June 2015 Open Thread

More thread.

More like this

"Yeeeeeees…..and “what it represents” varies (usually negatively) over time"

Therefore your argument is that we should have negative interest. After all, if you DON'T lend it out, it's worth less. Why should, therefore, someone else pay you to use your money when it's devaluing all the time?

"a trade that is recognised and accepted by all rational human beings that I am acquainted with."

This is STILL "Interest should be paid because we have interest being paid".

Begging the question is no *answering* the question, you frigging retard.

Oh, and NOT gaining interest is also a well recognised trade by every rational person I'm acquainted with. Kickstarter being the most recent example, but going back to cooperative mortgages, Muslim banks and shareholder investments.

STOP TELLING US INTEREST EXISTS! We KNOW this! Tell us why it MUST.

Lewis says,
“Arctic ice EMBIGGENS, returns to 1980s levels of cap cover”

IOW he lied out his ass.

"the northern ice-cap INCREASED by a staggering 41 per cent in 2013"

Since it was hellishly low, a large percentage increase of a small number is still a small number.

Craig: three words: Interest Free Credit.

If you go around claiming that interest payments are there, because they exist in some places, why the hell are you and Lotharsson whinging about the lack of interest payments? BECAUSE THEY EXIST TOO.

Yet you haven't even noticed that the lack of interest payments exist, never mind acknowledged that it works in a free market of opportunity.

If you continue to scream that interest payments exist, then I'll just say that there is no interest payments, because kickstarter exists.

GWPF are busy this morning, more on the collapse of the 'Climate Alarm'/Renewables meme,

"UK Planning Bids For Renewable Energy Projects Drop By 80%"
http://www.thegwpf.com/uk-planning-bids-for-renewable-energy-projects-d…

"In a written answer to Parliament, Minister Andrea Leadsom confirmed the current Spending Review is looking at redirecting renewable energy subsidies towards other sources of low carbon energy, which includes fracking and nuclear power."
i.e. subsidies for something useful.

"Britain Announces More Renewable Subsidy Cuts"
http://www.thegwpf.com/britain-announces-more-renewable-subsidy-cuts/

"Ministers are currently looking at steering green subsidies for renewable energy towards the research and development of other low carbon technologies, including shale gas."

Yup, more anti-industry rhetoric.

GSW

The GWPF is lying to you about Arctic sea ice 'recovery' and yet you continue to reference its output. WTF?

What is wrong with your mind?

BBD, only Heisenberg's Uncertainty is stopping Gary's mind being void of any activity.

Hi guys, the climate debate has been a bit "chilling" of late.

You moron BBD, those 'GWPF' links are 'Green News', FT articles - they are not 'GWPF' output. What a clown.
:)

"Thankfully a GWPF newsletter roundup"

Good Grief, to what ignoramus depths will GSW, our fanatic right wing idiot, stoop? He writes this with a straight face apparently. A sure sign of insanity. Or else he's stuck around the IQ of Forrest Gump. Take your pick.

One thing is for sure. He steers well away from the venues and journals where real science is discussed and debated. Instead, he's addicted to shills.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 22 Jul 2015 #permalink

"Hi guys, the climate debate has been a bit “chilling” of late"

Strange that, considering that 2015 is on track to be the warmest year on record, eclipsing 2014...

So much for chilling. Its a wonder there are any deniers left as their tired old memes - hiatuses that do not exist etc. - are rapidly disappearing.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 22 Jul 2015 #permalink

Gullible-Simple-Witless:

If the Greenland Ice sheet melted we’d get ~23ft of sea level rise, but best estimates (and I’m thinking that Met Office paper) ~5,000yrs. What does that work out at /Century about 6inches or so?

You really are a total tosser aren't you! Do try to keep up with the science and observations for these have moved on since the last IPCC and those forecasts of SLR.

As winter turned to summer this year instead of gaining ice through snowfall we have rains, and heavy rains, accelerating the melt on Greenland

Any gain in SEASONAL Antarctic sea ice are vastly outweighed by the know loss of continental ice mass as glaciers such as the Totten as well as the WAIS destabilise faster. This has been put before you previously. You have selective amnesia it would appear and a willingness to promote spin from the usual suspects The Register, The Examiner, GWPF, oh boy are you brain washed.

Now James Hansen [1] has a paper due to be published which will make it clear that Sea Levels Could Rise Much Faster than Thought:

In the new study, Hansen and his colleagues suggest that the “doubling time” for ice loss from West Antarctica — the time period over which the amount of loss could double — could be as short as 10 years. In other words, a non-linear process could be at work, triggering major sea level rise in a time frame of 50 to 200 years. By contrast, Hansen and colleagues note, the IPCC assumed more of a linear process, suggesting only around 1 meter of sea level rise, at most, by 2100.

Now stop being such a tool and pack it in with your nonsensical repeating of bilge from others for those articles were distasteful enough without needing to be regurgitated by the likes of you.

[1] and no his projections were not out, it was devious, disengenious rascals like Michaels and that Jurassic nonsense chap who contrived to make it look as if they were.

GSW crows about:

“In a written answer to Parliament, Minister Andrea Leadsom confirmed the current Spending Review is looking at redirecting renewable energy subsidies towards other sources of low carbon energy, which includes fracking and nuclear power.”

There is a strong smell of corruption emanating from Whitehall right now, one that has become stronger since the election, here's why:

The rise of Andrea Leadsom to energy minister has correlated with generous donations to the Conservative party by Peter de Putron, a mysterious hedge fund guru – and her brother-in-law.

Leadsom was appointed energy and climate change minister in the wake of the Conservatives’ shock victory at the general election. She replaced Amber Rudd – who has been promoted to secretary of state.

De Putron, her brother-in-law and former employer, has donated £816,000 to the Conservative party since she first became an MP in the 2010 election. He has also provided funds for her local constituency party and further cash to pay for the staff in her office.

Leadsom’s rise to the top has been steady. She was the managing director of De Putron Fund Management in the 1990s, according to Who’s Who.

Oil and Gas Interests

She was, more recently, head of corporate governance and senior investment officer at Invesco Perpetual, one of Britain’s largest retail fund managers.

Invesco holds £3m of investments in Amerisur Resources, an oil and gas producer, and a further £2.8m of investments in Hunting, which supplies the oil industry, among other fossil fuel interests. Leadsom was not involved in the investment decisions of the company.

Leadsom was then elected as Conservative MP for South Northamptonshire in May 2010. That same year, De Putron, who is married to her sister, Hayley, donated £200,000 to the Tories.

The following year, he donated a further £66,600, then £155,500 in 2012, before increasing his largess to £204,760 the year after. He paid a further £300,000 to the Conservatives’ backed “no to voting reform” campaign, and £680,000 to the Cameron-friendly think tank Open Europe.

More: The Energy Minister, Her Brother-in-Law, His Hedge Fund and the Oil Investments.

Yes this is DeSmogBlog but is a comment on devious political shenanegans and not climate change per se.

You really are behaving like a mushroom GSW.

“DAILY MAIL COMMENT: Climate change and an inconvenient truth”

GSW I note that nobody at the DailyFail has the courage to put a name to that execrable article. But then that is common behaviour amongst turd-brokers.

"Thwaites Glacier is one of the West Antarctica's most prominent, rapidly evolving, and potentially unstable contributors to global sea level rise. Uncertainty in the amount and spatial pattern of geothermal flux and melting beneath this glacier is a major limitation in predicting its future behavior and sea level contribution. In this paper, a combination of radar sounding and subglacial water routing is used to show that large areas at the base of Thwaites Glacier are actively melting in response to geothermal flux consistent with rift-associated magma migration and volcanism. This supports the hypothesis that heterogeneous geothermal flux and local magmatic processes could be critical factors in determining the future behavior of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. "
http://www.pnas.org/content/111/25/9070.full

#4 and how long has that geothermal melting been going on? Just because something is discovered today doesn't mean that it started today.

By turboblocke (not verified) on 22 Jul 2015 #permalink

Help me sunspot, but isn't that paper suggesting the BBD's last great hope for 'Climate Alarm' (in hundreds-thousands of years) , i.e. WAIS instability may be due to natural "rift-associated magma migration and volcanism".

