough, I'm not interested in the latest crap about Lewandowski. I'm interested in physical climatology with an accent on paleoclimate.
The fact that you lot are insane isn't news to me. I've known it for years and commented on it here many times.
Duffer:
You're a pathological liar. You simply do not know that global temperatures have stopped rising for 17 years. There may be a small chance that they have stopped rising, maybe 5% with a 95% chance that they have continued rising, but that doesn't mean THEY HAVE STOPPED RISING.
Oh and just because something is a trend doesn't mean it's not serious.
The most substantive correlation seemed to be age but this was masked by the inclusion of the dodgy data. Any other correlations which were their conclusions were much weaker.
I can appreciate you are not interested in the latest crap from Lewandowski, so let's change to physical climatology. What's your opinion on Cawley et all and their latest corrected estimate for TCR
Well, there was me thinking, hurrah, we have a different subject of mutual interest far removed from all this AGW piffle on which we could have a reasonable conversation.
But I should have known, once a mouth-breathing, gruntish yob, always a mouth-breathing, gruntish yob. Still, at least what passes for your minds have slammed shut on the complexities of WWI in exactly the same way that they have on alleged global warming thus confirming your utter predictability.
Oh, by the way, little Lionel, do wipe the spittle off your open mouth, it's not very nice.
Rednoise
Much the same - Cawley et al. correctly showed that Loehle had under-estimated the change in forcing but then wrongly suggested that correcting this error would have increased Loehle's estimate for sensitivity. What Cawley et al. *should* have done is point out that Loehle's error actually decreased the sensitivity estimate, making it even more wrong that it already is.
The rest of the Cawley paper is unaffected by this mistake. The Loehle paper, on the other hand, is full of nonsense. It employs 20- and 60-year cycles that don't exist in external forcings in its model, which also has a trend for 'recovery' from the LIA. This is simply daft. The climate system isn't like the earth's crust rebounding as ice sheets melt. There is no pre-determined state to which it returns. Climate change occurs in response to a net change in forcings. Any analysis dependent on fundamentally unphysical assumptions is junk.
So we are left with the very easy task of deciding which of the two papers is the more flawed. It is Loehle. The error in Cawley et al. does not affect the model it employs (which is free of the unphysical assumptions built into the Loehle model) and does not affect its conclusions except in the specific way described above.
#9
So let's get this clear, the Cawley paper, which depended on good honest Physics, and when corrected for this simple arithmetic error, produced an estimate for TCR which is much lower than estimates from paleoclimate methods, closer to estimates by Otto est al and Nick Lewis. Is that correct?
Cawley et al. under-estimates sensitivity for the same reasons that other studies using very simplistic models do: very simple models don't capture the complexity of the real climate system. That's why paleoclimate-derived estimates of S are more informative.
After all that's been shown about M (not a Lord) and Soon (a shill), meatball decides to copy-paste some bilge from them both from another shill blog.
The mind boggles. How thick are you meatball? Clearly very. This Chinese journal of yours is almost certainly a bottom feeder. Neither M or Soon have a shred of credibility. Nor expertise.
I just wish the meatball Olly would GO AWAY... (Hint, hint).
Well you should try to stop spraying as you talk. Because I don't chose to discuss say Jutland with you here is the result of your displays of ignorant BS on climate matters so I doubt you could teach me much about Trafalgar (I have personal links with that battle ancestor on my side and also with his Lordship) or Jutland (ditto). Oh and I was reading about Midway before leaving school, a local minister had roomfuls of non-fiction paperbacks on WW2, he having been a POW.
A pongo trying to teach the Senior Service on naval history, do me a favour. I was lecturing in the RN on The Battle of the Atlantic nearly 50 years ago but continue to learn more. That is history, always up for review.
Much of once common history needs revising in the light of recent information releases and document finds. This is why Colin White felt the need to write 'The New Nelson Letters' , The late, Colin White is someone else I have chatted with at seminars. History is bunk, especially that written by prominent politicians disguising their role in débâcles, Winston springs to mind here for more than one instance.
I'll come back to FrankD when I have explored a bit more and re-framed my thoughts on this, at least he does not behave like a jerk. I have much new reading material on WW1, history of naval aviation, climate, cosmology and evolution to work through and Quigley is a dense read on the first of those topics.
One web site for meatball:
http://diptera.myspecies.info/diptera/content/introduction-order-diptera
Although I do not work with these fascinating insects, one line should permeate Olly's pea-sized brain: The insects of are immense economic importance to man. In real terms, this amounts to many billions of dollar annually in terms of costs and benefits. Olly thins he's being witty with his maggotologist nonsense, but, as always, the last laugh is on him. If he manages to learn even the basics. he'll see the futility of his vacuous joke.
As for Duarte, he's a PhD candidate in social psychology. Where do the deniers scarpe these people up? Its as if bottom feeding climate change deniers have something useful to say. In Duarte's case, he attempts to claim that 'only' 80-90% of climate scientists support AGW theory and not 97%. Talks about picking hairs. Verheggen et al's (2014) comprehesive study had it at around 90%. In other words the vast majority. Too bad Duarte apparently doesn't know about Verheggen's recent study. Its really hard to find. NOT. Its an open access article.
Duarte is dismissed.
#11
I'll take that as a yes.
So we have yet another low estimate for climate sensitivity, this time by a crack team from SKS and without argument based on fundamental physical assumptions and the instrumental record.
Is that correct?
Rednose
The methodology produces low estimates because it is limited in scope.
Trying to turn this into an argument that more sophisticated methodology is incorrect is silly.
Sorry, if all you've got is your anal obsession with the 'Loo' - your sad little word - paper, an another lead-authored by Monckton, you're dead, but won't lie down. This ain't ranting - in fact, I feel positively cheery, if not smug - this is fact. Even you know it, deep down...
Old JH#1
Duarte has a probably more scathing critique of Vehggen
Links from here.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2015/1/15/duarte-on-verheggen-et…
Who includes in his study authors of "Urban bicyclists spatial analysis of adult and youth traffic hazard intensity" claiming them to be "climate scientists"
What is it with these sicologists.?
#16
I take this to be another yes.
The pros and cons of paleoclimate vs instrumental methods of determining climate sensitivity will have to wait till another day.
And are all these sad little squirrelly shiny things really making you believe that you're getting somewhere? That you're not on the wrong side of the most important debate of the 21st century? With the most appalling - and superfluous - reactionary rabble?
In all seriousness, it sucks to be you!
", I feel positively cheery, if not smug "
Good oh. You have seemed a little prickly lately. :-)
Rednose
But they have been assessed already. We don't have to wait for another day. The PALAEOSENS project did it in 2012:
Dear Deniers. You're fucked. Goodbye.
So climate change denier Duarte, a psychology PhD student for bloody hell's sake, is not impressed with a study by a qualified climate scientist that it published in a peer-reviewed open access journal. And he writes about it not in a published journal but on his fourth rate blog. Which is picked up and disseminated on another right wing shill blog operated by - you guessed it - someone with absolutely no scientific qualifications at all.
Really now Rednose you clot. Do you really - really again for the third time - expect me to take you and your ilk seriously?
As Bill said. Read his words and repeat. Those 5 words make more sense than the tens of thousands you have written up here. You are a bunch of scientifically illiterate idiots. And that may be being too kind.
Rednose,
On and by the way, I may be 'old' in your lexicon (57), but my mind is clearly sharper and I will bet I am in much better physical conditions than you are.
Think about it before you write any more crapola in copy-pasting links to BH or to Duarte's blog. Its clear you dredged him up from BH or from some other appalling anti-environmental blog. You bunch are like pathogens - you spread your plague around the blogosphere and pat yourselves on the back as if you are on top of what you discuss.
See Bill's post again.
Talking of my, er, less than illustrious military 'career' - well we were, some where back up there - I suddenly remembered that the Corps colour for the Intelligence Corps, which had the honour of my service for nearly four years, was green. I understand that the SAS who were frequent recipients of our, er, 'product' were often less than impressed and gave us the nickname of 'the green slime'!
So, in a sort of way, I'm one of you, really!
"Intelligence Corps"
Now in military jargon there's an oxymoron....
Oh, Jeff, do keep up, dear, I did that 'joke' already! I thought you scientific swots were able to absorb information - even if you don't always know quite what do with it!
The evidence is in and Duff's sources are well er duff:
Global Summary Information - December 2014.
From an associated an associated SkS item:
Unlike Lionel, I was slightly interested in the aetiology of being Duff, curious (if sceptical) as to whether his comments on a topic far removed from AGW betrayed any deeper-than-ankle-wet thinking. But on being told his offerings to date are simplistic, he tosses out his toys - he hasn't even heard what either of us think, yet he already knows our minds are "slammed shut". Although Lionel and I are nearly antipodal on our opinions (as we are geographically), he still finds himself friendless in the corner. Poor Duffer.
LOL - that is my only natural talent, don't take it away! I only ask that a combative tone be taken as a challenge, not a rejection. So feel free to post again when it suits. I'm sure the quality of the climate change discussion will not suffer greatly from the occasional diversion back to when Arrhenius was still around.
While I have a few minor irons in the WWI fire, I've done nothing so august as lecture the Navy on its own history, so props for that.
Or too summarise:
GISS: "... an astounding +0.02 deg C higher in 2014 than they were in 2010", or'
"two one-hundredth of a deg C, which is equal to less than four one-hundredths of a deg F." Pheeeeeew, wot a scorcher!
NCDC: "... +0.04 deg C higher in 2014 than they were in 2005 and 2010".
"Berkeley Earth too announced record highs in 2014, but only by 0.01 deg C."
But in the meantime, CO2, according to that impeccable source, 'The Graun': “The world emits 48% more carbon dioxide from the consumption of energy now than it did in 1992 when the first Rio summit took place.”
So where did all the CO2 heat go? Oh, no, don't tell me in the famous (paraphrased) words of 'Eccles' from The Goon Show, 'It's fallen in the water'! Whodathunkit?
Duff's latest post is clear evidence of his profound stupidity.
"an astounding +0.02 deg C higher in 2014 than they were in 2010″
Based on the temporal and spatial scales involved, 0.02 degrees C is NOT trivial. Over 20 or 30 years perhaps, but not in 4. The difference between stochastic and deterministic processes and how this relates to scale does not escape the vast majority of scientists. It does, however, clearly sail over the head of boring old right wing farts.
What is more significant, however, and utterly destroys the wafer-thing bilge from Duff and co., is the fact that 14 of the 14 warmest years on record have occurred this century.
That ALONE annihilates them. Or it should. But these twits expect a deterministic system to exhibit significant, inter-annual (short-term) linear dynamics. Of courser since all of these words sail right over their pin-sized heads, expect them to come back with links to BH (Rednose) or WUWT (Swedish Meatball) or Willie Soon (old fart). At the same time they'll steer well clear of the IPCC, the consensus view of every major National Academy in every nation on Earth, every major scientific organization etc.
They are stuck with shills and blogs. That's why Bill is 100% correct at #23.
Ooops, I meant 14 out of 15....
Big diff.
Fine, Prof. Jeff, as I have said before the earth might be warming, or even cooling, it always does, it always has done and it always will . . . but CO2 has gone up 48% since 1992 so where is the matching heat increase that you alarmists warned us of?
See article on Common Dreams (published in Nature). In just 60 years, unrestrained neoliberal capitalism has laid waste to much of our planet. Riveting reading.
In Just 60 Years, Neoliberal Capitalism Has Nearly Broken Planet Earth.
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/01/16/was-easy-just-60-years-neol…
Duff, ever hear of the phenomenon of temporal lags in large scale systems? That cause-and-effect relationships are not instantaneous?
Didn't think so. You ought to read up on the extinction debt (Tilman and May, 1994, Nature). Its very relevant is discussing climate change and its relationship with atmospheric C02 concentrations.
Duff
You are arguing from false equivalence, as deniers so often do. Your error is this:
Physical climatology ≠ 'environmentalism'
As for the lunacy of trying to argue that the climate system isn't warming, words fail me. This is a desperate, last ditch denial of reality.
There are several factors involved in the recent and temporary slowdown in the rate of surface temperature increase. The main one seems to be a slight increase in the rate of ocean heat uptake in the equatorial Pacific. Increased stratospheric aerosol loading from volcanism is another. The slight weakening of solar output is another. Taken all together, they have partially offset the warming effect of the increased CO2.
None of this will have any effect on the long-term warming trend, which is what is going to cause all the problems further down the line. So there's no logic in pointing to transient variability in the rate of warming and trying to claim that 'AGW is a hoax'.
FrankD
I am not so sure about that, my ideas have been in flux for awhile, the learning continues.
Given what I have been reading in 'Planning Armegeddon: British Economic Warfare and the First World War' by Nicholas A Lambert (who also wrote 'Sir John Fisher's Naval Revolution' - in the reading pile but will cover some already learned ground after all my start in the workforce owed much to his initiatives) which amongst other things puts across how 'gatekeepers' (not a word used in the book BTW) prevented accurate renditions of history at the time. This is also familiar to those who have followed the 'Jutland' debates and also the 'Great Gunnery Scandal' - the Pollen debacle.
Arthur Marder of 'From Dreadnought to Scapa Flow' has also produced a revealing book based upon the diaries with ‘Portrait of an Admiral: the Life and Papers of Sir Herbert Richmond’ which makes one wonder how the RN could have been so badly led during WW1.
So much has been clearly suppressed (and I know a few things on that score too) that it does not take much to create a conspiracy theory. Conspiracy do happen as with our current administration's efforts to move fracking forward and dismantle the NHS by stealth. The planning for these strategies didn't start last year.
Now children, notice how Lionel A is prepared at least to consider that his position may need to be modified in the light of new information.
Notice also that Lionel A reads books.
Here's one for you. It's called Earth's Climate, Past and Future and it is very good. Detailed, but clear. Despite the title, most of the book details the current understanding of past climate behaviour and the mechanisms of physical climatology.
Ruddiman's books I keep going back to, like many others on the topic e.g. Cronin on Paleoclimates whatever even the simplest of minds should now be getting the picture:
A Bad Day for Climate Change Deniers … And the Planet.
What will it take for the delayniers to accept that the planet is running a fever and things are going to get rough and sooner than many anticipated? Makes me laugh, from anger and concern, when I hear our politicos talking about development and economic growth and strengthening the economy. Falling oil tax revenues are going to be another excuse for Osborne to tighten the screws on the public sector, a sector bearing the unfair brunt for the screw ups of corporations such as banks. There will be another economic shock when institutions invested in fossil fuel suddenly find their stock devalued. Pension funds - only for those lucky enough to have been working on a good wage through the good times will be hit hard. Stocks in wheelbarrows may go up as they replace the purse and wallets.
Actually just over 12% (356 ppm to 400 ppm approx) or one sixth of a doubling, enough to produce 0.4-0.5 deg C of warming compared with a long term trend of 0.4 deg C over that time.
But what do we expect from a pathological liar like Duff other than some misleading information?
I'll bet Duff has never heard of CO2 Now where he can go get the numbers to do his own sums and thus not repeat garbage from some delaynier site.
@ Little Lionel
"not repeat garbage from some delaynier site"
Oh, no, say it ain't so! The Guardian a denier site. Coulda' fooled me!
@ Chris O'Neill
OECD report:
"Global emissions of carbon dioxide have risen by 117%, or on average 2% per year, since 1971. In 1971, the current OECD countries were responsible for 67% of world CO2 emissions. As a consequence of rapidly rising emissions in the developing world, the OECD contribution to the total fell to 41% in 2010. By far, the largest increases in non-OECD countries occurred in Asia, where China's emissions of CO2 from fuel combustion have risen by 5.8% per annum between 1971 and 2010. The use of coal in China increased the levels of CO2 emissions by 6.6 billion tonnes over the 39 years to 2010."
