June 2015 Open Thread

More thread.

Woo-hoo, we made it to June...in June! ;-)

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 03 Jun 2015 #permalink

it won't mean Stupid answering questions pending, though. We all know that was a "SQUIRREL!".

Please don't fret Wow.
If or when I decide to comment, I will be expecting your usual assistance.

It won't stop Monkfish claiming to be a member of the HoL, nor of deniers paying to get him to tell them what they want to hear fawning over "the Lord".

Hi All,

Came across this climate/fossil fuel/policy debate from 2013 and thought it would be of interest here.

"Debate: Alex Epstein (CIP) vs. Bruce Nilles (Sierra Club) "
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVue_UlCj_c&spfreload=1

As usual, Sierra Club pushing the usual sinister, pro environment, anti human policies. Surprising thing was the reception from the Stanford crowd (think Ehrlich, Schneider et al), and their antipathy to that point of view. Interesting I thought.

GSW

Yawn.

Nothing to say about Monckton's crap being eviscerated? One of your top bods isn't he? But hopelessly, fundamentally, stupidly WRONG every single time he opens his mouth.

Just like the rest of you 'sceptics'. Time you all faced the obvious: there is no coherent scientific counter-argument to the mainstream scientific position on AGW.

Piss and moan about the Sierra Club all you like, but when it comes to the basics, you lot have absolutely nothing.

"As usual, Sierra Club pushing the usual sinister, pro environment, anti human policies"

What a load of infantile tosh. First of all, the Sierra Club does not have policies; secondly, hose who are decidedly anti-human to coin Gormless's puerile phrase are actually a suite of powerful, borderless, anti-democratic multi national corporations whose activities are reducing the capacity of the planet to support humanity. Read Elizabeth Kolpert's quite outstanding "The Sixth Extinction" and the predicament we are in becomes patently obvious.

Lastly, GSW equates pro-environment with anti-human. I won't even begin to deconstruct the stupidity of this statement. Its pathetic. No wonder he loves Jonas so much; both are utter idiots of the first order.

As an aside, new NOAA analyses has proven that there is no warming hiatus nor has there been. An article published just out in Science - and covered across the major journals as well as media - puts this little denier canard to bed. Watch this space - expect the non-scientist deniers like meatball to wade in here with their kindergarten-level musings.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 05 Jun 2015 #permalink

So pro environment is anti human?

How the hell do you think you survive, gitter?

How the hell do you think you survive, gitter?

Clearly not by his wits.

# 10 Lionel

:-)

#8 Jeff

That's the final nudge - despite a reading list that stretches over the horizon I've just walked down into town and bought Kolbert's TSE (the last and only copy in Winchester, apparently).

"I’ve just walked down into town and bought Kolbert’s TSE (the last and only copy in Winchester, apparently.."

Ah, so that is where you hang out. ;-)

I have her 'Field Notes from a Catastrophe' which should be a wake up call to any thinking person and that was pressed way back in 2006/7 but clearly not to the likes of GSW who makes 'snowball brain' Inhofe look intelligent.

Lionel

Ah, so that is where you hang out.

Yes, sorry, I thought I'd mentioned it before - I know you aren't far away down the coast.

I've seen stuff recently about the moose - all along the southern edge of their range - yet another indication that CC is going faster at high N latitude than most of the rest of us realise.

Lionel & BBD.
May I suggest you do a little more homework re moose?
Start by googling moose numbers in America and Canada.
I would also suggest, with respect, that the actual problem for the moose in your linked article is not specifically CC or I guess in this instance AGW.
If the moose in that specific area are struggling because of a specific regional invasion of a specific organism, the solution to that specific problem needs to be specifically targeted.
Mitigating an average global climate will not help that specific moose population.
Average moose numbers are not showing any significant cause for average alarm.

Ah yes, the CAGW in MN.

So that's what's causing the record sea ice in the Great Lakes!

But get Tom Karl on to it. I'm sure it's nothing that can't be adjusted, kriged or reconstructed.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 06 Jun 2015 #permalink

Ah, Drongo flaps in to remind us how littel he understands the processes of the climate system.

Hey Drongo, are you still pushing the notion that global sea level isn't rising?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 06 Jun 2015 #permalink

Will the Moose be another casualty of the sixth extinction[?]

A taxonomic cousin, the caribou, is in dire straits from both warming and from habitat destruction, especially from the disruption of migration routes resulting from oil and gas extraction. Business as usual for a few more decades will see enough environmental and climate damage that the bioclimatic envelopes of the many (if not all) of the subspecies of caribou are likely to be pushed beyond tolerance.

Business as usual for carbon emissions past the middle of the century would almost certainly see all the North American caribou set on a path to extinction.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 06 Jun 2015 #permalink

Will the Moose be another casualty of the sixth extinction[?]

A taxonomic cousin, the caribou, is in dire straits from both warming and from habitat destruction, especially from the disruption of migration routes resulting from oil and gas extraction. Business as usual for a few more decades will see enough environmental and climate damage that the bioclimatic envelopes of the many (if not all) of the subspecies of caribou are likely to be pushed beyond tolerance.
Business as usual for carbon emissions past the middle of the century would almost certainly see all the North American caribou set on a path to extinction.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 06 Jun 2015 #permalink

I couldn't explain it any better than Karl. I mean, those buckets and intakes are just such great data.

And how are all your other little friends coping, Lemuroids, MPPs etc?

But maybe, Learned Bernard, I can meet you somewhere and you can take me to where you [or anyone else for that matter] has observed any SLR in the last 50 years or so.

And then I can show you a few places where it is going in the opposite direction.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 06 Jun 2015 #permalink

Perhaps you could benefit from some extra research too Bernard?
The moose is not listed as an endangered species.
Any issues are region specific and would therefore need targeted regional solutions.
Minnesota has seen some problems for example.

There you go again Stu 2.

I said nothing about the moose beyond the fact that it was a taxonomic relative of the caribou.

You have just erected a massive straw man.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 06 Jun 2015 #permalink

Drongo, I'm happy to play this game over and over again, even though you never seem to learn that you always have your cloaca kicked from here to eternity.

How about Broome, Darwin or Groote Eylandt? Ah, but that would be cherry picking, would it not?

So how about we go to the opposite sides of the continent as defined by those first three sites and look at Sydney, Melbourne, Hobart or Adelaide?

Take your pick. And then please do show me where sea level is decreasing on the Australian coast, and how your site disproves the current scientific understanding of the rate and causes of global sea level rise. Take note - I will test you again on the scientific veracity of the evidence that you proffer.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 06 Jun 2015 #permalink

Personally observed that SLR, have you Bernard?

Because a tide gauge says average SL has increased it isn't always so. EG at Fort Denison, possibly our most reliable gauge, SL has increased about 2.5 inches in the last hundred years [virtually nothing] but it has also sunk by a similar amount [actually nothing]. But talk to families in the ship repair business for generations who survive on the ability to handle bigger boats and business.

IOW, the real world.

They would love a bit of SLR, but it just isn't happening.

Now give me all your crap about Church and White and their calculations based on GPS readings so we can all have a good laugh again.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 07 Jun 2015 #permalink

Oh bugger, is spanked donkey back?

Still knows fuck all I see.

Personally verified that failure of AGW, spanky?

Personally verified every tidal gauge? Or have you heard that one of them doesn't show rising if you ignore how the place has been dredged and there's been large floods and huge droughts during that record, all affecting SLR?

Or did you just hear from WTFUWT that this was true and believed it like the sheeple you are?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rapid-climate-changes-turn-no…

So much for Stu2's b*. And if he bothers to read any of the empirical literature, projections are similar across a range of phylogenetically unrelated taxa.

Start off by reading Elizabeth Kolpert's tour de force. The sixth extinction is well underway, and the consequences are likely to be calamitous for both nature and humanity.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 07 Jun 2015 #permalink

If SLR was happening like you catastrophists claim, I find it breathtaking how none of you can point to anywhere as observable evidence of SLR.

But maybe your science is a bit like Tom Karl et al's. You throw out the truth in favour of dross.

Just a couple of simple basic facts you need to recall: since the beginning of global temperature measurement [1850, the end of the little ice age and the beginning of the industrial revolution] the raw, unadjusted data shows 0.8c of warming but the average natural variation in temperatures for the last 8,000 years is around 1c per century.

So, in spite of all our CO2 emissions we are running below average.

Could AGW possibly be not quite as catastrophic as you claim?

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 07 Jun 2015 #permalink

I would also suggest...that the actual problem for the moose in your linked article is not specifically CC or I guess in this instance AGW.
If the moose in that specific area are struggling because of a specific regional invasion of a specific organism, the solution to that specific problem needs to be specifically targeted.

Quite apart from the pathological overuse of "specific", this is quite a revealing argument to make. The article points out that the specific pair of organisms in question are thriving a hell of lot more than they did before due in large part to climate change. In response Stu 2 suggests that those organisms be tackled with a specific plan that (apparently, given the context) specifically refuses to consider (let alone address) one of the primary causal factors of their enhanced ability to damage the moose population.

This is no more intelligent then it would be to (say) observe that the family budget is under stress, noting that this is in large part due to an ongoing rising trend in spending on holidays because income and other spending changes are much smaller in comparision, and then to suggest that "the actual problem with the budget is not specifically the continuing rapid rise in holiday expenses. The solution to the specific budget problem needs to be specifically targeted...as long as we specifically don't target it at holiday expenses". You might be able to balance the budget that way this year (albeit at significant cost to other needs), but unless you do something about the trend the problem will be back again the following year, and the one after that, and the one after that...

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 07 Jun 2015 #permalink

...since the beginning of global temperature measurement [1850, the end of the little ice age and the beginning of the industrial revolution] the raw, unadjusted data shows 0.8c of warming but the average natural variation in temperatures for the last 8,000 years is around 1c per century.

So, in spite of all our CO2 emissions we are running below average.

Good grief! That's quite possibly THE most stupid claim about climate that I've seen for several years! Congratulations!

Are you really so thick you don't understand what an "average" is, nor why you can't infer we are below average today by comparing "rise over 150 years" with "average natural variation" (not even over the same 150 year period, let alone over a vastly different 8000 years)? Or that you haven't even bothered to consider what the average value for the period in question might be let alone how it actually compares to current temps? Here is a graph that shows the last 8000 years in blue, and current temperatures in red. Feel free to point out where the average over the blue period sits on the chart compared to the end of the red plot.

No, no, no, don't bother answering any of that. We already know the answer.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 07 Jun 2015 #permalink

BTW, in that version of the graph you might find it difficult to distinguish between the red (temperature records) and orange (projections to 2100). If that seems too hard, go for the end of the blue plot and compare it to the average of the blue points.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 07 Jun 2015 #permalink

Stu2

I would also suggest, with respect, that the actual problem for the moose in your linked article is not specifically CC or I guess in this instance AGW.

Sheesh!

So if sea level rises and causes flooding then that is not because of global warming expanding oceans by heating and from increased ice mass loss from the cryosphere.

Why are the vectors for disease in moose changing their range?

Similarly for infestations of pine processional caterpillar infestations up from the Iberian peninsula, into southern France and advancing north towards the channel coast.

Also for the bark beetle infestations in North America which impinge on Maple Syrup production.

Then there is the change of range of tropical disease vectors such as species of insects including mosquito.

Were you born a numpty or did you take a correspondent's course? What a classic example of the ignorati you are.

Someone's awful thick and it ain't me.

That graph bears no resemblance whatsoever to Holocene temperatures. Here's the abstract to the paper regarding a 1c per century nat var seeing as you are so dense:

“There has been widespread investigation of the drivers of changes in global temperatures. However, there has been remarkably little consideration of the magnitude of the changes to be expected over a period of a few decades or even a century. To address this question, the Holocene records from several ice cores up to 8000 years before present were examined. The differences in temperatures between all records which are approximately a century apart were determined, after any trends in the data had been removed. The differences were close to normally distributed. The average standard deviation of temperature over a century was 0.98 ± 0.27 oC.
This suggests that while some portion of the temperature change observed in the 20th century was probably caused by greenhouse gases, there is a strong likelihood that the major portion was due to natural variations. “

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 07 Jun 2015 #permalink

Bernard.
Perhaps along with some research, you could reread your doubled up post? - particularly the introductory and concluding sentences?
Further, I suggest you keep in mind the context while you're at it.

Looks like Jeff Harvey needs to catch up too?
The Moose is not listed as endangered despite that singular 2012 article.

Someone’s awful thick and it ain’t me

That's what we like about you, SD ;-) You're so confident that you're nowhere near as ignorant and intellectually incompetent as you actually are that it makes you extremely gullible. This is, of course, rather endearing to sites like WUWT that touted the paper you are quoting.

That graph bears no resemblance whatsoever to Holocene temperatures.

Idiotic twaddle. The blue portion of that graph is from Marcott et al, which reconstructed Holocene temperatures far more robustly than via "records from several ice cores". It used far more proxies, and most of those have far better geographical distribution than ice cores do.

So, let me reiterate. What part of "average" don't you understand? And why were you stupid enough to pretend that comparing an average over 8000 years with a temperature rise over 150 years was a valid comparison? Or didn't you even realise you were trying to repeat someone else's comparison of average centennial natural variability in temperature with current average temperatures, which are not the same quantity? And why didn't you even bother to check the simple facts about averages that you asserted before you asserted them? And why didn't you bother to check those facts or provide any counter-evidence after your error was pointed out, preferring instead to indulge in substanceless bluster?

I do not believe you can grasp why the logic you quoted from that paper is dodgy, given that you have major problems with vastly simpler concepts (like "average"). I doubt you'll even grasp what it says about the paper that it and only note in passing that it's such a high quality paper that it had to descend all the way to the bottom of the climate science barrel to find a journal willing to publish it.

The paper claims to have estimated global centennial variation purely from ice cores. This is almost certainly bollocks, given that (a) scientists understand there is large polar amplification of global temperature changes and hence much larger variation there, and (b) ice cores of that kind of duration are only available from a small subset of the earth's surface.

But even if we pretend that the estimate is globally accurate, you cannot infer the level of contribution of natural variation over one period from an estimate of the average natural variability derived from another period. To make an inference about the contribution of natural variability you need some kind of, I don't know, model that takes into account all the known factors (and our models that do that directly contradict the paper).

Worse still (given that you self-certify that you're not "awfully thick") is that the abstract reports that the variation found is roughly normally distributed, hence roughly symmetric. That means that if you want to allege that natural variation was likely to have had a reasonably large positive contribution over (say) a particular 150 year period merely because you've calculated an average over a longer span, then you have to agree that it is equally likely to have made a reasonably large negative contribution over that period which would mean that anthropogenic warming is even stronger than you previously thought, and hence that your desired inference is complete bollocks.

At this point you could fall back to the argument that "by definition, the average of natural variation is pretty much zero", but that still kills your original argument.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 07 Jun 2015 #permalink

From the 2StuPID:

Looks like Jeff Harvey needs to catch up too?
The Moose is not listed as endangered despite that singular 2012 article.

Are you really this dense, or dishonest? Read the fracking words dipstick:

Rapid Climate Changes Turn North Woods into Moose Graveyard
...

"What Lenarz and other experts do know is that a variety of climate stressors -- including higher average annual temperatures, a long string of very mild winters, and increasingly favorable conditions for ticks, parasites and other invasive species -- are conspiring to make northern Minnesota a moose graveyard."

Shakes head in disbelief at the lack of comprehension and conclusion drawing of this example of ignorati that is Stu2.

Stu 2, you are at least consistent in your inability to grasp what others say.

I was making no comment above about the population trajectory of moose. I was pointing out that many populations of caribou are at very serious risk. You are the one who incompetently and/or maliciously confabulated intent.

And if you want to talk about research... Population analyses are one of my things, and I have a folder at work with at least a dozen papers on caribou. Do you really want to talk about their security in a 2-4°C warmer world?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 07 Jun 2015 #permalink

Personally observed that SLR, have you Bernard?

Back at ya Drongo. You've conducted the nation-wide and global direct observations that refute the science indicating global sea level rise? Please detail.

Because a tide gauge says average SL has increased it isn’t always so.

Erm, it's not just one gauge. Nor just dozens, nor even scores.

It's hundreds. And there are thousands more besides.

EG at Fort Denison, possibly our most reliable gauge, SL has increased about 2.5 inches in the last hundred years [virtually nothing] but it has also sunk by a similar amount [actually nothing].

Subsidence at Fort Denison? Really? The best estimate of vertical land movement at that site is surely the GPS determination, which gives a value of -0.4 ± 0.7 mm yr-1, according to White et al 2014. In case you don't understand what this means, let me allow the autors to tell you:

At the 69 tide gauge sites used in this study, GIA alone would cause a RMSL fall by -0.1 to -0.4 mm yr-1 (Tamisiea 2011, Fleming et al. 2012).That is, for the 20th and 21st centuries, these GIA motions cause RMSL rise around Australia to be lower than they would otherwise be.

[My emboldening]

They don't appear to have identified any subsidence at Fort Denison from what I can see.

I presume that you understand what this means...

As to the total sea level rise at Fort Denison, there was a thirty year period of relative stasis at that location. What's more important though is what's been happening over the last 25 years, with the increasing energy imbalance of the atmosphere resulting in ever-accumulating heat. Again, White et al:

An assessment of the two longest tide gauges records (Sydney, 1886-2010; Fremantle, 1897-2010) shows that the rate of rise has been non-linear in nature with both records showing large rates of rise around the 1940s, relatively stable RMSLs between 1960 and 1990 and an increased rate of rise from the early 1990s. From 1966 to 2010, when there is good coverage of most of the Australian coastline, the average Australian relative rate of rise is slower than the global mean prior to about 1985, but the mean Australian OVMSL rate from tide gauges is close to the global mean. Since 1993, MSL trends are considerably higher than the global mean around Northern Australian and similar to the global mean around southern Australia. Higher sea-level trends in northern Australia are largely associated with natural climate variability. Even after attempts to remove the effects of this natural variability, trends around most of Australia, show an increased rate of rise from the early 1990s, consistent with global mean trends.

I have yet to see you present any defensible evidence that contradicts these findings.

But talk to families in the ship repair business for generations who survive on the ability to handle bigger boats and business.

IOW, the real world.

Really, ship repairers in an area that has been relatively static for a generation have a better handle on sea level than scientific experts? Ship repairers can account for variability arising from tides, atmospheric pressure variation, surging, local hydrological alterations, vertical land movement and sundry other confounders and come up with a better understanding than professionals?

It seems that your real world is inhabited by fairies.

They would love a bit of SLR, but it just isn’t happening.

If only the data would agree with your unsubstantiated assertion.

Seriously Drongo, what you are arguing for is a refutation of the very basic, very solid physics of the thermal expansion properties of water. This is exquisitely refined science. We know the oceans are warming, and the degree to which they expand as a result can be predicted, and the predictions are in line with observations.

Further, we know that the Arctic, many parts of the Antarctic, and mountain glaciers are melting, and their contribution to global mean sea level rise can also be calculated and identified.

What you are arguing for is either that physics doresn't actually work the way that scientists have proven for hundreds of years, or that someone's pulled a plug out in one of the oceans and they're draining at the same rate that human effects are causing sea level rise.

Take your pick.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 07 Jun 2015 #permalink

[Bugger it. I'll try again:]

Personally observed that SLR, have you Bernard?

Back at ya Drongo. You’ve conducted the nation-wide and global direct observations that refute the science indicating global sea level rise? Please detail.

Because a tide gauge says average SL has increased it isn’t always so.

Erm, it’s not just one gauge. Nor just dozens, nor even scores.

It’s hundreds. And there are thousands more besides.

EG at Fort Denison, possibly our most reliable gauge, SL has increased about 2.5 inches in the last hundred years [virtually nothing] but it has also sunk by a similar amount [actually nothing].

Subsidence at Fort Denison? Really? The best estimate of vertical land movement at that site is surely the GPS determination, which gives a value of -0.4 ± 0.7 mm yr-1, according to White et al 2014. In case you don’t understand what this means, let me allow the autors to tell you:

At the 69 tide gauge sites used in this study, GIA alone would cause a RMSL fall by -0.1 to -0.4 mm yr-1 (Tamisiea 2011, Fleming et al. 2012).That is, for the 20th and 21st centuries, these GIA motions cause RMSL rise around Australia to be lower than they would otherwise be.

[My emboldening]

They don’t appear to have identified any subsidence at Fort Denison from what I can see.

I presume that you understand what this means…

As to the total sea level rise at Fort Denison, there was a thirty year period of relative stasis at that location. What’s more important though is what’s been happening over the last 25 years, with the increasing energy imbalance of the atmosphere resulting in ever-accumulating heat. Again, White et al:

An assessment of the two longest tide gauges records (Sydney, 1886-2010; Fremantle, 1897-2010) shows that the rate of rise has been non-linear in nature with both records showing large rates of rise around the 1940s, relatively stable RMSLs between 1960 and 1990 and an increased rate of rise from the early 1990s. From 1966 to 2010, when there is good coverage of most of the Australian coastline, the average Australian relative rate of rise is slower than the global mean prior to about 1985, but the mean Australian OVMSL rate from tide gauges is close to the global mean. Since 1993, MSL trends are considerably higher than the global mean around Northern Australian and similar to the global mean around southern Australia. Higher sea-level trends in northern Australia are largely associated with natural climate variability. Even after attempts to remove the effects of this natural variability, trends around most of Australia, show an increased rate of rise from the early 1990s, consistent with global mean trends.

I have yet to see you present any defensible evidence that contradicts these findings.

But talk to families in the ship repair business for generations who survive on the ability to handle bigger boats and business.

IOW, the real world.

Really, ship repairers in an area that has been relatively static for a generation have a better handle on sea level than scientific experts? Ship repairers can account for variability arising from tides, atmospheric pressure variation, surging, local hydrological alterations, vertical land movement and sundry other confounders and come up with a better understanding than professionals?

It seems that your real world is inhabited by fairies.

They would love a bit of SLR, but it just isn’t happening.

If only the data would agree with your unsubstantiated assertion.

Seriously Drongo, what you are arguing for is a refutation of the very basic, very solid physics of the thermal expansion properties of water. This is exquisitely refined science. We know the oceans are warming, and the degree to which they expand as a result can be predicted, and the predictions are in line with observations.

Further, we know that the Arctic, many parts of the Antarctic, and mountain glaciers are melting, and their contribution to global mean sea level rise can also be calculated and identified.

What you are arguing for is either that physics doresn’t actually work the way that scientists have proven for hundreds of years, or that someone’s pulled a plug out in one of the oceans and they’re draining at the same rate that human effects are causing sea level rise.

Take your pick.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 07 Jun 2015 #permalink

If SLR was happening like you catastrophists claim

Uh, what do YOU think we claim?

I find it breathtaking how none of you can point to anywhere as observable evidence of SLR.

Uh, you've been given several places where it's shown.

What? Do you just decide to forget that it happened? Is that an acceptable evidence for a claim? Because if so, I find it breathtaking how you've been unable to show evidence of anywhere where SLR isn't happening.

If SLR was happening like you catastrophists claim

Uh, what do YOU think we claim?

I find it breathtaking how none of you can point to anywhere as observable evidence of SLR.

Uh, you've been given several places where it's shown.

What? Do you just decide to forget that it happened? Is that an acceptable evidence for a claim? Because if so, I find it breathtaking how you've been unable to show evidence of anywhere where SLR isn't happening.

Show me evidence indicating that SLR isn't happening.

Someone’s awful thick and it ain’t me.

I have some bad or at least disturbing news for you then.

"Were you born a numpty or did you take a correspondent’s course?"

Oops!

Should be correspondence course.

P. J. Lloyd is a chemical engineer not a palaeoclimatologist. He has no experience whatsover in interpreting ice core data and has published no other climate-related papers.

He is pontification far outside his own field of expertise, with predictable results.

"He is pontificating"

Stu2 you clot, you are out of your depth on any issue dealing with population ecology. A species does not have to be federally listed as endangered for it to be showing signs of trouble. For instance, in North America many passerines are in population free fall but are not as yet officially listed. These include the Golden-Winged and Cerulean Warblers, Brewer's Blackbird, Eastern Towhee, Bachman's Sparrow and a number of others. Moose are showing signs of decline at the southern edge of their range; warming is likely to lead to both abiotic and biotic stresses on them. And most importantly, the empirical literature is full of examples of warming related declines in the distribution and abundance of species. You have not got a clue.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 07 Jun 2015 #permalink

Olaus

This is why, over and over again, I have suggested that the correct wording is a slowdown in the rate of surface warming rather than a 'hiatus' or 'pause'.

Lothe, you can't be serious. Please say it is not so. Even I credited you with more intelligence. That graph is just smoothed, wishful BS. Go and check ice core graphs in detail and then see if climate nat var don't agree with that paper.

The LIA was the coldest part of the Holocene and since it ended and the Industrial Revolution began we have warmed by a miniscule 1c. Way below average nat var.

You could reasonably extrapolate from that that CO2 causes cooling☺.

Bernie love, ship builders and repairers deal in real-world millimetres of sea levels not the theoretical blurb you vaguely associate with. As a designer/builder/repairer of deep draughted vessels on the eastern seaboard, I know reality. Also my associates know reality.
When you are trying to get a vessel onto a slipway at the top of the tide and that's what your family has been doing for generations you tend to develop an accurate knowledge of what's going on around you WRG to sea levels. You don't have to delve into the art of angels dancing on the head of a pin before you go to work each day.

But by all means stick to your theoretical blurb if that's what floats YOUR boat.

In the meantime, though, if you happen to stumble upon some observable evidence of SLR let me know and I will be delighted to come and check it out.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 07 Jun 2015 #permalink

Spangled Drongo

Go and check ice core graphs in detail and then see if climate nat var don’t agree with that paper.

Which cores were used in this study?

SpD

I don’t know, BBD, other than it was from both poles.

How can you defend a result if you don't know the data it is based on?

Gee, never seen ice core temp detail, BBD? Don't be such a pedant.

So, you buy and read all the papers before you quote the findings?

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 07 Jun 2015 #permalink

Even I credited you with more intelligence.

That argument only works if you demonstrate you can recognise intelligence, but you have provided copious counter evidence over the years.

Indeed, even in this latest response you unintelligently fail to address the arguments I made that demonstrate that the paper's conclusions will be quickly found to be bogus. These both suggest that your claim about the size of natural variability will prove unreliable, but also that the headline conclusion is bogus regardless of the size of natural variability that we agree upon. Given your response one might reasonably conclude that that was all above your cognitive pay grade.

It looks to me like this will be the latest denialist paper to use McLean's et al's obvious illogic of removing the trend, then arguing that the trend can be explained by some feature of the remaining data. (Obvious to some - but it easily fools plenty...)

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 07 Jun 2015 #permalink

Start here, Lothe, and work your way to more detail and I’m sure the penny will drop.