Oh dear BBD, what are you going to fulminate about now? Even 'low probability events' seem to be deserting you.
:)

I see, #5, that DeSmogBlog is too factually inconvenient? Try the Daily Fail then :)

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 22 Jul 2015 #permalink

#100, they've sunk to worse slander still, a lot of bruhaha about NOAA 'fudging the numbers' and that kind of silly tripe.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 22 Jul 2015 #permalink

"i.e. WAIS instability may be due to natural “rift-associated magma migration and volcanism”."

It may be due to martian heat rays too!

ANYTHING, as long as it's not Carbon!

Well done Lionel, in response to criticism that you get your misinformation from dubious blogs like DeSmogBlog. you post a link to ….. DeSmogBlog,

Sheeesh! I told you where it was from but you evaded the context of my final statement, let alone that in the bulk of the post, as per effing usual.

BTW DeSmog is not dubious, your sources OTOH are and widely recognised as such.

"show that large areas at the base of Thwaites Glacier are actively melting in response to geothermal flux consistent with rift-associated magma migration and volcanism."

But doesn't show any ACTUAL rift-associated magma migration nor volcanism to correlate.

Hello everyone.
Great reading here.
A really funny and educational dialog.
Ive got a query if anyone can answer it.
I think one of the really scary prospects of the warming thats
happening and sadly looks likely to continue, is extra runoff
from Antarctica and other places. The idea is i think that
glacial flow speeds up .Lots.
My query is, how does this increased flow work concurrently
with glacial retreat? The front edge moving back.
In my head im trying to picture an ever increasing shitload
of ice flowing towards a retreating face.
And i cant picture it!
Thanks if anyone can help.
Li D

Here we go again - two nitwits (GSW and Sunspot) acting as if they hold the scientific high ground on CC whereby the intimate that >95% of the climate science community is wrong. They won't say it, of course, for one simple reason. This is because they try and suggest that the CC debate is restricted to the media, blogs and think tanks. By admitting that there are a huge number of actually qualified scientists out there who broadly agree that CC is very real and primarily driven by human activities, they would be essentially vanquishing their own stupid arguments. So they simply close their eyes, cover their ears, and try and give the impression that the only discussions on CC occur on denialist blogs and through the corporate media and think tanks.

Neither of these two intellectual 'heavyweights' has anything remotely resembling scientific pedigree, and they end up as flotsam and jetsam on blogs because they'd be laughed out of academia.

Latest data show that snow extent in the NH was the 2nd lowest on record and ice extent in the Arctic ranked at 3rd lowest. And its declining fast - by October it could easily end up at the lowest extent ever. Globally, 2015 is on track easily as the warmest year, with 2014 in 2nd place.

Bad, bad days for the climate change denial industry. And by the likes of it, if they depend on nincompoops like GSW as their 'public army' they really are in deep, deep trouble.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 22 Jul 2015 #permalink

GSW

You moron BBD, those ‘GWPF’ links are ‘Green News’, FT articles – they are not ‘GWPF’ output. What a clown.

Actually, it was the Daily Mail, which makes you a liar, yet again. But you don't seem to have any concept of personal intellectual integrity, so presumably you will not be concerned by this.

You have not yet acknowledged your confusion about the relative weighting appropriate to the multi-decadal trend and interannual variability BTW.

Clown.

:-)

GSW

Help me sunspot, but isn’t that paper suggesting the BBD’s last great hope for ‘Climate Alarm’ (in hundreds-thousands of years) , i.e. WAIS instability may be due to natural “rift-associated magma migration and volcanism”.

No, WAIS instability is because it is a marine ice sheet on an retrograde grounding slope.

You can verify this as soon as you muster the intellectual integrity to fact-check your own output.

GSW... These loony alarmist's at Deltiod ignore science that challenges their confirmation bias. People browsing this blog are well aware of the one sided science spewed out here by the likes of Chec, wanker wow, Bernard and Jeff (Pinocchio), by the looks of it after a quick browse the noobies here are just as retarded, this pathetic blog has failed miserably due to the biased posters that inhabit it. eg BBD ignoring the science regarding what is happening under the WAIS, shhheeezzz what a ef'n moron!!!
The blog owner can't even understand a calender and here the fervent followers of the cult refuse to keep up with the science, if science conflicting to their demented CO2 phobia is presented to them they hold their breath and put their hand on their face and maybe peek at it through their fingers..... Then they think that by accusing you of being a rightwing Holocaust denier they think the the science paper is now debunked and they go back and sleep safely in the padded cell's that they call their minds and think they have somehow just saved the world.....

BBD.......TAKE YOU HAND AWAY FROM YOUR DICK AND THE OTHER ONE AWAY FROM YOUR FACE.

"A big, hot blob hiding beneath the bottom of the world could be evidence of a long-sought mantle plume under West Antarctica, researchers said Monday (Dec. 9) here at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union.

The possible hotspot — a plume of superheated rock rising from Earth's mantle — sits under Marie Byrd Land, a broad dome at West Antarctica's edge where many active volcanoes above and below the ice spit lava and ash. The hot zone was discovered with seismic imaging techniques that rely on earthquake waves to build pictures of Earth's inner layers, similar to how a CT scan works. Beneath Marie Byrd Land, earthquake waves slow down, suggesting the mantle here is warmer than surrounding rocks. The strongest low-velocity zone sits below Marie Byrd Land's Executive Committee Range, directly under the Mount Sidley volcano, said Andrew Lloyd, a graduate student at Washington University in St. Louis.

"The slow velocities suggest that it's a mantle hotspot," Lloyd said. The hot zone also matches up with Marie Byrd Land's high topography and active volcanoes, Lloyd said
Mantle plume?

Many researchers have long suspected that Marie Byrd Land sits atop a hotspot, because the region swells above the surrounding topography like the top of a warm soufflé (and it has lots of volcanoes). But with few seismometers sitting on the ice, scientists were left speculating about what lies beneath Antarctica's ice.

The evidence for the new hot zone, called a thermal anomaly, comes from a massive, temporary earthquake-monitoring network called Polenet that was installed between 2010 and 2012, giving scientists an unprecedented look at Antarctica's crust and mantle. (A gravity survey conducted at the same time also suggests there is a big warm spot beneath this part of West Antarctica.)

But confirming that Marie Byrd Land is truly above a hotspot may require a return trip to Antarctica for another seismic experiment, said Doug Wiens, principal investigator on Polenet.

"What's absolutely sure is there's a big thermal anomaly, a big blob," said Wiens, a seismologist at Washington University. "What's less sure is whether that anomaly goes deeper."

The thermal anomaly extends 125 miles (200 kilometers) below Marie Byrd Land, Lloyd said. Below about 255 miles (410 km), where a mantle plume's trailing tail would also leave a hotter-than-average mark in mantle rocks, there's little evidence for a rising hotspot, said Erica Emry, a postdoctoral researcher at Pennsylvania State University.

"There's no smoking gun," Emry said. However, more work remains to be done on the Polenet data, which could reveal new clues and further refine what the mantle looks like under West Antarctica, Emry told LiveScience's OurAmazingPlanet.

Antarctica's thinnest crust

The discovery is one of many new insights reported Monday into the geologic mysteries concealed by Antarctica's thick ice. Other findings include extremely thin crust, just 10 miles (17 km) thick, in West Antarctica's Ross embayment near the Transantarctic Mountain Range, said Xinlei Sun, a postdoctoral researcher at Washington University. The Ross embayment is one of Antarctica's two big coastal divots; the gap is filled by the Ross Ice Shelf. Here, the crust is as thin as in the Gulf of California, where continental rifting (also called extension) is tearing Baja California from mainland Mexico and building a new ocean basin.

"This is the thinnest crust [in Antarctica] and is probably related to an extensional environment," Sun said.