According to CDIAC:
"Since 1751 approximately 365 billion metric tonnes of carbon have been released to the atmosphere from the consumption of fossil fuels and cement production. Half of these fossil-fuel CO2 emissions have occurred since the mid 1980s. The 2010 global fossil-fuel carbon emission estimate, 9167 million metric tons of carbon, represents an all-time high and a 4.9% increase over 2009 emissions. The increase marks a quick recovery from the 2008-2009 Global Financial Crisis which had obvious economic and energy use consequences, particularly in North America and Europe."
In their spread sheet they show the increase in carbon emissions between 2009 and 2011 was 8.4%.
Again, I ask, where is all the heat?
Good grief. Duff implies that a small relative difference between a new record and the previous means the record annual temperature was not extreme.
I'm awfully glad I was never on the receiving end of his military "product". That kind of illogic could get a bunch of people killed that his side would prefer to remain alive.
Well, first you should acknowledge that Chris O'Neill called you out and you quoted a bunch of text back at him that doesn't rebut his calling out.
And secondly you should acknowledge you've been told over and over again where all the heat energy is.
But you won't, will you?
Duff you wrote:
Which is demonstrably false as Chris O'Neil demonstrated @ #41.
If you followed the link I gave @ #42 then you would not be jumping to the wrong conclusions and not quoted stuff that does not come to the conclusion you made and which is repeated at the head of this post.
Now do go follow my #40 link. We know where the heat as gone and told you often, are you really as thick as you are making out if you don't know?
Duff
And again you are shown the answer.
Even if you dispute the OHC reconstructions pre-ARGO, you still have to account for the ARGO data (red and black lines).
It is always difficult to determine if idiots like Duffer the Puffer are simply stupid and have an inability to understand simple English or if they are being dishonest and malicious.
Here is the quote from the Guardian that I assume Duffer the Puffer is referring to (note he never offers links, does that mean he knows he is being dishonest by misquoting them?):
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/datablog/2012/jun/21/world-carbo…
Duffer the Puffer tries to equate the rise in emissions from energy sources (there are numerous other sources of green house gases) with an increase in concentration.
He should be ashamed of himself for being so dishonest but he is too arrogant to admit he is wrong.
Ian (@#48) thanks for that, it was rather late last evening when I saw that response of Duff (hence my malformed final statement at #46), to late to go searching for the source. Yes I agree it is a trait of the likes of Duffer to not cite the sources of their information. I think this is a tactic of deception and one which lends itself to the output of a Gish Gallop.
I don't think Duffer is displaying comprehension shortcomings (his writing elsewhere lends itself to arriving at such a conclusion), I will allow that he probably jumps at the first interpretation that comes to him and then decides to exclude other more accurate appraisals if they come to him.
What I do think has happened with that Guardian quote is a misinterpretation, a misinterpretation from a failure of logic. Maybe he was never that good at solving mathematics problems set out in words. Here is a resource to help him..
PS
Reading books aside, I am also researching and writing as co-author of another book in preparation (dealing with the technical side of keeping a particular combat aircraft operational - mine is the naval part) which is also keeping me busy.
Duff may wish to consider signing up for the QWPF's Wegener Memorail Greenland Traverse.
Ha!
Apart from the impervious Duff, isn't the Idiot Count low? And not just here...
You're Dead, guys.
Especially since we've "recovered" to a higher temp than before the LIA.
But I guess the loopy just can't stop seeing loops in any record.
“an astounding +0.02 deg C higher in 2014 than they were in 2010″
Making a trend *when taking the two highest temperatures in the record* that is NOT flat...
For those lurking under that bridge there is a cluster of apposite articles at Climate Central that show how unreasonable your comments here are:
'A Broken Record: 2014 Hottest Year '
'Five Graphics That Show 2014’s Record Heat'
'Watch 135 Years of Global Warming in 30 Seconds'
An interesting warm spell across Antarctica during 1956 and 1957 shows up during the run of that last.
And if that isn't enough, as hinted at HotWhopper recently there are now two studies which demonstrate that That Was Easy: In Just 60 Years, Neoliberal Capitalism Has Nearly Broken Planet Earth,
which is what some of us here have been saying for some time. The dominoes have started to fall and we need to act fast to stop the various cascades that are certain to come otherwise.
Just as statesmen have been described as sleepwalking to war in 1914 a century later we are collectively sleepwalking to civilisation oblivion. And now we have yet another Pope who doesn't get it on birth control.
Hmm...I wrote an informative post on the latest news from Gav on the prolongation of the pause of the accelerating global warming. For some reasons it hasn't come through.
I give it another try:
"The pause – which on some measures has gone on since the mid-1990s - continued into 2014 on the basis of global temperature data released last week by US space agency NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the US"
'News from Gav' Olaus is quoting the piece as if it was Schmidt verbatim...of course it is not.
The headline of the piece claims Schmidt says 'pause over within ten years', when it actually quotes him as using the term 'hiatus' and saying "in five to ten years time it is changes in greenhouse gases that will dominate".
From his link:
"The existence of the pause in global warming was acknowledged by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in its most recent report published in 2013 but there has been significant debate about the actual duration of this hiatus with some commentators alleging that the length is exaggerated by cherry-picking the start date as 1998 – a particularly warm year due to a particularly strong El Nino pacific ocean warming event.
Schmidt himself alluded to this last week when he told the press conference that the “hiatus question is a complicated one”. He pointed out that the El Nino year of 1998 was a “stand out” year and that if a line is drawn from 1998 to 2014 then global surface temperature “doesn't look like it has changed very much”.
Schmidt went on to point out that “2014 is exactly where we would have expected to be before 1998”. There is no statistical evidence for a change in trends and no evidence of a break point between 1997 and 1998, he said. “There is no evidence that the long term trend is really much different to what it has been,” he added.
So there are apparently bits that Gavin Schmidt did say. The pause is the 'hiatus question' at most according to Schmidt...and just about anyone else who is statistically sane and climate aware.
Nick, Well said. There has not been a pause in warming. It is ongoing. Short-term fluctuations give way to long term trends. What meatball's post shows is that AGW deniers are switching memes as it suits them and out of desperation. A few years ago the same people were saying that it wasn't warming. Now they are effectively admitting that it has warmed but that there is a pause. What next?
This comes after the warmest year on record, and where 14 of the 15 warmest years have been in this century. The data is conclusive. And there is nothing worse than partially quoting a scientist in order to distort their words. Deniers do this all the time. Lomborg is a master of the art. Olly does it here with Schmidt.
It is interesting to note that should one do a google on the following, and I have included closing quotes to aid copy and paste:
then the only hit, at least here as of now, was to that article at reportingclimatescience.com
which carries other suspect articles. Who is behind this site, Wizard of Oz, Dick Lindzen etc. ?
The first link in the see also turns up this gem, I bold the title which is placed on that page as a graphic rather than text:
2014 Was Warmest Year Since Records Began
from which I snipped this bit of obvious obfuscation:
The second link in the 'see also' is to a Ross McKitrick trickery (although they misspell the name). Which kinda fits in with this:
Leading UK Sceptic Group Promotes Koch-Funded Canadian Climate Denier
reportingclimatescience - GWPF, I wonder?
Looks like someone has been sweeping the gutter again.
The site owner is Leon Clifford, a name you might have come across on a wide range of climate (and other) blogs either posting, or being quoted.
By trade Clifford is a science journalist of the most indifferent quality, claiming to be particularly interested in extracting simplicity from complexity, a feat he manages by simply stripping out context and nuance. He's not a denier, but is a luke-warmer, emphasising uncertainty and giving undue weight to minority opinion, to satisfy his journalistic need to report a conflict. I very much doubt he is part of GWPF, but seems quite susceptible to reporting the sorts of spin produced by groups like them as though it were fact, seeing as these are usually in a pre-decomplexified it for him. Ironically, he argues that climate change is far to important to spinn, while uncritically digesting same. His analysis is wafer thin, his understanding limited, his insights non-existent.
If you really wanted to pigeon-hole him, think the reporter version of Judith Curry, back when she was just waving Italian flags, some time before she entered the stadium, got confused about the nature of advocacy and of freedom of speech and an uncertainty monster ate her brain.
Sorry, a bit of funky editing there.
For the obvious error, read "seeing as these have usually been pre-decomplexified for him."
Graham Lloyd writes more nonsense: this time he's got some nonsense about wind farms causing ill-health:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/turbines-may-w…
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=turbines-may-well-blow-an-ill-wind-o…
For some reason Graham Lloyd fails to mention that Steven Cooper has a long history of joining forces with the Waubra fake-Foundation to disseminate misinformation about wind turbines.
This crappy propagandist masquerading as a journalist also fails to mention that Steven Cooper's already been hammered in a court of law as a waste of time:
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/south-australia-court-dismisses-anti-wi…
"The court found: “Mr Cooper did not mount a cogent challenge to the data in the EPA report; rather, he wishes to see further work done on the issues of infrasound and low frequency noise.”
And further: “No factual basis has been established for the refusal of development plan consent to the proposed development on the basis of noise or the perception of energy below the audibility level. Mr Cooper has a number of theories, to do with low frequency noise, which he is investigating. At present, on the basis of his evidence before us, it seems that his approach to the task includes privileging the subjective experiences of those residents who have experienced problems, and their perceptions as to the cause of these experiences, over other contradictory data.” (Our emphasis, not the court’s)."
Steven Cooper mixes with an interesting crowd:
Here is something called the "AEF Annual Conference":
Dr David Evans a carbon modeller [no he isn't]
Dick Warburton AO, [raving anti-science nut]
Professor Bob Carter g [nutty climate denier]
Acoustical engineer Steven Cooper [Anti-windfarm crusader]
Associate Professor Stewart Franks [Fringe climate-denier]
Marine biologist Dr Walter Starck [Resume-padder and crop-circle enthusiast]
The last speaker for the day program was Dr David Stockwel
Today was the highest tide of the year in Moreton Bay.
It was150 mm BELOW 1946 king tides.
Still waiting for SLR.
Sprangled drongo,
150 mm below is an unsicinetific number. 0,0150mm above isn't.
The pause that never was:
Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 5th July, 2005
“The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant….”
Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 7th May, 2009
‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’
__________________
Dr. Judith L. Lean – Geophysical Research Letters – 15 Aug 2009
“…This lack of overall warming is analogous to the period from 2002 to 2008 when decreasing solar irradiance also countered much of the anthropogenic warming…”
__________________
Dr. Kevin Trenberth – CRU emails – 12 Oct. 2009
“Well, I have my own article on where the heck is global warming…..The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
__________________
Dr. Mojib Latif – Spiegel – 19th November 2009
“At present, however, the warming is taking a break,”…….”There can be no argument about that,”
__________________
Dr. Jochem Marotzke – Spiegel – 19th November 2009
“It cannot be denied that this is one of the hottest issues in the scientific community,”….”We don’t really know why this stagnation is taking place at this point.”
__________________
Dr. Phil Jones – BBC – 13th February 2010
“I’m a scientist trying to measure temperature. If I registered that the climate has been cooling I’d say so. But it hasn’t until recently – and then barely at all. The trend is a warming trend.”
__________________
Dr. Phil Jones – BBC – 13th February 2010
[Q] B – “Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming”
[A] “Yes, but only just”.
__________________
Prof. Shaowu Wang et al – Advances in Climate Change Research – 2010
“…The decade of 1999-2008 is still the warmest of the last 30 years, though the global temperature increment is near zero;…”
__________________
Dr. B. G. Hunt – Climate Dynamics – February 2011
“Controversy continues to prevail concerning the reality of anthropogenically-induced climatic warming. One of the principal issues is the cause of the hiatus in the current global warming trend.”
__________________
Dr. Robert K. Kaufmann – PNAS – 2nd June 2011
“…..it has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008…..”
__________________
Dr. Gerald A. Meehl – Nature Climate Change – 18th September 2011
“There have been decades, such as 2000–2009, when the observed globally averaged surface-temperature time series shows little increase or even a slightly negative trend1 (a hiatus period)….”
__________________
Met Office Blog – Dave Britton (10:48:21) – 14 October 2012
“We agree with Mr Rose that there has been only a very small amount of warming in the 21st Century. As stated in our response, this is 0.05 degrees Celsius since 1997 equivalent to 0.03 degrees Celsius per decade.”
Source: metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012
__________________
Dr. James Hansen – NASA GISS – 15 January 2013
“The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing.”
__________________
Dr Doug Smith – Met Office – 18 January 2013
“The exact causes of the temperature standstill are not yet understood,” says climate researcher Doug Smith from the Met Office.
[Translated by Philipp Mueller from Spiegel Online]
__________________
Dr. Virginie Guemas – Nature Climate Change – 7 April 2013
“…Despite a sustained production of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, the Earth’s mean near-surface temperature paused its rise during the 2000–2010 period…”
__________________
Dr. Judith Curry – House of Representatives Subcommittee on Environment – 25 April 2013
” If the climate shifts hypothesis is correct, then the current flat trend in global surface temperatures may continue for another decade or two,…”
__________________
Dr. Hans von Storch – Spiegel – 20 June 2013
“…the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) — a value very close to zero….If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models….”
__________________
Professor Masahiro Watanabe – Geophysical Research Letters – 28 June 2013
“The weakening of k commonly found in GCMs seems to be an inevitable response of the climate system to global warming, suggesting the recovery from hiatus in coming decades.”
__________________
Met Office – July 2013
“The recent pause in global warming, part 3: What are the implications for projections of future warming?
………..
Executive summary
The recent pause in global surface temperature rise does not materially alter the risks of substantial warming of the Earth by the end of this century.”
Source: metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/3/r/Paper3_Implications_for_projections.pdf
__________________
Professor Rowan Sutton – Independent – 22 July 2013
“Some people call it a slow-down, some call it a hiatus, some people call it a pause. The global average surface temperature has not increased substantially over the last 10 to 15 years,”
__________________
Dr. Kevin Trenberth – NPR – 23 August 2013
“They probably can’t go on much for much longer than maybe 20 years, and what happens at the end of these hiatus periods, is suddenly there’s a big jump [in temperature] up to a whole new level and you never go back to that previous level again,”
__________________
Dr. Yu Kosaka et. al. – Nature – 28 August 2013
“Recent global-warming hiatus tied to equatorial Pacific surface cooling
Despite the continued increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, the annual-mean global temperature has not risen in the twenty-first century…”
__________________
Professor Anastasios Tsonis – Daily Telegraph – 8 September 2013
“We are already in a cooling trend, which I think will continue for the next 15 years at least. There is no doubt the warming of the 1980s and 1990s has stopped.”
__________________
Dr. Kevin E. Trenberth – Nature News Feature – 15 January 2014
“The 1997 to ’98 El Niño event was a trigger for the changes in the Pacific, and I think that’s very probably the beginning of the hiatus,” says Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist…
__________________
Dr. Gabriel Vecchi – Nature News Feature – 15 January 2014
“A few years ago you saw the hiatus, but it could be dismissed because it was well within the noise,” says Gabriel Vecchi, a climate scientist…“Now it’s something to explain.”…..
__________________
Professor Matthew England – ABC Science – 10 February 2014
“Even though there is this hiatus in this surface average temperature, we’re still getting record heat waves, we’re still getting harsh bush fires…..it shows we shouldn’t take any comfort from this plateau in global average temperatures.”
__________________
Dr. Jana Sillmann et al – IopScience – 18 June 2014
Observed and simulated temperature extremes during the recent warming hiatus
“This regional inconsistency between models and observations might be a key to understanding the recent hiatus in global mean temperature warming.”