So, another comment that strengthens the hypothesis that my first response went way over your head. I doubt the penny in that first response is ever going to drop for you.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 07 Jun 2015 #permalink

Lothe, I'll type it slower. Over the last 80 centuries Nat Var averaged around 1c per century. Over the last 1.65 centuries it was around 0.8c.

That is 65% more stable climate than average during a period when, because of the end of the LIA and the beginning of the IR warming would be expected to be above average.

I used 1850 because it was the earliest data and it was closest to the end of the LIA and the beginning of the IR. But if you wish just keep it to the last 100 years and it is still below centenial average.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1850

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 07 Jun 2015 #permalink

HMMMMM?
Best to go in order I guess?
Jeff Harvey @ # 27 & # 46.
Precisely!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence
Consequently it cannot be expected that two scientists when observing, experiencing, or experimenting on the same event will make the same theory-neutral observations. The role of observation as a theory-neutral arbiter may not be possible. Theory-dependence of observation means that, even if there were agreed methods of inference and interpretation, scientists may still disagree on the nature of empirical data.[5]
I think Walter Starck’s quip about “an academic pissing contest” aptly encapsulates the issue as well.

I suspect a quick perusal of these 2 may also help?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migration

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extrapolation

Lotharsson @ # 29. I specifically, specified different uses of the word specific for a specific purpose.
Your specific analogy based on a specific family budget is so fundamentally and specifically flawed and so specifically missing the specific point that I am gobsmacked!
But since I have no desire to argue semantics with you please do not bother to rehash it on my account.
Lionel @ # 32.
Put simply. The article you linked explained that the specific issue was the invasion of organisms into the Moose herd which AGW may (MAY!) be a contributing factor. If you’re really concerned about those Moose, you will need a specifically targeted solution designed to manage the invasive pests. Hand waving about AGW will not help those Moose re the invasive organisms.
Bernard @ # 38.
Good luck solving the problem from a dozen or so papers in a folder at your work.
I do need to point out however that the Moose have evolved, along with most other species on this planet, to be quite secure from an average 2-4 deg variation in averaged global temps.
Forgive me for stating the excruciating and painfully obvious but if they weren’t, they would be dying off in droves every time a cloud or two masked the sunlight on a breezy day. And if that didn’t do them in, the transition from day to night in the areas they inhabit would certainly do it!
And no. I have no desire to get into one of those ‘academic pissing contests’ with you. Sorry.
I’m much more inclined to accept an invitation to discuss practical, accountable and specifically targeted solutions to environmental issues.

Drongo, tell me how boat repairers account for tides, atmospheric pressure, surge, local hydrological events, VLM, and the phenomenon of shifting baseline perception in order to determine that global sea level is not rising.

If, in the process, you could explain:

1) why water doesn't expand when it warms, and
2) why melting glaciers and ice caps don't melt when climate warms, and
3) that if they do melt their melt-water doesn't end up in the oceans,

I'd be most curious.

Right now I'm off to speak with a retired captain of a research vessel who lives two doors down...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 07 Jun 2015 #permalink

Stu 2, you're a clueless git.

I have three filing cabinets full of ecological papers, and many thousands more PDFs on three hard drives. Although my work is not focussed on nothern hemisphere ungulates I have a professional familiarity with their population dynamics, to the point that I have a folder on my desktop with at least a dozen papers on their ecology.

You've introduced at least three more straw men in your latest comment:

1) I am not attempting to "solv[e] the problem" of caribou decline, as you insist - I am simply understanding it in the context of broader climate change impacts on species.

2) I am working from more than "a dozen or so papers".

3) Caribou are not moose, depsite the fact that you've confabulated the relationship several times now.

As to your (not so) smart comment about clouds and breezy days, you are blithely ignoring that the issue is about the shifting of mean temperatures in a climatic sense, with the corresponding shifts in precipitation, extreme temperature events, forage distributions, disease distributions, and sundry other factors that impinge on the bioclimatic envelopes that determine the range and survival of any species. Caribou are cold-adapted and throughout their evolution they've not experienced the amount of warming that is being set in train with human carbon emissions.

There's nothing scientifically controversial in what I said at . That you are arguing against it shows that you are not just ignorant in the discipline of ecology, but that you are apparently a denier of biological/ecological science.

I hope that you wear that badge proudly beside your denial of climate science.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 07 Jun 2015 #permalink

Lothe, I’ll type it slower.

Typing the same illogic more slowly does not magically make it logical, nor does it address the points I made that you failed to address.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 07 Jun 2015 #permalink

Bernie, after all this time you still only dwell on the fringes.

But you left out how the rising ocean settles with the extra mass into the plasticity of the sea bed.

Never mind, when people are doing this work on a daily basis those dancing angels even themselves out and the real world prevails.

You will certainly learn a lot from that captain if you give yourself half a chance but I suspect it may take you another lifetime to really find the truth.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 07 Jun 2015 #permalink

I thought that even you, Bernie, could work out that if SLs aren't rising it's simply because there is not enough Global Warming to melt the ice.

Its called Occam's Razor. The law of parsimony.

Not that you dancing angels go in for that sort of thing, I realise.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 07 Jun 2015 #permalink

Your specific analogy based on a specific family budget is so fundamentally and specifically flawed and so specifically missing the specific point that I am gobsmacked!

Perhaps that debating tactic worked extremely well for you in primary school, which might explain why you cling to it as an adult. It doesn't work too well by the time most of us hit high school though.

I do need to point out however that the Moose have evolved, along with most other species on this planet, to be quite secure from an average 2-4 deg variation in averaged global temps.

Oh, FFS. We've punctured this idiocy many times in the past. An increase in the mean of 2-4C has a vastly different impact than a variation of 2-4C around the mean. Bernard J provides much more detail, but you only need what I wrote in the previous sentence to understand how stupid your position is.

Since this has been pointed out many times now, are you really so cognitively handicapped that you cannot understand this fairly simply point?

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 07 Jun 2015 #permalink

Bernard J.
I do apologize if this sounds too harsh.
I have to agree with Spangled Drongo albeit a different subject matter.
It doesn't matter if you have a dozen or so papers in a folder or filing cabinets full of papers.
You don't have a practical, measurable, accountable solution.
Particularly in relation to the invasive pest in the originally linked article.
Spangled is making a fair point.
It is indeed a good example of 'fringe dwelling'.
The subject matter was Moose. You introduced and therefore
confabulated with caribou & actually did it twice.
And you're correct. You have not stated anything controversial.
Neither have you offered anything to assist the Moose.

Lotharsson.
I'm not interested in your idea of a debating tactic.
Not one bit.
You're analogy was a shocker.
The climate , the weather, the ocean environment or the land environment are nothing even remotely similar to a poorly run
family budget.
I could explain why but that would just be giving oxygen to a nonsense.

You’re analogy was a shocker.

Argument by assertion is fallacious.

If you don't want to explain why your assertion holds then you merely make it look like you cannot explain and are blustering to cover up that lack. You'd do better to ignore it entirely rather than assert without evidence that you could rebut it, if only you could be bothered.

The climate , the weather, the ocean environment or the land environment are nothing even remotely similar to a poorly run
family budget.

Well, doh! I never said they were. The analogy was illustrating the flawed structure of your "logic", hence the similarity is within the logical structure which does not require any kind of similarity in the subjects of that kind of logic.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 07 Jun 2015 #permalink

Well done Lotharsson!
I most definitely don't want to explain why you're defending nonsense with even further nonsense.
If you would actually like to discuss a suite of practical measures that would help the Moose that Lionel referenced, that is a different matter.
As far as your personal opiniin of my tactics and logic is concerned, that's exclusively your problem not mine - or even the moose's problem.
As well as not giving a tinkers' cuss about an averaged global temp trend they care even less about your opinion of me.
They might give you a moment's consideration if you got rid of those invasive pests that may (MAY!) be there now because of AGW.

BBD, my friend, buckets-with-thermometers science (or bouquet science) sure tries to keep up appearances. ;-)

Hilarious. :-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 07 Jun 2015 #permalink

"Fellas, Karl’s paper denying-IPCC-hiatus-"

Since there never was a hiatus, IPCC or no, then it can't be denying it.

Unless you think that not believing in fantasy is denying it.

The hiatus was a figment of denier cherry picking and wishful thinking.

Even you should be able to admit now that what you called hiatus has ended, what with 2013 and 2014 being record years and 2015 beating both so far.

Doesn't sound like a haitus, does it.

"That graph is just smoothed, wishful BS. "

That claim is just wishful BS.

"The LIA was the coldest part of the Holocene "

How do you know?

Guesswork? Personal experience? Or by pretending that you interpret the results of scientists match what you want to believe, but call it "made up BS" when they tell you you're wrong?

"Which cores were used in this study?

#51 spangled drongo
I don’t know, BBD,"

IOW "I have no idea, since I've never even looked. Or been the least bit sceptical of Tony's claims about it.

"I thought that even you, Bernie, could work out that if SLs aren’t rising"

I thought you would work out that "If" is a conditional predicate.

If you're wrong, then there's SLR and you're ignoring it.

Spangled Drongo (an insult to the name of a quite beautiful species of bird) one year does not make a trend. Like most deniers, you equate extremely short time scales with processes, clearly showing how out of depth you are on anything remotely related to science (see meatball's comment, above for further evidence).

If you plot temperatures in the upper midwestern US over a longer time frame, then it becomes evident that it has been warming more recently; place that in the context of biotic properties and extended trends induce stresses on organisms that do not occur in short time frames that are considered as 'outliers'. One dry year in the Amazon will have little effect on the biota there; many dry years over a series of years will.

Before you try and discuss these issues with me, try and learn a little about the importance of scale as that relates to biotic properties in communities, ecosystems and biomes. Your profound ignorance was evident in your last comment re: a hot year in Minnesota in 1931. Its meaningless.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 08 Jun 2015 #permalink

Stu2,

Given you aren't anywhere close to being considered an academic, I find it ironic that you dredge up an 'academic pissing contest' comment.

As I said before, but which you did not understand (that is easy to explain, given that your knowledge is shallow at best), there is abundant empirical evidence of demographic changes in many species across the biosphere for which records have been reliably kept. The bird species I mentioned above - and there are dozens more - are declining, many precipitously. Some species, like Eastern Meadowlarks, are still common even though they have declined considerably over the past 30 years. Loggerhead Shrikes are not extinct in the Northeast. These species are monitored annually and we have data records going back decades. Something in the environment is driving these declines.

In Eurasia, a number of ubiquitous species of birds are also declining; these include the Song Thrush, Blackbird, Corn Bunting, Red-Backed Shrike, Pied Flycatcher and many others. Even the House Sparrow has declined by 70% or more from many areas. The Tree Sparrow in the UK has declined by 95% since the 1970s. This is not a pissing contest; it is based on empirical data. Get that?

As Elizabeth Kolpert explains quite well in her book 'The Sixth Extinction', there are widespread collapses in phylogenetically unrelated taxa being observed over the entire planet. Chyrtid fungi - spread by man through much of the biosphere - is wiping out frogs and salamanders across huge swathes of their habitat; Geomyces destructans, another chytid fungus introduced into the US is decimating populations of bats in the east to such an extent that some formerly common species will soon be listed as threatened or even endangered.

Climate change and ocean acidification will decimate calciferous species in the oceans; it already is. Oceanic pH has decreased by 30% since the industrial revolution and if, as projected, it goes down another 150% in the coming 50-100 years, most marine crustaceans, molluscs, brachiopods and corals are history. As it is, saturation points of aragonite are in freefall, making it increasingly difficult for corals to produce their characteristic structures. Warming is already impacting terrestrial and marine systems, and certainly constitutes a major threat to them.

The list goes on and on. There is no pissing contest when it comes down to the impact of humans on natural systems in what is now clearly the Anthropocene. There is consensus on these issues. The pissing comes mostly from anti-environmental blogs, think tanks and laypeople like you who think they know a lot about population ecology when its clear they know nothing.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 08 Jun 2015 #permalink

ooops... now extinct in the Northeast...

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 08 Jun 2015 #permalink

I most definitely don’t want to explain why you’re defending nonsense with even further nonsense.

Please do keep making the effort to say you really really really could without making the slightest effort to actually do it. Given your history of extensive wrongness it merely reinforces the impression that your mouth is writing cheques your brain can't cover.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 08 Jun 2015 #permalink

Poor, foolish Wow asks how I know the LIA was the coolest period of the Holocene.

He must never have looked at a graph of the Holocene in his life.

Check it out on the web Wowie!

Even the dogs bark it. Even the most discredited Holocene graph in history, the Mann Made Hokey Stick, claims it.

Yes, Wowie, we have warmed exactly 0.8c since the coldest period of the Holocene after emitting record amounts of CO2 and yet we are still well below natural climate variability.

Run along now.

With this sort of arrant stupidity on display I won't bother to deal with his other foolishness.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 08 Jun 2015 #permalink

Jeff Harvey.
Walter Starck appears to have you perfectly pegged.
BTW. There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that if there was no such species as 'homo sapiens' our planet would be a different planet.
Even though I am very well edumicated I actually don't need my edumication to understand that.

Yes Spangled Drongo. Those wretched published records just don't seem to be interested in cooperating.
Neither do the moose :-)

Even the dogs bark it. Even the most discredited Holocene graph in history, the Mann Made Hokey Stick, claims it.

Idiot.

The MBH graphs, even from the later papers that cover several extra centuries, only cover a small fraction of the Holocene, so by definition they cannot be used to determine the coldest part of it.

Furthermore, you've predictably and sadly entirely missed the point of Wow's question as expressed in his last sentence. It points out that you accept small parts of scientific understanding on occasion when you want to use them in an argument and reject the rest, and you provide no good reason for the inconsistency.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 08 Jun 2015 #permalink

... and yet we are still well below natural climate variability.

Still with the idiocy. As I pointed out using your evidence and "logic" one can just as well argue that the warming we've seen over that time frame has been despite natural variability working to cool the climate, so the actual warming we've seen is well over twice the figure you cited.

If you want to dispute that you either have to dispute the evidence you cited or dispute your own "logic".

You'll do neither, of course.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 08 Jun 2015 #permalink

Here’s some of the warming climate around Minnesota and Lake Superior.

Idiot.

Ice cover is not temperature, ice extent of any magnitude in a cold climate towards the end of winter doesn't demonstrate that the climate isn't warming because temperatures that are well below freezing can warm up by several degrees and still be below freezing, and local conditions in one year are not representative of long term trends in local conditions (especially when a disrupted jet stream is a known feature of a globally warming climate).

It's amazing how much wrong you can pack into one comment - and how enthusiastically Stu 2 will cheer for it!

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 08 Jun 2015 #permalink

Furthermore, you’ve predictably and sadly entirely missed the point of Wow’s question as expressed in his last sentence.

Let me elaborate on that.

You've referred to a graph of the entire Holocene to support your claim about the LIA being the coldest period of it, but when I pointed out that a graph of the entire Holocene refutes your claim about not currently being warmer than the Holocene average you reject the evidence by simply ignoring it.

In other words you apparently don't know from minute to minute or point to point whether you will accept or deny/reject/ignore the evidence, and you're frequently happy to argue two things at once that cannot both be consistent with the evidence at the same time.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 08 Jun 2015 #permalink

Oh dear! You are desperate, Lothe.

Are you seriously claiming the LIA was not the coldest period of the Holocene?

Do you really think that after an extended LIA, the coldest period of the Holocene, the next climate cycle was gonna be cooling?

Not to mention the commencement of the industrial rev.

And how about you supply us with some raw, unadjusted data of how Minnesota is warming. [Or are you really saying it is freezing but you don't know why? After all, that hottest year way back in 1931 still had an AVERAGE temperature of around 7.5c. Very chilly. ]

But you just might need the assistance of Tom Karl to get you out of your self-inflicted soil with this prize stupidity.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 08 Jun 2015 #permalink

Spangled dumbo is basing his b* on a single year again.

Here's the rundown for the lower 48 states: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/weather-climate/tem…

Its warming. No doubt about it. One or two outlying years do not constitute a trend. Except in the minds of non-scientists like SD, who are stuck on blogs because if they dared venture into the halls of academia they'd be seen as laughingstocks. Just waht is your day job SD? I would be amused to find out. Certainly you aren't anywhere near a university or research institute. Otherwise you'd be spreading your gospel of ignorance far and wide, and not rely on blogs as a vehicle for your gibberish.

As for Stu2, he really thinks he is an expert in population ecology and understands demographic shifts in various taxa. Truth is he's a dope who doesn't read the primary literature and is seriously afflicted with Dunning-Kruger syndrome.

More here:
http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.2193/2008-265
http://www.jstor.org/stable/42901625?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
http://http://aoucospubs.org/doi/abs/10.1650/7131
link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11284-013-1054-9
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2009.01974.x/full

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 08 Jun 2015 #permalink

OMG! Walter Starck is a veritable fossil who is affilaited with the Heartland Institute! Stu2 does not get any funnier than having to reply on a few ancient contrarians for his witless comments...

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 08 Jun 2015 #permalink

" but when I pointed out that a graph of the entire Holocene refutes your claim about not currently being warmer than the Holocene average you reject the evidence by simply ignoring it."

I get it now, Lothe. You really haven't understood a word I was saying.

Go back and re-read the lesson.

Or put your mum on.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 08 Jun 2015 #permalink

This is the same Walter Starck with 3 publications on the Web of Science in his career with a total of 18 citations...

This shows how utterly desperate the AGW denial community has stooped - recruiting academics on the very fringe who downplay human effects across the biosphere.

Pathetic.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 08 Jun 2015 #permalink

Jeffyboy, the EPA? Are you serious?

The Gatekeepers-in-chief like Gavin et al are bad enough and fiddle the system progressively and shamelessly but the EPA are paving the way in adjustments so fearless Barry can ride his white charger to Paris in unblemished splendour.

The EPA are in the reconstructing business along with Tom Karl.

Go through that link I gave Stu 2 and check when the states all had their warmest years.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 08 Jun 2015 #permalink

I, following reading of an article about the plight of Moose populations due to stress factors caused by global warming which included disease vectors shifting ranges opened with this entirely reasonable question given the context:

"Will the Moose be another casualty of the sixth extinction...?"

You, in your ignorance (or dishonesty) returned with this:

If you’re really concerned about those Moose, you will need a specifically targeted solution designed to manage the invasive pests. Hand waving about AGW...

Which is a poor rejoinder on two counts, first by raising the plight why should I proffer a solution when there is little chance of a satisfactory solution in the short term. This brings me on to the connected second point where you characterise the postulation that global warming is a part of the problem as hand waving. No you pratt, by changing the topic it is you that is hand waving. The plight of the moose is a clear warning of why we should do everything we can in reducing GHG outputs to mitigate the worst effects that will ensue by carrying on with BAU.

By curbing emissions, and other assaults on the environment, we can try and stem the tide of ecological mayhem that will envelope us too.

By trying to shift the focus away from warming as an underlying cause you demonstrated that you did not bother to read the article where there was these words:

What Lenarz and other experts do know is that a variety of climate stressors -- including higher average annual temperatures, a long string of very mild winters, and increasingly favorable conditions for ticks, parasites and other invasive species -- are conspiring to make northern Minnesota a moose graveyard.

Also, study the Planetary Boundaries diagram here and do try and grasp the implications.

Drongo at #62:

But you left out how the rising ocean settles with the extra mass into the plasticity of the sea bed.

Eh?! The contemporary sea Level rise is actually sinking into the ocean floor? Two points:

1) If this was a Thing, then when has sea level changed in the past?

2) Most of the contemporary sea level rise has resulted from thermal expansion, and therefore there is no consequent change in mass. How does "plasticity" respond to this non-change in mass?

Idiot.

You will certainly learn a lot from that captain if you give yourself half a chance but I suspect it may take you another lifetime to really find the truth.

I learned one new thing from him... He had one comment in response to my description of your denial of sea level rise based on your "design and repair" experience - he said "what a waister". I had to ask him about the spelling, and the explanation was less than flattering...

On other matters, Port Arthur came up, which reminded me that you never acknowledged that John Daly completely cocked up his subsidence hypothesis with respect to sea level around south east Tasmania. Care to make that consession now?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 08 Jun 2015 #permalink

SD, you act as you have a monopoly of wisdom. Last time I looked every major Academy of Science in every nation on the planet had verified both the reality of AGW and its threat to future generations.

Against this background we have anonymous morons like you writing into blogs and acting as if you are authorities. Again, I ask you what is your profession? Do you publish in the scientific literature?

We all know the answer to these questions. You aren't a scientist and have no publications.

That says it all.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 08 Jun 2015 #permalink

Are you seriously claiming the LIA was not the coldest period of the Holocene?

No, dear. Read the actual words

You really haven’t understood a word I was saying.

No, dear. The problem is that I've understood them all too well - and explained why the "argument" they contained was invalid. In response you've shown no sign of comprehending those words of mine, and are now projecting that incomprehension on to me.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 08 Jun 2015 #permalink

And while we are ait it check out the NOAA graph on temperature trends in the USA 1901-1912:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/weather-climate/tem…

Golly gee. Minnesota is warming quite rapidly. Imagine that. As for the EPA, its been so gutted by successive administrations and has become a revolving door for industry. If SD thinks EPA and NOAA data are not valid, then he's really clutching at straws.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 08 Jun 2015 #permalink

Specifically, look at Fig. 3...

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 08 Jun 2015 #permalink

Drongo

So, you don't know which cores were examined in the Lloyd study but are prepared to treat the work of a chemical engineer with no palaeoclimate experience whatsoever as gospel without examining either the data or methodology used.

Not very sceptical of you, is it?

Like Lotharsson, I expect that Lloyd has fucked up, which is quite possibly why this study ended up in the standing joke that is E&E instead of a recognised climate journal. It would not have passed review anywhere else.

Given that Lloyd is way outside his own field of expertise, I suspect that he's done something silly like fail to factor for polar amplification. I notice that this also occurred to Lotharsson, possibly because the range of centennial variability claimed by Lloyd is far higher than one would expect. Failure to allow for polar amplification would produce exactly such an exaggerated result.

* * *

I'm not going to dispute that the LIA was cold by Holocene norms. There has been a discontinuous cooling trend for ~6ka since the end of the orbitally-forced peak warmth of the Holocene Climatic Optimum.

Note the well-understood physical mechanism that produced the HCO and the subsequent cooling as NH summer TSI slowly reduced over the intervening millennia.

What is *very* interesting is the sudden reversal of this cooling trend which, if uninterrupted, might be expected eventually to lead to the onset of glaciation. But it clearly has been interrupted, by another well-understood physical process called greenhouse gas forcing. So far, this has elevated GAT by ~0.8C and will continue to raise global mean temperatures unless emissions are severely curtailed.

This is physical climatology. It's all about energy. Energy is required to heat up the climate system. It does not just heat up and cool down on its own; it must be forced externally for a multi-decadal or centennial trend to emerge from the noise of internal variability.

This requires more incoming solar energy or an increase in GHG forcing that reduces the rate at which energy leaves the climate system. Basic stuff, really.

Now, orbital dynamics is driving the long-term trend for NH TSI downward. We *should* be slowly heading towards the next glacial. There's no long-term increase in solar irradiance either. So why the centennial-scale warming?

Answer: increasing GHG forcing. Not natural variability which anyway tends to self-cancel over multi-decadal periods because unforced internal NV doesn't create energy, just reorganises the way it moves around within the climate system.

The fact that Lloyd is apparently unaware of this is another reason to discount his hypothesis.

Stu 2 at #65.

You don’t have a practical, measurable, accountable solution.

Yet again you are tilting at straw men. My post was indicating that a relative of the moose is in serious trouble due to human damage to the environment. I wasn't talking about solutions in that post so you have no reason to claim that I have none.

If you want solutions though - don't bugger their habitat, and stop heating the planet.

It's so simple that even an intellectually disadvantaged person like you should be able to understand it.

The subject matter was Moose. You introduced and therefore
confabulated with caribou & actually did it twice.

No, I simply pointed out that a relative of the moose was in serious trouble. You're taking my many previous indications of your propensity for confabulation and trying to make it your own. Good luck with that... everyone with a brain on this thread knows that you're a floundering fool.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 08 Jun 2015 #permalink

Drongo

Go through that link I gave Stu 2 and check when the states all had their warmest years.

A record year is irrelevant. What counts is the trend not the transients.

This is so obvious, so elemental and so easy to get right, it makes me wonder that anyone could be confused on this point. Certainly anyone who thinks they are sufficiently knowledgeable about climate to confidently contradict the entire field.

* * *

Greenland has gained half a trillion tons of snow and ice since September. This all has to melt in the air or flow into the sea and melt – in order to keep equilibrium of the ice sheet.

And then there is Antarctica……

Ice mass balance for the GrIS, WAIS and EAIS are all negative.

All these ice sheets are exhibiting net mass loss.

June is peak mass balance gain for the GrIS. The summer melt gets underway from now and goes on until the end of August. So what you tried to do is a really blatant and childishly deceptive cherry-pick.

How stupid and ill-informed do you think we are?

From the DMI site you linked:

The surface mass balance is calculated over a year from September 1st to August 31st (the end of the melt season). [...] Satellite observations over the last decade show that the ice sheet is not in balance. The calving loss is greater than the gain from surface mass balance, and Greenland is losing mass at about 200 Gt/yr.

Stop wasting everyone's time with your nonsense.

Spangled Drongo (#96, previous page)

Oh Dear! Wrong again! That page you link to is about surface mass balance, not the total mass balance of the ice sheet.

Try reading the last section of that page.

PS That stuff about sea-level rise just being absorbed into the crust is nonsense too - someone (Bernard J I think) has already pointed out.

However, we do seem to be making some progress, don't we - you seem to be acknowledging that local SLR can be different in different places.

By Neil White (not verified) on 08 Jun 2015 #permalink

Neil,

I don't think SD read as far as this bit:

Satellite observations over the last decade show that the ice sheet is not in balance. The calving loss is greater than the gain from surface mass balance, and Greenland is losing mass at about 200 Gt/yr.

Bernard J @ # 4.
The identified problem was the invasive pests.
It was not a buggered up habitat or a heating planet.
Those moose aren't dying from a 2-4 average global trend or from habitat destruction - especially not in that region.
It does appear that no one actually cares about those moose?
Don't tell me that link was offered merely because it mentions AGW?

The identified problem was the invasive pests.
It was not a buggered up habitat or a heating planet.

And you're still furiously pretending there's no link between the two. Why, it's almost like you're trying to validate the family budget analogy that you assert was fundamentally flawed!

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 08 Jun 2015 #permalink

Spangled Drong still thinks his wishful-thinking-posing-as-observations trumps the work CSIRO have done on *observing* sea-level rise:
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/

Also, a lot of regurgitated "nat var" nonsense, presumably culled 3rd-hand from the recently-debunked Monckton-Soon nonsense-paper.
What the Drongos seem to be over-looking is that temperature rise is now running at 2.5 degrees/century (based on the last 30 years of data) and there is no indication that this accelerated warming is likely to slow down any time soon.
http://climate.nasa.gov/system/image_uploads/main/HemisphericTemperatur…

Drongos choose to live in a fantasy-world where cranky belief takes precedence over actual science.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 08 Jun 2015 #permalink

"But you left out how the rising ocean settles with the extra mass into the plasticity of the sea bed."