On the other side of the Transantarctic Mountains lies the thick, old crust of East Antarctica, similar to the relatively stable interiors of continents such as North America and Africa. Antarctica's thickest crust is found here, beneath the Gamburtsev Mountain Range. The Gamburtsevs are spectacular Alpine peaks completely buried in ice; the crust here is about 31 miles (50 km) thick. The crust beneath Marie Byrd Land is about 15 miles (25 km) thick, Sun said."

http://www.livescience.com/41847-west-antarctica-possible-hot-spot.html

"Why should, therefore, someone else pay you to use your money when it’s devaluing all the time?"

Because they want to hold that money *while* it is devaluing. They want to hold it over that time - despite the cost - because the cost of the devaluation (that they are responsible for) is offset by whichever benefit accrues to them from holding the money (income generation/living in a nice house).

"Yet you haven’t even noticed that the lack of interest payments exist, never mind acknowledged that it works in a free market of opportunity."

Of course, this is another trade between willing parties where both sides accrue a benefit.
For example - I went to Harvey Norman and got a $5000 lounge suite "interest free", repaid over 24 months to a finance company called GE.

Anybody who thinks this delayed payment really is "free" is living in lala-land. It just isn't charged to *me* as interest.
GE are certainly making a profit, and Harvey Norman are too. And I as consumer am paying for both those profits.

I am actually quite amused that you think that an example of a trade that doesn't involve interest charges is some kind of proof that that your no-interest "has to be" ideology about financial trades is valid.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 22 Jul 2015 #permalink

Sunspot - please make your mind up:please select your argument:
- Antarctic ice is increasing
- Volcanoes are melting Antarctic

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 22 Jul 2015 #permalink

Ah, hang on - I just remembered - Sunspot shares the intellectual incapacity of the Creationists in understanding that stuff is real *independently* of whether and when it is documented by science.
Also, they simply don't understand geological time.

A mantle plume under Antarctica hasn't just appeared. The cycle time of a plume is estimated at 2,000,000,000 years.

So if a plume is causing any melting right now, then it will have been causing melting for tens or hundreds of millions of years.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 22 Jul 2015 #permalink

Seeing as the likes of Sunspot are incapable of grasping geological time, let's put this in perspective for them:
If the cycle of a mantle plume started 1 year ago, the start of the industrial revolution (and associated anthropogenic global warming) was 4 seconds ago.

So whatever point it was you think you were making about a supposed mantle plume under Antarctica, Sunspot, the point that comes across is that you are profoundly ignorant.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 22 Jul 2015 #permalink

I meant to say, "to scale".

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 22 Jul 2015 #permalink

Here we go again - our old returning illiterate, Sunspot (thought he would have burnt out by now in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence) trying to take the scientific high ground on CC. I still would like to ask dopes like Spotty why they, without any relevant qualifications, feel somehow 'gifted' to draw conclusions on the mechanisms underpinning CC that contrast with the rank and file of the scientific community.

As I said before, they end up as detritus on blogs simply because their 'wisdom' would be laughed out of academic circles. Chek, Bernard, BBD, myself et al. are only reiterating what the CC community is saying. Spotty, on the other hand, is rehashing crap spewed out by think tanks and contrarian blogs, none of which conduct scientific research.

If I was to debate an idiot like Spotty t would be so easy to vanquish him on these facts alone.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 23 Jul 2015 #permalink

For example: here is Spotty at his ignoramus best:

"These loony alarmist’s at Deltiod ignore science that challenges their confirmation bias. People browsing this blog are well aware of the one sided science spewed out here"

He says 'here' as if Deltoid is the only source on Earth arguing that humans are driving CC. Last time I saw every Academy of Science in every nation on Earth, every major scientific body and every major academic conference discussing CC agrees that the burning of fossil fuels is the primary driver. There's no controversy whatsoever. The contrarians, for their part, are generally a small bunch of unknowns on the academic fringe or else an army of right wing lunatics as well as think tanks and astroturf groups funded in part by industries with an axe to grind.

You'd never guess that reading the bile spewed out by Spotty and GSW. From their posts you'd get the impression that the academic community was divided about equally over the issue of CC and that the debate is ongoing.

It isn't. The science was settled two decades ago - the only uncertainties remaining are the extent to which the planet's surface will warm in the coming decades and the effects this will have on systems across the biosphere.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 23 Jul 2015 #permalink

Pinocchio @ 14 "Latest data show that snow extent in the NH was the 2nd lowest on record and ice extent in the Arctic ranked at 3rd lowest. And its declining fast – by October it could easily end up at the lowest extent ever. Globally, 2015 is on track easily as the warmest year, with 2014 in 2nd place."

eg.. Snow Anomaly for the NH.... http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_anom.php?ui_set=0&ui_region=…

Sure Harvey, and you think you're a scientist...... more likely a deluded numbskull, why don't you do a little research before making dumb statements?

Here we have a polar bear expert who knows nothing about ice...

Andrew Derocher @AEDerocher Jul 20
Hudson Bay #seaice almost gone. Many of the #polarbears didn't link to satellite this week: no update if swimming.

This is the sort crap you blokes eat for for breakfast, pathetic.

"Because they want to hold that money *while* it is devaluing."

And I want a flying unicorn. A paedo wants to fuck a five year old.

That isn't a reason to let them, just because they want.

Here we go AGAIN:

If they don't want to hold on to that money, and nobody else does, what is that money worth 6 months later?

LESS.

So why should SOMEONE ELSE holding that money garner you money? YOU earned fuck all holding on to it, so why should anyone pay you for holding on to it instead?

"Of course, this is another trade between willing parties where both sides accrue a benefit."

Nope, they made a loss selling money now for money back later.

You just claimed that this was a loss. Now you're claiming it a benefit?!?!?!?

Here we have a polar bear expert who knows nothing about ice…

Spots.

Sunspot: your SCE link only shows up to 2014. Perhaps you don't understand a calendar...

By turboblocke (not verified) on 23 Jul 2015 #permalink

Spotty, I have asked most of the deniers on ehre the same question and I will ask you as well while I am at it: at what esteemed academic body do you work and/or teach for a living? How many peer-reviewed scientific publications do you have? How many times have they been cited?

The answers for everyone else are these: Spotty is not a scientist. He has no formal qualifications in any field remotely connected to science. He has no publications and thus no citations.

In other words he an anonymous nobody whose views fall well outside of the scientific mainstream. Like the other deniers here, though, he's badly afflicted by Dunning-Kruger syndrome and has a bloated ego that is based on his own self-projections. His understanding of climate science is at kindegarten level, and as a result he's confined to blogs where he can parade his ignorance with no professional repercussions.

Other real scientists - like me for instance who has done the mileage - are not able to write such utter bilge unless we were to hide like Spotty behind an anoynmous handle. I don't because my views are shared by the vast majority of my peers as well as by the climate science community. You'd think after reading Spotty's childish rants that he and people like him hold the scientific high ground. But go to any major scientific conference on CC and he would be laughed out of the venue.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 23 Jul 2015 #permalink

Check the data here:

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Arctic ice death spiral continues. The scroll down and look at snow cover anomoly. Pretty well demolishes everything spotty says.

Gosh he is pathetic.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 23 Jul 2015 #permalink

Pinocchio, from what I remember you were wanking off seals for a living, blending your perversion's with your work, haha..

My qualification to discuss CC is the same as yours tho, so don't pull that bullshit on
me dipshit, as always, I post a science paper from a respectable journal and you go into one of your chest thumping egotistical rants without even reading the paper.
Jeffery, you prove time and time again that your not even a hemorrhoid on a scientist's arsehole.

Sunspot

eg BBD ignoring the science regarding what is happening under the WAIS, shhheeezzz what a ef’n moron!!!

Please show me where in your quote (or in the published scientific literature) it is argued/demonstrated that the presumed mantle plume in West Antarctica is causing significant basal melting of the ice sheet. You seem to think you have done this, but you haven't so at present, you have no argument.

Second, please respond substantively to the statement that the reason the WAIS is unstable is because it is a marine ice sheet with a retrograde grounding slope.

If you are going to claim that I am ignoring the science then you must demonstrate that ignorance.