__________________
Dr. Young-Heon Jo et al – American Meteorological Society – October 2014
“…..Furthermore, the low-frequency variability in the SPG relates to the propagation of Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) variations from the deep-water formation region to mid-latitudes in the North Atlantic, which might have the implications for recent global surface warming hiatus.”
__________________
Dr. Hans Gleisner – Geophysical Research Letters – 2015
Recent global warming hiatus dominated by low latitude temperature trends in surface and troposphere data
Over the last 15 years, global mean surface temperatures exhibit only weak trends…..Omission of successively larger polar regions from the global-mean temperature calculations, in both tropospheric and surface data sets, shows that data gaps at high latitudes can not explain the observed differences between the hiatus and the pre-hiatus period….
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL062596/abstract
__________________
==
Shuai-Lei Yao et al – Theoretical and Applied Climatology – 9 January 2015
The global warming hiatus—a natural product of interactions of a secular warming trend and a multi-decadal oscillation
….We provide compelling evidence that the global warming hiatus is a natural product of the interplays between a secular warming tendency…..
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-014-1358-x
__________________
H. Douville et al – 2015
The recent global-warming hiatus: What is the role of Pacific variability?
The observed global mean surface air temperature (GMST) has not risen over the last 15 years, spurring outbreaks of skepticism regarding the nature of global warming and challenging the upper-range transient response of the current-generation global climate models….
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL062775/abstract
__________________
Dr. Kevin E. Trenberth11 July 2014
Seasonal aspects of the recent pause in surface warming
Factors involved in the recent pause in the rise of global mean temperatures are examined seasonally. For 1999 to 2012, the hiatus in surface warming is mainly evident in the central and eastern Pacific…….atmospheric circulation anomalies observed globally during the hiatus.
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n10/full/nclimate2341.html
You gotta laugh at meatball's insistence. Note that all of the stuff he wastes his time posting here was published or written before 2014 officially became the hottest year on record. What he's doing is exactly what other deniers do: partially quote scientists to distort the meaning of their words and what they believe. If he went to a scientific forum and did this, he'd be jeered out of the hall. His career would effectively be over. We've already dealt with the ways in which climategate was only a big thing for the climate change denial movement. For the scientific community it was nothing, because we know that the hacked emails were edited to make them look as bad as they could be.
This kind of thing started with the partial quoting of Stephen Scheider's 'double ethical bind' comment to make it look that he was OK with scientists making things up. Bjorn Lomborg did it with Paul Colinvaux in an attempt to make it look like Colinvaux was downplaying extinction rates. The point is that, speaking as a qualified scientist, it is considered imperative to see what the scientist's have said in full and to get their opinions unedited before drawing conclusions on what they say. Meatball posted this probably pounding his chest in seeming victory at proof of a pause that of course does not exist given (1) the time scales involved and the short-term feedbacks that drive short-term variation; in other words significant trends emerge over decades and not a few years, and by (2) cherry picking 1998 as a starting year, when if he had chosen 1999, 2000 or before 1998 he would get a significant trend.
What utterly destroys him and those banging on about a pause was that I recall back in 1999 deniers arguing after 1998's record warm year that AGW was a doomsday myth. Not a single one said, "OK, its warming as Hansen said it would 10 years ago, 1998 was exceptional and we should be concerned". Nope, not at all. They denied warming then and they do now, only they use different tactics. The 'pause' meme is the new one.
The fact that such a nincompoop as meatball would go to the efforts to post all of this up here shows how utterly ignorant he is of science and the scientific method. Not a single major scientific organization does not know that we are into an ongoing warming phase driven in large measure by the burning of fossil fuels. They know what deniers do and how they distort the empirical data as well as misquoting or partially quoting climate scientists to influence public opinion. In am sure that virtually all of the scientists meatball partially quotes here would be furious at his attempt to give the impression that they did not think that warming was a serious problem. Again, as I said before, he and his ilk are a wretched bunch of liars.
" ...before 2014 officially became the hottest year on record."
But when the sea refuses to rise, Jeff, maybe the warming really is man made [up].
"But when the sea refuses to rise, Jeff, maybe the warming really is man made [up]"
Try telling that to the numerous species of plants and animals that are shifting their distributions polewards or to higher elevation'; moreover, I'd like them to explain why vast numbers of traits, such as breeding cycles, seasonal phenology,etc., are also being seen recently in plants and animals.
You know why? Because its warming. And nature responds. The scientific literature is full of studies showing biotc responses to recent warming. This fact kills your argument, Spangled D (by the way, I love drongos - have seen many in India and Malaysia - and your AGW denial puts a smear on not only the Spangled Drongo but on its congeners...).
Jeff, there is a certain amount of natural variational warming and tree lines have ever moved with this and of course no-one denies the CO2 richer atmo which is visibly doing wonders for our ever aridifying country plus some unquantifiable warming from that same CO2 but as for 2014 being the hottest evah, I think it is still reasonably part of the pause:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2915061/Nasa-climate-scientists…
And BTW, what denial are you talking about?
#71, climate revisionism.
Pause in the warming, meaning it was warming and still is:
https://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/nasa4.jpeg?w=500&h=332
No pause in the warming, I mean, it is accelerating of course:
http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/pics/0115_ZH_Fig4.png
It's a criminal drongo.
"No pause in the warming, I mean, it is accelerating of course"
You mean, like SLR? or 2014 being the hottest year?
There are many ways of measuring things, some more accurate than others. But if you want to sell a dodgy article, you don't always tell the full story.
#71, once again it is the stupidity of denialists that is on display: the likelihood that 2014 is the hottest year is far greater than any of the other years listed in the graphic from NOAA and NASA.
For the confusion, I actually blame NOAA and NASA for overestimating the intelligence of AGW rejectionists.
They ought to know how f**king stupid, technically ignorant and statistically incompetent they are by now, you would think.
SD, of course there is natural variation. But given the time scales involved, the recent increases in temperature as well as a myriad of biotic responses are proof positive of some external forcing agent. That agent is Homo sapiens via the burning of fossil fuels. There are no ands, ifs or buts about it.
We are talking about a largely deterministic system here. The current changes in temperature at both global and local scales exceeds anything the planet has experienced in millions of years. These kinds of changes at the spatial scales involved would normally take thousands of years to be manifested - not half a century. The vast majority of scientists know this, hence why we have moved on to push for policies aimed at mitigating C02 concentrations. If we are stupid enought to continue along the current trajectory, the future is indeed bleak.
#65, you are fortunate enough to live on a section of coastline where sea level rise is happening at a very modest pace compared with other parts of the world like east coastal US, north and western Australia, the Bay of Biscay and the South China Sea.
I guess you extrapolate from your region to the globe? Is this true? How do you justify it, when there a world of available literature on SLRs twists and turns out there?
Thanks cRR,
Those graphs pretty well demolish the deniers pause meme. Anyone regressing the data would see with the naked eye a clear increase with time, let alone putting it to statistics. Deniers are desperate to eliminate any pre-1998 readings. They also don't want to start at 1999 or 2000 which were well below 1998, an extreme year because of the most intense El Nino on record. Nick sums them up pretty well, as Bill did earlier.
#61, that's Rupert's lickspittles looking after dear leader's estates in the Yass / Crookwell region. Maurice Newman is another well-known NIMBY from that area, and, golly, he's a frequent Australian opinionator-without-a-clue. Funny that.
#67, it's pretty clear when you see Kevin Trenberth using words like 'hiatus' and 'pause' it's for convenience rather than precision. He really doesn't care: idiots will be idiots and will spin under any conditions.Meatball's last quote mine links to a Trenberth et al. paper which amongst the material, graphs GAT from NOAA data, and the trend, while modest, is clearly positive for the 1998-2013. It obviously has little climate significance as it is a short period, but it sure as shit ain't negative, and it fails significance as a real pause. The paper title uses wordings about a hiatus in 'surface temperature'...only a dumbnialist would fail to appreciate the clarity of that usage.
Spangly the Tide Man is back!
Because, see, if SLR's not rising where at that spot just down the road from him - you know the one, near the kiosk, near the park with the grass and the bins and the Norfolk Pines? - it's not rising anywhere! That's just proper logical...
Barrel duly scraped right through! It takes a special kind of pernicious imbecility to be dead and not know it.
You're dead, Idiots. And innumerate, of course, and that's especially true, isn't it, because there's just sooooooo many of you?!
Headless fucking chickens...
Craig Thomas WRT Wind Turbines and hat dreadful Australian article (no I will not pay to read such bilge - Murdoch you lose).
It is not unexpected that this is a message being promulgated by the worst section of the MM such as the Daily Fail, Express, Lawrence Solomon etc., etc.
Recent reported research from MIT Wind turbines not a risk to human health, says MIT study.
A more nuanced article from the media: Windfarm sickness spreads by word of mouth, Australian study finds, add to that the gutter press of the kind Lloyd works for and gets paid for damaging the future prospects of all inhabitants of Earth.
Anybody who has bothered to study the reports and papers from scientists on SLR know recognise how selectively silly Spangled Drongo (The One Meme Moron) is being.
SD try looking up the work of Hunt Janin, Scott A. Mandia, 'Rising Sea Levels: An Introduction to Cause and Impact' but this has been put to you before.
Scott Mandia is another scientist who has been threatened with a libel law suit by Christopher Monckton, a threat which was not followed up (see Wiki).
Now Jerry Mitrovica is another scientist that has been brought to you here.
However here are reminders, the first is brief and covers many other aspects of climate change in the intro, do watch to the end where he explains how and why sea level is not uniform across the planet (yoiu would already know this if you had read Janin & Mandia cited above:
Jerry X. Mitrovica, Harvard University
Here is one where Jerry Mitrovica explains about the non-uniformity of SLR earlier in a presentation:
Jerry Mitrovica, Harvard University, Arthur M. Sackler Colloquia.
Now you have no excuse to bother us further with your simplistic, cherry picked factoids.
Funny how lap dog here says that Phil claims there has been "no warming since 1997" because it is warming, but not statistically significantly, but will accept a claim that isn't statistically significant if it claims cooling...
Tell us, lap dog, what's the decade trend from 2013 to 2014? It isn't a statistically significant trend, but it's upward. Would you claim therefore that the data shows it's warming, not cooling?
If the trend were +5C per decade +/- 10C, deniers would claim "temperatures have paused!!!". This is how they roll.
However, what if the trend were 0C, +/- 10C? That could be "a pause", but so what? In a trend over decades, you could pick two annual averages and find that the trend were 0C. Deniers do this, then claim "PAUSED!!!!".
But what does this pause mean? Nothing with regards to the claims of the IPCC, and this is something I think we should all get front-and-centre in this "debate" on a pause.
After all, the IPCC claim a sensitivity of +.17C per decade. A trend of 0C only disproves the IPCC claim if that trends' error bar precludes a trend of +0.17C per decade.
NO SUCH TREND EXISTS.
So any and all claims of "a pause in temperatures" has absolutely nothing to say on AGW and the conclusions of the IPCC. Because no such "pause" proves the IPCC wrong.
Whereas there are plenty of positive trends that prove the IPCC right, and plenty of trends proving the "predictions" of deniers completely and utterly false.
Yet despite such a terrible track record of failure, lap dog et al wish everyone to believe the words of these failures merely because they think they've found a failure of the IPCC predictions.
A failure that doesn't even exist.
Matt Ridley in focus again, for the wrong reasons again.
It is becoming clearer why Matt Ridley has such a keen interest in promoting AGW and climate change denial, it is similar in aspect, if not scale, to that of Gina 'hardheart' Rinehart:
Lord Ridley: Make Mine A Large One!
Given that the continued use of coal as a fuel is going to exacerbate the situation of the many billions of creatures that inhabit this Earth is Ridley's attitude any less deplorable that that of Andrew Bonar Law, Chancellor of the Exchequer at a time when Britain's merchant fleet was being hammered by German U-boats in WW1. Of course Bonar Law was not directly responsible for the sinkings but he was indirectly so for the suffering of the seamen and their dependants.
I would like to bring the reader's attention to a situation that faced merchant seamen who found their ships sunk from under them as the result of war on commerce and how some persons in privileged positions profited from their distress. This is a tale that will sicken one in its display of arrogant heartlessness.
The Real Cruel Sea: The Merchant Navy in the Battle of the Atlantic 1939-1943
Richard Woodman is a respected retired mercantile seafarer and member of Trinity House who has written extensively on aspects of maritime warfare with the focus more on the merchant marine than the Royal Navy. He was Master of vessels for the Alfred Holt Line (aka The Blue Funnel Line) a well run and fairer owner which provided better conditions for its seamen. The Alfred Holt Line was the subject of a book by (RN) Captain Stephen Roskill entitled 'A Merchant Fleet at War 1939 : 1945', a book read several times by myself having been presented with a copy by 'The Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty' as a part of a prize for attainment in Workshop Technology at the end of my first year of technical training.
Richard Woodman has also written a series of naval action novels set in the Napoleonic Wars period and featuring Nathaniel Drinkwater, those who like O'Brian may find these enjoyable.
Pause, what pause:
http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2014-hottest-year-on-record/
?
So Spangled Drongo is a physics denier, an evidence denier and a conspiracy theorist.
Occasionally, when the gatekeepers get it so obviously wrong, they have no choice but to retract.
BoM admit they got it wrong to Ken Stewart yesterday:
"Dear Ken,
Further to our correspondence we can confirm that media statements made to the ABC by a Bureau employee on 6 January 2014 did not accurately reflect the relative severity of the current Queensland rainfall deficiencies. Unfortunately the Bureau spokesperson misinterpreted some of the information. We have advised the ABC of the inaccuracy and asked them for an opportunity to update the story, if possible.
Regards,
Climate Analysis Section"
Raw temperatures and SLs can be homogenised and hidden but rainfall is their achilles heel.
However, SLR is like justice; if it is happening, it should be seen to be happening.
So, tell me Deltoids, point to an observable spot where this is happening.
You know, where a human being has witnessed it and can prove it.
Spangled Drongo
Are you suggesting that the various satellite-based sea level reconstructions and the tide-gauge sea level reconstructions that pre-date them are fraudulently altered to show SLR where none exists?
How many press statements on climate related matters are released a year? Tens of thousands, maybe more? And the deniers found one with an error? Wow, colour me impressed: finally the final, final nail in the final coffin of climate change. (The previous coffins all sunk unnoticed because of the weight of all those nails)
turboblocke
SD clearly thinks that this is the end for the Grand Conspiracy of All Climate Scientists in the World:
Note the fact that the Grand Frauds committed by each of the teams preparing the global temperature reconstructions have been unmasked, along with those of all teams preparing SL reconstructions - all because a BoM PR flack misunderstood something or other to do with rainfall in Qld:
To think - a global conspiracy involving thousands of scientists and administrators and spanning decades brought down by a single slip by a peon.
There's one thing bothering me though. How did the conspiracy get to Spencer and Christy at UAH?
BBD, so you think that getting big media sound bytes, like "the hottest year evah!" or "worst Qld drought evah" out there whether they are right or not is unintentional and reflects good science?
Do you ever wonder why the errors are always in the same direction?
Just to be clear, Spangly, are you saying that "the hottest year on record" headline is wrong, because some other newspaper headline about something else was wrong?
Also, referring you back to your research on SLR and your recent publication regarding king tides, can we please have access to all your data and methods - I particularly would like to see what equipment you are using, the hourly SL readings you've recorded from that equipment, and the precise method you use to calculate the relationship between your "king tides" observations at one location and the global SLR.
It was the hottest year on record. By the standard that we've always made this calculation. Get over it.