Bernie and Neil, you not only don't get real world SLR, you don't even get real world sarcasm.

And Bernie, ask that ship's captain mate of yours how much work he has done over long periods in getting small ships on and off slipways at high tide. Also you could ask him if he's noticed whether it's easier to access harbours these days with all this SLR.

I suspect he's another fringe-dweller like you.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 08 Jun 2015 #permalink

"temperature rise is now running at 2.5 degrees/century"

And how would you like that? Modelled, kriged, manipulated, adjusted, reconstructed, extrapolated, homogenised or deep fried in lots of batter?

Raw, thanks.

Raw! Ya gotta be kidding! You only get 0.8c over 165 years with raw.

There's no money in raw!

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 08 Jun 2015 #permalink

Idiots like Drongo believe that we should wait until the planet has reached 2.5 C and then do something... that's like watching a ship begin to sink and to wait until its under water before declaring ti a problem...

As for invasive insects, how on Earth did they become invasive in the first place? They didn't mysteriously end up in novel habitats; humans brought them there! We are the great agent of biotic homogenization. And warming s most certainly being seen in natural systems - species and populations are responding. Also, SDs little 0.8C obscures regional shifts, as well as changes in other climate-related processes such as rainfall and droughts...

As I said before, SD is stuck on blogs as an anonymous entity; he's not a scientists, doesn't publish in the scientific literature, and doesn't speak at conferences. He thinks he is a big cheese on a blog, whereas in the big, bad world he is a complete nobody. Therein lies the truth.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 08 Jun 2015 #permalink

There's no money in raw? But think of the riches of honesty.

Wazzat? Surely you would prefer infilled, virtualised, manufactured, invented, concocted, fabricated, fiddled or just plain well cooked?

But my dietician says it must be raw.

But, but, ya can't have raw. Raw only gives you below average nat var, peace of mind and no govt largesse.

But it has to be raw for my health!

Sorry, we don't do raw anymore.

Cue chorus girls filing on stage brandishing cooking pans and singing:

♪ We don't do raw, anymore,
We don't do raw, rich or poor,
We don't do raw, that's for sure,
We don't do raw, anymore. ♪

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 09 Jun 2015 #permalink

SD: We are still waiting to read about your illustrious scientific career, publications, plenary and keynote lectures on climate science....

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 09 Jun 2015 #permalink

Jeffie, I'll show you mine if you show me yours.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 09 Jun 2015 #permalink

At the 1988 Toronto conference experts warned temperatures would rise by between 1.5C and 4.5C by 2050. With 27 years gone and 35 to go the rise is barely a quarter of a degree… [G]lobal temperatures have levelled over the past 15 years, a hiatus the IPCC did not predict and cannot explain. Yet the catastrophism will not abate....

We have reached a global warming paradox. “The science is weak but the idea is strong,”

♪ we don't do raw, anymore,
we don't do raw, that's for sure ♪

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 09 Jun 2015 #permalink

Ah, so it's sarcasm... Convenient plausable deniability (are we allowed to say "deniability"?) but not prize.

And Drongo you haven't answered the question about the physics.

Fact 1: the oceans (and the atmosphere) are warming.

Fact 2: warming water expands.

Fact three: ice caps and glaciers are melting.

Fact 4: melting ice cap and glacier water ends up in the oceans.

You said:

...if SLs aren’t rising it’s simply because there is not enough Global Warming to melt the ice.

That's a supposition, not an addressing of the facts. The planet is warming, ice is melting and running to the oceans, water is expanding, so why then would sea level not rise as the physics predicts, which happens to be in line with what the data show and in contradiction to your assertion of no rise?

You still haven't explained how your magic non-rising oceans manage to achieve this miracle.

And don't think that I didn't notice that you assiduously ignored my pointing out that you assumed that rising oceans were gaining mass. For those that missed it first time, very little of the rise is due to mass gain from melt, it's due to the mass-neutral expansion of water - but Drongo seems to think that expansion is mass-positive...

But I suppose that stupidity on Drongo's part was the same "sarcasm" as the "plasticity" of the oceans.

And Bernie, ask that ship’s captain mate of yours how much work he has done over long periods in getting small ships on and off slipways at high tide. Also you could ask him if he’s noticed whether it’s easier to access harbours these days with all this SLR.

I didn't need to ask. As I mentioned on a long-ago Deltoid thread I worked with him a few years ago, so I know that about every three years in five for the last few decades one of the vessels he skippered was slipped for a month a year for maintenance. He was the one who sailed it to the slip and oversaw its dry-docking and he conducted or oversaw much of the work.

We talked about that, and about how rising sea levels would apparently be a help to "repairers". His comment was "bilge" - decent slips aren't designed to be relieved by a few millimetres per year of extra height, even over the span of decades, and over the lives of current slips other factors would have a far more profound effect on water level. Coincidentally (or not) he rattled off pretty much the same list of parameters in which I and others have long been rubbing your nose.

He said a whole lot more (of an unflattering nature) about your competence and your motivation, but that's not germane to this discussion. I also mentioned your pet theory about tide heights at Chevron Island, and he thought that he might even know of you. I definitely won't repeat that part of our chat but to say that if he had the right person, your 'reputation' precedes you.

But not in a good way.

Rest assured though that it didn't sour our stouts.

I suspect he’s another fringe-dweller like you.

If by "fringe-dweller" you mean the vast bulk of maritime experts as well as the overwhelming majority of scientists, then yes I suppose we are fringe-dwellers. Welcome to the topsy-turvy land of Tony Abbott's rabidly ultra-conservative Australia, where logic, reason, humanity and intellect are anathema...

And just quietly Drongo, the maritime industry itself doesn't seem to agree with you, if their attention to the matter is anything to go by:

http://www.maritimeindustries.org/Member-News/noc-provides-valuable-new…

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 09 Jun 2015 #permalink

Jeffie dear, how's your first hand spider doing these days? And what about the Arctic Ice that was supposed to be gone 2012 and 2014? At the moment ca 8 million km2 of it is still there and the ammount of thick ice has increased the last couple of years.

And don't forget the mysterious hiatus that buckets-with-thermometers are suppost to eliminate. ;-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 09 Jun 2015 #permalink

Stu 2:

Bernard J @ # 4.
The identified problem was the invasive pests.
It was not a buggered up habitat or a heating planet.

You poor, intellectually-disabled idiot. This is an open thread. I very carefully identiifed the problem faced by a relative of the moose, with no comment implied about the discussion of the moose. The underlying theme was the impact of climate change on large cold-climate ungluates in the northern hemisphere, and I offered an example of a serious problem.

Your persistent and graceless attempts to confabulate my comment on an open thread with whatever issue you have with the moose discussion is just the drooling of a classic internet troll.

Those moose aren’t dying from a 2-4 average global trend or from habitat destruction – especially not in that region.

That in itself is a stupid comment - can you figure out why this is so?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 09 Jun 2015 #permalink

I see Drongo has completely blanked my lengthy corrections to his nonsense at #3 and #5.

It's easy to tell when science has dealt the fatuous fantasies of the Denialati another blow - they always come to Deltoid to piss on the furniture.

They just can't let go of their various woundings, even after many years...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 09 Jun 2015 #permalink

Occam's razor, Bernie. Never forget it. Turns all your angel dancing suppositions into the BS that is destroying your GIGO modelling.

When SLs are not doing anything you immediately become a fringe dwelling waffler who is in denial of the real world around him.

And you and your ship's captain mate are very well matched.

He, like you, is talking through his hat. Try running a slipway when you can't either load or unload a ship from a slip because of sea levels not being as high as predicted. This often happens and it can send you broke. If you really have a serious comment to make on this, spit it out and stop prevaricating.

So what do you come up with instead? Another long term prediction of non-happening SLR when you can't even answer my challenge to demonstrate one personally observable instance of SLR.

If it was happening like you claim, people would be able to see it happening.

You really are a self-deceiving fringe dweller.

I suspect the only SLR you really know about is what you are full of. Up to the eyeballs. And your imagination can work out what the "S" stands for.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 09 Jun 2015 #permalink

Drongo

But nobody can proceed with the discussion because you deny the abundant scientific evidence that shows net global SLR.

You don't seem to understand that you - personally - cannot validly extrapolate local conditions to the global.

There really isn't much furniture in Deltoid left to piss on.

Buckets. LOL.

Try running a slipway when you can’t either load or unload a ship from a slip because of sea levels not being as high as predicted. This often happens and it can send you broke.

Seriously?! You're saying that ships have been unable to slip on or off because sea level has not been as great as predicted?! And this has something to do with sea level rise?!

Can you please give one example where such has occured? Just one. One single example where apparently uneventuated sea level rise caused by global warming has resulted in a boat or ship to fail to be slipped/unslipped.

Drongo, you're a certifiable fool. You can wank on as much as you like but those with any sort of actual intelligence understand what's happening to the oceans. If you really doubt it let's take it to some folk at the Australian Maritime College - this is their bread and butter and I bet that they'll have opinons on this subject. Even better, I have inside access to many of the staff there, so let's see...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 09 Jun 2015 #permalink

And here's another fool come to piss on the furniture. They just can't help themselves.

You hurting too Red Noise? Stop yanking so hard and the problem might resolve itself.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 09 Jun 2015 #permalink

So have you blokes got a plan to cool down the planet in time to scare off those pesky pests and save that herd of Moose?

When the people supplying the poor quality furnishings here earn a right good sprinkling, Bern, I am happy to oblige.

Not because your "science" has ever struck any worthwhile blows, mind you, simply that it helps to clear the overwhelming loads of BS to be found here.

"A new study led by scientists at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) found that the coral reefs there seem to be defying the odds, showing none of the predicted responses to low pH except for an increase in bioerosion — the physical breakdown of coral skeletons by boring organisms such as mollusks and worms. The paper is to be published June 5 in the journal Science Advances."

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 09 Jun 2015 #permalink

BBD, sorry to ignore you but I have very limited time and I do so enjoy taking the piss out of my old mate Bernie. Even if it is only to spray on his furniture.

You do realise that oceans make billiard tables look very bumpy by comparison and if SLR isn't happening locally during the last 70 years that I have been paying attention and sailing the oceans then there is not much happening world wide other than a few minor mounds caused by trade winds and currents.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 09 Jun 2015 #permalink

It hurts when I laugh.
Buckets. Lol

Drongo

You do realise that oceans make billiard tables look very bumpy by comparison

Yes.

if SLR isn’t happening locally during the last 70 years that I have been paying attention and sailing the oceans then there is not much happening world wide other than a few minor mounds caused by trade winds and currents.

This simply is not true.

I repeat - you cannot extrapolate your local observations to global scale. Assessment of global net sea level change requires global data. Global data shows unequivocally that net global SLR is indeed occurring.

And that's it. Unless we descend into conspiracy theories where 'the scientists' are faking their results.

"You do realise that oceans make billiard tables look very bumpy by comparison"

Nope. Never seen 30 foot high waves on a billiard table.

How about rivers, hmm? There's a river near here that is 300m above sea level and rolls slowly down to the sea at 0m above sea level.

Just because it looks flat to morons like yourself doesn't mean it IS flat.

You've tried this before, spanked.

It has become even more moronic this time round.

"You poor, intellectually-disabled idiot. "

That's StuPid all right.

Is the moron STILL here saying fuck all just windily getting things completely ass-backwards?

"Ah, so it’s sarcasm… Convenient implausable deniability"

FTFY.

Nobody buys the BS. It's just not plausible. It's an "honest" "belief" by the morons, meant to pretend they had anything to say when they got it completely wrong. Again.

Billiard tables, eh Drongo? It's been about two and a half years since you trotted out that meme.

Care to try again and put numbers to your red herring?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 09 Jun 2015 #permalink

There's old Drongo, cherry picking to his hearts content. But then again, deniers are masters of the art; they ignore 500 studies showing one trend and then cite one other - often in a crappy journal - showing the opposite that fits in with their world view. Type 'coral reef'and 'warming' into the Web of Science search engine and one gets 1068 hits; type in "coral" and "climate change" and that jumps to 3268 hits.

The vast majority of these studies already provide evidence for massive declines in corals, some linked with warming, others linked to acidifcation. Dumbo cites one outlier, as evidence that there is no problem.

As I said yesterday, this kind of argument would be laughed out of any academic institution. If the seas continue to warm and pH levels drop below 8, corals are history. They simpl;y do not have enough time to respond to such a calamitous change in key abiotic properties of their habitat.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 09 Jun 2015 #permalink

SD,

OK I will show you mine.

As of now: 157 publications on Web of Science, 4425 citations and an h-factor of 38.

There you go. Now your turn. I can't wait. I suspect they will be like meatball's: 0, 0 and 0.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 09 Jun 2015 #permalink

Raw! Ya gotta be kidding! You only get 0.8c over 165 years with raw.

Idiot.

The raw global reconstructions show warming that is quite a lot faster than the homogenized reconstructions, as one of the authors of the recent study that SD pooh-poohed a few days ago pointed out when the shrieking idiots at the kinds of places that SD gets his opinions from tried to claim that the paper comprised a deliberate fudging of temperature records.

Talk about the clown throwing the cream pie into his own face! Just about no-one does it as consistently and with as much joy as SD does.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 09 Jun 2015 #permalink

157 publications on Web of Science, 4425 citations and an h-factor of 38

Faaarck Jeff, that's stellar.

I've seen a heap of academic CVs in the last year or so and that's up there with the best in some of the high-cite fields like biomed. For ecology that's insane.

And the sad fact is that Stu 2, SD, Olaus, Red Noise and the rest of the Dunning-Krugers here will have not the understanding of how significant those numbers are.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 09 Jun 2015 #permalink

Thanks Bernard for the compliment! And keep up the good fight here against a seemingly endless bunch of simpletons. Your posts are excellent and informative!

I am the first to admit I am not a climate scientist, but I am also the first to defer to the prevailing view amongst experts in the field in that climate change is very real, down primarily to us, and that it represents a very real threat to our future.

The SDs, Olaus's, Rednoses etc. have no relevant expertise in any field, yet they think they have a monopoly on wisdom. Its Dunning-Kruger big time.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 09 Jun 2015 #permalink

[G]lobal temperatures have levelled over the past 15 years

Currently (including April), GISTemp has recorded a trend of 0.110±0.111℃/decade since October 1998, i.e. almost but not quite "statistically significant". So when the May figure for GISTemp comes out, the warming since October 1998 will probably be "statistically significant". If this doesn't happen with May's figure, it will almost certainly happen within a few months, so the global warming "hiatus" will be dead. Satellite measurements have too large a confidence interval to be accurate BTW.

Global warming "hiatus". R.I.P. 1998-2015.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 09 Jun 2015 #permalink

Jeff Harvey

The vast majority of these studies already provide evidence for massive declines in corals, some linked with warming, others linked to acidifcation. Dumbo cites one outlier, as evidence that there is no problem.

I suspect our Drongo has no idea just how much there is to deny. I expect you'll have come across Veron (2008), but willing to bet that Drongo hasn't had his deep time horizons broadened yet (my bold):

The five mass extinction events that the earth has so far experienced have impacted coral reefs as much or more than any other major ecosystem. Each has left the Earth without living reefs for at least four million years, intervals so great that they are commonly referred to as ‘reef gaps’ (geological intervals where there are no remnants of what might have been living reefs). The causes attributed to each mass extinction are reviewed and summarised. When these causes and the reef gaps that follow them are examined in the light of the biology of extant corals and their Pleistocene history, most can be discarded. Causes are divided into (1) those which are independent of the carbon cycle: direct physical destruction from bolides, ‘nuclear winters’ induced by dust clouds, sea-level changes, loss of area during sea-level regressions, loss of biodiversity, low and high temperatures, salinity, diseases and toxins and extraterrestrial events and (2) those linked to the carbon cycle: acid rain, hydrogen sulphide, oxygen and anoxia, methane, carbon dioxide, changes in ocean chemistry and pH. By process of elimination, primary causes of mass extinctions are linked in various ways to the carbon cycle in general and ocean chemistry in particular with clear association with atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. The prospect of ocean acidification is potentially the most serious of all predicted outcomes of anthropogenic carbon dioxide increase. This study concludes that acidification has the potential to trigger a sixth mass extinction event and to do so independently of anthropogenic extinctions that are currently taking place.

For the non-academic folk here, to put Jeff's publication record into context Edward O Wilson has 159 publications on Scopus, 4567 citations and an H-factor of 35.

There's a second entry for Wilson on Scopus with 12 records, but these are mostly Nature/Science papers so I suspect that they'd be duplicated in the main record.

The bottom line is that Jeff will likely overtake EO on all scores in a few months. With stats like that Jeff could probably walk into just about any ecology department in the world and have the doors open for him.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 09 Jun 2015 #permalink

BBD, your reference to Veron is worth repeating again. Drought and temperature are just a part of the trouble that's been set in train. Stratification/anoxia are seriously real eventuations on the radar if we keep heading toward a doubling, and if they come to pass then we're stuffed. Between that and acidification the marine chemical milieu would tip to something rather incompatible with the environment to which humans have adapted.

The world has its eye on the heat and hydrology impacts of emissions, but they're a small part of the most reckless experiment ever in the known universe.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 09 Jun 2015 #permalink

I wonder if SD, or any of the other knowledge challenged who make fools of themselves here, has considered how finely tuned our bodily processes are WRT surrounding pH.

They could make a start by researching the make up of our cells and how the nervous and cardiovascular systems function.

There is one group of organisms that could thrive in a wetter and warmer world - some fungi. Now think of the ramifications of that. The implications are no longer hypothetical.

Our bodies aside, the crops we depend upon for food are coming under increasing attack from fungi which may be the coup de gras for crops already stressed by drought and temperature. Extra CO2 ain't going to help here is it now.

Lol - Sparkles #18 is just an unattributed theft from Nick Cater jerking off in the Australian.

Nick Cater is, of course, a world leading climate expert of course, what with his unused sociology degree, Liberal Party blowjobbery and general tax-payer funded parasitism. The later part is Cater quoting that other scientific luminary Rupert Darwall, contributor to "Climate: Change The Facts" (title punctuation corrected) and other disinformation handbooks.

Obviously, right wing think tanks are Sparkles preferred source of scientific "knowledge".

Clown.

FrankD

“Climate: Change The Facts” (title punctuation corrected)

Added to plagiarism stack ;-)

I seem to have ended up with two copies of

'The Inquisition of Climate Science' by James Lawrence Powell'.

I bought a copy and then was gifted one, now if anybody would like one, as new, email me (not too hard to find the address) and I'll post on. I am in UK so UK takers will get priority. I have nothing against those elsewhere just the cost of postage is higher.

But fellas?
What about those poor Moose?
Even with all those amaaaaaaaaazing publications and citations there is no plan offered to MANAGE the fact that apparently we're 'going to hell in a hand basket' & etc other than solutions offered by such salubrious organisations as DGR.
Jeff Harvey is indeed not a 'climate scientists' and further his and Bernard J's vaguely offered management solutions also have zippo to do with science.
I repeat:
So have you blokes got a plan to cool down the planet in time to scare off those pesky pests and save that herd of Moose?
You don't appear to care about that poor moose herd at all?
And even though I am very well edumicated, I don't need that edumication to understand that the planet would be a different planet if there was no such species as 'homo sapien'.
None of us need a massive edumication with countless publications and citations to get this point:
" We are the great agent of biotic homogenization. "
DUH!!!!!!
Whodathunkit??????
What an amaaaaaaaazing set of quals is apparently missing however is:
WE (as in humans) ARE ALSO A PART OF THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT and therefore not some type of invasive pest that needs to be eradicated or locked up behind some type of barrier to be ruled by people who consider themselves 'our betters' due to their life in the cloistered, 'publish or perish' world of academia.
No offense but you guys seriously have lost touch with reality.
I suggest you may benefit from yanking your heads out of your computers and your folders and your filing cabinets and get back in touch with reality by getting some real dirt under your fingernails.
Boy oh boy Jeff Harvey. Walter Starck really has people of your amaaaaaaaaaaaaazing calibre perfectly pegged.
Who cares how many publications and citations you have if all you can do is preach a brand of misanthropy and support an organisation that quite clearly condones violence against humanity?
I have also got a good laugh and learnt a great deal about the way people who like to 'appear' and 'sound' all sciency and intelligent will happily swap from global averaging to regional variances and happily compare apples to oranges as if that's perfectly acceptable and transparent.
The 'great unwashed' can easily spot BS and a severe case of an 'academic pissing contest'. They're just usually too polite or perhaps a little too intimidated to say so.
I don't blame them one bit. The art of name calling, put downs (based ridiculous personal judgemental attitudes about 'intelligence' and 'education and 'debating tactics) and a brand of cyber bullying is very well developed at deltoid.
It is not a good look fellas.
Do you actually care about the myriad of environmental challenges that Humans can and should work to manage or do you only care about posturing and handwaving about a 'global solution'?

Yes, Stu, Jeffie quotes his life's work and then tells Olaus to read a paper that uses engine intakes and ignores Argo data.

Hope his are better than that.

Well Jeff, as for me, I didn't go to school and get qualified for anything.

I was too busy getting educated.

I did manage to retire wealthy at 33 though, and pursue many interests that also turned into profitable businesses.

Not very PC these days I know but then that's just living in the real world where we all quickly learn that "science is the belief in the ignorance of experts".

I mean, even BBD thinks he can push his bathwater aside while he dries himself.

And Bernie still doesn't savvy Occam's Razor.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 09 Jun 2015 #permalink

BBD, in 1946 I lived in a house beside a lighthouse on a fairly exposed part of the coastline of Moreton Bay, SE Qld, Australia and the highest fine weather tides of the year when the BP is around normal always covered the lawn by about an inch and ran into the well if we didn't keep a levy bank around it. That happened for about the 7 years I lived there but these days those same highest tides are about 9 - 12 inches lower at that same site.

Last January during the highest astronomical tide of the year I invited a couple of local council coastal engineers around to observe the true state of Moreton Bay sea levels and they happily came and inspected the old sea wall, the old jetty, the lawn and the well, all of which are at the same level and still in situ and their age is plainly visible. We don't own the joint anymore and the new owners have been trying to get approval for a block of home units on the site so these blokes were keen to asses what was really happening SL-wise.

When they plainly saw that the HAT was around 250mm lower than 69 years previously they were so impressed they projected that lawn level to a bench mark plug and trig point beside the old lighthouse for future reference for development planning.

Now I know that trade winds can mound up sea levels about 18 inches in places and in fact I have often used these mounds to my advantage in ocean racing but if sea levels today are 9 inches lower than 69 years ago in a tectonically stable part of the world like Moreton Bay then there is not much happening WRT sea levels world wide.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 09 Jun 2015 #permalink

Drongo, your stories have been debunked any number of times by people showing photos that demonstrate the the environment you describe has been extensively changed by human activity.

AND, not to mention that science agencies do not rely on geriatric anecdotes, but on ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 10 Jun 2015 #permalink

SD, you may have retired wealthy but when it comes to science you're a brainless dope. As I said before, in academia your views would be laughed to oblivion. Your only feeble excuse is to claim - which had me on the floor in stitches - that science should effectively be conducted by clots like you with no qualifications because your views are contrarian.

And, as I said before, you are stuck on as an anonymous blogs where you can parade your stupidity with no repercussions.

You clearly have a bloated ego, with little substance.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 10 Jun 2015 #permalink

Spangled Drongo seems to *also* need reminding that more than one study has now shown that "raw" (ie, inaccurate) data in fact tends to show A COOLING BIAS.

As BEST reports:
"Berkeley Earth has just released analysis of land-surface temperature records going back 250 years, about 100 years further than previous studies. The analysis shows that the rise in average world land temperature globe is approximately 1.5 degrees C in the past 250 years, and about 0.9 degrees in the past 50 years."
http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/decadal-with-forcin…

Instead of wallowing in the mindless crap that's still being recycled by the denierdiot blogs, why don't you try to keep up top date with what the science is showing, Drongo?

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 10 Jun 2015 #permalink

Stu2 engages in a brainless ramble above that wil take time to deconstruct. He relies on senile old scientists on the academic fringe for his views of the world. Since when did I say that humanity has to be eradicated as a pest? Talk about creating a strawman. Listen Stu2, if you want to take me on head to head with science related to global change and ecology, try it - I will blow you away. But stop wasting my time with pointless rants in which you put words into my mouth. You are an idiot, like other deniers on here. I have yet to encounter one with a scintilla of intelligence. You only reinforce what i already knew.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 10 Jun 2015 #permalink

But Jeff?
What about those Moose?
They don't care that you're posturing at me.
Not a bit.
I also don't care about your pointless posturing.
I care about the Moose.

BTW Jeff.
I like the quip 'academic pissing contest'.
It has nothing to do with senile old scientists.
You're doing a sterling job of demonstrating that quip has some merit.

Craig Thomas, don't spout rubbish you know nothing about WRT that tidal site simply because other idiots like Bernie have tried and failed. There have been no change in ocean hydraulics anywhere near there. Any dredging to improve local navigation would only increase the possibility of SLR.

It is beside a lighthouse on a point with miles of deep water to seaward of it.

And what convinced these engineers was the number of locals who supplied similar evidence.

You see, it's the hands-on-local builders of coastal infrastructure that are really aware of the real world of sea levels.

Not you jugglers of dancing angels.

But if you are up to the challenge by all means show me where there is any observable SLR.

I can show you plenty where there is SLF.

Jeff, you clever fellow, how could you consider yourself an educated scientist when you recommend Tom Karl's paper.

You are the living, breathing proof of the ignorance of experts.

Lothe, less than 0.8c in 165 years:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1850/trend

No SLR, less than average Nat Var.

OH, DEAR! Where's your mum, Lothe?

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 10 Jun 2015 #permalink

Drongo, you haven't addressed the physics.

If there's no sea level rise, where is all the expansion of water going? Where is the glacial and ice cap meltwater going?

On your nonsense about HATs being 250-300 mm higher in the middle of the 20th century, how does that square with the upward trend at the nearest gauge in the second half of the 20th century?

http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO70000/IDO70000_59980_SLD.shtml

If there was a drop in sea level of the magnitude you describe, there must be a spectacular drop in the tidal record over a period of about a decade. How's does that work, exactly?

Further, how is it that the GPS surveying of the ocean in that area is missing this sea level fall? You're apparently an expert in this matter, so please be as technical you you need to be in your explanation.