Spots:," from what I remember you were wanking off seals for a living,"

You have a sick fantasy world you live in, spots.

Mental issues. And being mental.

Sorry, wankstain, your claims are as full of shit as you are.

Spothead, I will do whatever I want to in demolishing your crap. My views are based on the overwhelming body of scientific evidence and the opinions of my peers in the relevant fields. And >95% of them agree with me, or, more importantly, as they are the ones doing the research I agree with them. I defer to their expertise, not to some self-educated arrogant moron (you) who has no qualifications in any field. I also concur to the conclusions reached by every major scientific organization in every country on the planet. EVERY ONE. NO EXCEPTIONS. Get that through your head. You and your ilk have opinions that run counter to this, and I will stick by those who are doing ther research, not idiots like you who distort, mangle, and twist the findings to support your own pre-determined worldviews.

Moreover, I do study the ecological effects of AGW and in this way my expertise exceeds yours by light years. You probably can't tell a mole cricket from a giraffe. And you have the audacity to smear an esteemed expert on Polar Bears (Derocher), who has 151 peer-reviewed papers in his career, over 6000 citations of his work and an h-factor of 45. You have 0, 0 and 0.

In other words, you are a self-rightous arrogant schmuck. Take your stupidity elsewhere.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 23 Jul 2015 #permalink

Wow you are gunna have to pick up your game m8, I know you can do better than that.

Jeffery you numb nut, Arctic death spiral, piss off http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ic… you are looking at weather u f wit. Where is that stupid death spiral chart that skepical science used to have? Hidden it by the looks of it.
Don't you know you should be looking globally, not just one little point, http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.wi… Globally there is a bumper crop of seaice.

BBD, so you think co2 melts West Antarctica but not West Antarctica or the seaice around Antarctica?
Fair dinkum m8...... get your hand off your knob....

umm that would be......BBD, so you think co2 melts West Antarctica but not East Antarctica

soz about the typo

@38..... "Spothead, I will do whatever I want to in demolishing your crap"

So... that would be the link that I posted to the PNAS paper, go on demolish it shit for brains..

spots, there is no game here. Except the one you're trying to play at being smart.

Which is totally failing, by the way.

Sorry, asswipe, your claims have many times before been debunked and you, along with the other denier idiots, have form for making a claim, "supporting" it with a link and, when the link is perused, the claim is not supported by the information in that link. Hell, often it's even debunked by the information in the link.

Because you fuckwits don't care.

And, frankly, neither do I.

You're a waste of space and a fucking moron. No more. And probably a shitload less.

"so you think co2 melts West Antarctica but not East Antarctica"

So you think that the greenhouse effect are caused by "extra hot CO2" ?!??!?!?

"So… that would be the link that I posted to the PNAS paper"

...which doesn't say what you claim.

The crap, of course, being your post.

And it was found to be crap.

Okey dokey.

Spot

The WAIS is unstable because it is a marine ice sheet on a regrograde grounding slope which is why it is vulnerable to basal melt by warm upwelling water. Sectors of the EAIS are also similarly vulnerable. As an exercise, you can find out which they are yourself.

You don't have the first idea what you are bullshitting about. Why not actually do some reading instead of posting nonsense on the internet?

FrankD

Sorry - missed that. Good idea.

Thanks for that Frank. I had thought that Sunspot was supposed to be confined to his own padded cell, but somehow the lying slimy bugger slipped through the net and is contaminating here.

Let's not feed him until Tim can effectively corral him and send him kicking and screaming back to his room.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 23 Jul 2015 #permalink

While the corporate media harps n about Arctic ice recovery in 2013 and 2014 after a cool summer in the former year, based on a Nature paper where the authors are very cautious, reality is still biting:

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/arctic-sea-ice-peak-melt-19192

Over the past 10 days ice has declined at an exponential rate in the Arctic and will certainly make 2015 one of the lowest years. The Siberian and European parts of the Arctic have been especially vulnerable, as well as Alaska. Its too bad the media for the most part cherry picks and only partially quotes the scientists who did the study, in a clearly desperate effort to downplay the disaster unfolding there.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 23 Jul 2015 #permalink

#45, yow, noted in stone, sorry for the above inconvenience.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 23 Jul 2015 #permalink

It appears that Roger P. Jnr, the US establishment's favourite non-climate climate scientist is now setting out to establish himself as theirglobal catastrophe go-to-guy.

Jeff #50 - Yeah, I'd say fourth lowest (behind 2012, 2011 an 2007). If you check the daily concentration map and compare to the same dates in 2011 and 2012 its pretty clearly not going to be the worst ever, but it's not much better than 2011 (a bit more middling-concentration ice north of Alaska (which will melt out by September), and a fair bit more good solid ice north of Siberia.

Hardly cause for celebration.

Frank, its closing in on 2012 in terms of trajectory so we will have to wait and see. If the NSIDC data are correct, then by late August the 2015 line and the 2012 line will intersect.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 24 Jul 2015 #permalink

Amusing piece in the Telegraph today.

"Climate change debate 'dictated by left-wing anti-capitalists', says Amber Rudd"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/1175961…

""In her first major speech on the topic, Ms Rudd will say she can “understand the suspicion of those who see climate action as some sort of cover for anti-growth, anti-capitalist, proto-socialism”."

Yes, well, we've had that in spades on this blog- misinformed rants about "Social justice", rather than anything of practical value.

"The best way to tackle climate change is by “using free enterprise and competition to drive down the costs of climate action, to develop new technologies”, she will say. "

Oh dear, "Social justice" isn't going to get a look in it would seem.
;)

“Climate change debate ‘dictated by left-wing anti-capitalists’, says Amber Rudd”

Yes, it would be interesting, but we already knew about this insane bitch's conspiracy dreaming.

It's also no surprise you're listening to that insanity pleading.

Sajid Javid, the newly appointed secretary of state for the department of Business Innovation and Skills, has accepted over £16,600-worth of conference expenses from a think tank that has received funding from Exxon Mobil and the Koch Brothers – according to an Energydesk analysis of the new government ministers involved in energy and climate decisions.

The AEI received over $3.3 million from Exxon Mobil between 2001 and 2012. In 2007 the organisation was found to have offered scientists and economists $10,000 each, plus travel expenses, for articles criticising an IPCC report.

The UK-based investment firm has changed names several times, and is now called G-Research. Jersey-based banker du Putron controlled the firm’s parent, Pans (UK) Holdings. G-Research’s ex-director is Ben Leadsom, Andrea’s husband, who also gave £10,000 to his wife’s campaign and her South Northamptonshire constituency in his own name – after the Guardian expose.

Andrea Leadsom also previously worked as a fund manager for Invesco Perpetual. The firm has oil and gas holdings in its energy portfolio, including £3m of investments in Amerisur Resources, an oil and gas producer.

Rudd has also come under flak for taking £2,500 in cash from controversial banker Ian Hannam, erstwhile advisor to global mining giants such as BHP Billiton (mines for coal and oil) and Vedanta (oil and gas) and massive coal producer Xtrata.

=====

Follow the money..

GSW You are, once again, behind the curve, some of us here are already aware of Amber Rudd's lucre underpinned confusion about the shale gas impact on climate as seen here:

Amber Rudd: Renewable Energy Not Main Priority for DECC

and poor little Emily Gosden is ideologically ill equipped to comment fairly on Amber Rudd's distraction tactics, for it is the results of science which should dictate the techniques that the politicians should back. But this cruddy lot that have just been elected, by a minority and under the false pretence of blaming Labour for the financial implosion (see subsequent post).

Note which UK based bank was first to topple and who was involved with that - yes Ol' King Coal Ridley and coal being only marginally worse for climate than shale gas once all externalities are adequately accounted for.

It is now understood that it was not the increase in shale gas use that slowed warming but the economic down turn that resulted from banking malfeasance.

Now look at the financiers behind these Tory (no they are not Conservative for they are more like Regressive) energy moves with Wow mentioning another - that of Leadsom and her brother-in-law De Putron:

The Energy Minister, Her Brother-in-Law, His Hedge Fund and the Oil Investments.