And only 4 years after the previous hottest year, and in a non-El-Nino year, hotter than the greatest El Nino year of the 20th Century, which occurred only a decade and a half ago, to boot.
It takes a special commitment to Stupid not to get this! A real, bloody-minded, I-don't-care-who-suffers-for-my-stupidity-because -I'm-always-right-(and-Right!) commitment.
It's warming, Stupids! You're dead.
Time to shuffle off to Colonel Blowhard's Tory Twilight Home for the Terminally Bewildered Reactionary...
In anticipation of Spangly un-hiding all his data and his methods, let's have a look at SLR as documented by real scientists using real data published where it can be properly checked and critiqued:
http://blog.ucsusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Sea-Level-Rise-and-Gl…
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2014_rel2/sl_ns_global.png
Crikey! In searching for SLR graphs I inadvertently exposed myself to some champion-grade stupid:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/sea-level/axel-morner/kattegatt-s…
So it looks like Moerner takes Silver as well as Gold (for his "tilted graph") in the "Most Retarded Graphic Ever" category, with Bronze going to Science Mis-communicator, Joanne Codling, for seeing fit to republish this arrant nonsense.
Just for diversion:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Moncktonsnapshot3.png
snigger.
Craigy, do you have any personal obs, anywhere, of SLR?
Have you ever bothered to collect any data over your lifetime?
Very easy.
How do you think they measure SLR with a satellite when 7 satellite GPS will put you on the rocks if you don't personally pay attention. Give you one guess.
I don't think even the authors of some of that stuff you presented above would believe it.
Fort Denison is possibly the East Coast's best and longest tide gauge and it shows 65mm SLR for the last century but now they discover that it is sinking by an almost similar amount so SLR statistically nothing happening.
That's why you need sound bytes of your silly claims, Craigy.
Even if you have to retract later, the message is out.
SHOW US THE DATA!!!
or
FRAUD!!!
Still, maybe the Drongo is onto something - do you think we should tell the scientists that they have forgotten to consider the concept of eustasy?
Or...just maybe, do you think the scientists are slightly ahead of you, Drongo?
I find it breath-taking that Craigie-boy can mindlessly dismiss tide gauges yet refer to the authors of selective sat-crap as "real scientists" with "real data".
Says it all, really.
Get up to date, Craigie. Nobody believes that stuff any more.
Not even Church and White.
Oops, looks like Drongo won't be teaching the real scientists anything new in a hurry:
Lambert (2002): 'Changes in sea level are usually expressed as a change in the level of the sea with respect to land. It is therefore a relative measure that is indicative of movement of the land, changes in ocean volume or, in most cases, of both. As such, sea-level change, both today and in the past, exhibits a complex spatial and temporal pattern that reflects tectonic, isostatic and climate contributions. Future change, likewise, will be geographically variable.'
Oops, turns out many of these clever scientists have already discovered Drongo's amazing discovery:
"Tide gauge-derived SSH records are subject to contamination by vertical movement, which can take various forms:
•It can be long-term and more-or-less constant, such as changes caused by Glacial Isostatic Adjustment (rebound from the last Ice Age)
•Short term, e.g. the Boxing Day (2004) Tsunami, which was caused by an earthquake
•Varying in time over periods of years or decades. This can be caused by sinking of piers because of unstable foundations or sinkage of land through (e.g.) groundwater pumping. A good example of the latter is the tide gauge record for Manila in the Philipines:
Tide gauge record at Manila
In recent years a lot of effort has been going into installing GPS receivers at or very close to high quality tide gauges to try to estimate this vertical movement directly and then correct for it. Some of the GPS records are now getting to the stage of providing useful estimates of this. See for example GLOSS and TIGA."
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_meas_tide_gauge.html
Gosh, it turns out *lots* of scientists are at least as smart as a drongo:
"The figure also needs to be adjusted for vertical movement of the land during the same time, so estimates of the actual (or absolute) sea-level rise are in the range of 0.8-1.0 mm/year since 1841 (Pugh et al. 2002)"
http://soer.justice.tas.gov.au/2003/indicator/153/index.php
Golly, even those doofuses at the UN-communist-conspiracy they call the IPCC have already figured out Drongo's startling discovery:
"if the sea level records are treated for a number of locations and the overall mean
is taken of the several independent determinations of trends, then this mean has a tendency to provide
greater focus on the trend of the world ocean, by reducing the effect of the more random land motions.
In fact the assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have adopted this
premise."
http://research.fit.edu/sealevelriselibrary/documents/doc_mgr/403/Pacif…
In conclusion, it appears that Spangled Drongo's contribution is pretty much the equivalent of a monkey at Taronga zoo, thinking it is clever flinging its own shit at the visitors.
I like how Spangled Drongo projects his own rejection of scientific instrumentation (in favour of the deluded mis-measurements provided by his own brain) by accusing me of rejecting tide gauges.
Here's a clue, Drongo, when you un-skeptically recycle the crap you've lapped-up from loon-sites like JoNova, where conclusions are made from, for example, single tide stations, you are *yourself* rejecting far more tide gauges than I am.
Last time I looked at JoNova, the science mis-communicator had provided a graph WITH THE LAST 95 YEARS OF DATA NOT INCLUDED as evidence of something in relation to THE PRESENT.
We're pretty sure she isn't actually dumb, so....er...help me Drongo, what do you call somebody who is definitely intellectually equipped to realize that the statements they are making are blatantly wrong?
I'll give you the best clue of all, Craigie.
Take your head out of your rear end and stick it out the window.
Just amazing what you will see. If you open your eyes, of course.
A little bit of Beenstock et al helps, too:
http://pluto.mscc.huji.ac.il/~msdfels/wpapers/Tide%20gauge%20location.p…
Drongo drones:
"Craigy, do you have any personal obs, anywhere, of SLR?"
Argument from irrelevance.
"How do you think they measure SLR with a satellite when 7 satellite GPS will put you on the rocks if you don’t personally pay attention."
Argument from ignorance. And don't sail with this man.
"Fort Denison is possibly the East Coast’s best and longest tide gauge and it shows 65mm SLR for the last century but now they discover that it is sinking by an almost similar amount so SLR statistically nothing happening."
Argument without substantiation. Provide a link to the technical data. Not Bob Carter.
Its quite gratifying seeing Drongo getting his hide tanned here. Essentially SD gets his 'data' from contrarian blogs. He seems to be unaware that there is a great big scientific community out there doing actual research, and that the vast majority of the data contradicts his single dot. Furthermore, he glosses over the simple fact that most of the people doing the research would vehemently disagree with him.
But that's why he contaminates blogs. Like meatball and the rest of the denier laymen, they have nowhere else to go.
Nick, have you done likewise?
Taken the time to make your own obs?
Nothing irrelevant about that. You can learn things that might amaze you.
You might even stop yourself from doing this:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-02-25/fatal-yacht-crash-inquiry-blames-…
I might just be a better risk than you.
People who haven't made the effort to pay attention shouldn't criticise those who have.
I must have missed that, Jeff. Was there someone here who had some personal obs to refute my claim of no SLR?
As I said upthread, if SLR is happening it would be seen to be happening.
Seen it, have you Jeff? Or know anyone who has?
Drongo, you need to get out more. Why do you extrapolate to an absolute position from your personal anecdotal observation of sea level at your spot on a coastline? Sea level rise at your place may be miniscule; what does that prove at larger scales?
Why do you think comparing your personal anecdotal observation with another anonymous viewers anecdotal observation will advance any certainty on global or national SLR?
What are SEAFRAME observations telling us around Australia? That SLR is real, and regionally variable.
I get the feeling your attention is very selective.
#11 JH, 'He seems to be unaware' - trust me, he's aware. Not a spot of innocence there. White white board criminal (note double adjective).
".. SLR is real, and regionally variable."
You know that for a fact, do you Nick?
Or just believe what you've been told. Like 2014 being the warmest evah! or the Qld drought being the worst evah!
SLs from my personal obs over the last 69 years are DOWN 200 - 300 mm.
Now I could be wrong but people who have also been in the seafront infrastructure business where an extra inch of SL at high tide can earn them a lot more money also tell me of their similar obs.
What about you supplying some obs to refute this. You know, as in if it's happening, it would be seen to be happening.
But I suppose for someone who puts his trust in a GPS to the point where he doesn't keep watch at sea, it might be a bit much to expect. You probably don't observe anything very carefully.
Spangled Drongo
You didn't answer the question:
Are you suggesting that the various satellite-based sea level reconstructions and the tide-gauge sea level reconstructions that pre-date them are fraudulently altered to show SLR where none exists?
I'm afraid that your 'personal obs' are unpublished, uncorroborated and unverifiable and therefore of no value in this discussion whatsoever.
You cannot appeal to your own authority in blog comments, SD. It's a remarkably silly thing to do, when you actually think about it.
Which returns us to the published satellite reconstructions. Please indicate if you believe that they are fraudulent.
You too, BBD? You also admit you are not capable of observing SLR?
It's really quite simple. And there is no need to publish a paper every time you do it.
I wonder why no one is observing it if it is happening so much.
As I mentioned upthread, BBD, satellites can't measure SLR.
Remember Envisat? Adjusted to suit.
Even Church and White have seen the light.
SD
Please read the words above again.
1/ Answer the question:
Are you suggesting that the various satellite-based sea level reconstructions and the tide-gauge sea level reconstructions that pre-date them are fraudulently altered to show SLR where none exists?
Yes or no?
2/ I’m afraid that your ‘personal obs’ are unpublished, uncorroborated and unverifiable and therefore of no value in this discussion whatsoever.
You cannot appeal to your own authority in blog comments, SD. It’s a remarkably silly thing to do, when you actually think about it.
First, this is rubbish. Second, it is an argument from assertion which is a formal logical fallacy. Third, where is your published reference supporting this obviously counter-factual assertion?
The Drongo:
"You know that for a fact, do you Nick?"
Sea level rise is a fact because there is a mountain of data to prove it. SEAFRAME is a newish network designed as a purpose built long term observation system around the Australian coast. Its design and methodology and operation is fully in the public eye. Over twenty years of operation, all stations have experienced varying rises.
"SLs from my personal obs over the last 69 years are DOWN 200 – 300 mm."
And you're the only one to notice?? 20 to 30cm lower? Why have no tide gauges of any standard, except your own eyecrometer, picked up the sign of that change if not a similar amount? How very odd. Maybe a giant ancestral turtle is stirring below your canal estate.
Do you think king tide benchmarks are a best measure of sea level trend? Why? You know you are working with a very limited data subset if you restrict yourself to the extremes of the extreme. Why do you ignore the full data set? Every day's highs and lows are subject to influence from atmospheric pressure and prevailing wind: you need a lot of data to overcome these confounding inputs.
Any news on a source for Bob Carter's claim about subsidence at Fort Denison.
"First, this is rubbish. Second, it is an argument from assertion..."
Just listen to yourself, BBD ☺.
Fort Denison subsiding: assertion or fact, Drongo?
Drongo has apparently failed to parse the description of one scientific group's method:
"the overall mean is taken of the several independent determinations of trends, then this mean has a tendency to provide greater focus on the trend of the world ocean, by reducing the effect of the more random land motions."
Do you get it, Drongo? It's no good you pointing at one tidal gauge and using it as the general representation of isostatic effects on sea level measurements, UNLESS YOU ARE SUGGESTING THE WHOLE WORLD IS SINKING.
Do you understand how stupid your non-scientific assertions based on no data and not a shred of logic or commonsense appears to skeptical people such as myself?
Meanwhile, you continue to assert you have made personal observations of SLR BUT PROVIDE NO DATA.
You continue to base assertions on your mysteriously absent data BUT PROVIDE NO CODE.
No data. No method. You have nothing.
Tell ya what, Nick, if king tides are a foot lower, year after year, than they were 69 years ago [and they are] we can all go home and relax.
That is, except for those who could do with the extra water.
Just think about how much money you could be saving the world in climate mitigation if only you had paid attention.
Congratulations SD, if you've been making personal obs for 69 years you definitely have one of the characteristics that fits the dernier profile.
Craigie-boy, you obviously didn't read that link I gave you upthread?
61% of all tide gauges are showing no SLR.
4% are showing falls of ~ 6 mm/year.
But you still haven't told me if you have observed anything yourself.
There are satellite-based SLR reconstructions. You assert (logical fallacy) that satellites cannot measure SLR. What I am listening for is some recognition of the fact by you that you are simply shouting rubbish at us. Unreferenced rubbish at that.
Nor have you acknowledged that you cannot appeal to your own unpublished and unverifiable authority in this discussion because it is absolutely weightless. I might as well claim that I have observed a unicorn at the bottom of my garden. Do you understand this?
I'm also waiting for you to answer the question:
Are you suggesting that the various satellite-based sea level reconstructions and the tide-gauge sea level reconstructions that pre-date them are fraudulently altered to show SLR where none exists?
Yes or no?
Get on with it please.
As a side question, with all the glaciers melting and ice sheets at both poles shedding vast amounts of mass, the mass of the oceans is clearly increasing.
We also know the volume of the oceans is increasing due to heat content.
With increased mass AND increased volume...
- Will the equatorial bulge absorb a greater proportion of the increase than higher latitudes? (Yes?)
- Will the mass increase exert disproportionate isostatic effects on coastal regions, thus biasing tidal gauges?
Supplementary question:
- if a careless yachtsman runs his yacht aground, does this prove all the world's scientists are engaged on a nefarious conspiracy to assist the UN Communist-Fascist Agenda21 plan for a one-world government? And, if so, where can we all get some of whatever Spangled Drongo has been smoking?
#31, please, BBD, the man is one of them thugs. Treat him so.
Craigie, you really are one brainwashed, foolish boi.
Brush up on the GRACE gravy meter and how the reference frame is so far out, NASA cant afford to fix it. Get a GRASP of yourself.
Global sea ice is considerably above normal and the ice caps are all doing fine. Admittedly some of the glaciers have been sublimating and that is human caused but then, I'm not perfect either.
And if you can't understand the point about the GPS, that just further proves mine.
I checked out Beenstock,
apparently a Drongo only needs one scientific paper in order to congratulate their already-made-up-mind
unlike skeptical people who refer to many papers and keep an open mind
So, the first thing I notice is....it was written by a posse of Economists. Cool, should be at least as good as a paper written by Lomborg or Tol, then...
Next, on Page22 I see
"In the minority of locations where sea levels are rising"
together with, on the same page
"Our estimate [for global SLR] is 1mm/year."
hmmmm...mixed message, much? How did that happen?
Page 21:
"we find that sea levels are rising in about a third of tide gauges,"
Page20:
"the minority of tide gauges that happen to have negative trends."
and
"The overwhelming picture is yellow (no trend)"
hmmm....this is interesting...
What else do we have on p20?
"Given that the data for each point may not always represent a continuous series, SLR is flagged as ‘positive’ (negative) if all the segments for that tide gauge are positive (negative) and as ‘conflicting’ if the KPSS results across the segments are not consistent."
Gosh, reflecting on that methodology, let's check p19 for another way they express their conclusion:
"the probability of tide gauges being installed in locations of rising sea levels has decreased over time, whereas the probability of their installation in locations where sea levels are stable has increased over time,"
Lol. In fact, that is very funny.
Let me rephrase their entire conclusion thusly:
SLR data series will be likely to display a statistically significant trend in direct proportion to the length of the time series.
Virtually all statistically significant trends are positive trends.
Dis-continuous data series have been swept under the carpet, for no apparent reason, without correcting for any known causes of the discontinuity.
As I thought, these guys could definitely hang out at the same pub as Lomborg and Tol.