For non-Australians on this thread, you might be interested in some of the nut-case ideology the erstwhile conservative government of Queensland had instituted for the Moreton Bay area, to facilitate the fattening of the pockets of Drongo's mates at the expense of future generations living in the area:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-09/seeney-removes-climate-change-ref…

https://www.engineersaustralia.org.au/portal/news/coastal-engineers-con…

http://theconversation.com/complacency-rules-as-queensland-makes-risky-…

And the lighthouse that Drongo's referring to is probably the Cleveland Point Light:

https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-27.510785,153.289381,17z

The adjacent Raby Bay canal estate, which no doubt has an impact on the current flow patterns around the point, was commenced in 1983 – in between Drongo’s reminiscences and his recent comparisons. The effects might be minor, but depending on the particular direction of currents from the north there might be significant changes observed at the point from the creation of the canals. Furthermore, the East Australian current is known to undergo significant reversals in that region:

http://oceancurrent.imos.org.au/news.htm

and it’s entirely possible that there have been significant reversals in the past, especially when Pacific waters were much cooler prior to the mid-century leap in planetary heat imbalance.

On top of that there’s the fact that Moreton Bay northwest of the Point was dredged to allow boat access to the estate – removing the shallows at this point will have a significant effect on the way that water piles against the shore.

All this reminds me of the nonsense that Drongo spouted about his falling sea levels upriver around Chevron Island in the Gold Coast inland canal estate.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 10 Jun 2015 #permalink

Bollocks, there's a moderation queue...

1)

Drongo, you haven’t addressed the physics.

If there’s no sea level rise, where is all the expansion of water going? Where is the glacial and ice cap meltwater going?

On your nonsense about HATs being 250-300 mm higher in the middle of the 20th century, how does that square with the upward trend at the nearest gauge in the second half of the 20th century?

http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO70000/IDO70000_59980_SLD.shtml

If there was a drop in sea level of the magnitude you describe, there must be a spectacular drop in the tidal record over a period of about a decade. How’s does that work, exactly?

Further, how is it that the GPS surveying of the ocean in that area is missing this sea level fall? You’re apparently an expert in this matter, so please be as technical you you need to be in your explanation.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 10 Jun 2015 #permalink

2)

For non-Australians on this thread, you might be interested in some of the nut-case ideology the erstwhile conservative government of Queensland had instituted for the Moreton Bay area, to facilitate the fattening of the pockets of Drongo’s mates at the expense of future generations living in the area:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-09/seeney-removes-climate-change-ref…

https://www.engineersaustralia.org.au/portal/news/coastal-engineers-con…

http://theconversation.com/complacency-rules-as-queensland-makes-risky-…

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 10 Jun 2015 #permalink

3)

And the lighthouse that Drongo’s referring to is probably the Cleveland Point Light:

https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-27.510785,153.289381,17z

The adjacent Raby Bay canal estate, which no doubt has an impact on the current flow patterns around the point, was commenced in 1983 – in between Drongo’s reminiscences and his recent comparisons. The effects might be minor, but depending on the particular direction of currents from the north there might be significant changes observed at the point from the creation of the canals. Furthermore, the East Australian current is known to undergo significant reversals in that region:

http://oceancurrent.imos.org.au/news.htm

and it’s entirely possible that there have been significant reversals in the past, especially when Pacific waters were much cooler prior to the mid-century leap in planetary heat imbalance.

On top of that there’s the fact that Moreton Bay northwest of the Point was dredged to allow boat access to the estate – removing the shallows at this point will have a significant effect on the way that water piles against the shore.

All this reminds me of the nonsense that Drongo spouted about his falling sea levels upriver around Chevron Island in the Gold Coast inland canal estate.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 10 Jun 2015 #permalink

Stu2: Please tell me what you understand about the thermal dynamics of moose; indeed any species; about thermoneutral zones; about complex trophic interactions based on biotic and abiotic stressors;about climate change related effects on greatly simplified landscapes and about range shifts and species demographics.

Moose have very narrow thermal requirements. They are a flagship species for climate change effects because of this; they are thus adapted to a fairly narrow range of temperatures. Rapid warming will hit them hard. Moreover, many of their most serious parasites benefit under warming conditions; there is already evidence of parasite loads increasing dramatically on moose populations in the northeast.

Most importantly, warming-related effects on plants and animals fill the empirical literature. These effects range from physiological stresses to effects on reproduction and at larger scales to trophic interactions and population dynamics. You don't read any of this and even if you did you probably wouldn't understand it. If you want to call that a pissing contest, by all means do so. I don't give a damn what fringe scientists like Walter Starck say about anything; these days he's peddling his nonsense through right wing think tanks who are so depserate to legitimize the activities of their corporate paymasters that they will hire anybody with the most shoddy credentials. Starck has 3 papers on the Web of Science. Repeat: 3. Despite this pathetic output, his profile has increased because a think tank promotes him. He means nothing to me because his science is crap. That's all that matters. He can make stupid remarks all he likes aimed at dolts like you, who lap it up.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 10 Jun 2015 #permalink

And one final point Stu2: read the papers re: the moose I linked to a few days ago. Then get back to me. And while you are at it read any number of studies documenting deleterious effects of AGW on biodiversity. There: you have your class assignment. Don't waste my time until you are capable of even understanding basic ecophysiology. Thus far you are writing at the level of a grade school student. Moreover, don't come at me any more with silly strawman arguments about the fate humanity, our influence across the biosphere etc. Its b* and to be honest I am sick of it.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 10 Jun 2015 #permalink

"Stu2: Please tell me what you understand about the thermal dynamics of moose; indeed any species;"

He has, several times, told you nothing. And that's what he knows about it. Same for Lappers, Spanked and the rest of the denier morons. They know nothing.

It's the only accurate answer to their claims; they know nothing therefore there is nothing behind the claim, end of story.

"All this reminds me of the nonsense that Drongo spouted about his falling sea levels upriver around Chevron Island in the Gold Coast inland canal estate."

Which sort of indicates that that is no longer the case around Chevron Island.

"SD, you may have retired wealthy but when it comes to science you’re a brainless dope"

Indeed: the wealth and retired status is completely orthogonal to intelligence or knowledge.

Only morons with an over-inflated sense of self worth would try to make a match.

"Yes, Stu, Jeffie quotes his life’s work and then tells Olaus to read a paper that uses engine intakes and ignores Argo data."

Whereas you want us to look at four stations and ignore thousands of others, including all satellite data.

Indicating that your complaint here is spurious bollocks. Just like your own.

And what Craig Thomas is saying is that Best also supports my claim that in coming out of the LIA and entering the Industrial Rev we have enjoyed even less than the general average climate variation. 1.5c for 2.5 centuries = 0.6c per century.

Just more modelling trying to produce a hockey stick and is certainly not new but thanks for the unintended vote of confidence.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 10 Jun 2015 #permalink

“All this reminds me of the nonsense that Drongo spouted about his falling sea levels upriver around Chevron Island in the Gold Coast inland canal estate.”

Poor old deluded Wow thinks that the main river channel in the Nerang River estuary is an inland canal.

But just to help him across that road, that benchmark is still below the levels of 52 years ago by a similar amount whereas the Moreton Bay benchmark goes back 69 years.

Come up with any of your own observations yet?

SLR is a bit like justice. It need to be seen to be happening if it really is happening.

And if it isn't happening you furniture needs more than pissing on.

It needs burning!

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 10 Jun 2015 #permalink

"Best also supports my claim that.."

No it doesn't.

"Poor old deluded Wow..."

Never said that, but quoted it. Poor deluded spanked.

"thinks that the main river channel in the Nerang River estuary is an inland canal."

Uh, if you're talking about your hoary old bollocks claims before, then it was, what, 20 miles inland, according to google. It's tidal, but by no means coastal.

"Come up with any of your own observations yet?"

No.

I don't have to. Others have done it and done more than just cherry pick ones that temporarily show something odd, and unlike you, they don't "forget" that the river has two dams, several dredging projects, and aren't going to give you *sea level* rise.

You know, competent people. Unlike yourself.

But go ahead, convince me that SLR is falling or nonexistent.

Prove it to me.

Drongo

And what Craig Thomas is saying is that Best also supports my claim that in coming out of the LIA and entering the Industrial Rev we have enjoyed even less than the general average climate variation.

One exceedingly dubious study in a crap journal does not provide a basis for such confident assertions.

1.5c for 2.5 centuries = 0.6c per century.

We've seen 0.5C since ~1970. You cannot use past trends under much lower forcing to project future warming under much higher forcing. This should be obvious.

For more detail on your confusion over the basics of physical climatology, please see # 3.

Drongo

For the last time:

You cannot extrapolate local observations to make general claims about global net sea level change.

So stop doing it.

Global net sea level change can only be estimated from global data. Global data (tide gauge and satellite altimetry) show unequivocal net sea level rise.

Unless you wish to invoke nutty conspiracy theories about fraudulent results, you have to accept what the global data show.

As Bernard J. pointed out a few comments up, water expands as it warms and land ice sheet melt further adds to net global SLR.

It is physically impossible for global SLR *not* to be rising.

The bottom line is that Jeff will likely overtake EO on all scores in a few months.

Bloody hell!

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 10 Jun 2015 #permalink

But Jeff?
What about that particular herd of Moose?
The global figs are OK. The global numbers are actually up.
Don't you care about that herd?
How can we save them?
Do you have a plan to cool down the planet enough to scare off
those pesky pests and save that herd?
They seriously couldn't give a flying rip that you think you can
set me some homework.
That won't help them.
I'm not even slightly interested in your assignment BTW.
I work in NRM & Ag out here in the real world.
I am very well edumicated in both.
I work with very highly qualified scientists who even have very well recognised science quals.
Answer my question Jeff Harvey.
Tell me how you could save that herd of Moose.
I know how to do it.
Do you?

Even with all those amaaaaaaaaazing publications and citations there is no plan offered to MANAGE the fact that apparently we’re ‘going to hell in a hand basket’ & etc other than solutions offered by such salubrious organisations as DGR.

The first problem is you are blind to the actual concern expressed, so you falsely suggest that there is no concern evident.

The second problem is you have been trying to pretend that climate change isn't a key factor, and that means you cannot allow yourself to acknowledge that climate change mitigation is a necessary component of many plans, even in cases where it is not sufficient to constitute an entire plan on its own. The first rule when you discover you've dug yourself into a dangerous hole is to at the very least stop digging.

The third problem is that you are equally blind to the scale of the problems (plural) driven by climate change. It's not just the moose, it's a large proportion of the ecosystem. Let us imagine that we came up with an adaptation plan for the moose (a plan you haven't provided, BTW, so your screeching about others having not consented to laying out such a specific plan is grossly hypocritical). Assuming executing that plan alone was feasible, what about all the other thousands upon thousands of plans required? What are your specific plans for dealing with ocean acidification's impact on thousands upon thousands upon thousands of marine species? And then for the rest of the species on earth that are or will be heavily impacted? How hard are these plans to execute if we simply continue with business as per usual vs serious greenhouse gas mitigation?

No offense but you guys seriously have lost touch with reality.

...says the guy who has literally just finished communicating some bizarre paranoid ideation, and who goes on to mischaracterise concern for the ecosystem without which humanity cannot thrive as "misanthropy". All together now: "it's always projection".

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 10 Jun 2015 #permalink

Lothe, less than 0.8c in 165 years

So, you didn't understand the very simple words I wrote, eh, SD? Because you don't understand your attempts to insult me on that basis are as effective as (a la one of our young comedians) "a hippy threatening to punch me in the aura".

Speaking of failing to understand simple arguments:

...Best also supports my claim that in coming out of the LIA and entering the Industrial Rev we have enjoyed even less than the general average climate variation. 1.5c for 2.5 centuries = 0.6c per century

You still don't understand why the (invalid) comparison of trend to natural variation does not lead to your inference. This is seriously basic stuff, kinda like arithmetic for a mathematician. You really don't come here for the hunting, do you?

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 10 Jun 2015 #permalink

Sorry Lotharsson.
It's quite clear that you're the one with the problem - first, second or third.

Sorry Lotharsson.

No need to apologise because none of your projections onto me are valid, no matter how fervently you declare them to be.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 10 Jun 2015 #permalink

I work with very highly qualified scientists who even have very well recognised science quals.

It's obvious from the tortured tautology that you think being near scientists somehow confers scientific acumen on yourself.

Wrong, Stupid.

It's fascinating too, to see you you asking for policy statements from scientists. It you won't accept the scientific advice that we need to stop warming the planet and stop destroying habitat, why would you ask how we should do so?

Unless, of course, you are insincere in your requests...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 10 Jun 2015 #permalink

Sorry I'm a bit late on, but to save people wasting any more time with Sparkles nonsense, you need to be aware that there is no point in arguing the substance of his claims because his claims have no substance.

His "benchmark" at Cleveland Point has moved twice since the period he refers to and is now 30 metres from where his "record" was set, on a man-made mound. There has also been a non-trivial amount of land reclamation / infill. Anything he says on this subject is utterly meaningless and not worth your time refuting. We did this all only a few months ago.

Spangles other benchmark, as Wow correctly called out, is a long way from the sea, in a canal whose hydrography has totally changed since his claimed record. Sounds like some homogenisation is warranted here!

70 years of collecting data that is useless because Sparkles wouldn't know science if it bit him. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so trag...what am I saying, it's hilarious anyway... :-D

Your claims are a joke, Spangles, and have been repeatedly demonstrated to be. What possible reason could you have for coming and spouting them again, other than you like looking like a dipshit...? Takes all types, I guess...

# 85 Oh dear, the Drongo. Knows nothing, learns nothing. Rejects everything else. Hi, SD, you stupid fuckwit!

What possible reason could you have for coming and spouting them again, other than you like looking like a dipshit…?

As the bear said to the hunter in that old joke "you don't come here for the hunting, do you?"

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 10 Jun 2015 #permalink

"I work with very highly qualified scientists who even have very well recognised science quals."

Aye, parking their car, taking their food order, asking if they want any fries with that.

And that retirement from McD's has set you up so well, Spanking Donkeys, hasn't it.

Stupid

I have also got a good laugh and learnt a great deal about the way people who like to ‘appear’ and ‘sound’ all sciency and intelligent will happily swap from global averaging to regional variances and happily compare apples to oranges as if that’s perfectly acceptable and transparent.

Then be sure to take it up with Drongo because that's what he does.

Bernard J #63

Your description of the developments in the area referred to by SD is very enlightening. I guess SD has had the good fortune to make a good living out of boat trades (including chandlery maybe) and real estate as that sector boomed.

Why is it that the SD type is never specific about the details of the main point of their arguments? Easy answer is they would be revealed as a dishonest fraud, at the least intellectually challenged - or both.

SDs attitude reminds me strongly of that of an ignoramus commenter at Climate Progress, one Marc Sheridan of Florida - similar environment. I cannot point to his comments now because comment threads have been excised at CP [1]. Sheridan who repeatedly comes up with the canard 'the climate model theory has failed' which shows the level of knowledge and intellect.

[1] maybe as a result of the commentary on an article which showed a Texas cop sitting on a bikini clad 15 year old girl having pulled here to the ground by her hair)

Lionel, there's more to be said, not the least of which was Frank's sail de-winding mention of the perambulatory lighthouse. (I was saving that one... :-) )

Worth a note though is that a hundred years ago Moreton Bay had a lot more mangrove growth around the shores, which were progressively removed with seaside development. And anyone who's worked* with mangroves knows how well they modify the near-shore flow of sediment and water, including the degree to which tides rise.

Moreton Bay is also a sandy area, and one should be careful about making pronouncements about the level of a point of land that is exposed to prevailing winds that carry in and away not indignificant amounts of sand, quite apart from the marine shifting of sediment...

And Drongo thinks that he's got a handle on the whole complexity - watch how he will refuse to address any of the dozens of separate points put to him, and instead just repeat ad nauseum his insistence that science doesn't work, physics doesn't work, even marine engineers who don't agree with him are nothing but fringe-dwellers, and that all the water is draining down the plug hole.

He's stuck in the bird lime of ignorance.

[*Before you ask Drongo, yes I have. Fauna surveys, and hydrographic surveys of impoundment profiles along a long stretch of grey mangrove forest. That was in the days before GPS, so the latter task was particularly difficult (and stinky) but boy do you get an apprecation for the land- and channel-modifying capacities of these extraordinary ecosystems.]

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 10 Jun 2015 #permalink

Stu2s comments get more infantile every time. Scientists do not refer to 'herds' but to genetically distinct populations. I also pity any scientists that work with this guy; he's a thick as two planks. I hope they aren't as 'esteemed' as Starck; you know, 3 publications in a career and now writing for right wing anti-environmental think tanks.

And why are we focusing on only Alces alces here? What about a number of Arctic species whose populations are in free fall? What about a wide range of temperate species whose ranges are contracting and numbers falling?

If one wants to understand species demographics, they need to have some understanding of ecophysiology. Stu2 has his head stuck in a haystack. He does not understand even the basics, and instead continually spouts gibberish on here. Like SD, his strategy is to 'hit and run'. Throw in an odd topic here, and another one there, say what they think about it quickly and then move on. All of these simpleton deniers do it. SD throws up one study about coral reefs; I cite 100 more with opposite conclusions but by then he's moved on to another topic. Another one of the denier memes on here is to downplay or ridicule studies they don't like. Take the new Science paper based on new NOAA data that disproves a warming 'hiatus'. You'll see the dipsticks on here, none of whom publish anything in any scientific field, routinely deriding it. But you'll also notice that none of them write up rebuttals in scientific journals. We ALL know why that is. Because their arguments would be rejected in a mili-second. They act like silverback gorillas on blogs where they can get away with saying anything, but if they were to venture into a scientific arena they'd be laughed into oblivion.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 10 Jun 2015 #permalink

Stu2

...and a brand of cyber bullying is very well developed at deltoid.

Oh you poor hard done by 'little ego'. If a dunce keeps coming in with the same ol' same ol' tired turds of ignorance based waffle then the 'little ego' should expect to be put in a corner with a conical cap marked with a delta on its head.

Oh, Didums! Poor little thing.

Deniers. Can't win with bullshit, so tries a different brand. It's still bullshit, but it uses different words, and that's all they can work with.

What a waste of time.

Aw shucks, did I miss out on The Return of Spanky with his Irrefutable "Obs" and Anecdotal Anecdotes?

As if we could doubt the "word" of the economic powerhouse that Spanky undoubtedly is (he did,.after all, say so) or the veracity of his unarguably localised "obs" (unrecorded as they are in any formal sense, but he has said so).

The question we have to ask ourselves is: "who needs actual science to provide a handle on the future trends of reality when Jo "nutter" Codling and Tony "crackpot" Watts can turn up a hundred Spanky clones and let them loose (and frequently do) any day of the week?

The other question is, of course, why they bother now the Days of Doubt have passed.

Hmmm?
I guess once again I will have to try and order a response?
Bernard J @ # 84
“It’s obvious from the tortured tautology that you think being near scientists somehow confers scientific acumen on yourself."
:-)
LOL!!
I couldn’t give two figs for your idea of conferring ‘scientific acumen’. I work with some scientists Bernard. They’re good people, well qualified and they’re employed on my team, by me. I don’t worship them and fawn at them and hope that being near them will confer something to me from a higher place. They are highly valued members of our team.
Along with Jeff Harvey you’re doing an absolutely sterling job of demonstrating the validity of that quip “academic pissing contest’.
BBD @ # 89.
You are correct that Spangled Drongo is talking about regional examples. Unlike you lot however, he is being entirely honest about it. Lionel’s link about the “genetically distinct population” (AKA HERD!) of Moose was regionally specific as one example.
Jeff Harvey @ # 92.
I’m certain that Walter Starck is a ‘marine biologist’ and wouldn’t know much at all about a “genetically distinct population” (AKA HERD!) of moose.
Let me try this again. I LIKED HIS QUIP.
You, along with Bernard J, are continuing to do a sterling job of demonstrating the validity of that quip.
I actually do care about such things as invasive pests and weeds (usually, but not always, spread by human activity). I actually know what could be done to save that particular “genetically distinct population” (AKA HERD!) of moose from those pests. Do you?
It seems increasingly likely that you don’t know or you don’t care?
The moose certainly don’t care that you are posturing at me and calling Walter Starck an old fossil.
A marine biologist, PhD and all, is not the most likely scientist to be able to assist the HERD of moose that Lionel’s link referred to.
It doesn’t look like you’re their man either Jeff.
Lionel @ # 93. I’m still laughing at your assertion that the UK health system is in trouble because you have to pay for parking when you visit people there and you know all about it because you have relatives who are health workers. I did however think you genuinely cared about the Moose. Apparently not?

Stu 2.

You keep talking about pests and weeds - which ones do you work with? More specifically, what do you think are the best methods for their control?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 10 Jun 2015 #permalink

Stu 2.

I don’t worship them and fawn at them and hope that being near them will confer something to me from a higher place.

So why was it so important to tell us that you work with highly qualified scientists in the context of supporting your otherwise unsupported statements?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 10 Jun 2015 #permalink

Bernard J. @ # 97
It's very simple.
Not dissimilar to what happens in medicine.
Identify the invasive weed or pest.
Use a suite of proven, practical methods to eradicate it and/or prevent further damage/invasion.
A wide range from such things as wild dogs, goats, cats and pigs in National Parks, diseases in domestic stock like sheep and cattle, invasive weeds & etc...
@ # 98.
?????????????????????????????
Because I do work with highly qualified scientists.
I will inform you however that they are much nicer people than you are appearing to be.
They are not nearly as pretentious and neither are they at all interested in conducting 'academic pissing contests'.

FrankD, you have absolutely no idea so you choose to lie to make your pathetic argument. I stated that benchmark was BESIDE the lighthouse which, although it has been moved a short distance for historic purposes because it has been replaced by more suitably compact modern equipment, that has no bearing on the position of my original benchmark.

And all you others in denial, once again: that Nerang River main channel benchmark is in the main estuary and about a mile from the official mouth.

Bernie and others foolishly think that dredging a channel nearby will reduce sea levels on exposed coastlines.

And he thinks he has a grasp of ocean dynamics. Oh dear.

So water expands when it warms, does it, Bernie love?

Who knew?

The question for this simplistic statement is: point to it.

These prevarications on SLR are angels dancing on the head of a pin. Scientific waffle. And when you Doltoids equivocate on minutiae like this it just shows you up for the quibblers you are.

Get yourselves into the real world and find some real SLR to support your dumb disseminations.

Let me know when you have.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 10 Jun 2015 #permalink

While I am at humiliating Stu2, I forgot to mention that moose do not live in herds; they are solitary mammals. This just exemplified more of Stu2's profound ignorance. Caribou are herding; moose are not. Get that Stu2? They don't live in herds. During breeding season a few may aggregate, and mothers tend to their calves, but they are not herd-living ungulates. So your latest riposte falls flat, like most everything else you say. You are into ritual humiliation.

Then you venture aimlessly into a topic you also know virtually nothing about: invasive species, and come up with some generally hilarious remedies for them. For most, there are no methods to eradicate them; and as for 'preventing further invasion' I won't even comment on the stupidity of this comment. Once the gate has been opened and the horse has metaphorically bolted, invasive species that threaten native communities are largely beyond our control. Look at the chytid fungi I described earlier which are separately decimating frog and bat populations in the Neartic and Neotropics; plants like cheatgrass, yellow star thistle, kudzu vine, garlic mustard, Russian Olive, brome grass and others in North America are greatly simplifying native plant communities with concomitant effects on the native biota; and many animals: zebra mussels, fire ants, cane toads - the list is immense - are also decimating populations of native species. And the fact is that we are unable to control them with any degree of effectiveness. Pandora's Box has been opened and there is little that can be done other than accepting the unfolding disaster and hoping that it plays itself out in ways that ultimately do not lead to the unraveling of native food webs.

Much of my research involves invasive plants and range shifts under climate change scenarios and I test several hypotheses relevant to the field, including ERH, EICA, BRH and SDH. I won't even spell them out for Stu2 because he won't understand them. His examples above are what I would expect from a complete layman. His throwaway comment about using practical methods is basal, and as I said earlier not worthy of a response.

His 'pissing contest' comment is simply made because he's got little or no knowledge about environmental science and is left with vacuous smears.

By Jeff Harey (not verified) on 10 Jun 2015 #permalink

Stu 2,

You gotta cut Bernie a bit of slack when discussing environmental science.

How's the PhD going, Bern?

If you're looking for a thesis I've got a great suggestion.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 10 Jun 2015 #permalink

So water expands when it warms, does it, Bernie love?

Who knew?

Everyone but you, dear. Everyone but you.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 11 Jun 2015 #permalink

Lothe, how warm does that angel hafta be before she can dance?

Or IOW: what test do you hafta pass to become a fully qualified doltoid?

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 11 Jun 2015 #permalink

Spanky, you have absolutely no idea so you choose to lie to make your pathetic argument.

FTFY spanked.

When people live on a long finger of land pointing out into the sea that is awash with each king tide they tend to become very aware of sea levels. This point was the first proposed port of Brisbane as the river bar was not navigable so people have been living here since white settlement and there is a long history of knowledge of the area.

My uncle, who recently died in his nineties, spent most of his life there and his diary states that the highest sea levels were in the 1930s for both good and bad weather king tides so what I witnessed in the 40s and 50s were probably somewhat lower.

This is genuine recorded data describing a fall in sea levels that was observed by people.

If there is genuine sea level rise happening in recent years there would also be recorded data that had been observed by people.

Why has none of that personally observed data come to light if SLR is really happening?

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 11 Jun 2015 #permalink

Spangled Drongo @# 1
I do try to cut them some slack but Bernard J and Jeff Harvey make it difficult with their pretentious pontificating.
How funny was that comment about scientists not using the word 'herd'.
:-)
I do respect their academic quals.
It's a great achievement to earn a PhD.
I don't have much time for their vaguely defined policies re AGW or their personas at this blog.
They really could benefit from some time out in the real world.
There are plenty of their PhD peers out here.
They're just as clever but they have chosen not to live in the cloistered, publish or perish world of academia.

"Stu2 thinks moose live in herds. That’s another example of his ignorance. "

Not really, it's the proof of his lack of care about what the truth is, nor about whether anyone else can tell.

All stupid wanted to do was claim that he was right, and the actual facts didn't matter, nor did the ease with which those facts could be disproven: he's not convincing anyone but those who want to be convinced.

I.e himself.

"When people live on a long finger of land pointing out into the sea that is awash with each king tide they tend to become very aware of sea levels."

No they don't.

They become really concerned with flooding in their area.

This isn't anything to do with sea levels. Just the flooding they receive.

"This is genuine recorded data"

No it isn't.

Just like Stupid's "Moose herds". It was a baseless claim. Nothing other than your statement to back it up.

#8
Please refer to the january thread, that's where your nonsense was patiently untangled.

'“This is genuine recorded data”'

"No it isn’t."

Is Wow ever a blatant, dumb denialist!!

It is also genuine OBSERVED, recorded data.

And he hasn't got either the wit or the wisdom to be aware that when a tide totally covers your land every year and then at a future time it no longer does that, the resident would not notice the difference.