There is a nasty smell of corruption around Westminster right now, the strongest it has been for years and I was wondering what sneaky measure the lot of dissemblers would try to push through before the recess whilst the media distracts.

One thing that is in the wind is Herr Govel's assault on the FOI Act.

after all it has recently been used to obtain an un-redacted version " Report on The Shale Gas Rural Economy impacts" and Gove's old department - Education - expunged emails.

It would seem that the FOIA is worrying them - if it was not then why the need for hobbling it?

Well done Lionel, you avoided posting another misinformation link to DeSmogBlog - by posting one to DeSmog.uk.

Brilliant!
;)

Aaaaww, did gary not get it? There's nothing in his claims and his links to opinion pieces not factual reporting is a far greater fail at proof than linking to a blog he, personally, dislikes.

Sorry, child, your petulance gets you nowhere.

GSW Your continuing attempts at killing the messenger noted. Surely even a numptie such as you will understand that these messages are not only coming from DeSmog. But I do like linking there because it displays you once again chasing your tail and avoiding the substance, in other words being a UPOS.

From another source: Short-sighted Tory energy policies could undo years of effort

It has been noted that these 'Regressives' won an election on the lie as seen here: Tory attacks on Labour’s ‘economic chaos’ stretch back to this cartoon from the 1930s

Now I am not particularly pro-labour, what I am against is a dictatorship which these 'Regressives' are increasingly showing themselves to be as UK government bids to ban free speech in counter-terrorism plan .

We live in troubled times and I look at my grandchildren and shudder to think what is coming around the corner for them because of the short sighted self interest of a few socio-paths who have not managed to evolve beyond the hunter-gather stage of human development. They are modern day Neandertals.

Oh, and with all that I nearly forgot that which I had intended to bring to the attention of our confused trolls, the climate knowledge challenged from their ingrained wilful ignorance.

The recent record of Arctic ice state is not what you think it is, this excellent article should enlighten the clearly mystified: The importance of good climate communication: a recent Arctic example.

It is never a good idea to suck from the Murdoch teats and others similarly contaminated by financially interested ideological zeal.

#61, well said, though 'brilliant' would be rather DK-relative.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 24 Jul 2015 #permalink

Interesting trip down the rabbit hole via that link to SkS above and then the link, in comment 1, to Jim Hunt's 'The Great White Con' scrolling down to a Tweet from David Rose. Clicking on that reveals that Rose is not interested in the scientific truth as much as scoring cheap points over arguments with others.

Worthwhile 'Spiked' article from Ben Pile here,

"Why facts cut no ice in the climate debate"
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/12737#.VbKik_nHTIW
"Science has not put a stop to climate alarmism. The dynamics of the most barren and lifeless parts of the planet have become the ground on which the climate wars have been fought. And each ‘unprecedented’ move of any glacier, iceberg or sea ice becomes a moment of significance, seemingly telling us our future. Far from being scientific, prognosticating about the future of the world on the basis of the progress of ice is like reading frog entrails."

“Why facts cut no ice in the climate debate”

Ironically, you have that right. You don't listen to facts. Don't bother with them.

And Guido Fakes is relevant, how?

“Science has not put a stop to climate alarmism.W

Mind you, more ironically accurate claims again. You deniers STILL create unearned alarm that people will freeze to death in winters, that the economies of the world will collapse, that the democracies of the world will be overthrown in some new world order, even today.

GSW

Far from being scientific, prognosticating about the future of the world on the basis of the progress of ice is like reading frog entrails.”

When temperatures rise, ice melts increasingly rapidly. Frog entrails putrefy or dessicate increasingly rapidly.

Science explains why these things happen. Dismissing the science describing the greenhouse effect is exactly the same as dismissing the science describing what happens to frog entrails once the eviscerator's knife is done.

Arctic is "barren and lifeless"?

Says it all really, about the Pile of crap being spouted, and the moron who thinks its worth repeating.

Well said Frank. The comments by Ben Pile reveal a complete and total ignorance of nature and of complex adaptive systems, as well as the inexorable link among ecosystems across the biosphere. If this moron was to say this at a scientific conference, he'd be both tarred and feathered and jeered out of the place and sent into oblivion where he belongs. I won't even begin to deconstruct his bile here; to anyone with half a brain (GSW excepted) its patently obvious why the Spiked piece is vacuous garbage.

Note how GSW accepts, at face value, any nonsense that supports his simple pre-determined worldview. The Telegraph piece yesterday, in all of its comical hilarity, was a case in point. And GSW swallows this s*** whole; moreover, he posts the links up here as if he is actually enlightening people. All he is doing is showing how desperate the denial industry and its corporate and political shills really are.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 25 Jul 2015 #permalink

Climate circus entertainment continues,

"Climate Scientist Fears Murder By Hitman"
http://www.thegwpf.com/climate-scientist-fears-murder-by-hitman/

"He said: “If it was some kind of death squad, you don’t expect that with something like climate change. I know oil companies have been giving lots and lots of money to . . . climate change denialist organisations but you don’t expect them to kill people.”"

Also from the article,

"Professor Wadhams faced criticism this week after a study contradicted his prediction that Arctic ice was melting so fast that it could all disappear this summer. Asked by The Times for his response to the discovery that the total volume of ice grew 40 per cent in 2013, Professor Wadhams insisted that there was still an outside possibility of the Arctic being ice-free this year.

He then said there were only four people in Britain who were “really leaders on ice thickness in the Arctic” and he was one. The others, he said, had died in early 2013."

“It seems to me to be too bizarre to be accidental but each individual incident looks accidental, which may mean it’s been made to look accidental"

You can't argue with an intellect capable of such reasoning..
;)

"Climate circus entertainment continues,"

It's not entertainment, gary.

It's boring.

It's been entertaining so far this morning. Came across this link exposing misinformation from misinformation site "Skeptical Science",

"Testing Skeptical Science: is Roger Pielke Sr. a climate misinformer?"
http://fabiusmaximus.com/2015/07/24/skeptical-science-looks-at-roger-pi…

"How do SkS’ claims look today? The SkS page (it’s undated) gives ten quotes which they call “myths”. Not one of their rebuttals looks correct. A lot of the SkS content is like that, which is why people so often report their critical comments get deleted"

"Score: ten shots, no hits. And this is their good work. Their post about Pielke Sr looks like the Britannica compared to the SkS page about Judith Curry (Prof of Atmospheric Science at GA Inst Tech). But the SkS writers know their audience. Any smear will suffice to brand their ideological foes as beyond the pale, eliminating the need for reasoned discussion."

Recommend reading the whole thing.
:)

"It’s been entertaining so far this morning."

How?

Apologies all, this just reached my twitter TL (H/T Marc Morano at ClimateDepot)

"There’s a groundswell of support for climate action leading up to the 2015 Paris talks"
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/20…

A "groundswell of support"? Yeah right, well good luck with that - Someone should let the countries currently bailing on green energy subsidies/policies in on the secret.
:)

Given that GSW spends an unhealthy amount of his pathetically sad life going through blogs, its hardly surprising that he scrapes up every piece of right wing detritus he can from them.

Get a life GSW. Get out and about more. You appear like a sad and scary little hermit closeted in your shuttered room obsessing over the huge empirical evidence for AGW and banging your head because the vast majority of the scientific community accepts it as fact. The latest rock you scraped under was some ultra-nationalist crap called Fabius Maximus, who tried (and fails) to give the impression that the 'climate wars' as he calls them are balanced in terms of scientific opinion. Read the first few lines of his blurb and one can tell he is a total idiot who knows diddly squat about the overwhelming consensus amongst scientists over AGW. I have said it a million times and the kindergarten-level educated deniers on Deltoid keep ignoring it: every National Academy of Science in every nation on Earth verifies the reality and seriousness of AGW. Every major scientific organization also verifies it.

No wonder GSW, Jonas and the others try and avoid these facts. They demolish their arguments completely. AGW is only controversial amongst a small number of academics on the fringe, as well as among industries and the think tanks they fund with an axe to grind.