SD claims on the basis of two data points, the 1946 King Tide and the 2015 King Tide, that sea level in his area has dropped 200-300 mm.
So SD uses only two data points out of around 25000. It would be equally facile to note that in my location the highest ever daily max temperature was in 1968, so no global warming in 47 years! (despite the fact that the 2000's are grossly overrepresented in, say, the top 100 temperatures).
But let us, for the lulz, assume there is some merit in using only two data points, to fully understand these data points we would need to know for each:
1. Temporal proximity to perihelion.
2. Distance of perihelion.
3. Temporal proximity to lunar perigee.
4. Distance to lunar perigee.
5. Exact time of tide.
6. Position of the moon at that time.
That is the minimum additional information about the raw drivers of tide height the Spangled Drongo has never included anywhere (that I've seen) in regurgitating this factoid. But then there is the extra additional information required affecting measured tide height:
7. Hydrodynamic changes at site - wasn't SD observing a marker in a canal at one time, which Deltoids (perhaps Bernard J) determined had been hydrodynamically altered by being dredged? So dredging and deposition and any number of topographical changes impeding or enhancing the water flow at the marker.
8. Barometric pressure at the site.
9. Water inflow to site (eg rainfall history leading up to the reading)
10. Wind history (speed and direction, not just at the time but for an extended period leading up to the reading).
11. Since we are considering a reasonably long interval, isostatic (subsidence or uplift) of the site.
Until the Drongo comes up with comparative data for all 11 of those parameters (at a minimum), his claim is as useful as me claiming that people are getting shorter because I'm taller than my son (who, shockingly, is still growing). So do us a favour, SD, instead of just repeating this ad nauseam, how about you turn this contextless pair of data points into some useful information?
I won't hold my breath...
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/12/12/sea-level-rise-acceleration/
Deja vu?
Drongo
I can see two unicorns at the bottom of the garden now.
Are you suggesting that the various satellite-based sea level reconstructions and the tide-gauge sea level reconstructions that pre-date them are fraudulently altered to show SLR where none exists?
Yes or no?
Come on.
Craig # 32
I don't know if you read HotWhopper, but I posted over there some back of the envelope calculations to test the denier notion that current warming is due to undetected undersea volcanic activity. One of the outcomes of that exercise was to note that for that to be true the amount of lava added to the ocean floor was greater than the amount of SLR, and thus there must be a plughole at the bottom of the ocean through which the "missing" water is draining (about 50% of the total water displaced by all the extra lava, when thermosteric expansion is allowed for).
The additional mass of water from melting land ice is clearly also gurgling down that drain, although it does affect the issue somewhat:
"OH NOES! IT'S WORSE THAN WE THOUGHT!"
oops, it turns out I should have checked out Beenstock before I wasted time reading his idiotic "paper":
https://denierlist.wordpress.com/2012/11/25/michael-beanstock/
Professor Michael Beenstock said theories of climate change are wrong. He warned climatologists have misused statistics[ROTFLMAO.....It's ALWAYS.....], leading them to the mistaken conclusion global warming is evidence of the greenhouse effect.
He told London’s Cass Business School that the link between rising greenhouse gas emissions and rising temperatures is “spurious”, adding: “The greenhouse effect is an illusion.” The economics professor from The Hebrew University of Jerusalem said that just because greenhouse gases and temperatures have risen together does not mean they are linked.
He claims that the real cause of rising temperatures is the sun, which he says is at its hottest for over 1,000 years but is “beginning to stabilise”. Professor Beenstock said: “If the sun’s heat continues to remain stable, and if carbon emissions continue to grow with the rate of growth of the world economy, global temperatures will fall by about 0.5C by 2050.” Citing predictions by climatologists in the 1970s of a new Ice Age, Professor Beenstock said: “I predict that climatologists will look equally foolish in the years to come. Indeed, it may be already happening.”
Just another denier-loon.
The Drongo offers:
"Tell ya what, Nick, if king tides are a foot lower, year after year, than they were 69 years ago [and they are] we can all go home and relax."
You are a clueless time-waster, Drongo. How many king tides per year for 69 years? How many data points? Once you've totted that up, count how many tides a day, every day for 69 years. Then compared the numbers. Oh, I notice that Frank has shone a light on your deficient reckonings in more detail.
Any bells starting to ring?
Oh, and Fort Denison? Rubbish, or reference? What's it to be?
#40, Beenstock is more than a loon, he's not all there.
The sun caused CO2 rise, but the relationship between CO2 rise and temperature is spurious?
Is that really what he's claiming?
Need better deniers.
Drongo
The new data from Cryosat-2 essentially confirm GRACE ice mass balance change estimates for Antarctica. See McMillan et al. (2014) Increased ice losses from Antarctica detected by Cryosat-2
So Beenstock is a physics denier. Then there is no point in wasting any more time with his crap.
Fort Denison subsiding: assertion or fact, Drongo?
Read all about it:
http://www.coastalconference.com/2012/papers2012/Phil%20Watson%20Full%2…
Drongo chirps:
"Global sea ice is considerably above normal and the ice caps are all doing fine. Admittedly some of the glaciers have been sublimating and that is human caused but then, I’m not perfect either."
Humans might have made some glaciers 'sublimate' but the icecaps have not 'sublimated' . How did we specify that distinction?
Still waiting for Doltoids to provide someone who has actually observed this SLR that most of the tide gauges haven't.
Well, I suppose there's always tomorrow.
Drongo
I can see two unicorns and a leprechaun at the bottom of the garden now.
Are you suggesting that the various satellite-based sea level reconstructions and the tide-gauge sea level reconstructions that pre-date them are fraudulently altered to show SLR where none exists?
Yes or no?
Come on.
All you have done so far is post rubbish and demonstrate that you are evasive on the key point. You started off braying your conspiracy theory but now will not even acknowledge it?
What kind of denialist warrior are you?
#45. Drongo, kindly point out the bit where the paper states subsidence has been detected at Fort Denison...as opposed to Newcastle.
It turns out that you have no evidence for this claim except one crap paper by a physics-denying economist.
Only you are stupid enough to think that your unicorns trump the satellite reconstructions so you will not get any traction with your daft attempt to drag us down to your level of irrelevance. You need to change tack, Drongo.
http://www.climate.org/topics/sea-level/index.html
Pretty well debunks SD. The evidence is overwhelming. Besides a few Dunning-Kruger acolytes (like Drongo) and the usual blogger shills, the scientific community is in strong consensus over SLR. That SD wades in ehre with his piffle is quite a humilation for him. On top of everything else, of course.
Next?
#37 Deja vu?
Yep, 'deja vu all over again' as some wag put it.
We've been visited by our migrant Drongo, the call is inmistakeable. It never changes.
Spangled Drongo:
That statement makes you one of the stupidest commenters here, and that is saying something given the presence of the likes of OP, Duff and a plethora of socks. Are you blind, I provided you with links to such up-thread here, note that is to presentations by scientists and not the pseudo-science you favour in the Daily Fail - is that the link you protest about.
Do slow down and allow yourself time to absorb NEW information, NEW to you that is. Slow right down, to a rate little faster than stopped is my advice because your ability to process NEW informations appears severely limited.
Sea level the world over can not be judged by the behaviour of your hobby horse King tides on one coastline anymore than global temperatures can be judged by a single measurement at Camp Century.
Or is it that link you are on about that Beenstock et. al. that which Craig has done such a fine job of dismantling? If that is not enough for you here is more:
Open for Comment.
Seriously, you are displaying the self destructive behaviour of a head banger here. Stop before you destroy your last brain cell.
Craig #40 - even by his own laughably low standards Beenstock's comments are ridiculous. He says that the greenhouse effect is an illusion, but then says "and if carbon emissions continue to grow with the rate of growth of the world economy..."
What, there is no greenhouse effect, but future temperatures are partly dependent on emission trajectory? An illusory process will have a real effect? Perhaps Beenstock is really a 7th-level magic user in someone's Dungeons & Dragons campaign...
What a loon...
Sorry, despite the identical content, I posted the above before seeing Nick #42.
Great minds...:-)
Still waiting for Doltoids to provide someone who has actually observed this
No surprise to see El Drongo using a very slight variation on the olde Ken Ham creationist defence - "Were you there?" - a much beloved apparent slam-dunk by cranks.
"Only you are stupid enough to think that your unicorns trump the satellite reconstructions"
"Besides a few Dunning-Kruger acolytes (like Drongo) "
"That statement makes you one of the stupidest commenters here"
All those remarks suggest an innocence that is not there. Please rephrase, BBD, Lionel, Jeff. Call a thug a thug and treat it as such. There can be no debating thugs.
Good to see you active again check.
We could say that SD (his memory arrays have a fault) is Haming it up.
Darn it chek!
chek
Good to see you back.
Thanks guys.
Still catching up here, but good to see the continued good work being done here by the pro-science posters.
And yet slightly depressing to see the others cranking out the same tired old memes.
I mean, who couldn't get that a non-El Niño year like 2014 is now up there with the strong El Niño of 1998?
Great article about AGW by the guys at Media Lens (UK):
http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/2015/784-death-…
Yes, and welcome back Chek! We've missed you!
The usual crackpots still write in here... and you know who they are. Duffer,Rednose, Spangled Drongo, The Swedish Meatball (Olaus) etc...
#63, sure, help keep up the debate!
I guess Spangled Drongo fell out of his tree after this was reported and is now channelling Andrew Bolt.
In common with all his brethren SD malforms his citations in this case via a back door providing a PDF without context of publication record or date. If we enter by the front door we know the provenance of the piece.
Whatever, I think it incumbent on SD to explain where in that document it informs us of the isostatic status of Fort Denison. But of course SD was only interested in making a smoke screen.
More to come - in case of link limit.
So it appears that some in the Sydney area were sufficiently concerned to do something about Fort Denison near a decade ago.
As WE learn of the accelerating pace of melt of the cryosphere globally then the people of Sydney had better hope that the altitude of Fort Denison increases WRT a faster rate of sea level rise. Don't believe this SD then have a look at this:
The AGU Interviews: Eric Rignot, Part 3 .
Rignot should end Holland by next century turn.
Unless energy is free and clean by then, so we can run the pumps to prevent the river delta that Holland is from receding. Think of pumping the end flow of the Mississippi over a 1.5m barrier all the time - that would be a 3.5m barrier during normal high tide.
Not a 'barrier', but a step, in #67.
Did somebody mention King Tides?
It's a shame that what you Doltoids don't get is that what you preach [SLR] is very observable if it were happening and you bothered to put your heads out the window to check.
The fact that you don't check and have never checked but prefer to hide behind the homogenisations and computer simulations of people like yourselves speaks volumes about your honesty and integrity.
However, I'll drop in again next year to acquaint you with the real world if it hasn't dawned on you by then.
Bye for now and don't think it hasn't been fun.
Altogether now, 'its always projection'!
What a drongo!
Shorter Drongo: "My limited knowledge has been exposed and better I leave now before I humiliate myself further..."
PS: Note how he completely avoided any discussion of the numerous biotic proxies I discussed that are proof positive of a warming climate? That's what deniers do: hit and run.
S Drongo
Are you suggesting that the various satellite-based sea level reconstructions and the tide-gauge sea level reconstructions that pre-date them are fraudulently altered to show SLR where none exists?
Yes or no?
Like who and in what way(s)?
Back to the link you provided, Drongo.
It contains no claim, observation or reference that Fort Denison has been subject to recently observed subsidence. None. Zip. Zero.
Professional disinformer Bob Carter, in The Australian late last year, made such a claim, also without reference. I guess when you're Bob, you're free to make stuff up. And, [via Frank], the world's loudest silenced dissenter Andrew Bolt repeats the inventions wholesale, including this gem:
"Indeed, the rate of rise at Fort Denison, and globally, has been decreasing for the past 50 years."
Shit straight from Carter's arsehole into Bolt's eager hands.
From Carter's opinion piece we are also reminded of Queensland First Mate Jeff Seeney and his direction to Moreton Bay Council to strike any consideration of sea level rise from their planning legislation. This direction to one council was delivered with a threat to other coastal councils that the same would follow.
We now see why this direction was given, with this little project approved just before the election curfew
Yeah, King Tides, again.
Never mind that we've already established that Spangled Drong's observation point is nowhere near sea level, kilometres upstream in a waterway that has seen a great deal of change to its banks and other waterside structures, many of which have been specifically designed to mitigate the extent and effects of King Tides.......
So let's have a look at Spangled Drongo's "justification for subsidence assertions at Fort Denison" link...
"The GNSS CORS installed at Fort Denison and Pilot Station, Newcastle, have been integrated into the state government’s CORSnet-NSW network managed by Land and Property Information to deliver high-accuracy positioning data for NSW."
Translation: Those clever scientists, who would never be happy drawing conclusions from randomly collected, not-written-down observations from a single site, have been working to make the tidal gauge data more precise and more reliable.
Good on them, eh?
"There is widespread measured evidence of a global average rise in mean sea level during the 20th century of the order of 17 ± 5 cm (IPCC, 2007). Scientific projections (post IPCC, 2007) lean toward an upper bound global rise in mean sea level of the order of 100 cm over the course of the 21st century (ISC, 2009)."
Fair enough, I think everybody knows that SLR is real. (Everybody except for science-denying loons who can't even find a proper reference for their idiotic claims, that is.)
"comparison of Fort Denison and Newcastle tide gauge records, Watson (2011) concluded the Newcastle record is likely contaminated by mine subsidence or other indeterminate factors. With insufficient survey records available to isolate the extent of possible subsidence, the difference between the respective records implied the Pilot Station gauge (Newcastle) may have subsided by approximately 60-70 mm over the period from 1940 to 2000 alone."
Er, so....in fact they seem to be implying that no subsidence has been detected at Fort Denison....so where on earth did Spangled Drongo get his chum from?
Basically, Drongo is flaming fuckwit who regurgitates retarded bullshit, and shares with us a link that contains absolutely no information that is supportive of his idiotic assertions.
I must just correct that misapprehension Cragie is labouring under before I go.
If he had correctly checked he may have noticed over the years I have quoted many benchmarks of proven non SLR but the oldest [69 years] I have quoted is at a house beside the Cleveland Point Lighthouse where I spent my summers from 1946 to 1953 and where the fine weather HAT king tides like the last couple of days, when the barometer is roughly normal, covered the flat lawn by about an inch and would run into the well if we didn't maintain a levy bank around it.
The lawn, the well and the landscaping are still intact and I took two Redlands City Council coastal infrastructure employees with me on Wednesday to observe the results.
They were so impressed with the data they said they would transfer those old king tide levels to a trig point near the old Lighthouse for future planning reference.
I offered the same assistance to the Moreton Regional Council who have just been refused permission to factor in a 0.8 metre SLR into their planning to give them some idea as to what is really happening with SLs in their region but they didn't present themselves.
In recent years those same fine weather king tides have always been lower by 150 to 300 mm at Cleveland Point.
Cleveland Point has a prominent exposure to the tidal hydraulics of Moreton Bay [that's why it has a lighthouse] and the bay has a wide opening to the ocean so there is no question of SL fall being due to any ocean restriction.
Good-oh, Drongo, let us know just as soon as you have published your data and published your code, won't you?
You kind of failed to admit that your observation point is way inland.
You also haven't yet admitted that you haven't actually taken any observations.
YOu also fail to admit that the levy bank *has* seen lots of work done on it over the years, along with many other points in the bay, including dredging, many dock constructions together with new walls and reclaimed land.
All this will come to light during peer review when experts get the chance to check the details of your data, methods and analysis.
So get publishing. That's what real scientists do, because they aren't ashamed of their work.