Give up, Wow. When you are in a hole, stop digging.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 11 Jun 2015 #permalink

Yes, Stu, it is a shame to see otherwise intelligent people allowing ideology and religion to totally rule their existence and shut out what's really going on around them.

Their personal lives must be in a mess.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 11 Jun 2015 #permalink

I must have missed that, Nick.

Did someone come up with some personally observed SLR?

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 11 Jun 2015 #permalink

#16 Did you miss it, or have you wished it away?

Stu2disingenuous :

Lionel @ # 93. I’m still laughing at your assertion that the UK health system is in trouble because you have to pay for parking when you visit people there and you know all about it because you have relatives who are health workers.

Let me get a couple of things straight here, by indications that due to creeping privatisation more money is required to paper over the widening cracks in UK health care provision because private sector require profit making. And if we continue down this road things can only get worse.

Why, because centralisation under the banner of efficiency saving mean that many cannot, or are otherwise unable to attend on grounds of cost. Many of the injured and sick tend to be those who have lost income from being in their condition.

After all the very reasons they need to attend affects their mobility such that hopping on and off the infrequent and often delayed public transport, which is also now deregulated and private - another financial hit. I am not saying that this service should be free but allowance should be made.

Now I know all about it because I am one of those in the mill of attending frequently because of a slew of problems, including life threatening, some due to active service. As for relatives - these are highly qualified daughters in senior front line positions.

Now your qualifications for comment are ....?

I did however think you genuinely cared about the Moose. Apparently not?

Your grounds for that ridiculous, idiotic and inapplicable statement are...? You behave like a fracking turd burglar!

Drongo, for years you've had many, many confounders drawn to your attention, all of which you have steadfastly ignored in you claims of sea level fall.

Why do you ignore them?

Do you have a short term memory loss, which prohibits you from recalling that you need to take them into account? Do you need to have them listed sequentially, so that you can pause and address each one in a necessary and proper reassessing of your conclusions?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 11 Jun 2015 #permalink

Re #15 - As Lotharsson keeps saying, with deniers, its always projection...

It doesn't matter how often I see it, I still find it astonishing

Stu2, We don't use the world herd in moose anyway because as I said they aren't herding mammals. And note how you ritually ignore empirical evidence that shatters your kindergarten-level musings.

You also venture aimlessly into a topic you also know virtually nothing about: invasive species, and come up with some generally hilarious remedies for them. For most, there are no methods to eradicate them; and as for ‘preventing further invasion’ I won’t even comment on the stupidity of this comment. Once the gate has been opened and the horse has metaphorically bolted, invasive species that threaten native communities are largely beyond our control. Look at the chytid fungi I described earlier which are separately decimating frog and bat populations in the Neartic and Neotropics; plants like cheatgrass, yellow star thistle, kudzu vine, garlic mustard, Russian Olive, Brome grass and others in North America are greatly simplifying native plant communities with concomitant effects on the native biota; and many animals: zebra mussels, fire ants, starlings, cane toads – the list is immense – are also decimating populations of native species. And the fact is that we are unable to control them with any degree of effectiveness. Pandora’s Box has been opened and there is little that can be done other than accepting the unfolding disaster and hoping that it plays itself out in ways that ultimately do not lead to the unraveling of native food webs.

Much of my research involves invasive plants and range shifts under climate change scenarios and I test several hypotheses relevant to the field, including ERH, EICA, BRH and SDH. I won’t even spell them out for Stu2 because he won’t understand them. His examples above are what I would expect from a complete layman. His throwaway comment about using practical methods is basal, and as I said earlier not worthy of a polite response.

His ‘pissing contest’ comment is simply made because he’s got little or no knowledge about environmental science and is left with vacuous smears. The fact that it was made by an old researcher on the academic fringe who also happens to cozy up to right wing think tanks also says a lot.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 11 Jun 2015 #permalink

"From SD: "Yes, Stu, it is a shame to see otherwise intelligent people allowing ideology and religion to totally rule their existence and shut out what’s really going on around them"

Talk about pot, kettle, black! This is a typicallay vacuous remark from a know-nothing who think they possess some mysterious wisdom on the basis of being self-taught. Neither SD nor Stu2 has anything remotely in the way of relevant qualifications in Earth or climate science, yet they feel quite proud of spewing their ignorance here. As I said before, they are hit-and-run posters. Stu2 writes about moose 'herds' when they are mostly solitary; he claims they are increasing when over the southern parts of their ranges their numbers are collapsing. SD writes about coral reef status on the basis of a single outlying study. When both are chellenged, they start a little childish to-ing and fro-ing discussion about the 'real world'. Something neither knows much about.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 11 Jun 2015 #permalink

"It is also genuine OBSERVED, recorded data."

Sorry, you claim SOMEONE ELSE observed it (Grampie). You CLAIM you observed something.

However, I don't just take claims.

Where is your evidence? Where is this written down so we can verify your claim it even exists?

"Now your qualifications for comment are ….? "

That stupid is opinionated and doesn't know any better.

Duh.

Here's another howler from Stu2:

"They really could benefit from some time out in the real world"

Well, really now. I've travelled all over the planet. I've probably been to far more places than Stu2 has - in fact, many, many more. I've met and discussed scientific, environmental and political issues with people and colleagues in many countries as well. I lecture on science and advocacy in Amsterdam. And yet Stu2 lectures me about 'The real world'. His world is a fantasy simply because his understanding of relevant parameters is virtually non-existent. As I said above, his comments on invasive species are so simplisitic they are funny. My only question is to ask myself why I bother to even respond to his views, which are basal in the extreme. He clearly doesn't understand much about environmental science. That is clear. But he thinks he does. That's the only reason I respond.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 11 Jun 2015 #permalink

And yet Stu2 lectures me about ‘The real world’.

It appears to be his mantra to allow him to reject academic knowledge, experience and evidence - even though he claims with an apparently straight face to "respect academic quals". The dissonance is striking, at least to others.

I'm still waiting for his detailed plan to save the southern moose populations, followed by his thousands upon thousands of plans for dealing with other species impacted by climate change, especially the marine ones.

Or since you pointed out that invasive species are a real bugger to stop in their tracks and he's working in some kind of agricultural related field in Australia, maybe he could just start with a plan to deal with the cane toads in Australia? How about the rabbits? Or the feral cats? Or the Indian Myna? The black rats, brown rats and house mice? Since apparently it's quite straightforward to deal with just one such species, so that makes it a complete mystery why those haven't been successfully dealt with after such a long term in Australia.

And after those successes, we have a whole bunch more invasive species that could use some dealing with...

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 11 Jun 2015 #permalink

Lotharsson, Stupid would be 100% for that if it meant that we "forgot" about AGW and didn't do anything about it.

Published earlier this year in Science:

https://news.vice.com/article/humans-are-destroying-the-environment-at-…

Watch our resident deniers say, "It ain't so! Everything is getting better! Bjorn Lomborg said so! He's a leading scientist with 1 scientific paper in his career! And Walter Starck, who has 3 papers, wrote an article for the Heritage Foundation that also said things are fine! And we believe them!"

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 11 Jun 2015 #permalink

And note that that 10,000 year thing isn't because it was worse then, but that we haven't got any data to prove it wasn't worse.

IOW, assuming that the lack of proof is proof of lack.

Which is fallacious.

But the most skeptical proposition available, and therefore the one least allowed to be questioned.

Stupid liar

BBD @ # 89.
You are correct that Spangled Drongo is talking about regional examples. Unlike you lot however, he is being entirely honest about it.

Where is the dishonesty?

Comment number, page number and full context quote. Or fuck off with your lies.

Aaaw. What's wrong? Can't drum up enough support plying your links on "relevant sites" you have to come to one that you keep bleating on about is irrelevant?

Damn.

I guess another Santorum event is being desperately avoided, huh?

"Where is the dishonesty?"

We're not honestly believing their BS.

I think.

GSW #31

Quick note to all, Heartlands #ICCC10 starts today. Live streaming here, ...

...Presentations are good humoured and informative. Definitely worth a watch, recommended.

Oh! Really! Only if you live in a bubble full of 'sacks of hammers':

Heartland Heavies Silence Climate Reporters at Oil Supported Summit*

Now you lot are getting desperate, putting lipstick on a pig.

Lionel had been away at Climate Progress, hence the gap.

Heaven knows why the Heartland refers to their conferences as "ICCC". It should be renamed "ICCDC" with the D standing for denial. As always, they will invite the usual bunch of fringe scientists/crackpots to spew out their vitriolic nonsense.

The rest of the scientific world collectively yawns every time they hold one of their hilarious shindigs. It says a lot about gormless - which we already knew - that the closest he has come to science is when he picks his nose.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 11 Jun 2015 #permalink

Jeff Harvey @#25.
Seriously, those Moose simply don't care that you're posturing at me and sneering at Lomborg and Starck.
Neither do they care if I called them a herd (and of course they do hang out in proximity with each other).
The identified problem for that particular loosely associated group of Moose is a worm.
If anyone actually cares about the Moose, then it's the worm that needs eradicating.
Despite your hand waving and alarmist assertions otherwise, some management principles in Agriculture and NRM are quite simple.
Others are indeed more complex.
If I actually wanted to know stuff about marine biology and coral reefs, I would be inclined to refer to Walter Starck's expertise.
I don't think he knows much about Moose.
Lomborg's expertise also has no reference to Moose.
I don't have expertise in Moose either, but I didn't have any problem spotting what was actually giving those specific Moose a hard time.
For some inexplicable reason you're still doing a sterling job of validating Starck's quip.

Heartland Heavies Silence Climate Reporters at Oil Supported Summit*

Most amusing, and immensely telling. It's almost like they don't believe the bullshit they hope to sell to the gullible and ill informed.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 11 Jun 2015 #permalink

Neither do they care if I called them a herd...

...and no-one suggested that they care, nor is whether they care or not relevant to the discussion, so you appear to have thoroughly missed the point again. The point was that your understanding was wrong along with your chosen terminology.

Speaking of your misunderstanding:

... (and of course they do hang out in proximity with each other).

Faaaaark!

Not only has at least one scientist told you that moose do not form herds, but you could find exactly the same statement in 30s (e.g. on Wikipedia):

Unlike most other deer species, moose are solitary animals and do not form herds.

In response, you assert the falsehood again. Are you really so stupid as to think that you simply must have been right and hence did not bother to check when someone with access to high quality information told you otherwise?

That's a rhetorical question. The pattern here looks to be pathological.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 11 Jun 2015 #permalink

Lotharsson.
The isuue is not about whether or not I used the word herd.
You have seriously lost the plot.
The issue is that the particular regional population of Moose is in trouble from a worm.

Bernie: "for years you’ve had many, many confounders drawn to your attention, all of which you have steadfastly ignored in you claims of sea level fall."

I ignore them because they are all only your silly dancing angels.

It's very easy to "confound" my claims, Bern. Just produce some real, human-observed evidence of SLR instead of spouting these consensual angels at me.

It doesn't take a hundred consensus pseudos like you to prove me wrong.

Just someone with the real-world facts.

I seem to recall some knowledgeable scientist has already told you that.

All ya gotta do is come up with the above evidence.

And "Scientist" Jeff @ 28: so 7 billion + of us are giving the environment a hard time. Who knew?

Do you ever get out in the real world and check for yourself of just shit razorblades over it?

I do wildlife data logging and diarising on a daily basis and this week have completed a yearly survey on the "endangered" Alberts Lyrebird in our area as we have done for the past 22 years with some amazing results if you are interested.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 11 Jun 2015 #permalink

The depth of Doltoid erudition is plainly displayed by their fixation on any inconsequential mis-step by their opponent.

It gives them their big chance of ridicule which they do so much better than the science involved.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 11 Jun 2015 #permalink

I doubt he'll be interested Spangled Drongo.
It is amusing that Jeff Harvey states the painfully obvious.
Whodathunkit that humans interract and impact the planet?
I am interested in that survey of the Alberta Lyrebird.
In my part of the world we're observing and studying the Bittern with some very interesting results.

Sorry!
Bloody auto correct!
Interacts WITH & ALBERTS!!!

Stu 2, we recorded more than twice as many as we did 22 years ago. At least 70 breeding pairs.

I'm always very apprehensive about them with our ever-increasing wild dog and fox populations and the chick having to spend the first six months of its life on the ground but so far, so good.

What sort of Bittern?

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 11 Jun 2015 #permalink

The Australasian Bittern or sometimes called the Brown Bittern.
Along with the endangered plains wanderer and numerous other migratory birds + their ecological dietary needs - they seem to really like hanging out with irrigation farmers in the MDB.
Numbers are up big time.

I've heard from rice growers that the "Bullbird" numbers are increasing out there. They have left this area for sweeter pastures. We've never had the Plains Wanderer here of course [great to hear their numbers increasing] but we do get Button Quail. Human food production looking after man, bird and animal. Good stuff.

But don't tell the Doltoids. They would want only enviro flows and nothing for the farmers.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 11 Jun 2015 #permalink

TO summarise this week's events:
Stu2 thinks Walter Starck is an expert on something, despite the latter's lack of academic credentials, absence of research activity, and non-existent publishing record. Stu2 also can't hear the warning bells when Starck carries on at length about aliens and crop circles.

Meanwhile, Drongo doesn't accept measurements of sea level rise if they contradict his geriatric memories about a landform that is largely a construct of his imagination.

Shouldn't they be sharing their crazy with Jo Nova's crowd of ignorant nutters instead of making fools of themselves here?

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 11 Jun 2015 #permalink

Craig Thomas missed that inconvenient bit where any Doltoid [including him] was unable to provide any evidence of personally observed SLR.

And with no SLR there is no Global Warming.

But those dancing angels do come in handy hey, Craig, especially when you haven't got a clue.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 11 Jun 2015 #permalink

"Scientist Jeff" has more credentials than pretty well anyone whose crap you've posted up here Spangled Dumbo. Now you've reached the real depths by posting an article by a guy whose expertise is in public health - I kid you not. Not an Earth or environmental scientist in any way shape or form.

You are clearly into ritual self-humiliation; I have also asked you what your scientific qualifications are and aside from saying how clever you are, that you retired at 33, et. etc. etc. ad nauseum, you've said nothing about your scientific bonafides. Which of course means you don't have any, except that you are 'self-taught' In other words, your knowledge base is puny. But heck we all knew that; tell us something we don't know.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 12 Jun 2015 #permalink

Craig Thomas.
I doubt that Starck needs anyone to defend him.
He's reached a ripe old age and has worked in his chosen field for many years in many different places post degree. Despite your attempt to sneer he is a quite well recognised marine biologist.
But?????????
Since when was a PhD in Marine Biology considered a lack of
academic credentials?
What does a quirky interest in other stuff have to do with it?
I'm quite sure there are plenty of PhDs who have hobbies and interests outside their career.
So what?

Stu2's crap gets funnier and funner. He's just SSSOOOO stupid, it almost hurt when I am laughing at him.

He forgot to add that humans are not only impacting the planet, we are very deleteriously impacting it by undermining the myriad of ways that systems function (see Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005, for an overview). We are simplifying it in ways that reduce the capacity of these systems to sustain themselves and ultimately us. We are unraveling food webs, undermining ecosystem functions and pushing systems over the edge. And we aren't slowing these processes down; they are accelerating.

Then regarding moose: Stu2 said numbers were up yesterday. In some parts of the heart of their range they are stable or rising. But alarmingly over the southern edge of their range they are collapsing. And the culprits are becoming understood: warming and processes associated with it. Then he backtracks on his herd argument by stating that they 'hang out' in groups. Most of the time they don't. They are primarily solitary except briefly during calfing season. I've seen moose a number of times in Canada and most of them were solitary; the most I saw together was 3. They are not herders. What is clear is that Stu2 does not understand the basic biology of the species. And as I said yesterday, moose are just one proxy for natural systems as a whole. Stu2 and his equally mentally challenged sidekick SD pick up one or two examples of species whose status is not in doubt. At the same time, they downplay or ignore that afar greater number are in trouble due to various anthropogenic effects. And yet humanity fiddles while Rome burns.

Lastly, he finishes off his hat trick of vacuous ignorance by saying that if he wanted to know more about coral reefs, he'd consult Walter Starck. Yes, a guy associated with anti-environmental think tanks who has 3 papers in his illustrious (guffaw, guffaw) career. This about sums up Stu2. Dumb as an ox.

The last point is easily concluded based on the fact that he keeps writing in here, when just about everything he says is utter crap, and shown to be so. Neither he nor SD have even a basic grounding in population or conservation biology yet they never hesitate to throw in their 2 cents worth of wisdom. being someone who is trained in these fields, it is amusing watching them flounder in Dunning-Kruger land.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 12 Jun 2015 #permalink

I continue:

"He’s reached a ripe old age and has worked in his chosen field for many years in many different places post degree. Despite your attempt to sneer he is a quite well recognised marine biologist"

Yup. With a whopping total of 3 publications on WoS. It is amazing how a guy gets recognized with so little output. I have 10 papers already this year (15 last year) and this guy has 3 in his lengthy career and his an expert! It may be that his expertise lies in the myriad of stuff he's penned for think tanks. But this is not peer-reviewed except by the right wing cronies who work for them.

Stu2, you are one funny dude. Your arguments are so easy to annihilate.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 12 Jun 2015 #permalink

Jeff Harvey.
You're still posturing and doing a sterling job of validating Starck's quip.
I hope it's helping you somehow?

'“Scientist Jeff” has more credentials than pretty well anyone....'

What an arrogant wanker you are Jeffery!

I didn't include "Jeff" in the quotation marks, but you had to. The true quote was "scientist" Jeff.

And anyone who has the hubris to criticise an author on their interpretation of the author's qualifications instead of their work really admits to the world what an ignorant twit they really are.

Why don't you tell us your own calculations of what the average Nat Var is for that period. Or show us where the paper is wrong. Someone as smart [arse] as you shouldn't have a problem.

And you should know self praise is the worst recommendation. Particularly by up-themselves academics.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 12 Jun 2015 #permalink

Correction there to Jeff Harvey: I thought you were referring to that earlier paper.

I couldn't believe you were silly enough to apply this hubris to someone of the same religious philosophy as yourself.

What a laugh!

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 12 Jun 2015 #permalink

Drongo

Craig Thomas missed that inconvenient bit where any Doltoid [including him] was unable to provide any evidence of personally observed SLR.

And with no SLR there is no Global Warming.

No.

It has been pointed out repeatedly that you cannot extrapolate from personal observation to global net SLR.

But you insist on doing this and actually make it a hard requirement for the existence of global net SLR.

This is just silly. Global net SLR can *only* be detected and quantified from global data. There is no other way to do this

Various commenters here have pointed you at the global data and that is all we have to do. Unless you are invoking some bonkers conspiracy theory where the scientists are faking their results, you have to accept it as global data trumps personal obs every tiime.

Nor have you explained how SLR can *not* be happening. This would require that water does *not* expand as it warms and the melt of terrestrial ice sheets does *not* increase the volume of the oceans.

Or do you deny that any warming is happening at all? Surely nobody does that these days?

You need to clear this up instead of ignoring it over and over again.

* * *

Why don’t you tell us your own calculations of what the average Nat Var is for that period. Or show us where the paper is wrong. Someone as smart [arse] as you shouldn’t have a problem.

Why don't *you* read the Lloyd paper? We all know you haven't bothered. If you did, you could defend it instead of trying to shift that burden onto Jeff H which is both lazy and intellectually dishonest of you.

I've already explained why and how I suspect that Lloyd stuffed up his analysis, which is more detail than you have so far brought to bear on this.

"…and no-one suggested that they care, nor is whether they care or not relevant to the discussion,"

Yes, but Stupid thinks that if he disavows his mistake of being any importance to him this would mean his mistake doesn't illustrate how incompetent in the field he is.

All it really shows is that, as usual, Stupid doesn't WANT to know and feels that he should be allowed to be an authoritative voice BECAUSE of that lack of knowledge. Because reasons, apparently.

"It’s very easy to “confound” my claims, "

Yes, it is.

We ask to "Just produce some real, human-observed evidence " and then you run off elsewhere and pretend that merely claiming that your grampie saw it is sufficient.

Someone's grampie has seen Bigfoot. Someone's grampie swears blind they've been anal probed by aliens in their spaceship.

We need evidence of your claim, spanky. So far all you've done is tell us something that contradicts what thousands of people who are experts say.

So you need to provide at least some evidence of your claims.

"What an arrogant wanker you are Jeffery!"

Ah, so if someone has a lot of credentials, they are arrogant. If you or Stupid claim to be experts despite no credentials whatsoever, that's not.

Unfortunately, truth is an absolute defence against the "thought crime" of arrogance.

Whilst complete and utter lack of evidence is damning conclusive proof of it.

I'm afraid you are projecting your arrogance and solo sexual preference onto others to pretend that somehow you aren't the unpleasant stains on the underpants of humanity, you're "merely no worse than 'them'".

Doesn't work, dearie. Not to the sane. We see through that bollocks pretty damn easily.

"And anyone who has the hubris to criticise an author on their interpretation of the author’s qualifications "

You mean like you are to Jeff? And thousands of other scientists?

No?

Why not?

BBD, nobody knows how many angels there are on the head of that pin but you can be assured that if no one is personally observing any SLR around the coastline of a tectonically stable continent like Aus there is nothing to get worried about.

Do you really believe that 0.8c of warming in the last 165 years is greater than average Nat Var?

Of course there is some warming and climate change but just how much is caused by ACO2 is very tiny and very arguable.

Wow, you are even dumber than Jeffery.

What's more, you don't even get why he is. Or why you are such a hypocrite. And you spend your time pin-head dancing, too.

BTW, I asked for PERSONALLY OBSERVED SLR. As I have said before, if SLR is really happening, it would be seen to be happening.

Now, either show me what you've seen, where and how much or STFU!

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 12 Jun 2015 #permalink

"you have to accept it as global data trumps personal obs every tiime."

So angels dancing on the head of a pin trumps the real world?

That is completely unscientific and absolutely pathetic, BBD.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 12 Jun 2015 #permalink

"BTW, I asked for PERSONALLY OBSERVED SLR. As I have said before, if SLR is really happening, it would be seen to be happening."

Wrong. Picking a small signal out of tidal range and weather induced variation is not going to be done casually, unless the rise is very fast. You haven't personally observed long-term rise or fall in Moreton Bay. Don't worry, it doesn't mean anything about global change.

I won't ask you to think about it, because you've clearly tried and failed. You'll just have to excuse your self from discussion about SLR because of your faith. The rate of SLR does not meet the threshold of your observational skill because your tools lack the fidelity.

Scientists understand the limitations of personal observation. So they are personally observing their tools recording sea level rise. They know how to see your dancing angels,you don't. No need to worry, it's not your responsibility.

Drongo

you can be assured that if no one is personally observing any SLR around the coastline of a tectonically stable continent like Aus there is nothing to get worried about.

We've been through this so stop repeating rubbish.

Do you really believe that 0.8c of warming in the last 165 years is greater than average Nat Var?

I believe that 0.8C warming (0.5C since 1970) requires a physical mechanism. This would be an increase in forcing. The only forcing increase sufficient to explain observed warming is that from increasing CO2.

Of course there is some warming and climate change but just how much is caused by ACO2 is very tiny and very arguable.

Since *only* CO2 forcing has increased sufficiently to explain the CENTENNIAL trend it is only CO2 forcing that can be responsible for the CENTENNIAL trend. All of it. In fact more than all of it since much warming is offset by aerosol negative forcing.

My sense is that you have very little understanding at all of what you are saying.

Drongo

That is completely unscientific and absolutely pathetic, BBD.

This is your 'argument':

It is raining outside my house therefore it is raining everywhere in the world.

Idiot.

"Do you really believe that 0.8c of warming in the last 165 years is greater than average Nat Var?"

Do you really believe that it isn't?

If you do, then what do you believe to be the definition of the words "Natural Variability"? And what is its value?

"BTW, I asked for PERSONALLY OBSERVED SLR. "

So did we.

You refuse to give your evidence, all we have off you is verbal assertion.

And, yes, the observers put their personal observations into the database.

Unless you claim that they're all making it up and SAYING that it was there. Which rather proves that you do need to demonstrate your claim is actually correct that you have observed SL dropping.

"Well, well, the things ya find!"

Yeah, we find your "arguments" weak and unsatisfying intellectually for those who have a skeptical turn of mind.

So a below average Nat Var proves that ACO2 is responsible?

Do you realise what you are saying?

And you are seriously equating rain cloud dynamics with ocean dynamics?

But don't feel too bad, BBD, It looks like other Doltoids agree with you.

Nick really believes that "scientists" can correctly observe their manipulated, homogenised, modelled angels and that is much more scientific than physical SLR.

You guys really live in a virtual world.

Why am I not surprised.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 12 Jun 2015 #permalink

# 68 It's remarkable that scientists communicate, and share an interest in improving observations and closing the earth's energy budget?

"Nick really believes that “scientists” can correctly observe their manipulated, homogenised, modelled angels and that is much more scientific than physical SLR".

Scientists are observing physical SLR, and no amount of your bizarre huffing and puffing has any bearing on the matter. Your virtual world is a prison.

So who should turn up but Doltoid CON with his strawman argument.

CON, I can only suggest what I suggested to the others: there is no need to believe my observations but at least you have to provide some of your own to support your claims of SLR and stop relying on mumbo jumbo as evidence.

What? Nothing to offer? Why am I not surprised?

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 12 Jun 2015 #permalink

Drongo

So a below average Nat Var proves that ACO2 is responsible?

Do you realise what you are saying?

Yes. I am saying that centennial trends require a centennial trend in forcing change.

And you are seriously equating rain cloud dynamics with ocean dynamics?

WTF are you wittering about now?

Concentrate on centennial forcing change. That's what the discussion of centennial GAT trend requires you to focus on.

Drongo

[again, with fixed tags:]

So a below average Nat Var proves that ACO2 is responsible?

Do you realise what you are saying?

Yes. I am saying that centennial temperature trends require centennial trends in forcing change.

And you are seriously equating rain cloud dynamics with ocean dynamics?

WTF are you wittering about now?

Concentrate on centennial forcing change. That’s what the discussion of centennial GAT trend requires you to focus on.

"So a below average Nat Var proves that ACO2 is responsible?"

Only one saying that was you, Spanky.

BBD meant what they said, but he's going to go with the assumption that your rewording wasn't done to make his statement different from the one he made.

IMO an unwise choice, because you'd love to pretend he meant something different.

“Nick really believes that “scientists” can correctly observe their manipulated, homogenised, modelled angels and that is much more scientific than physical SLR”.

And when they don't correct their data, it's claimed that the warming trend is all due to the urban heat island effect. Or they aren't including the changes in cloud cover. Or the changes in the sun. Or anything else they can come up with out of their ass to pretend they have valid criticism.

Tell us, Spanky, did you pretend that a change in site meant you could use both site records as one continuous record of the same location?