What is most comical, is the feeble attempt by this limited band of losers to claim the intellectual high ground. They are unable to do it in academic circles, at universities, conferences, and through prestigious academies, so they are stuck in blogs and the corporate media. GSW hasn't been near any of these in terms of relevant fields in his life, so he closets himself away with his computer and soothes his ignorance through the blogosphere.

But let's go easy on GSW. He isn't the only one. As witnessed on Deltoid alone, over the years this blog has been inundated from time to time by similar intellectually challenged laymen with no formal qualifications and who camouflage their political ideologies in science. I have been writing in here for over 10 years and every single AGW denier who has ventured into Deltoid has no relevant qualifications in anything close to science. If they did, we would know all about it. If this is the army of deniers the science is up against, then its not really a level playing field.

I actually find them quite a comical relief from my day job as a scientist. The links GSW posts up here are hilarious in their banality and simplicity, and he writes as if they represent the bottom line. The Telegraph one yesterday had me on the floor, and yet to him the piece was intellectually deep. Then another site called Fabius maximus?!?!

Keep it up GSW. You are ensuring that the puddle-deep arguments keep coming in. In a sad way it is fun.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 25 Jul 2015 #permalink

Now its from Morano! Good grief GSW is a hoot!

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 25 Jul 2015 #permalink

"A “groundswell of support”? Yeah right, well good luck with that "

Yeah, you hate democracy if it doesn't go your way.

Rudd has also come under flak for taking £2,500 in cash from controversial banker Ian Hannam, erstwhile advisor to Wow @ #59

...global mining giants such as BHP Billiton (mines for coal and oil) and Vedanta (oil and gas) and massive coal producer Xtrata.

=====

Follow the money..

Indeed, and from DeSmog UK (because I know it winds up Gutter-Scraping-Weasel) we have:

Amber Rudd Fails to Disclose That Brother is Top Financial Lobbyist with Energy Clients

The stink, stinketh more.

PS I am surprised that GSW has not latched on to another story brewing that will be munged and amplified by the usual suspects.

GSW

Of course RPSr is a climate misinformer. The only reason you don't know this is that your topic knowledge is so abysmal you are unable to assess what he says.

Aaaahahahahahaha...I pop into Deltoid and still here is this poor, pathetic, canuk academic toffee- nosed nutter, Jeff Harvey, still under some delusion that he's a scientist, still blathering on about all the prestigious academies of science, and all about the "overwhelming evidence" What a total and absolute prick. He says " I have been writing in here for over 10yrs !!" Aahahahahaha. 10 yrs down the toilet for you.....ignorant twat. You might have noticed Tim has just an open thread for the last couple of years or so...so you never know, he might just pull the plug on you one day and where to then for you Jeff baby ?. I see..no where.else to go....you and the the other residual Doltoids will just vanish. ...poff.. your whole construct falls apart. Maybe not so for the ubiquitous commie pommie BBD and your NFQ sidekick Bernerd, ..they'll survive on some other fringe nutty believer blogs...but you..oh dear, how sad, there there, never mind. Here's a young German whose got more sense than you, to give you a little song.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AybBEuIpy44

Fuck off with the socks, please.

The Sunspot sock was smacked around so he re-apparates as Mack and vomits an unmedicated spray at Jeff. Snork. I wonder when 'Karen' will join in?

KMS, look at Jeff's Scopus H-factor. It's majorly impressive - I for one am envious. His rivals EO Wilson's, in a very similar ecological field. For anyone with even half a clue that's telling.

Jeff's a serious scientist, but you - you're a puerile, uneducated, unintelligent troll who doesn't recognise scientific fact even when it's spelled out in single-syllable words. This fact has been drawn to your attention many times, but it's so much fun reminding you that I'm happy to provide the public service.

Oh, and for the record your vitriol directed against Jeff is an ad hominem logical fallacy. On the other hand, my assessment of you is demonstrably correct, so no dice there. Now be a good boy, move away from the keyboard, and get out of your parents' basement - the mould spores are affecting the little remaining cognitive function with which you are endowed.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 26 Jul 2015 #permalink

Ah, I see that BBD pre-empted me, and much more succinctly...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 26 Jul 2015 #permalink

Hey KarenMackSunspot, or whatever permutation you want to use... are you game to bet that by the end of January 2016, when the results are in for 2015:

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/07/watching-global-thermometer-year-to_…

this year will have been found to be warmer than last year? I'll bet you one thousand US dollars that it will be. We can take the terms over to Sou's for administration.

Come on big mouth, put up or shut up.

My offer of money in your pocket is good for one week.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 26 Jul 2015 #permalink

Thanks for the support Bernard and BBD. Yes, we all know that Mack is one of Sunspot's alter egos. His pathetic little rant against me is like water off a duck's back. I have had much worse, it goes with the terrotory. And let's be honest - Sunspot and his various alter egos is a complete loser, and a complete unknown loser at that. Like most of the other deniers on here, he suffers from some deeply rooted pathological disorder. One of the perils of the internet is thar it gives sick people like this a platform for their bile. Still, given some of the idiots I have faced over the years, Mack/Sunspot is a mere blip.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 26 Jul 2015 #permalink

Looks like there has been an invasion by trolls here Peabody Energy to White House: Greenhouse Gas a 'Non-Existent Harm' that should get GSW excited.

A couple of interesting items just cropped up at DeSmog UK one on Amber Rudd being rather coy about something and another which includes mention of Matt Ridley and his CAP subsidies for planting trees whilst bulldozing others.

Brazen is the word.

It's desperation.

It was known that the money would have to dry up, it was just hoped that it wouldn't be so obvious and that they'd be able to get rich before anyone really noticed.

But events are becoming so clearly affected that the rich and powerful are desperate to get as much out of the system before they have to stop.

Of course, pulling the ladder up behind them. Can't have plebs getting ideas above their station...

@cRR

"Two ministers of energy/climate on Shell’s payroll."

You're not suggesting Amber Rudd is on Shell's payroll are you cRR? Your post is so 'ambiguous' is not obvious what you are saying.

Also, I'm pretty sure she is not like 'fuck Somerset’ as you suggest- you misguided little man.

"You’re not suggesting Amber Rudd is on Shell’s payroll are you cRR?"

You're not suggesting that the huge payments and the work she does for shell oil means she's not paid, are you?

"you misguided little man..." opines our ultimate pot-kettle-black hypocrite, GSW.

Of course we all know here who the really misguided people are that write into Deltoid. And GSW is near the top of the list.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 28 Jul 2015 #permalink

Bernie boy, I suppose you are correct, 2015 may be the hottest year according to GISS and their fudged figures, pushed along by an El Nino and your praying to the great CO2 god in the atmosphere.
Then again...... you were thought CO2 cuased the QLD floods, Melbourne and Brisbane needed desal plants because it was never going to rain again and you also thought it was never going to snow again.
I think that I have told you before, I don't bet with mentally challenged unfortunates, so I must decline your gracious offer.
Don't you think it odd that the sun never caused the warming before the hiatus? But now the consensus science thinks it has had an influence, golly gee bat off man.
How much warming has CO2 caused as compared to natural warming?
Time will tell Benrie Boy.

Banned commenter #1

Rubbish. Read the abstract properly. Consider also explaining deglaciation under orbital forcing if totat feedback nets negative. Hint: you can't. Paleoclimate behaviour requires that total net feedback is positive whether you are looking at the overall cooling trend across the entire Cenozoic, early Cenozoic hyperthermals or deglaciation under orbital forcing when TSI barely changes at all.

Now, back to your own thread please.

Agreed, BBD. Our escaped lunatic has totally misinterpreted the study. I went through the whole paper and nowhere does it even hint that increased C02 leads to radiative cooling.

Clearly spotty reads into anything what he wants to read. I am sure that the authors would be shocked to see how one minion denier has twisted their results to project his own world view.

And yes, get Spotty out of here and back into his corner, please.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 28 Jul 2015 #permalink

Wow, deniers REALLY hate rules and private ownership.

No matter what the propriator wants, they'll just damn well ignore it if it ever gets in their way.