Meanwhile, the fact your assertion about Fort Denison has proven to be fact-free gives us some insight into your credibility and the likely worth of your "King Tides" non-data and non-observations.
Looking out into the garden, I can see three unicorns but the leprechaun has gone now.
But physics abides, dude!
Drongo, all this reminiscing about boyhood on Moreton Bay is making me a little misty-eyed. But we must press on...
As much as you preach personal observation, you made no barometric observations back in 46-53, did you.
Still, it's nice to see that your anecdotal observations, if adopted into Moreton Regional Council's database, actually help undermine justification for Jeff Seeney's action of weakening SL planning provisions for coastal development.
And the other point, often noted, that you never acknowledge is that SE QLD is experiencing the most gradual SLR of any zone on the Australian coast. This is no secret, and it points to the folly of your extrapolations.
You are still trying to measure a trend with reference only to outlier data. You cannot claim SL has fallen simply by reference to king tides. No matter what you or Bobby Carter would wish.
Here is last years photograph of the top of the king tide at Cleveland Point.
As you can see it is not too far inland.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2014/01/king-tides-at-cleveland-point-and-s…
We built that jetty in 1946 and the bearers are 200 mm deep and the decking 50 mm thick. The decking is the same level as the lawn and that puts last year's king tide ~ 275 mm below 1946-53 levels.
This week's king tide was much the same.
WRT Fort Denison; please try to connect the dots.
Oh, just get on with your flounce you old fool!
It's clearly too much to hope that you might ever have the decency to just STFU, let alone attempt to apologise for and redress some of the terrific harm you and your idiot fellow travellers have done...
"As much as you preach personal observation, you made no barometric observations back in 46-53, did you."
Think a little, Nick. Fine weather king tides are either around normal or above. Wednesday's was spot on 1013 mb. If BP was any higher in 46-53, the true SL fall would be even greater.
"WRT Fort Denison; please try to connect the dots."
I refuse to connect imaginary dots. The document makes no mention of subsidence at Fort Denison, whereas the suspicions about Newcastle are clearly laid out with justifications. Carter is a liar, an audacious old rogue.
You chaps object to an imagined lack of data, and decry physically informed projection...but it's OK to bring your unicorns into play when you are data-challenged. [as usual discussion with SLR rejectionists resolves to firm evidence of bad-faith, behavioral blindness and sheer perversity]
As for #85, you are making no progress on your mistake... when do king tides [a tiny outlier subset of total data] have to show a statistically sound trend in increasing high point to demonstrate or refute SLR? It's sadly obvious you are discarding as much data as you can to keep your impossible dream alive. Unicorns die if you feed them real data.
You won't get better data than that.
If you have anything to the contrary I'm challenging you to present it.
You just refuse to get that if a king tide covered that jetty by an inch 69 years ago and is ~ a foot lower today, = No SLR?
That's you're choice but don't call us deniers.
It's plain to see that Bob Carter is a lot more honest than you guys.
"You won’t get better data than that"
IOW, that's all you are offering. By ordinary standards that is not good enough.
"If you have anything to the contrary I’m challenging you to present it."
The total of tide gauge data around Australia, the SEAFRAME data, and the global data base. I challenge you to use it, even if it is a challenge to your obstinacy.
"You just refuse to get that if a king tide covered that jetty by an inch 69 years ago and is ~ a foot lower today, = No SLR?"
I perfectly 'get' where you have fooled yourself. That's old news.
"That’s you’re choice but don’t call us deniers."
Why? The cap fits.
"It’s plain to see that Bob Carter is a lot more honest than you guys."
It's plain to see that you cannot find a reference to support Carter's lie. Repeat after me: "yes, it's true there is no reference to subsidence being a factor at Fort Denison in that paper" If you do repeat that sentence it will be the first supportable thing you have said in the last two days of exchange.
Got any personal observations yourself, Nick?
Or just pathetic, denialist blather.
Your logic above re BP explains your mentality.
http://www.haveabit.com/feynman/68001
My personal observation is that you are nuts, SD. I'm not bringing an anecdote to a data fight.
Feynman is looking at you, you stupid fellow.
'Nuts' is about right.
Coots, cranks, creeps and con-artists - or a mixture thereof, of course - that's your CC Denier!
As demonstrated over and over on these pages...
Let's face it Nick, your personal observation is that you can look at king tides that are a foot lower than 69 years ago and swear blind that is SLR.
That is bringing denial to a data fight.
Extrapolate that out to the trillions that are being spent on a possible non-problem and is it any wonder that sceptics are sceptical?
Is it any wonder that the unfounded opinions of blinkered monomaniacs are irrelevant?
Drongo,
"Let’s face it Nick, your personal observation is that you can look at king tides that are a foot lower than 69 years ago and swear blind that is SLR."
No, that's nonsense. I would never claim anything about any sea level trend from so little data. This is the point we have been patiently explaining to you for a good deal of our recent lives, it seems...and you fail to accept. You _do_not_have_enough_data. And you are motivated to gild the lily [join the dots], and take Bob Carter at face value.
The 1946 record may have been a result of low atmospheric pressure, strong onshore winds, the construction of canal estates, and a bay floor profile that has since been altered by sixty years more dredging. All you remember was that it was a fine day, so long a go...
"Extrapolate that out to the trillions that are being spent on a possible non-problem and is it any wonder that sceptics are sceptical?"
This is another of your follies. It's a kind of chronic extrapolatorrhoea seen with rejectionists.... .You're rushing to a global scale claim, from an anecdotal observation of a suburban waterfrontage.
But, spangled Drongo, the land you are using as your reference point has gone up by two feet since 1948, so your careful and scientific observation of a relative 1 foot decrease in SLR is in fact evidence of a 1 foot rise in sea level
To clarify: "The 1946 record may have been a result of low atmospheric pressure, strong onshore winds, and bay floor and shore profiles of the time"
Since that time the construction of canal estates, and a bay floor profile that has since been altered by sixty years more dredging can change height potential.
Whatever, you do not have enough information.
The seriously hilarious bit about SD's ridiculous observations on sea level is that they are taken
Inland, not at the sea
At a point that is above sea level
Rotfl
Still in denial, hey Nick. When you witness those king tides at least an inch over the lawn FROM 1946 TO 1953 and now witness them up to a foot lower.
That's what I said and that's what you read. Not just 1946.
Stop squirming and denying.
The BP would only have been higher than Wednesday so that only defeats your argument even more and we are talking ~ 300 mm lower on an exposed coastal point that has always been some of the deepest water in the bay. Hydraulics don't enter into it.
This isn't religion, it's science. Be sceptical for once in your life.
Craigie-boi, what's hilarious is your inability to understand that back in 1946-53 those points were where the sea was.
That's exactly what I'm trying to get through to you.
It's just not there now.
Those remaining two short planks on the jetty are thinner than doltoids skulls.
See you next year.
I'm neither squirming nor denying, Drongo. I don't dispute your recollection of these isolated events, I point out that they cannot be used to conclude anything reliable about sea level rise. You are fixated on the wrong indicators, perhaps because you are reluctant to let go of a wish.
You cannot insist that the BP at KT in 1946 was higher than in 2015. Either prove it, and provide caveats for why it is only partly indicative of conditions, or think of something more intelligent to say.
"This isn’t religion, it’s science. Be sceptical for once in your life"
This is not science, it's your anecdote versus the world. A foolhardy struggle.
Nick, I'll keep hold of your hand. Now watch my lips. When you get a fine weather king tide the BP is normal or HIGHER.
Which makes your argument sillier.
But even assume that the BP was 10 mb lower than normal. Or 20. Or 30. Cyclonic levels in fine weather. Couldn't happen.
But that still wouldn't provide any visible SLR.
The Drongo rules:
"When you get a fine weather king tide the BP is normal or HIGHER."
Without exception? You are a fruitcake. That's a rule of thumb, not anything we know about 1946 for a fact.
And it's but one factor. Prevailing wind? Strength of wind, persistence and size of wind field?
And the fact that you cannot determine a trend from two data points. While there is no lack of hard data from the intervening 60 years.
And the designed-for-the-'skeptic' SEAFRAME
You are beyond silly, it's quite touching.
Open your mind, Nick. Try thinking critically. Fine weather summer king tides. Always in the morning. Light sea breeze. Cumulo-Nimbus, sparkling sea. Sailing weather.
It was like that in '46-53. It was like that on Wednesday.
You obviously don't have any idea of the scenario or you couldn't possibly be so obtuse.
But even with almost any variation short of a cyclone it still destroys your obs-free arguments.
Simply because the difference in levels is ~ 300 mm lower today.
And Seaframe has got no history.
When you born, Drongo?
OK,I've done some personal observations of Fort Denison.
My personal observations allow me to state categorically and without any risk of credible reuttal from anybody that has failed to make any personal observations of Fort Denison that there is absolutely zero subsidence occurring.
This was taken at about 11:30am:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=797722893638607&set=pcb.7977230…
ANd this was at about 3:30pm:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=797722960305267&set=pcb.7977230…
Clearly there is absolutely zero evidence of subsidence.
We may also note that I have actually provided my data, something that Drongos are apparently unable to do.
Craig, your second photo is listing slightly to the right. The fort is sinking! Carter was right, it is a conspiracy.
"It was like that in ’46-53. It was like that on Wednesday."
'I remember it like it were only yesterday' muses the drongo. How old is the drongo? Was he ten in 1946? 6? 11? How good is a childhood memory?
Drongo hasn't got a date, or a month, but it was summer. He discounts all subsequent physical change to the location, and the bay. Including millions of tonnes of fill removed for the airport, and the deepening of shipping channels. He forgets the deep channelised Gold Coast Seaway replaced the shoal ridden Nerang River mouth in the 1980s. He doesn't know whether the Brisbane River was in flood and its discharge enhanced a coincidental king tide. He doesn't know whether it was a relatively clear day on the back end of a low pressure system. Or the front.
He's got a handful of eyeballed outliers up against the full data set. He cannot see any deficiencies.
It's like he was born yesterday.
The list on Fort Denison is less concerning than its wake.
It seems that around lunchtime (crispy chicken on a Vietnamese noodle salad, yum) Fort Denison decided to start moving out towards the heads at about 2 and a half knots.
I remain however open to the idea that my subjective and incomplete data set May not be representative of actual reality
Isn't it odd that Drongo won't admit to his conspiracy theory?
Yet he relentlessly argues by implication that the satellite SL record is faked.
Of course that would require the OHC reconstructions (all of them) to be faked as well. And the gridded surface temperature data... in fact all of it.
This is the inescapable implication of his position, but he absolutely will not say so.
Why?
As for arguing that global sea level change as measured by satellite altimetry can be falsified by a single, unverified surface data point, well that's just silly.
No unicorns this morning, just a zombie, shuffling slowly around in circles and moaning softly.
Seven years of king tides covering the lawn and flooding the only source of fresh water if a levy bank was not maintained.
Over 60 years later, for several years, that SL is down 300 mm.
Hmmm, Eccles, what conclusion shall I draw?
Only one conclusion; SLR!
Thinks: is that right or are you a desperate, denying Doltoid?
Hint: it's not too late to redeem yourselves. I could even meet you all at the Lighthouse next king tide and who knows? we may see some SLR.
You are insane, Drongo.
How old are you, Drongo? In 1946, you were...?
How do you know the lawn has not been raised? Lived there continuously, or in contact with the subsequent owners? Any missing years in your contact with the site?
Not that it matters, because your contention is based on a few outliers known to be influenced by many factors.
Something has altered local sea level. There are a number of variables - mostly set out by others above - none of which you have quantified or corrected for.
Your single-point observation tells you nothing at all about global sea level change. It only tells you about your locality, and not even why change has occurred in your locality. That is all the information you can derive from what you have. If you don't understand this limitation then you aren't clever enough to argue with anybody else about physical climatology.
* * *
SLR is a globally observed phenomenon caused by the expansion of water as it warms and the transfer of mass from the cryosphere to the hydrosphere.
You appear to be denying that:
1/ The climate system is warming
2/ Water expands when it gets warmer
3/ There is net mass loss from the cryosphere to the hydrosphere
4/ Sea level rise is an inevitable consequence of (1) (2) (3).
Hang on, is this the same Cleveland Point LIghthouse that was moved in 1987?
Never mind my earlier request from astronomical, hydrodynamic, topographical and meteorological data, I should have shot for "geographic".
SD's reference point is not even in the same place as in 1946.
What a Drongo...
Belay that - moved in 1979, restored in 1987.
The damn thing is 30 metres away from where it was in 1946: http://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/lighthouse/qld.htm (3/4's of the way down)
On a small mound...
Hopeless, Drongo, hopeless
BBD, when you're in a hole, stop digging. Your silly points have the reverse effect on your argument and you don't even get it.
And yes, Frank, you emphasise my point perfectly. about Doltoids, that is.
How? You will have to explain that, Drongo.
Is FrankD right about the lighthouse? Answer on that point, too, please.
I invite the Drongo to view this image which shows Cleveland Point and spit in the 1920s.
Comparison with recent imagery [Google Earth] clearly shows that the western shore in the upper part of the old aerial photo has retreated, and has been consolidated behind low sea walls a considerable distance inland from the former shoreline.
Google Earth will also show you extensive reclamation and canal excavation with deep dredging in the Raby Bay development immediately to the west of the spit. This work occurred in the 1980s.
I believe Drongo was but a slip of a lad in 1946...thus he is reluctant to reveal his age. Or he may simply be fibbing, and assuming his parents memories.
Raby Bay canal estate plays a huge role in this intrigue. It involves two square kilometers of land fill dumped on the very shallow estuary bed, and kilometres of channels far deeper than the previous bay floor. This estate has pushed the former shoreline one kilometer north and clearly changes the rates and levels to which water pushed by wind and tide can pile up against the shoreline. It is possible that the development has reduced the tidal range.
The days were brighter-then
My obs were righter-then
The sea was higher then
I was no data denier then
And for what it's worth
Nor was there Google Earth
The water flowing
The endless river
(with apologies to Pink Floyd's High Hopes)
I see Drongo has returned to reiterate his many confusions, having learned nothing from the last several times he did so. "All of this has happened before, and all of this will happen again." Check out some of the older threads, e.g. where Bernard J asked a dozen or more questions that have to be answered before you can begin to analyse SLR from sea level observations, and note how utterly unwilling Drongo was to answer them except with assertions that "things must have been a certain way" - just like this time around.
If that doesn't convince you return to SD's entree to this thread:
Note how Drongo (and quite possibly also his "reliable" sources) erroneously conflated and equated a rate of change with a historical amount of change.
That alone should tell you he's vastly overestimating his own ability to draw valid conclusions from evidence. Speaking of which:
Repeat after me: It's always projection!
There's simply no point feeding this particular troll unless you want to cover the same old ground sea. At the very least read the threads where he tried this bullshit on the last couple of times first. (Build yourselves a Drongo Bingo card and see how long it takes to get Bingo!)
FrankD
He will not be able to remember, the tree has since died.
Anybody who sends us to the misinformer Marohasy has to be a few sand-wedges short of a full trolley bag, Marohasy who quotes this, allegedly from a 'controversial paper'.
I don't hold up much hope of veracity from that paper given the section highlighted in the quote.
drongo, please go and revisit the sources cited in this post of mine two pages back before trying more of your idiotic blather based on sources which never stand scrutiny.
STOP wasting our foxtrot-uniform-charley-kilo-india-november-golf time. Or is your brain too ossified to sort out the truth from the lies and BS spun by the likes of Bolt, Marohasy and Carter.
Nick, nice find.