Did you think that dropping the river level would not affect where tides get to? If not, what do you think silting up does?

If you haven't corrected for changes in the land rather than the sea, the site rather than the sea, then you're not measuring sea level rise, you're measuring all the changes together.

Of course we have no idea whether your personal observation was real.

Remember, some people are convinced they've seen bigfoot.

How do we know that your not running a bigfoot scam here?

The isuue is not about whether or not I used the word herd.

I absolutely agree.

It is not the issue, but merely one of a number of serious issues with your commentary, albeit one that is highly emblematic of deep ignorance masquerading as informed analysis.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 12 Jun 2015 #permalink

"there is no need to believe my observations "

OK, we won't. Thanks.

"but at least you have to provide some of your own "

We just did. On this page.

Or show us where the paper is wrong.

Liar. I already did that waaaaaay back.

The fairly simple counter-argument was either too complex for you to grasp, or you simply had no choice but to pretend that the counter-argument did not exist. Neither one rebuts it.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 12 Jun 2015 #permalink

re: 81, nor is it about the fact he can't spell. But it is another indication of his lack of education being no impediment for him to believe he doesn't need it.

Yes, Nick, the hiatus has been such a travesty, hasn't it?

Stop wanking, Nick. Scientists aren't personally observing anything to do with SLR. Hockey team scientists are doing what Tom Karl just did.

Please try the real world for a change.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 12 Jun 2015 #permalink

We just did. On this page.

We must not forget that we also did that many times over the last umpteen times SD graced us with his personal hypotheses about global SLR.

SD is like a CD-ROM. It will spit out the same content time and time again, but you can't update it with corrections or new information.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 12 Jun 2015 #permalink

"Yes, Nick, the hiatus has been such a travesty, hasn’t it?"

Yes, it doesn't exist, which has been a travesty of your trolling ways, spanky.

"Scientists aren’t personally observing anything to do with SLR."

Yes they are.

"We just did. On this page."

No you didn't, Wow. Stop telling lies

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 12 Jun 2015 #permalink

Yes we did, Spanky.

"Yes, Nick, the hiatus has been such a travesty, hasn’t it?"

Unsurprisingly, after many years, you're the one here who still doesn't know what that email was about. As I noted, you're a prisoner in your virtual world. A lifer.

"Scientists aren’t personally observing anything to do with SLR"

They only do it when you're not watching, just to tease.

Of course, Spanky and Spanky Sr spent all their time rather than at school or work, sitting there watching the one place like a hawk, observing the sea levels rise and fall each day.

After all, if you use an instrument to do the measurement, it's not PERSONALLY OBSERVED and therefore both lunatics think unreliable.

Quite how Spanky Sr knew that in his great great grandson's day it would be wondered if SLR was happening is just a miracle that we should all just accept.

But it demonstrates the lengths that such pillocks (did I spell that right? :-) ) of society will go to to make personal observations, that they will spend every day and every night for a hundred years observing the sea level at one place just so that it could be PERSONALLY OBSERVED.

...PERSONALLY OBSERVED SLR...

Except that you haven't "personally observed" change in sea level with your reporting of extreme tide height, you've only observed... extreme tide heights.

Which are confounded by multiple factors, which have been repeatedly drawn to your attention for several years now, and which you persist in ignoring because they inconveniently destroy your fantasy.

That's pretty much the definition of self-delusion.

To believe your own story Drongo you not only have to deny multiple independent sources* of empirical (as opposed to your anecdotal) measurement, you also have to deny fundamental laws of physics.

I really hope that your relatives know of your denialist mission Drongo, because one day they're going to look back and be profoundly embarrassed for you and your memory. What a wonderful legacy to leave.

[*By the way, tell me how it is that satellites can measure surface temperature but they can't measure altitude... You do understand, don't you, that the technology is such that it's actually easier to accurately measure altitude than temperature?!]

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 12 Jun 2015 #permalink

Scientists aren’t personally observing anything to do with SLR...

Please try the real world for a change.

In the real world:

1) thousands of tide gauges around the globe.
2) satellites
3) fixed biological indicators
4) expansion physics
5) volumetrics
6) record flooding events
7) insurance company policy change

That should do for starters. They're real enough.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 12 Jun 2015 #permalink

If anyone actually cares about the Moose, then it’s the worm that needs eradicating.

Spoken like a true hammerer. I suppose you think that dingoes should be eradicated too?

The problem is not the worms as much as it is that the moose' habitat has undergone warming that has permited the white-tailed deer to move into the historic range of the moose. That, and the human modification of habitat that has assisted the deer in their expansion.

On top of that the moose are more physiologically stressed by habitat and climate damage and consequently they have to deal with a degree of immunosuppression on top of their immunological naïveté in their vain efforts to fight the Parelaphostrongylus.

The worms are a symptom, not the problem.

God help the environment if you take such an unsophisticated approach in your work, especially if native species are involved.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 12 Jun 2015 #permalink

And oh, look, climate change is having multiple direct and indirect impacts on moose.

Just as it is on caribou...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 12 Jun 2015 #permalink

More sophisticated trolls please.

At least with Tim "radium water" Curtin one could expect an entertaining foray into pseudo-evidence - with these clowns it's just assertion and fantasy. God help us should any of this crowd ever get into government.

Oh, that's right...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 12 Jun 2015 #permalink

For the non-Australians here, Tony Abbott's latest idiocy was revealed about 36 hours ago when he admited that he wants to lower (and ideally abolish) the Australian renewable enery target so that he could kill the wind (and likely the solar) energy industries:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-11/abbott-wants-to-reduce-wind-farms…

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2015/10-things-we-learned-about-tony-abbotts…

It takes a peculiarly rabid sort of ideological psychopathology to want to kill a sustainable and potentially nation-building, profitable growth industry that would take the world a long way to not plummenting toward effective destruction of civilisation. And yet this is the mindset of the vandals that are the Australian conservative government...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 12 Jun 2015 #permalink

It takes a peculiarly rabid sort of ideological psychopathology to want to kill a sustainable and potentially nation-building, profitable growth industry that would take the world a long way to not plummenting toward effective destruction of civilisation.

...and to kill off that growth industry after promising to create a disturbingly mediocre number of new jobs during his tenure as PM and starting out well below the required rate, and after promising that Australia was open for business - just not that kind of business, and whilst most of the rest of the world is clearly working on reducing their fossil fuel usage trajectory and increasing renewables.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 12 Jun 2015 #permalink

It's because they are options that are identified with a group Abbot and his base support hate with a virulent and unreasoning passion.

Much like ISIS and everyone not their brand of Muslim.

A bit of trivia as we wait for the #ICCC10 festivities to resume after the break,

To which science denier is the following quotation attributed,

"Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather).

Answer to follow.
;)

Really? Steyn had a thought??!?

Pics or it didn't happen.

“He [mann] wants to collapse the western economy, and I don’t”

Typical alarmist drivel.

Where's your evidence that the western economy will collapse?

I hope it wasn't a *model*...

We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow.

Not according to the actual reports of the weather in the area today.

23C today. Expect 13C tonight.

As to historic lows:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/boulder/dailyrecords/

Apparently not really a record happening.

Mostly record highs happening recently. Mostly record lows happening 80 years ago.

Bernard J #98

At least with Tim “radium water” Curtin...

I understand that it is now 'the late Tim Curtin', but yes he sure was entertaining here awhile back.

As for Abbott and his latest, there are numpties over here planning on starting an Open Cast mining venture in South Wales. I don't know, as yet, who the Welsh 'Don Blankenship' is.

Did Tim not dilute with seawater enough?

"Mostly record lows happening 80 years ago"

A few record lows occurring right now, the level of fact based rhetoric from each hot air blower at the DenialFest, that pretends to be allied to a heartland.

Wow

Really? Steyn had a thought??!?

Pics or it didn’t happen.

Got video

Nah, too high quality thought. It has to be a stunt double doing his thinking. Good likeness, though.

Or he was coached. (see what I did there? :-) )

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it think ;-)

Stu2 and Spangled Dumbo are up to their old tricks again - unable to reply to arguments, they go for the man. Its an old tried and trusted strategy of anti-environmentalists, of which both fit the bill.

Stu2, in a typically feeble attempt to downplay population declines in moose, blames a 'worm'. Of course its much more complicated than that, as trophic interactions always are. This 'worm' is of course only part of the story, one that again goes above Stu2's little brain. Why now? Certainly there are abiotic factors involved as well, and a very strong human fingerprint. Next thing Stu2 will try and downplay significant North American bat and global amphibian declines by saying its just due to fungi. But again, the reasons are more complex and have a very strong human component.

I demolished his simplistic drivel about invasive species, and the fact that he knows diddly squat about the biology of moose or any ungulates for that matter. I have a paper just published in Global Change Biology in which I and my 2 co-authors place invasions in the context of 'ecological fitting', and argue that complex life cycles are not necessarily an impediment if ecophysiological conditions in the native and invasive ranges are equivalent. But again, this is right over Stu2's head, given his little appalling rant about biological invasions yesterday.

Finally, he dredges up Starck's throwaway comment about academic pissing contests again. It has no relevance here, because Stu2 is mot certainly not an academic, nor is SD. So where is the contest? There's isn't one. Starck made his flippant remark because he's desperate to legitimize himself in debates on global change. The problem is that he's a nobody, has 3 peer-reviewed publications and IMHO is a dinosaur who is completely ignored by the scientific community, including marine biologists and experts on coral reefs. He relies on the Heartland Institute and his crappy blog to promote himself. He's not getting it in academia, that is for sure.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 12 Jun 2015 #permalink

Thanks for playing along chaps but, as usual, you all got it wrong. The quotation,

“Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather)."

is in fact attributed to Kevin "The Travesty" Trenberth!

http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=1255352257.txt&search=travesty

-a half point if you just got "The Travesty", we knew who you meant ;)

Hope you all enjoyed the video, Steyn's condemnation of Mann was literally brutal!. Entertaining too. More to come from #ICCC10 as well. Been good so far!
;)

GSW really does like to make himself look ridiculous (as if that was a problem for him anyway). A right wing idiot with no relevant scientific qualifications giving a keynote lecture at a deniers conference on climate change? Well there's a shock!

Note how nobody, aside from dopes like GSW and right wing blogs, pays any attention to the Heartland bash. Even the media ignores it. They know full well that the only science being presented there is that which is twisted, mangled and distorted to promote a pre-determined view.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 12 Jun 2015 #permalink

Oh, no, he doesn't MAKE himself look ridiculous. It comes naturally to him.

Like talking complete bollocks. Racing off on tangents. And never keeping any idea in his tiny noggin any longer than a mayfly keeps its pants on.

Here we also are, into the warmest year on record thus far, and gormless is citing a few cold weather data points in one tiny part of the world as if this proves that AGW isn't happening.

No wonder he slavishly worships Jonas. In my 10 years of writing into Deltoid, I have yet to encounter a sceptic/denier with even half a brain. Every one who has passed through here is a complete simpleton, and not a single one has anything close to even mediocre scientific qualifications.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 12 Jun 2015 #permalink

ICCC? Yaaaawn.

I guess Steyn is just spending other idiots money, though. After all, he's already going to lose his defamation case and figures he might as well get some more bollocks spewed to make the morons love him and pay for his defence (when even his lawyers gave up on the fuckwit).

'course, it will all be brought up at the court case as evidence the hate filled baggage really doesn't give a shit what reality is and has absolutely no care to contain any rationality in his crusade to criminalise being right about the climate.

Jeff Harvey.
Academics are just people.
They are valued members of our society.
They're not intrinsically superior or better than other people.
I hired a PhD ecologist from UWA yesterday.
He's a great bloke and a very enthusiastic young man.
He's helping to set up some industrial ecology projects in our
part of the world.
In agriculture we need to learn better ways to retain nutrients and enhance our soils.
He also had an interesting throw away line .
He said that ecology, as an academic career, has become too focused on counting what we've lost.
He has decided to use his expertise to do something positive in
the real world.

Lots of them do.

GSW

Trenberth was and is curious about energy flows within the climate system. He complained that (in 2009) our monitoring of the climate system was a travesty because it was (then) unable to show in detail what was actually happening.

By 2014, the situation had evolved considerably. See eg. England et al. (2014) Recent intensification of wind-driven circulation in the Pacific and the ongoing warming hiatus

The travesty is the inability / refusal of contrarians to keep up.

Chris Hedges: This mania for hope is almost pathological, and it obscures how dire the situation really is, and how essential it is to completely reconfigure our relationshops with each other and with the ecosystem...

Read those words Stu2. They are prescient and to the point. The ecologist you hired clearly has an exceedingly narrow grasp of the field. Ecology is defined as the chemical, physical and biological charcteristics of the environment and how they affect the abundance and distribution of organisms. A huge number of ecologists study aspects of nature that have nothing to do with global change or what has been lost. The young man is very, very naive, and clearly has a lot to learn. Possessing a PhD is not a key to wisdom. Its what you do with it that matters.

However, given this, I still wish him success. But given the gravity of the current situation, he will soon learn the hard lesson that minor adjustments in ongoing programs will have little, if any effect in bringing about the changes that are necessary to counter the abyss towards which we are headed. As Hedges says, hope is a mania that persuades us, in the face of reams of empirical data, that we have turned the corner. My hope - if indeed I can call it that - is that we dispose of the dominant ecocidal and unsustainable political and economic system before it is too late. But at present, there is little to suggest to me that we are going to do that. So indeed my view is that the mid-term future is bleak. The scientist you hired probably thinks that we can work within the current system to effect changes that will offset the consequences of a vast suite of anthropogenic processes across the biosphere. I am afraid that his faith is misplaced. The solutions to the current predicament are not locked up in science or technology but in social justice through political and economic change. And the changes necessary are significant. One day he will wake up to this reality.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 12 Jun 2015 #permalink

I take it Stupid still hasn't answered BBD's question.

So why bother reading what he claims? He doesn't know what it means and definitely won't discuss it.

"You're talking bollocks" is about all you need and all it warrants. He won't understand a better answer. And won't change if the answer was perfection.

Because his claims aren't reasons, they're excuses.

“We just did. On this page.”

Oh dear! What a self deluding doltoid lot.

That is simply a snapshot of ocean movement. The net washup of all that over a lifetime is what I have been giving you observed evidence of.

And none of you has any personal observed evidence to disprove it.

If SLR was really happening you would have that evidence. In spades.

But you haven't!

But then we all know that Dancing Doltoids Don't Do Data.

Only reconstructed.

And you desperately need that fakery because it is in your DNA.

Your science is dead.

R.I.P.

But don't think it hasn't been fun.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 12 Jun 2015 #permalink

Very good Jeff Harvey.
Possessing a PhD and being an 'academic' is not necessarily a key to wisdom.
We all, every last one of us, have a lot to learn.
Hubris is not productive.
It only ticks off the very demographic that can help to achieve NRM TBL outcomes.
My new employee actually understands that.
I am finding it perplexing that you argue about complexities in the biosphere on the one hand and yet claim there is only one social solution to all our ecological woes on the other.
Out here in the rough and tumble of the real world, human social sytems are complex too.

Drongo

And none of you has any personal observed evidence to disprove it.

But I am the King of Old Siam, so what I say must be true.

Drong

But then we all know that Dancing Doltoids Don’t Do Data.

Look upthread.

Only reconstructed.

Oh, you mean faked results?

And you desperately need that fakery because it is in your DNA.

Your science is dead.

So you do believe that it's all a conspiracy.

Here the path through the wild woods divides.

Nutters to the right, the rest straight ahead.

Stu 2, I notice that you're pretending that you are somehow intellectually equal with PhDs on a professional level.

Let's not be coy about this - if you are in NRM but not a scientist, you're at best a regional manager. Given your comments about bustards and the Murray Darling, you no doubt work with pastoralists which means that you'll have been selected yourself on the basis of a particular propensity for harmony with the major stakeholders of the region.

Further, you won't have employed anyone on the basis of your own decisions, but you will have been a part of a selection committee. Perhaps you are the person to whom NRM scientific staff report, but this doesn't mean that you are competent in making high level scientific decisions yourself. Further, I highly doubt that you are in any position to accurately comment on the motivations of scientific staff beyond what they tell you in order to get a job.

That there are so many species being lost is a reflection of the profound ecological crisis that humans have inflicted on the only planet in the known universe to support life. That it continues unabated is a serious indictment on the politicians and managers who succumb to vested interests and who do not touch on the root causes of the inexorable destruction of the biosphere.

And just quietly, we can never be "too focussed on counting what we've lost". If we don't pay scrupulous attention to the trajectory of populations, species, and their declines and extinctions we'll have taken our eye off the ball and before we know it, committed to failure the biological security of our own life support system.

It's people like you who are in fact a stand-by danger in the positions you hold.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 12 Jun 2015 #permalink

Poor Bernard J.
You couldn't have possibly made a worse guess.
The last thing I would do is work for a government agency or be reliant on government funding.
Been there, done that.
They are most definitely part of the problem.
You got that bit right!
I'm fascinated to know your definition of 'high level' however.
Looks like hubris is creeping in again?

And BTW Bernard.
That focus comment was not mine. It was from a PhD ecologist.
He would quite likely disagree with you by the looks of it.
He certainly didn't say it to impress me.
He is passionate about his work.

Ah, so you don't work for NRM, as you previously stated.

Got it.

And I didn't say that the "focus comment was yours. You're still struggling with parsing, as is typical.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 12 Jun 2015 #permalink

IN!!! Bernard J not FOR!!!
I'm definitely not the struggler here Bernard.
Neither am I the one who seems to think that he operates at some 'higher level' than everyone else.
I'm sure you are very good at what you do Bernard J.
Good for you.
I'm also good at what I do.

Stu2 writes, "I’m also good at what I do".

Which means nothing remotely close to environmental or climate science.

There, not we have that sorted. Yet Stu2, a guy who knows zilch about invasive species, thinks moose live in herds, and downplays global change actually think he's getting the better of people here in debates.

Go figure.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 13 Jun 2015 #permalink

Then Sd has the gall to say this: "But then we all know that Dancing Doltoids Don’t Do Data".

Utterly hilarious! This clown thinks that the empirical data is on his side! How more deluded can deniers get? If he's right, then every National Academy and scientific organization in very country on the planet who argue that AGW is very real and poses a profoundly major threat to humanity are not following the data! And it gets even better: stacks of peer-reviewed studies are disposable!

No wonder SD hides behind an anonymous handle and sticks to blogs. He can get away with saying outrageous crap and get away with it. In the scientific arena, he'd be tarred, feathered and sent packing.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 13 Jun 2015 #permalink

Bernard makes an outstanding comment above and, as per usual, Stu2 is unable to counter it. The most important part is where Bernard says that we are experiencing a serious ecological crisis, with species and genetically distinct populations being extirpated at rates many hundreds or thousands of times the natural background rate. These species are parts of our ecological life support systems, and by now we are well aware that their loss impedes the functioning the natural systems and reduces their capacity to produce a range of ecological services that permit humans to exist and to persist (see Daily, 1997, and Levin, 1999, for an overview; Costanza et al's seminal Nature paper got the ball rolling and the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment laid out the data for all to see - data SD `and Stu2 clearly have never read not understand).

Stu2 goes on about the 'PhD ecologist' he hired as if this young guy has a monopoly of wisdom. He doesn't. He's a greenhorn, a rookie, who will learn with time exactly the magnitude of the crisis we are facing. I've seen so many PhD students come and go in my academic career that I have virtually lost count. I am supervising 3 PhD and 5 Master's students right now, as well as 2 Post docs, and I can tell you that their learning curves are beginning. Of course Stu2 would never be allowed to formally supervise a PhD student because he is simply not qualified to do it. But note here how he has a propensity for suggesting that outliers like his rookie post doc and Starck appear to 'have it right' whereas a far vaster number of scientists, many much more qualified, like me - have it wrong.

If it isn't obvious by now it should be - he's projecting his own shallow world view as if its reality. Its for this reason that I expend the effort to debunk the nonsense he writes here. I have given plenty of examples with papers, all of which he ritually ignores. In a face to face debate I'd destroy him. But I cannot do that here, so I do what I can. It is still easy.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 13 Jun 2015 #permalink

I’m also good at what I do.

Well, see, that depends on what it is exactly that you do, and what ideological baggage you bring to it. If you "manage" natural resources but dismiss the necessity of "counting what we’ve lost" then you're operating with at least one hand tied behind your back.

As it is I'm pleased that you are not a manager in NRM. So what exactly is it that you do that involves "industrial ecology" (a blanket term that can encompass some awful excuse for wholesale destruction/degradation of valuable habitat)? Do you work for an agricultural enterprise of some sort?

And despite your involvement in recruiting PhD graduates, what makes you think that you understand the nuances of ecological management that is based on evidence? Just about everything that you've displayed on Deltoid would indicate that you're coming from a partisan position rather than an empirically-informed one.

If you are involved in blowing air up the arses of industry then I am sure that you are good at what you do.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 13 Jun 2015 #permalink

"“We just did. On this page.”

Oh dear! What a self deluding doltoid lot."

Yes, you are, spanky. We did put it there.

"That is simply a snapshot of ocean movement. "

And that is what SLR is. Ocean movement, the measure is a snapshot of it.

Words, they have meaning.

"“We just did. On this page.”

Oh dear! What a self deluding doltoid lot."

Yes, you are, spanky. We did put it there.

"That is simply a snapshot of ocean movement. "

And that is what SLR is. Ocean movement, the measure is a snapshot of it.

““We just did. On this page.”

Oh dear! What a self deluding doltoid lot.”

Yes, you are, spanky. We did put it there.

“That is simply a snapshot of ocean movement. ”

And that is what SLR is. Ocean movement, the measure is a snapshot of it.

"And none of you has any personal observed evidence to disprove it."

Even you just said we didn't have to. No takey-backeys on that.

"Let’s not be coy about this – if you are in NRM but not a scientist, you’re at best a regional manager."

Of course, he isn't in NRM.

He plays one on blogs, occasionally.

Even someone in NRM would either know Moose don't herd or would care to get it right.

Stupid does neither.

"Which means nothing remotely close to environmental or climate science.

There, not we have that sorted."

He won't say what he does, however, because that would be saying something.

Which is something Stupid won't do.

Mental problems.

"Stu2 goes on about the ‘PhD ecologist’ he hired as if this young guy has a monopoly of wisdom. He doesn’t."

Though the "he" here is Stupid, and the "doesn't" refers to the hiring of PhDs.

You don't think that Stupid ever said something accurate and true, did you?

"So what exactly is it that you do that involves “industrial ecology”"

Nothing. Stupid just made that up to pretend. It has no significance. As proof, Stupid will not corroborate or elaborate on the subject except to make a SQUIRREL! claim.

Also evidence of what he's doing here shows he's *terrible* at what he does.

He's only convinced himself of any of his points.

And then only maybe.

SpangledDrongo

Whatever a 'Spang' is and how it could lead. I would think that any self respecting drongo would be resentful at having its name usurped by one displaying the level of intelligence on display here, even though drongo has become a term of derision from what appears to be idiotic behaviour by that bird.

And none of you has any personal observed evidence to disprove it.

If SLR was really happening you would have that evidence. In spades.

At which point SD joins the ranks of the numskulls that an evolutionary biologist encountered here:

Richard Dawkins Interviews Creationist Wendy Wright (FULL)

and in order to prepare oneself for interview those intelligence challenged Dawkins tries to keep calm and not be rude, very difficult given the level of ignorance on display in the above:

What Dawkins did before talking to Wendy Wright to keep himself calm

Shame that Dawkins has chosen the wrong side of the GMO debate, but everyone has an Achilles tendon.

Jeff Harvey at #35 wrote:

"Costanza et al’s seminal Nature paper got the ball rolling"

Now I hope that has prompted Stu2 to actually look at that paper and try to understand where we are heading and why.

Here is a direct link for the Google challenged:

The value of the world’s ecosystem
services and natural capital
.

The opening paragraph encapsulates the root of the problem:

Because ecosystem services are not fully ‘captured’ in commercial markets or adequately quantified in terms comparable with economic services and manufactured capital, they are often given too little weight in policy decisions. This neglect may ultimately compromise the sustainability of humans in the biosphere.

Lionel

Where, 'elsewhere' is John Doe engaged in denialist discourse? I'd be very interested to see what he is doing.

BBD

John Doe has embedded himself in a number of article comment threads at DeSmogBlog, including this one:

http://www.desmog.uk/2015/06/11/texas-congressman-lamar-smith-declares-…

here

http://www.desmogblog.com/2015/05/19/super-bowl-energy-industry-fixates…

here

http://www.desmogblog.com/2015/06/04/epa-study-fracking-contaminates-wa…

and probably other articles I have not visited. I could say that he seems to have time to spare but his vacuous nonsense is simple enough to spew out fast.

Thanks Lionel.

JD is unfolding in fairly predictable ways, isn't he?

Bernard J @#36.
Now I'm fascinated to know what you think 'blowing air up the arses of industry' means?
And still waiting for your definition of 'high level'.
It does appear that my new guy's throw away line is being validated by you?
Did you miss the basics of my comment @#20 &@#25?.
Are you claiming that learning better ways to retain nutrients and (ecologically) enhancing soil is wrong and somehow intrinsically 'anti environmental'?

Actually I am also fascinated in your definition of 'pastoralists & major stakeholders of the region Bernard J. ???

Are you claiming that learning better ways to retain nutrients and (ecologically) enhancing soil is wrong and somehow intrinsically ‘anti environmental’?

There you go again, verballing me. Please point to any post of mine that could be construed as such.

After half a century of erosion, salination, fertility decline and strutural degradation t's about time though that Australian agriculture "learned" about nutrient retention and soil improvement. There have been many decades of research and empirical demonstration of the superiority of many techniques traditionally eschewed by conservative Australian farmers, and a great deal of scepticism aimed at the minority who are on the frontiers.

I hope that you're going truly "ecological" in your approach.

The rest of your faff - well, that's just an army of straw men. If you work as well as you debate, I'm surprised that you have a job in any sort of NRM. Although if it's amongst the rural broadacre sector, perhaps not so much so...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 13 Jun 2015 #permalink

Steyn IS sour grape at this point. He's only got credibility for those who hate ecology, the IPCC and government. And they'll dump his ass the second he doesn't claim they are all frauds and charlatans. If he's lucky it'll be only dump him, not hunt him down for being a traitor. Yes, they are that insane.

#52 Another Steyn howler...the man is so desperate to mouth off but is incapable of doing even the simplest research. He actually thought the Hockey Stick was a climate model. He's a deal more stupid than some of the rejectionists who champion him, but since he has a small loudhailer and a reputation for good copy among the keyboard warriors of the nutty right, they will follow him down the toilet. Serves them right.