Obviously, ownership and rights are only for the "right people".

I suppose you are correct, 2015 may be the hottest year according to GISS and their fudged figures...

Logical fallacy: argumentum ad infinitum, furtive fallacy, conspiratorial thinking.

...pushed along by an El Nino...

Ah, so no doubt you will now eschew any notion of a pause in warming on the basis that the 1998 El Niño distorts the statistics...

...and your [sic] praying to the great CO2 god in the atmosphere.

Logical fallacy: false attribution - you are lying by suggesting that I do so.

you were thought CO2 cuased [sic] the QLD floods

Logical fallacy: false attribution - you are lying by suggesting that I did so.

What I said in 2011 was:

This ongoing summer rain is mostly derived from the oceans warmed during the current La Niña event. To the extent that the oceans are warmer than in the past, the resulting additional consistency of rain events, driven by La Niña, will have exacerbated the flooding beyond what it might otherwise have been.

If you can't parse that correctly it indicates either your stupidity or your mendacity.

...Melbourne and Brisbane needed desal plants because it was never going to rain again...

Logical fallacy: false attribution - you are lying by suggesting that I did so. If you dispute this, please link to your evidence.

...and you also thought it was never going to snow again.

Logical fallacy: false attribution - you are lying by suggesting that I did so. If you dispute this, please link to your evidence.

I think that I have told you before, I don’t bet with mentally challenged unfortunates, so I must decline your gracious offer.

In other words you do not have the courage to stand by your blathering.

Your cowardice is telling.

Don’t you think it odd that the sun never caused the warming before the hiatus? But now the consensus science thinks it has had an influence, golly gee bat off man.

If you're referring to 20th century warming, then:

Logical fallacy: false attribution - contrary to your assertion the data indicate that the sun has almost no influence on the trajectory:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming…

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-…

If you're referring to paleoclimate effects of the sum on warming, then:

Logical fallacy: false attribution - science has has long recognised the effects of insolation on the heating of the planet.

How much warming has CO2 caused as compared to natural warming?
Time will tell Benrie Boy.

No need to wait Sunspot, it's easily seen already:

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 28 Jul 2015 #permalink

#98, you'll have to have that read to you again. Amber Rudd said 'Fuck Somerset'. Fact. And you repeat what Amber Rudd said. She said, and she meant it: 'Fuck Somerset'.

#99 the fucker can't fathom his own shallowness. Maybe he is (or wtf is 'GSW', an 'it'?) on Shell's payroll.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 28 Jul 2015 #permalink

cRR,.

"Amber Rudd said ‘Fuck Somerset’. Fact."

Ok then, where does this 'Fact' come from? Also, we're trying trying to work out exactly who you're saying is in the "payroll of Shell"? You're implying that it's government minister Amber Rudd. So what evidence do you have? you repellent little man.

"Ok then, where does this ‘Fact’ come from? "

Reality.

We live there. You should visit one day.

"we’re trying trying to work out exactly who you’re saying is in the “payroll of Shell”?"

Who is this "we" you speak of? Claim ignorance for yourself, don't drench everyone else in it so you don't feel lonely wearing the dunce cap.

Last thing, Gary, if BBD gives you the links, what will you do then?

Change nothing.

Therefore it's really not worth the effort to educate you since you will ensure you are ineducable on things you don't want to believe are true.

Oh, you may do ONE thing. Complain (as you have before) that the links were "not acceptable".

Which is another reason to tell you to do do the work yourself.

Google it. Bing it. Yahoo it. Email her.

bernie @ 6
Actually I recall a post of yours that directly attributed AGW to those floods, where is it now, I don't know, but everyone here knows that that is the type of reaction you have to all weather events.
In the mean time bernie boy would you please explain to your fellow co2 cultists your theory of how and why a La Niña event would cause warming, thanks in advance.
eg.....
Bernard J.
July 28, 2015
"This ongoing summer rain is mostly derived from the oceans warmed during the current La Niña event. To the extent that the oceans are warmer than in the past, the resulting additional consistency of rain events, driven by La Niña, will have exacerbated the flooding beyond what it might otherwise have been."

Fuck off spots.

i read NOTHING of what you wrote except the handle of someone who doesn't give a shit about anyone but themselves.

Hah, it hurts :D :D

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 29 Jul 2015 #permalink

What part of "fuck off spots" did you not understand?

Private property means nothing to you, does it.

Commie fuckwit.

Have a glass of glyphosate, sunshine idiot.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 29 Jul 2015 #permalink

Patrick Moore, ha ha ha

(with apologies to Roddy Doyle)

cRR

You should link to that little episode if you can remember where it was reported. Funny of the week, it was. Perhaps spots will then understand why we laugh at the mention of Paddy The Shill.

Ah, here it is!

Watch Paddy The Shill claim that glyphosate is harmless then refuse to drink the stuff. The context is that he's denying that glyphosate in weedkiller is a factor in increased incidence of cancer (NHL) in Argentina - despite the WHO research showing that it probably is.

Shill, baby! Shill!

What a pitiful joke the man is. And yet some clowns actually try to use him as an authority on atmospheric physics, no less.

It is to laugh.

BBD, climate revisionists want to have run around all the time, I turned the burdon onto them long time ago.
If suckspot comes up with that shill, we may assume, and I certainly assume, it knows about, among others, the glyphosate fiasco, including what the shill then said (including a meaningless three letter word into the statement), "I'm not an idiot".

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 29 Jul 2015 #permalink

.. climate revisionists want to have US run around all the time... by correction.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 29 Jul 2015 #permalink

But deniers will refuse to make any claims. That would require work and either prove them wrong or prove them lying.

So no benefit for them.

They'll post a link, then go "What do you think?".

I think they should do more work.

Ah, Patrick Moore, the guy who claimed that glyphosate was safe to drink but then when challenged to drink it got all huffy and refused and stormed out of an interview; the same Patrick Moore on who defends clear cut logging while having worked for the logging industry as an adviser; the same Patrick Moore who argued that 'not a single family of birds or beetles or mammals has become extinct because of logging' when anybody with half a brain realizes that extinctions are not measured at such a broad taxonomic scale but no higher than species or genetically distinct populations.

Good grief Sunspot is an idiot. He shoots himself in the foot every single time he writes in here.

Please Sunspot, shoo! Shoo! Back to your own thread where you can continue to spew out this nonsense.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 29 Jul 2015 #permalink

Actually I recall a post of yours that directly attributed AGW to those floods, where is it now, I don’t know, but everyone here knows that that is the type of reaction you have to all weather events.

You are full of shit.

But try hard find the evidence if you want. Provide the links. Have all of your numpty mates here help you. You won't find anything though - I very deliberately said what I said in 2011 for the self-evident reason in the quote above, and I couch all of my comments in a similar vein because it is the correct scientific way to describe weather events in the context of climate change.

Your claims to the contrary are just you lying/falsely attributing in an attempt to discredit me. Either that or it's an expression of a faulty thought process in your mind, reflecting a confirmation bias that synchronies with your ideology.

In the mean time bernie boy would you please explain to your fellow co2 cultists your theory of how and why a La Niña event would cause warming, thanks in advance.

Oh FFS you are ignorant. Do you honestly know so little on the ENSO that you don't understand what happens between an El Niño and a La Niña?

La Niña does indeed cause warming - in the western Pacific. Which is the whole point in terms of enhanced evaporation and cyclonic activity over Queensland, as occurred in 2011. You're confusing regional warming with the more general planetary warming that may occur in the El Niño phase when the trade winds shift the warmer waters east.

Get a clue and do some learning you bogan dropkick:

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/history/ln-2010-12/three-phases-of-E…

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 29 Jul 2015 #permalink

But try hard find the evidence if you want.

But he has provided evidence, Bernard! He said he remembered it! That is evidence in Denierville. If you're going to argue with morons, expect moronic arguments.

Look how long Spangles got away with "I remember it" before getting pwned by a carefully inserted stiletto of unassailable fact.

Freckles is cut from the same cloth. Its up to you to go and find the post that doesn't say what he claims to remember. Good luck with that. Better off waiting for the large men in white to bring his meds and put him back in his padded cell.