When you invert that image to get the same orientation as Google maps, you can see that the spot where the lighthouse perviously stood has also had several building removed and has been regraded and replanted. I'm sure its not remotely possible that the height above AMSL was also increased in the interval.
The lighthouse now stands on land reclaimed sometime after 1920 (pre- or post- 1946 is really up to SD to tell us). The old photo shows the present site was a few metres out into the water at that time. Reclaimed since.
Drongo's "science" is beyond useless.
Friends, Jennifer M has sent some good advices MP Bob Baldwin's way. What your take on her suggestions?
http://jennifermarohasy.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Let-Bob-Baldwin-…
I think she misses one think though. She forgots the necessity of a Jeff inserting thermometers up dingo arses. Unscientific! In my book that's the best way to read temperatures in the atmosphere correctly.
Top one, chek :-)
"Yet the official overall trend...is one of continuous warming."
Bullshit.
" the average of many individual stations...should be broadly consistent with trends at individual stations"
Bullshit
"I understand this method of homogenisation is considered world’s best practice."
One true thing, and if true, no more need be said.
The whole is tedious, deliberately misleading, conspiracy ideation. If Marohasy had a legitimate point, she wouldn't have to lie so much to make a reasonable case.
Thanks for that, OP! It's yet more evidence Marohasy doesn't understand temperature reconstructions for climate scale time periods. Her misunderstandings appear to include the rather bizarre notion that the national climate scale temperature record should be consistent with "accounting standards", and what appears to be advocacy for using lower quality data (some of it by reference to unofficial records and anecdotes) - supposedly in a quest to produce an allegedly higher quality reconstruction. There might just be a teensy problem with that idea. And then she flat out lies about "adjustments" being arbitrary rather than a result of a published methodology that she was apparently unable to understand despite a number of people pointing her at it.
What's even more impressive is her ability to allege that "the appeal of anthropogenic global warming" is driving allegedly bad methodology, because the only people I know who find it appealing are the denialists who says "but I want it to be warmer". Similarly, she claims that the Bureau's temperature records allegedly show "runaway global warming" when no scientists claim that has been shown or will even happen. The only people who use the term in my experience are denialists trying to verbal the scientific agencies. She also flirts once again with a defamation lawsuit by alleging that the BoM's methodology is designed to exaggerate warming, proving that she's not only a poor scientific thinker when it comes to temperature records, but is also imprudent in matters that have a legal aspect.
One certainly hopes that her influence will lead Baldwin to follow her advice and make himself look a complete fool when the real climate scientists - Marohasy isn't one, as it obvious to most - have to set him straight, probably rather publicly given the propensity of our current government to confidently assert things they have no idea about but that suit their short term goals.
I think we should all encourage that kind of public humiliation of anti-science advocacy from anyone who engages in it from our government, so thanks very much - and thanks to Ms Marohasy for being the likely trigger!
(But come to think of it, her insistence on accounting standards would explain a lot.)
Science. Ur doon it rong!
When I were a lad we measured atmospheric pressure in millibars, with about one thousand of them being "normal" atmospheric pressure. When I learnt to five we were told that about 10 metres of water equals an extra atmosphere of pressure. So from that I conclude that one milibar is equivalent to about one centimetre of water.
So ten millibars or whatever the new unit is equates to 10cm of water. SD's link to a blog by JoM at #83 on the previous page talks about a change in barometric pressure from 1012 to 1002. That's good for 10cm of water level just overnight. Now suppose on SD's youthful summer days the pressure was just 15 millibar below normal and this week it was 15 above. That's 30 cm.
So in brief: if you haven't got the bp at the time of observation you ain't got Jack shit.
Note that in #1 above, SD IIUC implies that BP was normal in the good old days: it could actually have been below normal, with recent observations being taken when it was above normal.
#24, Lionel there is nothing wrong with the Lewis paper.. a modest Holocene highstand emerges in a lot of data around Oceania. Of course the problem is with the shill Marohasy's misdirection that a more recently re-rising sea is somehow not a reality, or not anthropogenic, or not of concern to coastal communities.
#26 Her glee at the wasteful inquiry into BOM stats is predictable. She turned up at The Conversation with her nonsense talking points demanding it, and was duly shredded...but this is of no worry to the ex-IPA zombie when her regime is currently sacking Canberra. Nothing will come of it, they will not find a Wegman in this country. The worst thing will be that Marohasy, George Christensen MP and Maurice Newman, who should foot the bill, will not.
Marohasy directs Baldwin to explore the adjustments and 'addition' to the national network of shorter length stations. She forgets that the ACORN-sat page provides all this explanation already, and provides a comparison between raw data from 700 sites and the adjusted data from the network...there is scarcely any difference.
OP, Marohasy is just piss and wind. She keeps a stick for a Drongo to perch.
I noticed that there is at last pushback against the cronyist liars that run Queensland. Moreton Regional Council's Mayor has signed a stat dec to the effect that Deputy Premier Jeff Seeney told him in a meeting:
'I'm not having people's property values devalued by what amounts to a semi-religious belief in climate change'
Seeney, currently sueing Alan Jones for telling the truth for once, has denied making this comment, but other witnesses have stepped forward to confirm it. Seeney forced the council to drop SLR provisions from planning statures, as noted upthread, then waved through a contentious canal estate development on the Caboolture River just before the polls were declared.
Nick #33
Ye, I figured that it was Marohasy who was distorting the picture but was that quote from her page just taken out of context or munged in some way.
Sorry could not check further as my net con is playing up, supposedly upgraded two days ago if this continues I shall be having words. I have a web site page that was designed for dial-up access yonks ago, if that comes down like treacle (or OMD270 on a freezing airfield i.e. similar to Evo-stik) then I know there are issues. Just run a test and it has dropped out while writing this.
Groan, even posting here is a chore, will it, wont it?
‘I’m not having people’s property values devalued by what amounts to a semi-religious belief in climate change’
I rang the sea front infrastructure engineers at MBRC [Redcliffe] to offer to show them what was really happening to MB sea levels over the last ~ 70 years but they weren't interested.
Redland CC, OTOH, sent out 2 people to observe. They at least haven't tried to factor in any non-existent SLR in their planning process like MBRC.
Some people are still interested in facts it seems but as with the doltoids on this site, some are only interested in religion.
It is interesting that where actual measurements of these religious claims can be verified, they are wrong.
Rainfall, snowfall, sea ice, sea levels etc. It is only with claims like global average temperatures being the "HOTTEST EVAH" to 0.02c that they can get any traction with their hokey-pokey homogenising, infilling and plain makin' shit up but even then when questioned, Gavin had to admit that it was 62% horse manure [and that about coincides with the percentage of tide gauges that say SLs are falling].
Even so that horse manure sound byte had gone around the world 3 times before the correction got its boots on. That's how religion operates. Like IS.
It's to Seeney's credit that he tells the religious that their council need all the facts they can muster if they expect to collect enough rate money to pay the bills.
Nick, you just don't get that why Seeny's govt had to sack so many public servants was to try and cope with an $80 billion debt the previous govt incurred as a result of this horse manure preaching.
When will you ever learn?
Sorry, that should read, 'percentage of tide gauges that say SLs are not rising'.
Drongo, the plans are about the next 70 and more years, not the last 70. We have a good handle on the past. There is a sea level rise signal clearly in it. As well, we cannot expect the future to be linear.
"they can get any traction with their hokey-pokey homogenising, infilling and plain makin’ shit up but even then when questioned"
Well, there it is. We don't get a self outing crank very often, but now and again, the dam of their hubris breaks.
I'm sure we don't really need the self evident Marlowesque conspiracy ideation as to means, motive and opportunity that SD thinks he and his cohorts in la-la land think they've cracked.
And that there are no answers to outstanding questions, even those dating back to Bernard J's attempt some years ago now is, of course, expected.
Drongo, you've misunderstood Beenstock.
The 61% of tidal gauges you refer to are not "not showing any SLR", they are gauges that provide time series that do not allow clusion of constatistical significance to be drawn by those who are careful and precise about these things.
I'm surprised that even after I explained to you what a monumental load of horseshit Beenstock was, you appear to have retained Beenstock's talking points in your brain as though they were reliably factual, which they clearly aren't.
In other words, those gauges variously say sea levels are rising (most of them) or falling (a handful of them) but the lack of statistical significance means you can't say they say anything.
You certainly can't say that say "sea levels are not rising" when in fact the majority of them show the opposite.
That would be a very ignorant things to say.
You refuse to understand, Nick. When "adjusted" measurements of the past and present indicate increasing positive changes when in actual fact they may be neutral, negative or increasing negative, because of those "adjustments", you are not doing your job if you don't, at some stage, put your head out the window and check.
When actual evidence shows that there is no SLR, why devalue your best real estate and load the ever increasing costs of running councils onto the poorer people who live in the least best areas?
I've just been talking to an 83 y.o. boat builder who has been involved in sea front infrastructure all his life who just happened to ring me today to see if I had a photo of a boat he built for me 55 years ago and who still lives on an esplanade on Moreton Bay. I haven't spoken to him for possibly 30 years but on asking him about SLR on MB he gave me details of the recent king tide at his place which completely support my own obs.
Seeny is a realist.
Vote 1 LNP.
Craig, how does it go? Lies, damned lies and statistics?
You need to put your head out the window and check for yourself.
I find that the ones who don't are the ones who are so certain of catastrophe.
Most people who do, agree with me. Some admit they are not sure.
But I've yet to find one who observes SLs to say they are rising.
I do understand Drongo that you hold a view without regard for reality or quality of observation. If you can't see SLR then it does not exist. Even you should be able to think through the problem with such a proscribed dogmatic approach.
I quite agree with you that you cannot 'see' SLR in Moreton Bay. Tidal range, shoreline change through human engineering, weather , pressure, wind, produce large amplitude variations. You cannot see the small signal that is SLR...that is why we have instruments, systems and procedures to capture such signals in every field of science.
The fact -which is open to doubt due to elapsed time and change -that a king tide in 2015 was not as high as one in any another year is truly irrelevant. No matter how this is explained, it does not penetrate. Too bad.
Hey, why don't you take your pro-LNP campaign public, SD?! I hear Campbell's doing rather badly in the regionals; having that old guy who's obsessed with a self-taught expert on tide gauges and never listens is firm in his convictions could be just what it takes to swing things around for him
(*sotto voce* He'd be as much benefit to Newman's campaign as Tony Abbott, of course, but he's just as incapable of realizing that as anything else...
It should be obvious by now that Drongo is blatantly and quite determinedly cherrypicking (and will deny doing so). He's cherrypicking locations, cherrypicking observers and cherrypicking measurement methods. (He's also eschewing logic, but that's a different problem.)
That's how he can say "I don't know anyone who's seen SLR", despite plenty of people reporting seeing it (and I don't just mean through careful high quality methods, I mean non-scientists using the kinds of highly unreliable methodologies that he advocates, reporting it at many different locations around the world).
It's interesting that he hangs around Marohasy's joint, IIRC, and like her (shared scientific brain cell?) he privileges uncorrected data over corrected data, perhaps because he (and her) don't understand the factors that contaminate the raw data or the methods used to compensate - or perhaps because they need to do so to avoid reaching the conclusions the corrected data lead to.
He's not going to change his mind through exposure to high quality evidence and more of it, because he (in essence) denies it exists.
I think you are putting words in my mouth, Nick. The only SLR that means anything is the max. Not the mean or the min. The MAX!
Tide gauges would show no SLR when there is a considerable increase in the max if there is a similar decrease in the min.
Similarly they would show no SL fall if, as in the Cleveland Point situation, there was a 300 mm drop in the max and a 300 mm rise in the min.
There may be a million reasons why the max is what it is at any point but if you pay attention over a long enough period you will know if there is any max rise or fall.
Very easy to see, really, if you are interested in facts and not religion.
You religious have never been interested for most of your life but now you think you know exactly what's going on.
Just like Gavin thinks 2014 is the hottest evah until he gets seriously questioned about it.
Just like all the IPCC GCMs are wrong and getting wronger as time goes by.
As I said before, Nick, if SLR was really happening, it would be seen to be happening.
You can fool yourself if you choose. That's fine by me.
Firstly, let's try and be clear. If you define "SLR" to be "rise in the max (e.g. at king tide)" as you now appear to be doing then you are unnecessarily confusing the issue, because that's not what SLR means to scientists, or to councils who take it into account. I'm using SL to mean the average sea level, not the max at king tide.
The max (e.g. at king tide) is created by a set of variations on the (standard definition of) sea level due to different factors. If there's a trend in the sea level, a SLR if you will, then that matters because it affects the max that can be generated when the contribution of the "millions of factors" to sea level sums up to a large positive value - and hence affects what you need to plan for. If you don't understand how those factors affect the max, and you haven't demonstrated good reason to believe that the maximum positive sum of contributions is going to decline as sea level rises, then you can't legitimately pooh-pooh scientists (and councils that heed their advice) who point out that if the average sea level rises the max is almost certainly going to rise in fairly similar fashion. You are quite clearly avoid trying to quantify the contribution of all those factors by simply handwaving your vague recollections about some of them and denying a bunch of others.
And SLR - using the real definition, not your "only the max" definition - matters in a different way too. If you're (say) Miami, built on limestone and struggling to keep seawater from incursion into your fresh water supplies by seeping through the limestone the average matters to you rather a lot because that's what drives incursion day in and day out, quite apart from "max" episodes that send water over the top of your defences. Or if you're Fort Denison, then SLR - the real definition - drives the amount of erosion of sandstone that you have to deal with, because that occurs day in, day out, at whatever level the sea is at at the time.
So no, the max is not the only level that matters!
You're not "seeing it happening" partly because you're simply denying the reports of people around the world seeing it with their own eyes, quite apart from the careful scientific measurements.
You really shouldn't hang around with incompetent blowhards so much, especially those who don't know what the models do and do not project, and how to assess how well they are doing, and that "wrong" is a category error in this case - or they do, but know that you don't and are quite willing to take advantage of your ignorance.
Lothe takes over from Nick in the fooling themselves stakes.
Or is it the incompetent blowhards.
Lothe gives us all the benefit of his knowledge on how erosion and seepage are part of SLR.
Better put your mum on, Lothe.
SD can't argue the logic or the facts so retorts to primary school taunts. Ho-hum.
IAP*
*It's Always Projection
Here's some Chris Mooney logic and facts on SLR, Lothe.
Serious science this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/01/22/the…
Drongoisms:
"The only SLR that means anything is the max. Not the mean or the min. The MAX!"
Rising means mean rising maxs...I don't think I've encountered a sillier mix of obstinacy, ignorance and absence of data. And storm surges, Drongo. 1974 and 2013 were the highest surges recorded at Cleveland, lots of flooding, they were higher than king tides. By your logic the height of storm surges disproves SLR....
"Tide gauges would show no SLR when there is a considerable increase in the max if there is a similar decrease in the min."
Huh? Firstly, nonsense. Gobbledegook. Secondly, SLR is being observed no matter the total tidal range... from the Kimberley to the Baltic.
Followed by more nonsense. Drongo, you're priceless.
"As I said before, Nick, if SLR was really happening, it would be seen to be happening."
So tide gauges and satellites are not 'seeing'? Got it. What could we have been thinking? Until sea level rises at a rate approaching the tidal, it's not happening. You are being really infantile.
How old are you again?
Duffer:
Someone should let the poor fool know that radiative forcing directly depends on the concentration of CO2, not the rate of emissions.
Spangles
Why do you never answer any of my questions? Are they too hard for you?
How? You will have to explain that, Drongo.
The 'silly points' were here:
SLR is a globally observed phenomenon caused by the expansion of water as it warms and the transfer of mass from the cryosphere to the hydrosphere.