BBD, a few more JDisms for you:

http://www.desmogblog.com/2015/06/03/whitewater-colorado-neighbors-suff…

http://www.desmogblog.com/2015/06/03/breaking-no-action-taken-proposal-…

http://www.desmogblog.com/2015/06/01/breaking-citizens-arrested-while-d…

That last one really underlines his sense of morality, or lack thereof.

Little wonder that the world is becoming FUBAR with crippled thinkers like this on the loose.

Russell #52

Another link failure.

Lionel

He's becoming rather prolific, isn't he? And quality is not improving with quantity. A truly unpleasant mind.

Russell's link is a classic, especially since Steyn has just been touted here.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 14 Jun 2015 #permalink

Perhaps there's movie potential here - Fifty First AGW-Denialist Canards.

And there's a solution begging - ever day denialists should watch a 15 minute video summarising why their memes are specicous. Then perhaps after a decade they might actually be able to move forward past the emotional/intellectual pathology of their ideology.

That's if their problems aren't organic...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 15 Jun 2015 #permalink

#61, you're a patient man Bernard!

Check the state of the art climate temperatures from USCRN and guess who contributed to their pristine assembly.

None other than Tom Karl, the same scientist who used junk science to falsely "dispose" of the hiatus:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/national-temperature-index/tim…

The conterminous US is cooling [as I tried to tell you Doltoids] so warming is obviously not the problem with the moose.

Oh the irony! I bet Karl will want to hide this.

And here's just that video you DDs need:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytzTMqs8XKA

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 15 Jun 2015 #permalink

"The conterminous US is cooling [as I tried to tell you Doltoids] so warming is obviously not the problem with the moose."

No, it is not. The decade you have linked to shows no statistically significant trend. And ten years does not climate make. How many times do science rejectionists need to have this explained??

Tom Karl did not use 'junk science'.

You present junk assertions. Their only utility is reminding us you're an idiot.

BBD #60

Not only in Hampshire and other southern regions but up as far as north as East Anglia and Mercia:

Joining the UKVA

but not just England but Scotland too.

Medieval Climate Anomaly, no match for today and besides was, as WE understand, temporally and regionally disjointed.

You're priceless, Nick.

So if the trend was the other way you would swear that it wasn't warming?

What a hypocrite.

And Tom Karl used engine intakes and ignored Argo.

You really get science, Nick.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 15 Jun 2015 #permalink

#66 What trend? What trend!? WHAT TREND!!!??? There is no trend in that decade. NONE. No trend to go 'one way' or 'the other way', and a decade remains not climate, as even basic textbooks have taught for years.

Why are you so stupid? WHY??

SD

And here’s just that video you DDs need:

That is just it we don't. We understand the issue and we also understand the history of denial, that is why I call foul on that drivel from an MP for right off the bat he makes a false claim with his opener 'No one has ever denied that carbon dioxide is a global warming gas. No one has.'

And it gets worse, with the most egregious deception highlighted:

'What does not follow is the argument that is so often put forward, which is that CO2 emitted by mankind has been completely responsible for the very minor increase in temperature that we have seen over the past 250 years.'

"So if the trend was the other way you would swear that it wasn’t warming?"

No, if the trend was THERE, we'd change our stance.

No confidence limits on your claim are proof it's religion not science you're spouting

"None other than Tom Karl, the same scientist who used junk science "

Given you have absolutely no clue what science is, your claim here is 100% unsupported bollocks, dearie.

"And Tom Karl used engine intakes and ignored Argo."

By which you mean used engine intakes AND Argo.

That IS the reality, Spanky. He used both.

Nick is correct. Dumbo has not even a basic understanding of the improtance of scale in elucidating trends and processes. Hardly surprising given he's a scientific neonate. For a deterministic system 10 years is nothing. Zilch.

SD is so utterly ignorant that he expects cause-and-effect relationships to be instantaneous'; thus, its warm one year and the next year there are all kinds of ecological responses. He's never heard of time lags and ecological debts (Tilman and May, 1994, Nature), something that for ecologists is easy to understand.

Its for this reason as well as others that dopes like SD aren't worth the time of day.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 15 Jun 2015 #permalink

And why no data from before 2005, huh? PROOF that Spanky is cooking the books and fiddling the figures to endorse his claim and make buckets of cash!

Odin on a stick, you're thick Drongo. As others have mentioned above, and as I and others have REPEATEDLY told you, with reference to statistics and graphs and the inherent variability of the climate signal, an underlying temperature trend cannot on average be identified in a period less than about 20 years. At a minimum.

Do I really have to link for you again? Fuck it, here you are.

So your post is completely spurious, ill-informed, and a florid display of your ignorance.

And the bit about the moose at #63 - really?! First, the problem with cold-adapted ungulates is not the temperature trend over the last ten years, but the temperature trend over the last hundred, and the trend over the next hundred. The change to date is already stressing them, and the change to come is a serious threat. Are you so bloody stupid that you don't grasp this?! And the contiguous US doess not exactly overlap with the stronghold of the moose. To the north, and further into Canada and especially toward the pole, the warming trend has been greater.

Even a ten year old would understand these points after having them explained to them once. In fact I'll try it out on my 7 year old tomorrow to see how long it takes for understanding to be achieved.

I think that you've had too much sun, watching the tides go out on the Nerang.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 15 Jun 2015 #permalink

Bernard J.
Spangled Drongo's link is pertinent to those particular moose.
The moose population in the other regions you mention is not exhibiting signs of stress due to temperature.
If you're talking to your 7 years old I would suggest that 'cold-adapted ungulates' may not mean much unless you supply some visual material.
My kids are rather good at spotting the habit of comparing apples with oranges, or in this particular case it's more like grapes with watermelons.

I'm curious, Stu2, which part of the "contiguous US average temperature record" is relevant to Moose habitat?

In other words, do you agree with Spangled Drongo that a great many Moose live in Florida, Texas, California and Wisconsin?

Or would you be smart enough to realise that, just maybe, if you were interested in Moose, you might look at what temperatures were doing in Anchorage:
http://akclimate.org/Trends/PANC.png
or Fairbanks:
http://akclimate.org/Trends/PAFA.png

I guess, what I'm asking is: are you as much of a dill as the Drongo?

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 15 Jun 2015 #permalink

1.4 degree warming trend since 2005!

Reckon that might be relevant to Drongo's Moose?

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 15 Jun 2015 #permalink

The Dancing Doltoid Deniers here don't even get that this new USCRN system only started in 2005.

Interesting that a state-of-the-art measurement system contributed to by Tom Karl shows cooling in the conterminous US since its inception and in 2007 Giss changed the Leaderboard in the US temperature open to restate that 1934 was the warmest year on record:

http://climateaudit.org/2007/08/08/a-new-leaderboard-at-the-us-open/

Even Real Climate begrudgingly admitted Hansen's "Y2K Error"

"The net effect of the change was to reduce mean US anomalies by about 0.15 for the years 2000-2006. There were some very minor knock on effects in earlier years due to the GISTEMP adjustments for rural vs. urban trends. In the global or hemispheric mean, the differences were imperceptible (since the US is only a small fraction of the global area).

There were however some very minor re-arrangements in the various rankings (see data). Specifically, where 1998 (1.24 anomaly compared to 1951-1980) had previously just beaten out 1934 (1.23 ) for the top US year, it now just misses: 1934 1.25 vs. 1998 1.23. None of these differences are statistically significant."

What? No warming in the US during a human lifetime?

How long do moose live?

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 15 Jun 2015 #permalink

Drongo, the USCRN shows massive temperature increases in Anchorage, Fairbanks, and other areas that are the Moose habitat.

The temperatures you refer to have nothing to do with where the Moose live.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 15 Jun 2015 #permalink

CT, please get yourself into the real world.

Moose are doing really well in Alaska.

In places like Anchorage they are a bigger threat to safety than bears.

It is the moose in the marginal areas like Minnesota that were being discussed.

Enough with the strawmen.

But when I previously claimed the CUS was cooling you Doltoids cussed me and said it was warming.

You were wrong again.

No warming in 80 years in the CUS.

No SLR on the east coast of Aus in 70 years.

Wash the sheets and go back to sleep.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 15 Jun 2015 #permalink

Interesting that Gavin Schmidt never put that conceded change to the Leaderboard on the temperature history webpage but left it hidden at RC.

Could that possibly be because they knew they would have to reconstruct that data many times?

Because we all know how the past changes all the time and those dancing angels never stand still.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 15 Jun 2015 #permalink

And Bernie baby at 75: what a simpleton!

Yes, a 10 year old would get that it hasn't warmed in the CUS for the last 80 years but not our Baby Bern.

How's the PhD comin', Bern?

Need a good thesis?

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 15 Jun 2015 #permalink

Drongo, you shouldn't believe your denialist mates when it comes to data. There is demosntrable warming in the US:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/images/indicator_downloads/temperature…

So, unsurprisingly, you're wrong again.

In my more rash moments down at the pub with my colleagues I've occasionally been toying with the idea of doing a second PhD, in psychology. I have enough undergraduate and postgraduate psych subjects under my belt that I could probably get in without doing anymore coursework, and I'm fascinated by the mindests of science denialists. Perhaps I could study you and your mates here - would you be ammenable to serious structured psychometric analysis?

I'm not sure that I'd waste my time though: the fundamental issues with your lot is pretty obvious.

And on that subject, how's your Higher School Certificate going?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 15 Jun 2015 #permalink

Baby Bern could be suffering from this problem:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3124623/Is-climate-chang…

If the world is getting hotter and rising temporaries do favour the birth of girls, a change to the global sex ratio may happen one day.

A study in 2002 found that 101 boys are born compared to 100 girls.

So, nothing happening yet, but still, maybe he's a girl.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 15 Jun 2015 #permalink

So what's baby bern's withering response?

"Obamascience has it all worked out and you better believe it."

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 15 Jun 2015 #permalink

Drongo, it's been known for many, many decades that humans have a skewed gender ratio. From my own old demography folder I have a paper by Lowe and Mckeown published in 1950, by McMahan in 1951, a few from the 1960s, and a notable one from Beiles in 1974 that promoted the idea of group selection.

The 101:100 figure has been kicking around for far longer than 2002, and in many populations the ratio is greater. Helle et al 2009 found suggestions that WWII and warmth may have increased the ratio in Finland (in contrast to your suggestion) but they acknowledge that there are other, unidentified factors involved.

So, nothing happening yet, but still, maybe he’s a girl.

So, on top of everything else you're a mysogynistic bastard. Right.

You might be interested to know though that many speices, especially amongst the reptiles, are extremely temperature sensitive in their reproduction, with gender determined by temperature rather than by sex chromosomes. The tuatara, turtles, and crocodilians are particularly notable vulnerable taxa.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 15 Jun 2015 #permalink

And Bern's Obamascience splices [incorrect] satellite data onto ground data [incorrectly] to make a point. Can you bear it?

Your angels are well and truly tipsy today, Bern love.

And you would think if they were gonna quote UAH and RSS they would at least use the correct data:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1996.65/plot/rss/from:1996.5

No warming, Bern.

And when you use that "M" word on those who don't agree with you, you really help to confirm the suspicion.

Now, who does that remind me of?

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 15 Jun 2015 #permalink

Hat you to miss it:

"No category 3-5 hurricane has hit the United States for a record 9-1/2 years. Tornadoes, droughts, polar bears, polar ice, sea levels and wildfires are all in line with (or improvements on) historic patterns and trends. The Sahel is green again, thanks to that extra CO2. And the newly invented disasters they want to attribute to fossil fuel-driven climate change – allergies, asthma, Islamic State and Boko Haram – don’t even pass the laugh test."

http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/twin-peaks-twin-lies.html

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 15 Jun 2015 #permalink

And Bern’s Obamascience splices [incorrect] satellite data onto ground data [incorrectly] to make a point.

God you're stupid.

The satellite data are not "spliced" onto the ground station data, they overlay it. If you look with anything more than a cursory glance you can see all three separate sets.

And guess what - the satellite data mirror the ground station data!

Ba-bow.

This is another famous own-goal brought to you by Spamgled Drongo.

[I was going to edit the typo but I thought that it was too apt...]

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 15 Jun 2015 #permalink

"And guess what – the satellite data mirror the ground station data!"

That says it all, Bern.

You are the stupid one!

You have never seen satellite data like that before in your life and neither have I.

Also, that splice is not only incorrect according to the judge [WFT], it is incorrectly placed, incorrectly converted to Fahrenheit as well as incorrectly showing warming in excess of 1998.

Crap obamascience. And you swallow it because it agrees with your crap ideology.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 15 Jun 2015 #permalink

The fact is, foolish boy, that USCRN cooling land data that Karl was involved in replaces that obamascience of the EPA.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 15 Jun 2015 #permalink

You what's amusing about SD's profoundly vacuous blubberings? That, like other non-scientist AGW deniers, his views contradict those of >90% of the world's climate science community and run straight in the face of the empirical evidence; biotic proxies alone prove its warming, and there are thousands of studies detailing them.

So Sf is stuck as an anonymous entity on blogs where he thinks he's an alpha male, bloated ego and all, with no bonafides whatsoever to back it up. I showed yesterday how he is unable to comprehend the importance of scale; the word's deterministic and stochastic sail right over his head. But again, its not surprising since he's self-taught, along with the idealogical baggage he carries with him.

At least his vacuous musings are entertaining. We do need comic relief on this site. Thanks to him, Olaus, Rednose and a few others we are provided with it.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 16 Jun 2015 #permalink

"The Sahel is green again, thanks to that extra CO2"

Oh pu-lease, Spangled Dopey. Don't go down that long discredited road again. Its one of the deniers main canards and yet it is so anti-science as to be beyond ridicule - almost. Carbon is not a limiting resource in nature; nitrogen and phosphorus are. Moreover, plant stoichiometry is complex (e.g. it affects plant secondary metabolites which are C or N based) and this has significant effects up the food chain on the nutritional ecology of consumers, for whom N is far more limiting than C.

Trust SD to link a blog written by another non-scientist idiot for his arguments. The 'C is plant food' bullshit comes straight out of the deniers sandbox (to be fair, that is where most of them are based). I've vanquished this nonsense here several times before in the face of other equally mentally challenged AGW deniers, then SD dredges it up again.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 16 Jun 2015 #permalink

Again, SD comments in an area well beyond his competence with respect to moose demographics.

Of course it is warming in Alaska at a very significant rate (the data are there), but the moose living there are closer to the northern edge of their range. This means that as it warms, there is a transient period during which temperatures fall more within their optimal thermoneutral zone (which is narrow to begin with), explaining why, for the time being at least, they are doing well in ore northerly areas. Its a very different story at the southern edge of their range boundary, where temperatures are rising and moose are being driven outside of their thermoneutral optima. This explains the collapsing numbers there. At the edge of a species range conditions are always suboptimal; rapid shifts in abiotic conditions, especially temperature, will hit these populations generally earlier than those in the center of the range or on the edge where conditions temporarily become better. Its not always so clear, though: during severe ENSO years, populations of species like Yellow-Billed Cuckoo and Summer Tanager are often hit hard in the middle of their breeding range. This could be due to the fact that these populations are less vigorous than those at the edge, which are physiologically more plastic and where there is more phenotypic variation. In any case, moose are certainly in trouble at the southern edge of their range. There are no ifs ands or buts. And if it continues to warm at the rate it is across their range, then as a species they are in serious trouble, a similar situation facing polar bears.

Moreover, moose, like polar bears, are proxies for climate warming but there are hundreds and hundreds of studies in the empirical literature detailing ecophysiological and demographic changes in a vast array of organisms in response to recent warming. And the trends are clearly very worrying: lower natality, increased mortality, and changes in important fitness-related traits. I write this for the open-minded reader, not for dopes like SD whose understanding of the field is non-existent. His points are so easy to demolish, yet he comes back again and again with more empty nonsense. This sums up the mindset of this lot.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 16 Jun 2015 #permalink

So Jeffie, do you really believe that additional atmo CO2 is not helping things grow? Haven't noticed any improvement? And apart from pointless waffle about your concern, what do you actually, physically do to assist the environment?

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 16 Jun 2015 #permalink

Jim Steele is a crank, Drongo. Why should we waste time, money and effort reading what he peddles?

Drongo

Re: 'no warming' claim in UAH and RSS TLT satellite data.

This claim is false as regards UAH.

UAH TLT has a positive warming trend of 0.12C / decade over the period 1996 - present.

Mind you, this comparison of the satellite data sets certainly shows how much of an outlier RSS has become since it started to drift post-2004.

You can see just how much of an outlier RSS has become by making further comparisons with land surface data.

Clearly, RSS should not be used until this issue is resolved.

* * *

You have never seen satellite data like that before in your life and neither have I.

Also, that splice is not only incorrect according to the judge [WFT], it is incorrectly placed, incorrectly converted to Fahrenheit as well as incorrectly showing warming in excess of 1998.

WTF are you wittering about now?

There is no 'splicing' of satellite and land surface data here. The two are and have always been distinct.

SD at #90: now that you've mastered the "From" in wft, try the tend function. All you have to do with your plot is open the menu for the box under" from" and select "trend"...

By turboblocke (not verified) on 16 Jun 2015 #permalink

"I’m curious, Stu2, which part of the “contiguous US average temperature record” is relevant to Moose habitat?"

Nothing, Stupid knows it's not going to help him to look at what Spanky posts, so he doesn't read it, just leaps to a claim. Without evidence.

That's what he does.

Spanky whines: "CT, please get yourself into the real world."

He is.

Unlike your good self, dearie.

“The Sahel is green again, thanks to that extra CO2″

No, it's still a dry and unpleasant desert.

Turboblocke

SD at #90: now that you’ve mastered the “From” in wft

Did you notice the carefully cherry-picked start points Drongo used?

Rule of thumb: any time-series that starts within a year rather than at the beginning of that year is intentionally misleading.

Mind you, he probably just copied it from Monckton or some other lying charlatan. I'm not even *sure* at this point that Drongo doesn't think that RSS is a surface temperature data set. Some of the stuff he wrote on the previous page is simply incomprehensible. Perhaps one needs to be drunk to soak up meaning from the pool of words.

#81 "The Dancing Doltoid Deniers here don’t even get that this new USCRN system only started in 2005"

So don't use it, you cretin! Only ten years! No trend! etc. All Bernards links at #75 are for you. Use them and learn why you are being foolish.

"Interesting that a state-of-the-art measurement system contributed to by Tom Karl shows cooling in the conterminous US since its inception"

again, drongo, it does not... repeating your errors does not advance your claims, fish-in-a-barrel

Also, that splice is not only incorrect according to the judge [WFT]...

Again, for the hard of understanding, the data are not spliced.

And WFT is not a judge, it's a data repository. How one manipulates and interprets the data reflects one's competence, and yours is reflecting a blank slate...

...it is incorrectly placed...

The time values are correct.

Or do you have an issue with the vertical placement of anomalies...?

...incorrectly converted to Fahrenheit...

Do you have a reference for that?

...as well as incorrectly showing warming in excess of 1998.

Yes, there's a reason for that...

Tell me, do you enjoy embarrassing yourself Drongo?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 16 Jun 2015 #permalink

As usual, Bernie, you prefer either obamajunk or dancing angels to make your biased point instead of state of the art data.

But we know that DDs can't live in the real world.

I realise that 80 years in the US without warming and 70 years here without SLR is just too much to bear.

But help is at hand. The Pope may come and rescue your religion at the expense of his own.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 16 Jun 2015 #permalink

#81 “The Dancing Doltoid Deniers here don’t even get that this new USCRN system only started in 2005″

Moreover, Spanky and his cretinous pals keep whining about the same "problem" with the other datasets.

He only "understands" that reason when it's used against his cherry pick, which is a cherry pick of which dataset he uses.

"I realise that 80 years in the US without warming "

Is a fiction. As is the following claim.

We are not at all surprised.

Drongo, construct a response with analysis that holds more water than a torn fishnet.

Can you do that? Can you?!

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 16 Jun 2015 #permalink

The drongo: "I realise that 80 years in the US without warming and 70 years here without SLR is just too much to bear."

It would be easy to bear if it was reality.

You are one crazy old fool, drongo

Drongo

You blanked my #1 correcting your false claim that the UAH TLT product shows 'no warming' since 1996.

Every time I correct your errors you blank me. Every time.

On this occasion, since this is a simple matter of right and wrong, I would like you to acknowledge that you made an error.

Please, do it in your next post.

Thank you.

How about considering that Spanky needs to at the very least acknowledge the error and refrain from repeating it, else we will just respond to the multitudinous cretinous claims from Spamming Donkey with variations of the form

"You have made and continue to make the same error in one claim you made that was examined. Given your failure remains, your future claims remain unreliable and can be summarily ignored".

"More bollocks, Spanky" would be a shorter version...

So tonight I said to my seven year old "sweetheart, come here" and I showed her a graph of global temperature and explained to her what the axes meant, and I asked her to look at the last portion and tell me if it was warming. She said "sometime it is, and sometimes it isn't". I told her that it was a bit like last week when it was warmer than the week before, even though we're heading toward the middle of a southern winter. I didn't even need to say anything further because she said "because sometimes it's rainy and the wind comes from there (pointing south), and sometimes it's sunny and the wind comes from there (pointing north-west)?". And I said yes, but if this week is warmer than last week, does that mean that we're not going to have colder weather on your school holidays (in July) and she said "no daddy, because winter's is just starting".

Tick.

So then I asked her to look at the whole of the graph and tell me if she thought that it was warming, cooling, or staying the same. She paused only for a second or two and then pointed to the two ends and said "it's warmer now than it was then [beginning of the 20th century] and it's warmer now than then [about around 1975]". She already knows about the 'greenhouse effect' and the implications for cryophilic species, and she asked why there were wiggles in the line. I told her that there were a few different reasons but that one was because sometimes a lot of the extra heat went into the oceans rather than warming the land, and sometimes a bit less went into the oceans, and more to the land. She didn't grasp why this was important until I then explained that it takes more energy to heat water by a certain amount that it takes to heat the dry surface, and she twigged in about another two seconds - she said "so if more energy goes into the water is doesn't warm up as much on the land?"

Bingo.

And then off her own bat she said "so it's like when [her brother] has his sail boat in the bath and the top [of the mast] pokes over the edge?" I wasn't quite sure that she'd grokked it and I was going to interrupt and elaborate, but she continued "and when the bath is almost filled I can start to see the top of the boat over the side all the time instead of just sometimes?"

Bazinga. She understood noise (splashing) and signal (bath filling).

A seven year old girl can grasp these concepts. And yet they escape the understanding of men many decades older than her.

Let me repeat this - the deniers here have been beaten by a seven year old girl, in all of about ten minutes..

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 16 Jun 2015 #permalink

Notice how after my latest demolition of SD he's reduced to arguing about C02 as plant food again. The age old myth.

Every here of the world QUALITY Dumbo? Not necessarily correlated with quantity... Increased atmospheric C does not provide net benefits to plant fitness in terms of optimal stoichiometry and most certainly will reduce nutritional quality for many herbivores based on suboptimal N levels and potentially increased allelochemicals. Also the effects depend on metabolic pathways (e.g. C3, C4 etc). and how they respond to it, as well as to other abiotic factors like temperature and precipitation. The effects are decidely non-linear. Ecosystems are complex adaptive systems, not simple little green patches that you envisage...

But all of this is over SD's little noggin.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 16 Jun 2015 #permalink

OMG, Jim Steele, another pseudo on the academic fringe. Last week it was Walter Starck from Stu2, and now its Jim Steele from SD. These clowns must scrape under every rock to find deniers with little in the way of relevant expertise or academic standing to spew out the nonsense that they can regurgiate. Go to the primary literature - its all in there. Starck and Steele are to be avoided like the plague. They don't write primary literature and thus are not credible.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 16 Jun 2015 #permalink

Stu 2, why are you plotting just ten years?

Are you younger than seven years old?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 16 Jun 2015 #permalink

If you check out that Amazon page for Jim Steele's book and look at the "Customers also bought...", you see
Spencer
Singer
Montford
Svensmark
...

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 16 Jun 2015 #permalink

Bernard J.
Great post about rational though processes.
Thank you.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 16 Jun 2015 #permalink

Yes, Stu, Bern is too thick to understand that when, in 2007, both James Hansen and Gavin Schmidt were forced to admit that the warmest year in the US was 1934 and since 2005 the state of the art measurements show no warming [in both the US and the globe], there has therefore been no warming in the US for over 80 years.

BTW, is that the data you showed your 7 year old, Bern?

Or are you too stupid too tell your kids the truth?

It's not as if you haven't been given the facts. Unlike today's ignorant experts:

ScienceDaily:

"Eating up to 100 g of chocolate every day is linked to lowered heart disease and stroke risk. The calculations showed that compared with those who ate no chocolate higher intake was linked to an 11% lower risk of cardiovascular disease and a 25% lower risk of associated death."

They base their findings on almost 21,000 adults taking part in the EPIC-Norfolk study…

It only seem like yesterday when the ignorant experts were telling us that chocolate was junk food.

This vaguely reminds me of something...

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 16 Jun 2015 #permalink

Yeah, I too remember that vast worldwide UN-led conspiracy to suppress chocolate.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 16 Jun 2015 #permalink

I wonder what Spangled Drongo thinks of:
- fluoride
- vaccination
- chemtrails

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 16 Jun 2015 #permalink

I just had a closer read of Drong's latest emission.
ROTFL.

Let me isolate the argument:

-the warmest year in the US was 1934
-since 2005 ... measurements show no warming
-therefore been no warming in the US for over 80 years

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 16 Jun 2015 #permalink

Poor ol' CT can't work out that if in 2007 the warmest year is agreed to be 1934 and the best data says that it has cooled since 2005 then there is not much recent warming happening.

Bern, you are avoiding my question. Did you show your 7 yo that real data that Hansen and Schmidt were lead kicking and screaming to admit to or did you feed her your standard dancing angels?

Little girls love dancing angels but you gotta go easy on the propaganda for her sake.

I'll bet she also understands that you can't push bathwater up one end of the tub while you dry yourself like you seem to.

I'm sure if you showed her the real data she would come to a different conclusion than you.

But then, that wouldn't be hard, would it?

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 16 Jun 2015 #permalink

This appears to be a variation on Drongo's idiotic "King Tide in 1948 proves no sea level rise" argument.

The answer is: no, one datapoint does not invalidate a trend. Nor can it contradict physics and the physical reality it describes.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 16 Jun 2015 #permalink

Please pay attention, CT. That link of yours is NOT observations.

That is your dancing angels. Mixed with EPA regs.

Obamajunk! Not science.

At least show the state of the art measurements if you expect anyone other than Doltoids to believe you.

And as to be expected, WRT chocolate, you don't get my point about the science never being settled.

The unknown unknowns.

What foolish hubris.

When DDs can extrapolate, from the world coming out of the coldest period of the Holocene and at the same time producing record amounts of CO2 due to the industrial rev yet still being below average climate nat var, that somehow we are heading for catastrophic warming, shows a very unsceptical, blinkered, biased belief.