You appear to be denying that:
1/ The climate system is warming
2/ Water expands when it gets warmer
3/ There is net mass loss from the cryosphere to the hydrosphere
4/ Sea level rise is an inevitable consequence of (1) (2) (3).
So explain, Spangles. Explain. Where's the silly?
sd:
Dolt!
I put my head out of a window last night and it was dark, therefore all this talk about a sun has to be BS.
"Similarly they would show no SL fall if, as in the Cleveland Point situation, there was a 300 mm drop in the max and a 300 mm rise in the min."
So what are the changes in the min, Drongo? Has it risen? How much?
Just another thing that needs to be known if one wants to claim "no SLR based on King Tide data" (in SD's case I use the term "data" rather loosely). And another thing that Drongo doesn't know, I'll wager.
Quite the cornucopia of unknowns - why does Drongo studiously avoid discussing any of these? Could it be that he just doesn't know enough to make even his one location a useful piece of information? *gasp*!
Regarding Duarte's comment on our survey article, please also see our reply to his comment:
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/es505183e
How our survey results compare to the 97% figure is explained in our article and also in the accompanying FAQ (item 4): https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2014/08/11/faq-for-the-article…
It's interesting how often conflation of rates with amounts shows up in denialist arguments. Besides Duff with emissions, SD did it a day or two ago with Fort Denison. It tends to get even worse once they start talking about accelerating rates of change.
@Bart Verheggen
Thanks for the link to your response to Duarte.
It appears that the Monckton paper in the Chinese journal claiming "models run hot" relies on
(a) a graph that doesn't show what the authors say it does
(b) representing a scenario with exaggerated forcings as the most appropriate projection.
Monckton has admitted the error in (b) but in response appears to be:
(i) alleging it was an innocent mistake when it appears that the paper he referred to indicated that that scenario had not come true and was inappropriate - and (IIRC) he has been called out for doing this several times in the past
(ii) trying to continue to fool his audience by implying that this still means that the projection was wrong because the forcings scenario did not come true. That would imply that the model is flawed because it didn't predict the collapse of the Soviet Union, which is a rather strange and obviously unscientific standard to adopt.
Still, it doesn't have to be very plausible or scientific to fool SD and the WUWT crowd, so all in all a good result for his Lordship, eh?
Nick foolishly thinks that storm surge levels are an indication of SLR. The highest storm surge levels at Cleveland Point were in the 1930s. They mainly depend on the direction and strength of the storm plus if they happen to coincide with a king tide.
Also, Doltoid deniers need to check with Dana who finally admitted that the late 20th c warming was mainly due to el Ninos.
But when the DDs are all programmed to get it wrong like the models, I know it must be hard.
CoN is still as delusional as ever, I see, about CO2.
Absolutely! That's why when you look at the trend of El Nino vs La Nina vs neutral years separately, and over a long enough period to avoid cherrypicking then all three categories are warming at the same rate. Which, like, totally makes sense because it was the El Ninos wot caused...er...um...I think Drongo is confused again.
Sure he did? Seriously, are you really so delusional that you actually imagine this happened?
Yes, Dear Lurker, both the ineducable rantings of this impervious fabulist, and the bubble of epistemic fantasy in which he clearly resides, are entirely representative of his tribe...
Yoohoo, Spangles, still won't address this?
Drongo wrongo- a life in impervious fabulism:
"Nick foolishly thinks that storm surge levels are an indication of SLR."
If that's how you interpret my remark, then it's little surprise that the subject is beyond you. It's actually your compulsive self-defeating attraction to outliers that I was mocking.
Speaking of which:
"Also, Doltoid deniers need to check with Dana who finally admitted that the late 20th c warming was mainly due to el Ninos."
Of course he did nothing of the sort, but you rejectionists do not have a lot of freedom to deal honestly with information, having rejected most of it before entering 'discussion'.
SD, I would be most entertained if you attempted to explain exactly how he is delusional - or answer any of the numerous questions people have posed to you, most of which are questions whose answers point out your own delusions.
Take your time. Try and get one or two right this time.
"The highest storm surge levels at Cleveland Point were in the 1930s."
Let's try and be consistent, Drongo. As you were not there in the 1930s to 'put your head out the window' this claim is false. Isn't that how Drongologic works?
Good morning Spangled
I'm still wondering. Where's the silly?
Lothe believes that is a consistent rate of warming.
Woo! Hoo!
I wonder who's winning the delusional stakes, Lothe or CoN?
Where's your mum, Lothe?
More primary school level taunts from SD instead of explanations and rebuttals. We learned way back then that someone who does that hasn't got the goods.
Feel free to keep on proving you can't argue your point, SD.
BBD, old chap, I was hoping if I left you to your own devices for a while the penny might drop.
1/ we simply don't know if the total oceans + atmo are net warming. Anyone suitably scientifically sceptical would know that.
2/ SLR is the best judge of 1/, 2/, and 3/.
3/ see 2/.
4/ it may not be happening.
"1/ we simply don’t know if the total oceans + atmo are net warming. Anyone suitably scientifically sceptical would know that."
Wow. Rejectionism is a giggle when it's so nakedly stupid.
You really are extrapolating from an anecdote-level observation at Cleveland Point to a claim about global trends. 'Suitable scientific skepticism' at its finest!
Crysophere, Drongo. What's happening there? Do we 'simply not know' if global glacier mass balance is on a downward trend? Lots of people 'stuck their heads out the window' over the last century and a half and made 'personal' observations that might be of benefit to your knowledge... if you were teachable.
Maybe you'll have to find some more outliers for reassurance.
So Nick, please link to any evidence of known global net temperature changes in the totality of land/oceans.
NASA's RSS is the best we have and it is showing no warming for 18+ years.
But it doesn't incorporate total ocean depths and neither does ARGO.
Oceans hold 4000 times the energy of the atmosphere.
I know that you THINK you know what the cryosphere is doing but you are only guessing.
Like assuming ice caps at high altitude are net melting while sea ice is known to be net gaining.
And extrapolating that to assumed SLR.
Great logic, that.
So give us some evidence, Nick.
...in which Nick starts to realise the impressively ambitious scale of SD's denialism.
#76...wow, Loth, he doesn't do anything by half measures. Drongo is the denier's denier. He's left the building.
"I know that you THINK you know what the cryosphere is doing but you are only guessing"
Drongo,start here, you sad 'old' man
Sea ice, floating sea ice, does not contribute to sea level, Drongo. Where do you get your ideas? Most of the slow ones at WUWT / [insert rejectionist blog of choice] have learned that....
Spangled
The evidence for increasing OHC in the 0 - 2000m layer is solid. Nobody expects warming at greater depth at this stage. The evidence for surface temperature increase is irrefutable. The evidence for ice mass loss from the GrIS and WAIS is irrefutable. The evidence for SLR is irrefutable.
RSS is broken. It is an outlier. Even the 'sceptics' Christy and Spencer at UAH get a satellite trend that almost exactly matches GISTEMP and HadCRUT4. You don't use the outlier as the basis for an argument unless you are being dishonest.
Your 'argument' is the worst case of shut-eyed evidence denial I have seen in a while. You are flatly contradicted by a mountain of observational evidence. Denying that places you outside the bounds of rational discourse. Do you understand this?
* * *
RSS is not a NASA data product. The clue is in the name.
Lotharsson
Me too. He's wholesale and hardcore.
Oh dear! I ask Nick for evidence of global net temperature records for the earth, atmosphere and oceans and he refers me to an out of date assumption on the cryosphere.
Why don't you at least admit that you haven't got a clue Nick.
"Sea ice, floating sea ice, does not contribute to sea level"
Gee, the things you learn on Doltoid.
What I asked you, Nick, was your thought processes that convinces you ice caps are melting at high altitudes but sea ice is at record levels.
Got any explanations?
You better put your mum on too.
On the previous page I linked you to the state-of-the-art - new data from Cryosat-2 that essentially confirm GRACE ice mass balance loss estimates for Antarctica. See McMillan et al. (2014) Increased ice losses from Antarctica detected by Cryosat-2:
You ignored this and continue to repeat your denialist rubbish, which is rather disappointing.
Let's see just how borked RSS really is, shall we?
Here, RSS is compared with the UAH satellite TLT reconstruction prepared by prominent sceptics Spencer and Christy, and with the GISTEMP and HadCRUT gridded global surface temperature reconstructions. OLS linear trends are fitted. All data are shown on a common 1981 - 2010 baseline for ease of comparison.
RSS vs UAH TLT, GISTEMP and HadCRUT4 annual means
When vocal sceptics like Christy and Spencer get exactly the same trend as NASA'S GISTEMP (formerly curated by none other than James Hansen) then even you are compelled to take notice, Spangles. Notice also that UAH TLT is in excellent agreement with HadCRUT4, a data product of Phil Jones and colleagues at UEA CRU.
Here we see the ARGO OHC data (red and black lines) superimposed on the OHC reconstruction of Levitus et al. (2012). Even if you wish to be 'sceptical' about the pre-ARGO reconstruction, you have to account for the modern *observational* evidence (red and black lines). OHC is increasing rapidly:
OHC 0 - 2000m layer
Now, are you arguing that all this scientific data is the product of a co-ordinated deception encompassing the entire field of climate science?
If not, please explain exactly why you are rejecting it all wholesale? You owe us an explanation. It had better be good.
" "Sea ice, floating sea ice, does not contribute to sea level”
Gee, the things you learn on Doltoid."
Let's see...you either are pretending you knew, or you're rejecting that fact.
If you knew, why did you offer this construct?:
"I know that you THINK you know what the cryosphere is doing but you are only guessing.
Like assuming ice caps at high altitude are net melting while sea ice is known to be net gaining.
And extrapolating that to assumed SLR."
Why claim anything about sea ice when talking about SLR and the factors that contribute to it? I thought you might be confused about that, considering your abysmal "knowledge" of the state of the cryosphere.
"...he refers me to an out of date assumption on the cryosphere."
Out of date? Data to 2013 is as good as you'll get in an overview of that scale. Assumptions about the cryosphere in IPCC 5?....yep, you have not read it. You have rejected it out of hand, and have not the faintest idea what's within. Haven't read a thing. If you had read it you'd know about Antarctica's regional distinctions...
You don't have to, do you. After all, you think you remember a king tide in 1946, and thus global sea level rise is an assumption. Who needs more data than that?
You find it counter-intuitive that Antarctic sea ice could expand in area [it's winter when that happens, BTW], while continental ice fields and glaciers, and Arctic sea ice, Greenland, Canadian Arctic island and Antarctic ice caps lose mass? That seems to be as far as you go. Hung up on your intuition.
You have the fucking hide to ask me about my thought processes when yours are sadly lacking. You are protected from that realisation by a stunning lack of self-awareness. I blame Marohasy for encouraging you in her desperation for attention.
sd (but with borked memory)
The stupid it burns.
That has to be one of the most asinine statements you have made yet, and there have been many others.
It appears that you don't know what, or who, RSS is! See [1] below]
Whatever RSS is the favourite of some in denier land such as Monckton who uses a munged graphic based on RSS on his GWPF site to mislead people about the non-pause. It is clearly these type of sources, Monckton and Marohasy, who have primed you to come up with the above stupid.
Here is a set of graphs which include the RSS trend in the context of other datasets: well I would place a link here but I am having trouble connecting there ATM, but it is based on the same time period that Monckton cherry picked for that GWPF cartoon. I'll try again later.
Why RSS is inadequate as a sole data source in providing evidence for warming has been gone into before and BBD is all over it above now.
What you need to realise is that temperature (degrees F, C or K) is not heat (joules). Taking stock of Earth's planetary energy imbalance over time require accounting for the warming of the oceans - proven as one component of sea level rise but also by the effects on the edges of major cryopshere components such as ice sheets and glaciers in Alaska, Greenland, Iceland, Antractica (check out the work of James Balog and also of Eric Rignot.
The heat capacity of the oceans is huge and the energy quantities required to melt a given quantity of ice are big numbers compared to that required to raise the same mass of ice, or water, through one degree Kelvin (or Centigrade if you prefer).
Thus inclusion of cryosphere events is perfectly valid in this context.
[1] http://www.remss.com/about/who-we-are
but do take care with your comprehension else it will mislead you, which is obviously easily done.
Nah, he'll be back.
He can keep it up for two or three months, apparently never realising that today he's repeating something that was dispatched two days - or two months - ago, or basic errors that most high school kids could explain to him. They are arguably useful skills (for self-deception purposes) when reality has a well known bias against your position.
Sou looks at (what was almost certainly) the source of SD's claim for "Dana admitted El Ninos were responsible for much of the late 20th C warming", and explains some of the source's confusion and misinterpretation.
One hint: there are three ENSO states, and Tisdale seems to think there are only two, quite apart from not understanding that ENSO doesn't drive temperature trends over sufficiently long periods.
There's also a section in there that addresses what are likely some of the key misconceptions underlying SD's notion that "the models are running hot".
Good luck getting SD to grok all that though ;-)
#87 Drongo's endurance is born of a righteousness that forgives personal ignorance and error, and fuels arrogance.
Armed with that, he can hand-wave away any chapter of any IPCC report, dismiss any paper on SLR, dispense with remote sensing, and elevate an anecdote or dubious recollection or an unreferenced claim by Bob Carter to the status of hard observation. He can supply a link to a paper that contradicts his claim, and proceed unperturbed without acknowledgement of error...sheer arrogance.
The grim irony is that rejectionists constantly lay charges of arrogance against science and scientists. Scientists are attacked for 'hiding data', 'disappearing warm periods', etc...all while Drongo can throw away the entire Fort Denison tidal record because he confused it with Newcastle. He can throw away over twenty years of daily data from sixteen widely dispersed SEAFRAME stations because it is 'too short', while forthrightly promoting a couple of eyeballed obs of a lawn and sea wall as return to the pure 'scientific observation'...
Drongologic.
#88, I remember years back the clown Tisdale thought he could simply cumulatively sum the Southern Oscillation Index and scale it to global temperature rise > presto, it was El Nino wot did it! That was the reasoning; of course Bob wrapped it in his usual million words.
That's the guy that 'informs' Spangles.
Aw, Monckton (or a Monckton Poe) holds it together for several comments in a blog post critiquing his dodgy paper here, but it's not long before he starts throwing around terms like climate-Communist, Alinskyesque and Climate Nazi, and a little later mentions Holy Books and a Socialist degree in climatology. He also complains about "ad hominem childishness", apparently with no sense of self-awareness or irony.
Such a shame! He was putting on such a great show of being a non-kooky scientist like person up until that point (apart from a few bald assertions and what may be logical fallacies, but we make certain allowances in his case)!
For added amusement value there is a fawning supporter of Monckton who spend a lot of pixels reiterating Monckton's claims without bothering to rebut the earlier rebuttals of Monckton's claims...including those of a modeller who says "we don't do what you say we do, and I've challenged you to point me to the code where we do and you've come up with nothing". I left a comment because the Monckton account posts a comment in the fawning supporter's voice...
We had one poster here named Sunspot (who seemed to post under various other aliases for a time) who was an absolute master at that. Almost every link he provided to support a claim refuted it.
One of our regulars dubbed that phenomenon "clown trolling", as in a "pie in my own face" comment.
BTW, Monckton seems to make a great deal out of his idea that in climate "temperature change is not a bare output, as is the voltage in a circuit, but is the instrument of self-equilibration in the climate object." This is in the context of his application of a simple circuit feedback model to climate. Weird, though, that I remember my EE classes where when we studied feedback in circuits it was the voltage (or current) output was fed back to the input in some fashion.
The level of incompetence is matched only by the hubris.