Move along, move along. Nothing rational here.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 16 Jun 2015 #permalink

You have validated the theory of SLR, no doubt, CT with some personal, observable evidence?

Or is it just some more chocolate theory?

But you'll find it's a lot easier to validate than chocolate if you get off your arse and pay attention to the real world.

And let me know when you have. I'd be fascinated to check your evidence.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 16 Jun 2015 #permalink

Drongo.

1) The US is (a bit less than) 2% of the planet. We're talking about global warming, so why are you fixated on the US?

2) 1934 is one data point in over a hundred years of US temperature records, and it's an old one and potentially biased high. The overall trend is warming.

Why are you fixated on one point 80 years ago that is not representative of the time?

3) You've been told countless times (most recently here) that the year-to-year variability from internal climate processes invalidate any conclusion based on less than about 20 years of data is fraught. In fact if you want to be precise a period of 15 years gives you only a 50:50 chance of identifying the underlying trend, and to get a 95% confident of spotting the trend given the characterisitic after-regression-residual variability of the global temperature trajectory you need a minimum interval of at least 24 years.

This is the graph I showed my daughter Drongo:

https://archive.is/WmYSZ

If you have any technical issues with its depiction of global temperature please be thorough (and referenced) in detailing them here.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 16 Jun 2015 #permalink

Drongo, you are avoiding my questions. Why are you improperly cherry picking trivial individual data points and inappropriate data subsets?

Are you brain damaged, inherently stupid, completely uneducated, ideologically-blinkered, lobbying for vested interests, or a combination of some or all of the above?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 16 Jun 2015 #permalink

"The US is (a bit less than) 2% of the planet. We’re talking about global warming, so why are you fixated on the US?"

That simply came from your Moose discussion. Forgotten already?

Meanwhile, be aware of all those past adjustments and tell your 7yo the frauds awa the facts.

US and global adjustments:

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/tracking-us-temperature-fraud/

http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/ScreenHunter_2…

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 16 Jun 2015 #permalink

Drongo really is living up to the slang definition of his name.

That "no warming for 80 years" argument because one old data point plus a trend over the last 10 years is allegedly more indicative than a trend over the actual 80 year period in question deserves to go into the list of classic denialist illogic. It's almost as illogical as "if I don't think there's SLR in my back yard, there can't be any global SLR, even though other people see it in their back yard therefore by the same logic it must be rising everywhere".

And citing the incredibly incompetent Steven Goddard? Superb clown trolling - real cream pie in his own face stuff ;-)

Then there's nothing like jamming "Obama" into any and all terms that you use to describe of scientific data or research to point out that you're not trying to persuade people based on scientific evidence, you're trying to appeal to their political biases. (That's even more illogical when much of your audience doesn't share the bias you're trying to appeal to.)

But the real clincher is trying to argue that "past adjustments" are "frauds", when:

(a) the argument that adjustments are "fraudulent" shows zero sign of understanding the systematic biases that must be corrected, hence

(b) it almost always implies that reconstructions using raw measurements are accurate measures of global or regional trends when they are known to require correction, so it is an appeal to use measures that are known to be less accurate rather than those known to be more accurate and

(c) global warming over the last several decades is slower in a number of the adjusted data sets than the raw data, plus

(d) you have to (once again) blatantly cherrypick the adjustments of the last few years (and apparently 2% of the earth's surface) instead of the whole period and globe in question to try and deceive gullible readers.

So, same old same old that doesn't deceive the brighter kids, let alone the average adult...

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 16 Jun 2015 #permalink

And as to be expected, WRT chocolate, you don’t get my point about the science never being settled.

Firstly, this is a lie if we take the commonly understood notion of "settled". A whole bunch of science is indeed pretty much settled.

Secondly, even if we substitute the far more accurate "provisional, pending additional evidence" for "settled", in my experience 99% of people who cite that fact use it to "justify" outright denialism (most often by denying the confidence intervals or uncertainty levels associated with the current understanding).

That fact that science is always provisional does not mean that you can reject the current state of the art because it just might need improvement, nor does it mean that you can deny the confidence level attached to that current state of the art.

However Drongo does. Worse still, he cites the ongoing efforts to improve our understanding as evidence of fraud, apparently not even understanding that ongoing adjustments are precisely what he should expect if he thinks that science cannot ever be settled.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 16 Jun 2015 #permalink

Here are the Giss adjustments in cooling the earlier past and warming the more recent past.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/03/giss-hockey-stick-adjustments/

It's work in progress. Only the future is assured. The past may change at any time.

Don't forget to tell the kids.

" A whole bunch of science is indeed pretty much settled."

Is it Lothe love?

And how about that other bunch that isn't?

Like that soft ol' climate science where the models still wander off into the stratosphere in comparison with obs?

Y'know, where even the most blatant fiddling that you think is necessary and justified just can't keep up?

Where 2 centuries after the LIA and the IR we are still below average on climate nat var?

Are we at all sceptical or even slightly rational yet, Lothe?

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 16 Jun 2015 #permalink

...and now, for his source, Drongo uses a university-dropout ex-TV-weatherman with no qualifications in anything.

Drongo, why on earth do you want 4th-hand opinionated nonsense-interpretations about the science instead of going straight to a credible source of science?

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 16 Jun 2015 #permalink

On other matters... I often talk about the thermodynamics limits of growth on the planet. There's a paper out today in Nature Communication s that discusses one of the consequences thereof, with respect to the flat-lining of ocean harvest productivity:

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150616/ncomms8365/full/ncomms8365.html

I remember as a boy hearing that the oceans were endless sources of bounty that could feed the planet many times over. Even at the time, before I'd ever set foot in a uni lab or conducted a population survey, I couldn't understand the irrational optimism of such a claim.

Although it's not actually the first time that such findings have been published the data are well and truly in now, and there are serious issues to be addressed if the world isn't to drive a huge part of marine biodiversity to extinction from direct exploitation practices. Add to that warming and acidification and there's a big mess brewing indeed.

But listen to the Australia conservative government and you'd believe that the world is a cornucopia of juicy natural fatness just begging - nay, demanding - to be exploited, and that it's "man's" duty to harvest the fruits of God's benevolence.

There's so much writing on the wall but we live in a world of high-level illiterates.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 16 Jun 2015 #permalink

S0 what you're saying Drongo is that the data to which I linked is fine, but it sticks in your craw to admit it and instead you're forced to link to fatuous pseudoscience from paid numpties who want you to believe that black is white and 2 + 2 = 5.

That sort of garbage only fools the fools.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 16 Jun 2015 #permalink

"Drongo, why on earth do you want 4th-hand opinionated nonsense-interpretations about the science instead of going straight to a credible source of science?"

Answer is simple: because the actual science shows conclusions that differ completely from the puerile crap that SD peddles. SD doesn't do the primary literature, for three reasons: he probably cannot access it, he wouldn't understand it if he could access it, and the data draw very different conclusions from the blog/non peer-reviewed non published crap he posts up here.

Watching SD squirm in his own ignorance is fun though, as it must to some extent be for the rest of us. Anybody coming here for the first time can clearly see who is way ahead in these debates. It ain't him.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 17 Jun 2015 #permalink

And how about that other bunch that isn’t?

So...no actual question and no demonstration that the science you reckon is "fraudulent" is "not settled", let alone actually fraudulent. And the ability to figure out which is which is the key question here, and the key deficiency that you exhibit. Instead of supporting your earlier argument you resort to merely JAQing off.

How gullible do you reckon your audience has to be to be swayed by your rhetoric here?

Like that soft ol’ climate science where the models still wander off into the stratosphere in comparison with obs?

Only when one incompetently misinterpret what they say, SD.

And you prefer sources of argument that do just that. Heck, you prefer sources of argument who get much much simpler science wrong, like how to measure the global or US continental warming trend. (FWIW, Steven Goddard has even more spectacular Epic Fails than that to his credit. I seem to recall some truly gobsmackingly incompetent analyses of ice data, for one thing.)

Where 2 centuries after the LIA and the IR we are still below average on climate nat var?

Predictably, you're not only changing the subject away from one where you've been caught out yet again, but you're still so incompetent and grossly stupid that you change it back to one where you've already been caught out. Apparently you can't grok the invalid logic you are relying upon here, despite having had it handed to you on a plate multiple times, and yet you are still arrogantly asserting that we are the ones who have it wrong. Have you thought about volunteering for a study with Messrs Dunning and Kruger?

Are we at all sceptical or even slightly rational yet, Lothe?

There's no we here, SD, except the royal we. You are clearly not the slightest bit sceptical of egregiously illogical arguments if you like their conclusions, as has been pointed out many many times over the years, and the illogic you confidently tout hints at severe deficiencies in your rational faculties.

And nothing anyone says to you will give you the slightest glimmer of understanding of those facts.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 17 Jun 2015 #permalink

I've already linked a number of scientific studies that have explicitly examined moose demographics across the northern US; no need to re link them. They show without any shadow of a doubt that moose populations are in free fall in these areas. Sd relies on his right wing faith to say, "It's not true! How can it be? It's not warming!" in the face of empirical data.

Let me also state categorically that there is a huge amount of evidence showing northward range shifts of invertebrate and vertebrate species in the US and Canada over the past century. I'll give a list of some of the more dramatic ones later (includes Red Bellied Woodpecker, Virginia Opossum and many others, but the list is lengthy). Species don't move polewards at the same time unless there is some major abiotic factor involved. That factor is warming. End of story.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 17 Jun 2015 #permalink

# 39 "Where 2 centuries after the LIA and the IR we are still below average on climate nat var?"

What does this even mean? Are 'we' failing to meet some kind of 'performance indicator', arbitrarily imposed by a bloke with early childhood math levels? Who's been misleading you this time drongo, what giant of internet contrarianism coughed up that one?

Drongo, if you think centennial trends are set by one data point, it's no wonder that you're easy meat for 'Goddard'. You rail against what you perceive as credulous behavior, but you outsource your thinking to paranoic semi-pro liars who simply do not understand how to handle data., and implicitly reject the knowledge and methodologies that are everyday in use by science engineering and industry.

So Heartbern now puts on his "Limits to Growth" religious regalia.

Stick to the discussion, Bern, and stop waffling. I know you can't win the argument but spare us the Sierra Club and Club of Rome claptrap.

Unless of course you intend to lead a large lot of your loyal lemings over the long leap.

And do us all a favour.

But oh dear, the Doltoids don't do data do they?

Here's some beautiful stuff from NOAA this time:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/29/noaas-temperature-control-knob-fo…

Notice the NOAA badge on the graph and the cooling trend since 1900.

Make sure your kids see this, Bern. Hate to see them misinformed by a one eyed parent.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 17 Jun 2015 #permalink

Poor silly Jeff still doesn't get that my only comment regarding moose was they are not dying from warming if there ain't no warming.

No warming, jeffie, GEDDIT?

The ignorance [stupidity?] of experts strikes again.

Check that NOAA graph immediately above where they now admit that 1936 was the warmest and it has been all down hill since.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 17 Jun 2015 #permalink

But what Doltoids like Nick do very well is ad hom the messenger when they can't deal with the message.

So what are your calcs on the average nat var per c over the last 80?

Show us all where he is wrong?

Or at least do what I do and provide an alternative.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 17 Jun 2015 #permalink

Poor silly Jeff still doesn’t get that my only comment regarding moose was they are not dying from warming if there ain’t no warming.

Your average high school kid can point out the fallacy in that line.

SD can't see it though. And because he can't he asserts that everyone who can is irrational and he is not.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 17 Jun 2015 #permalink

Show us all where he is wrong?

I already did when you first came out with this nonsense. You denied this by ignoring it. You're still denying it.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 17 Jun 2015 #permalink

# 49, ad hom-ing you is the only pleasure available, given the excruciating imbecility of your posts and your immovability on matters already over-explained to you...

You can please yourself, concede nothing, learn nothing...no one is under any doubt about how and why you make your mistakes.

Your link to WUWT and Dnes' meaningless piece about GISS adjustments says nothing about why data was adjusted...why? Why does he bother clustering periods into 'trends in adjustment 'direction' beyond because that's all he knows to do. Surely you'd want to know the reasons? Of course you might not need to know if you are happy with one data point in seventy years...and that leads to the question why do you even care what Dnes has to say, your 'result' is already lodged firmly where your brain used to be. But, in your rejection of all data but Cleveland Bay in 1946, you demand others use data to 'challenge' you. You're a funny chap, drongo.

You're a bit of a mystery to yourself, it seems.

Notice the NOAA badge on the graph and the cooling trend since 1900

Good grief! This is even more superb clown trolling that Sunspot used to manage! SD, you must be making stupid comments because you want to get smacked down. Maybe being shown up for an entirely unskeptical idiot pleases you in some way?

The trend lines on the graphs in that piece clearly show quite a bit of warming (and they are from 1895, not from 1900, and the second graph even tells you that in the key, so you fail at the most basic "graph reading" skills, let alone the "recognising a warming trend line" skill).

How deep in denial (or completely thick) do you have to be to tell us that a warming trend that has been pointed out even by WUWT using really obvious trend lines on a graph is actually a cooling trend instead - and to tell us that we "don't do data" because we refuse to misinterpret what is blatantly obvious to us and to Anthony Watts in the way that you do?

If you had half a sceptical brain cell in your head, SD, you would have not made such a fool of yourself by posting this decidedly unskeptical nonsense and telling us to disbelieve not only our eyes but denialist hero Anthony Watts when he shows us that the continental US is warming since 1895.

SD, seek professional help.

(And how stupid is Anthony Watts to make a big deal about the adjustments changing which July in that series is the warmest, when the adjustments he's complaining about reduce the long term warming trend and the mantra of the site he's writing on is that adjustments are fraudulently increasing the warming trend? He is so incompetent that he is willing to blatantly cherrypick the data and yet has selected a cherrypick that undermines one of his primary denialism mantras!)

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 17 Jun 2015 #permalink

Notice the NOAA badge on the graph and the cooling trend since 1900.

SD, given that you reckon that the trend is cooling since 1900, and that I "don't do data", have I got a deal for you! I hope you will take me up on it and enrich yourself due to my obvious irrationality.

Here's the deal:

1. We take that data set starting at 1900.
2. We calculate the standard (least squares fit) trend from 1900 to the end of the data set.
3. We determine the slope of the trendline in degrees F per century.
4. You pay me $10,000 times the value of the slope in those units.

Since you say that the trend is cooling, the slope must be negative. In that case step (4) means that I will be paying you a nice chunk of cash.

How about it, SD?

But you know what, that sounds a bit complicated what with "least squares fit" and all. Here's a simpler version that lets you win cash when it's cooling:

1. We take that data set and calculate the anomaly for each year compared to a new baseline period 1900-1929, since 30 years is the common climatic baseline period and you want a nice long run of decreasing temperatures to use to fleece me.
2. We then run through each year past the end of the baseline to the end of the data set.
3. You pay me $10,000 for each degree F of anomaly relative to our 30 year baseline.

Since there's a cooling trend since 1900, the anomalies after the baseline period must be negative on average so you will clearly have a nice chunk of my cash at the end of this procedure.

How about it SD?

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 17 Jun 2015 #permalink

"Here are the Giss adjustments in cooling the earlier past and warming the more recent past."

You're wrong. WtfUWT is wrong.

End of story.

"Why are you improperly cherry picking trivial individual data points and inappropriate data subsets?"

Because he's lying.

Duh.

Hey, Spanky, that 1934 figure for the US is faked by denialists to pretend that there is no warming trend.

That's right, it's all a conspiracy. They fiddled the figures (where, for example, is the original documents where those figures came from, hmm? Denier Tony never showed them! FRAUD!!!!) and are paid out of big oil so that the Cock Brothers (tm) can continue to work behind the scenes like the evil Grand Vizir, choosing which candidates you're allowed to vote for (see recent facts about the funding of politicians) to keep you thinking you have a choice!

That 1934 figure is a fiction.

Put there decades ago by deniers so that if all else fails in their faith, they can bring that single figure out and do as their master bids.

Hey Spangly!

A few comments up thread you said:

"Here’s some beautiful stuff from NOAA this time:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/29/noaas-temperature-control-knob-fo…

Notice the NOAA badge on the graph and the cooling trend since 1900."

You've really surpassed yourself here, haven't you! Both "NOAA branded" graphs on the WUWT post you link to show a POSITIVE trend of around +1 degree F per century - see the captions!.

Please tell us more about "the cooling trend since 1900"!

Oh, and by the way, as many people here have tried to point out, the USA48 is a small fraction of the global surface, so this is of marginal relevance anyway.

You just haven't got a clue, have you?

Please stop making a bloody fool of yourself.

Neil

By Neil White (not verified) on 17 Jun 2015 #permalink

Spanky can't help himself. He's paid to do this shit. No shit, no pay.

Prostitution at its most basic level.

So, Nick, I take that as a "no" you don't have any observable evidence of SLR either?

"That 1934 figure is a fiction."

So that's why Hansen and Schmidt admitted it was the warmest?

Dopey Lothe, I said that it has been warming since 1934 for GISS and 1936 for NOAA.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 17 Jun 2015 #permalink

Correction: cooling since 1934....

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 17 Jun 2015 #permalink

Neil, if you paid attention you would know the discussion on US warming/cooling arose over Doltoid claims that moose in Minnesota were dying from warming.

Minnesota, like most of the CONUS had its warmest period in the 1930s.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 17 Jun 2015 #permalink

"So, Nick, I take that as a “no” you don’t have any observable evidence of SLR either?"

If you're a spambot, you must be an early clunky model.

Bernard J @# 22.
1) Because BBD said per decade.
2) No.

Dopey Lothe, I said that it has been warming since 1934 for GISS and 1936 for NOAA.

(Remember folks, it's always projection!)

SD, you said at #25, and I quote:

...in 2007, both James Hansen and Gavin Schmidt were forced to admit that the warmest year in the US was 1934..."

How can it have warmed since then since you think the warmest year means that no warming takes place afterwards, as evidenced by the continuation of your quote?

...and since 2005 the state of the art measurements show no warming [in both the US and the globe], there has therefore been no warming in the US for over 80 years

Over 80 years covers "since 1934", so "no warming in the US for over 80 years" means "No warming since 1934".

And just in case you're tempted to write that off as mis-speaking, do you remember when you wrote this - and wrote it in the context of 1934 being "reinstated as the warmest year" in the GISS reconstruction?

What? No warming in the US during a human lifetime?

So you're clearly claiming no warming since 1934 in GISS.

Since you're arguing against yourself here which is it, SD? Using GISS is there no warming since 1934 in the US or warming since 1934 in the US? And are you Dopey now or were you Dopey in those former comments?

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 17 Jun 2015 #permalink

Because BBD said per decade.

You've got to be kidding!

A trend rate expressed in units per decade does NOT mean that it was calculated over one single decade, and it does not mean that the trend magically becomes statistically significant in just 10 years instead of the 15, 20, 30 it actually requires (depending on the characteristics the underlying data).

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 17 Jun 2015 #permalink

Correction: cooling since 1934….

Crossed posts - hadn't seen your correction before my #66.

So now that we know you've always been insisting that the US has cooled since 1934 (GISS) or 1936 (NOAA), how about we update my challenge for you to fleece me.

Here’s the new deal:

1. We take the NOAA data you posted starting at 1936, your chosen year.
2. We calculate the standard (least squares fit) trend from 1936 to the end of the data set.
3. We determine the slope of the trendline in degrees F per century.
4. You pay me $10,000 times the value of the slope in those units.

Or if you don't like that, here's the other new deal on offer:

1. We take that data set and calculate the anomaly for each year compared to a new baseline period 1936-1965.
2. We then run through each year past the end of the baseline to the end of the data set.
3. You pay me $10,000 for each degree F of anomaly relative to our 30 year baseline.

So, are you going to take one of these offers up and fleece little ol' Dopey me?

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 17 Jun 2015 #permalink

Stu2 # 65

1) Because BBD said per decade.

Lotharsson is correct.

What I actually wrote at # was this:

UAH TLT has a positive warming trend of 0.12C / decade over the period 1996 – present.

Notice the difference now I've added emphasis? Or is it still too subtle for you?

Drongo

WHERE is your acknowledgement that your claim of 'no warming' for UAH TLT 1996 - present is FALSE?

You were flat-out wrong and I expect you now to admit your error.

FFS get on and do so, please.

“That 1934 figure is a fiction.”

So that’s why Hansen and Schmidt admitted it was the warmest?

No, that's another lie you've made. I've never seen them claim that, you're making it up, and any quote you dig up will have been doctored by your denialist overlords to make sure it conforms to your political needs.

“That 1934 figure is a fiction.”

So that’s why Hansen and Schmidt admitted it was the warmest?

No, that's another lie you've made. I've never seen them claim that, you're making it up, and any quote you dig up will have been doctored by your denialist overlords to make sure it conforms to your political needs.

Trying again with tags.

SD (aka Abbott's other brain cell):

So, Nick, I take that as a “no” you don’t have any observable evidence of SLR either?

Dope, you are avoiding watching the video I linked to at #20 above (and in other posts put before you in other threads over the years).

It takes a strange kind of wilful ignorance to avoid the truth here, but then we should expect that from clowns who link to WUWT which is a nothing but a truth filter, filters out such.

"Correction: cooling since 1934…."

Is another lie from your corporate overlords.

the discussion on US warming/cooling arose over Doltoid claims that moose in Minnesota were dying from warming.

However, the moose that were alive in 1934 are already dead and have been for a long time.

They don't live 80 years, dearie.

So, Nick, I take that as a “no” you don’t have any observable evidence of SLR either?

Spanky, you're saying with that "either" that you don't have any observable evidence of SLR.

You've also said that your claims can be ignored.

If so, please stop making them and try something outside your insanity bubble.

If your corporate leader will let you, that is. I mean, it's not your fault if your boss tells you you have to continue being batshit insane.

TIA.

Can you all see the comments sections at Climate Progress? I cannot but am receiving messages that hints that others can.

Sorry.
BBD said / decade.
Despite the emphasis it doesn't change the the info for the most recent decade.
UAH appears to be the 'outlier' for that one.

BBD said / decade.

We know, and it doesn't help your position.

If he had expressed the same quantity in "degrees per year" would you have plotted only the last year's data?

If he had expressed it in degrees per millennium would you have plotted the last 1000 years, assuming the data was available?

Why not?

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 17 Jun 2015 #permalink

Courtesy [very reluctantly] of Gavin Schmidt

The reluctance appears to be conspiratorial ideation.

But regardless, does that mean that you'll take up one of my offers? Any chance of agreeing soon? My bank manager really wants to know.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 17 Jun 2015 #permalink

Courtesy [very reluctantly] of Gavin Schmidt:

Totally called it, Spanky! You fabricate a quote and pretend it's real and accurate!

Stop your waffling Wow.

The fact that you HAVE to resort to Ad Hom against me for TELLING THE TRUTH about your masters political chicanery and your financial interest in doing their bidding PROVES ME RIGHT!

If you had ANY VALIDITY to your claim, you would not have to ad hom me!

"BBD said / decade."

Hang on, Lotharson, did Stupid just demonstrate that he doesn't know what a rate of change is??? Or was there more to his post?

I'm guessing not, because he doesn't post anything of substance, never has before, nothing to say he'd start now, all of a sudden.

PS Sorry if this makes you have to go back and read his shit. Feel free to not bother.

"The reluctance appears to be conspiratorial ideation."

Moreover, why is spanked linking to that "known" lying site realclimate? Doesn't he have any RELIABLE source of Gavin saying that 1934 was the warmest year ever on, say, that "known" reliable site WTFUWT?

If his claim is only supported on "known alarmist sites" and not on "reliable science sites that only tell the truth they don't want you to hear", then his claim is unsupported.

...did Stupid just demonstrate that he doesn’t know what a rate of change is???

One could certainly argue that.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 17 Jun 2015 #permalink

Moreover, why is spanked linking to that “known” lying site realclimate?

I know! I've been waiting to roll out this kind of point - waiting because I want SD to try and fleece me using the data that shows cooling in the continental US (but he seems strangely reluctant).

What's the bet he will fail to take the easy money I'm offering him, either ignoring the offer or making some transparently piss weak excuse?

And I don't think he's got the faintest clue that half the time you're using his own brand of "logic" against him, and he appears to have no idea how to refute it.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 17 Jun 2015 #permalink

Or he uses the same stuff he claims is wrong to be used against him. Such as calling him a moron. Or linking to realclimate on the subject. Blissfully unaware of why.

Also have you noticed that Spanked now believes that the entire USA can be measured absolutely accurately in temperature and that the adjustments in the past were correct?

Anyhow, I'm waiting for Spanked to give me proof his claim of Gavin's assessment of 1934 is correct from a "reliable" site, not an "alarmist" one.

Also have you noticed that Spanked now believes that the entire USA can be measured absolutely accurately in temperature and that the adjustments in the past were correct?

...but any adjustments after that point in time were not. That's when he's not arguing that all adjustments are always and everywhere fraudulent.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 17 Jun 2015 #permalink

And also that you can't even calculate the temperature of the USA with so few stations as we have today, despite them being far more stations than were there in 1934.

And no satellite data, either, which are the ONLY way to get temperature readings "accurately". But they're only necessary for the last 10 years or something.

And did Spanky see the USA's temperature in 1934? Or is this not observed by him???

Self-basting Drongo's plucked his own feathers and hopped into the pot. And that is a personal observation.

Its warmer now in the US than at any time in recorded history and much warmer than the 1930s:

http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/our-changing-climate/recent-us-t…

There. Put that one away. SD needs some elementary lessons. Moreover, the number of first-free days, length of the growing season, and other processes intimately linked with warming are changing. FACT. Nothing controversial about this at all. Its accepted by the vast majority of scientists and is empirically supported. SD spews out crap here based on a few contrarian blogs he reads. He does not do the primary literature, as I said before, but instead rehashes nonsense on blogs. He's a lousy debater - my neighbor's 8 year old son is more convincing than SD. But that isn't hard. SD is an intellectually challenged Dunning-Kruger acolyte.

Second, moose are dying at the southern margin of their range from direct and indirect effects of warming. FACT. End of story; beyond debate. Their range will continue to contract northwards as the warming increases, leading to overall and large scale declines. Citing old academics on the fringe who never published much in their careers in the primary literature doesn't change this fact. The declines are clear in the empirical data and we know - based on the narrow thermo-neutral zone of deer, combined with the benefits of warming on their parasites, that climate change is the main culprit. Its accepted. Move on.

Next FACT: many species are expanding their ranges northwards in North America and Europe due to warming. Nothing remotely controversial about this either. The data are unambiguously clear. these range shifts cover a broad range of taxa; they are direct responses to warming. We are also seeing changes in seasonal phenology, increased numbers of generations, and other phenomena in biota associated with a warming climate. Its warming - there is NO doubt about it.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 17 Jun 2015 #permalink

oops.. frost free - but there you go when one gets frustrated with vacuous ignorance....

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 17 Jun 2015 #permalink