Look how long Spangles got away with “I remember it” before getting pwned by a carefully inserted stiletto of unassailable fact.

And who was that masked man with the rolled newspaper? We owe him muchos gracias.

Well, he signed on as stephenk. But since Spangles was the Wile E. Coyote of sea level rise, it seems appropriate to reference the live action riff on the Roadrunner and refer to him as Handsome Stranger (named after his father, of course).

@ 28
me….. “Actually I recall a post of yours that directly attributed AGW to those floods, where is it now, I don’t know, but everyone here knows that that is the type of reaction you have to all weather events.

you……
“You are full of shit.
But try hard find the evidence if you want. Provide the links. Have all of your numpty mates here help you. You won’t find anything though – I very deliberately said what I said in 2011 for the self-evident reason in the quote above, and I couch all of my comments in a similar vein because it is the correct scientific way to describe weather events in the context of climate change.”

you on an earlier occasion bernie boy.
“I am going to stick my neck out and comment on proportions myself.

The extraordinary flooding of Queensland, including [yesterday’s devastation near Toowoomba](http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/01/11/3110285.htm), [Grantham](http://www.abc.net.au/news/photos/2011/01/11/3110183.htm), and other towns in the area, is in large part a consequence of the La Niña conditions that the state is presently experiencing. The scale of these floods might not be quite apparent to international readers because Australia’s population density is so low compared to other countries, but rest assured that this summer’s events are setting records time and again.”

Yes bernie boy, hysterical arm waving again “setting records time and again”.
We’ll get to your dopey La Nina theory in the next post.

here you are again “I’m prepared to say that the rise in [sea surface temperature around Australia](http://i55.tinypic.com/24kzbjr.jpg) are responsible for a large part of the intensity of the weather events that have hit Queensland this summer, leading to the extraordinary rains”

cont....
haha, like derrrr bernie, everyone knew that, you are just being alarmist again, we all knew when you posted that big-noting crap that your underlying premise is that c02 caused those floods, dopey prick!

“I’m quite prepared to say that whilst they might have been “one in a hundred years” events in the past”
Sure thing bernie boy,
Tell me why the much larger Qld floods happened in the past when co2 in the atmosphere was less. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/austra…

“they’ll be much more common in the future as the sea surface temperatures continue to warm and to give rise to La Niña events as strong as the current one, or stronger.”

So why was it going to get warmer bernie boy? Your reason for this statement is that you thought that the piddly bit of co2 that came from burning fossil fuels had already caused warming and was going to fry the planet, correct?
ergo, you “directly attributed AGW to those floods”,

Now bernie boy…. this crapolla,,,, “as the sea surface temperatures continue to warm and to give rise to La Niña events as strong as the current one, or stronger.”

You just directly attributed AGW to those floods, if not, how or why did you think they would get stronger?

“Tony Abbott and his party members might be inclined to invoke biblical references by way of explanation for these events, but as far as I am concerned, climatology has a better handle on the matter. And climatological science says that the more we warm the planet, the more extreme weather events we’ll experience.”

Here you are blaming Tony Abbott for the floods??…………. Why?
Did the failed carbon tax cause the floods?
ref for bernies shite here….
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/01/09/andrew-bolt-vs-percentages/c…

And then after your alarmist, moronic, arm waving stupidity the truth rears it’s ugly head and smacked you straight through the canvas.
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/wivenhoe-dam-release-caused-b…

cont...
sunspot said.....
"In the mean time bernie boy would you please explain to your fellow co2 cultists your theory of how and why a La Niña event would cause warming, thanks in advance."

bernie boy said.......
"Oh FFS you are ignorant. Do you honestly know so little on the ENSO that you don’t understand what happens between an El Niño and a La Niña?

La Niña does indeed cause warming – in the western Pacific. Which is the whole point in terms of enhanced evaporation and cyclonic activity over Queensland, as occurred in 2011. You’re confusing regional warming with the more general planetary warming that may occur in the El Niño phase when the trade winds shift the warmer waters east.

Get a clue and do some learning you bogan dropkick:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/history/ln-2010-12/three-phases-of-E…"

So sorry bernie boy, you are grossly mistaken and befuddled old chap.

This from your own link berntard........
"The neutral phase
In the neutral state (neither El Niño nor La Niña) trade winds blow east to west across the surface of the tropical Pacific Ocean, bringing warm moist air and warmer surface waters towards the western Pacific and keeping the central Pacific Ocean relatively cool. "

maybe a couple of repeat quote's to get through your thick scull.
""The neutral phase""
"trade winds blow east to west across the surface of the tropical Pacific Ocean, bringing warm moist air and warmer surface waters towards the western Pacific"
"warmer surface waters towards the western Pacific"
That is towards Australia and Indonesia bernie,
No, no La Nina yet.

Are you starting to catch on bernie boy?

"La Niña
During a La Niña event, the Walker Circulation intensifies with greater convection over the western Pacific and stronger trade winds."

What that means bernie is that the trade winds ""continue"" pushing all the warmer water westwards.
That is towards Australia and Indonesia.
There is some nice pretty little pictures here that might help you understand http://www.bom.gov.au/watl/about-weather-and-climate/australian-climate…

Nowhere could I find where La Nina (the cold phase) causes warming bernie, your La Nina causing warming sounds suspiciously close to the theory that the alarmists have that agw causes snow, or agw causes acne, ha.....

tch tch tch bernie boy said to sunspot "Get a clue and do some learning you bogan dropkick:"

Fuck off back to your kennel, you retard.

Thanks Sunspot for (hamfistedly) quoting many of my statements that support my posts at #6 and #28. You appear to have arrived at a different conclusion as to the significance of my words, but that is simply a consequence of your intellectual deficiency and the resultant inability to parse.

Thanks also for agreeing with me that the http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/history/ln-2010-12/2011 La Niña warmed the western Pacific, causing the cyclones and the subsequent flooding that were the subject of my comments referred to in the preceeding paragraph.

I note that in your last post you confabulated my comments about warming in the western Pacific in 2011 with the current global warming resulting from the present El Niño, but anyone with an IQ over about 25 will understand that you are floundering like Clive Palmer in a pool of jelly. How does it feel to be recognised as one of the most stupid denialist commenters in the interweb? I wonder - are you proud of your lame logical fallacies, or does it really not occur to you that you are FUBARing any argument that you lay your hands on?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 30 Jul 2015 #permalink

Bernard correctly says to Spotty, "How does it feel to be recognised as one of the most stupid denialist commenters in the interweb?"

Given the absolute paucity of intelligence coming from the anti-science denier side, it must make Spotty feel quite proud. To be the most ignorant amongst a sea of stupidity takes quite some ability.

This explains why he was sent packing to his own thread. Brazen ignorance. And it also explains why, in true D-K fashion, he does not see it. Like other deniers who are also challenged in the brain stakes, Spotty think he possesses wisdom that somehow has mysteriously escaped the vast majority of the scientific community.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 30 Jul 2015 #permalink

Jeff, you really need to eat your words, obviously you also know very little about ENSO.
You follow along behind bernie like a Lemming over the cliff of stupidity.

From the BOM........
"El Niño Southern Oscillation(ENSO) is the term used to describe the oscillation between the El Niño phase and the La Niña, or opposite, phase.

In the eastern Pacific, the northward flowing Humbolt current brings cooler water from the Southern Ocean to the tropics. Furthermore, along the equator, strong east to southeasterly Trade winds cause the ocean currents in the eastern Pacific to draw water from the deeper ocean towards the surface, helping to keep the surface cool. However in the far western Pacific there is no cool current, and weaker Trades mean that this "upwelling" effect is reduced. Hence waters in the western equatorial Pacific are able to warm more effectively under the influence of the tropical sun. This means that under "normal" conditions the western tropical Pacific is 8 to 10°C warmer than the eastern tropical Pacific. While the ocean surface north and northeast of Australia is typically 28 to 30°C or warmer, near South America the Pacific Ocean is close to 20°C. This warmer area of ocean is a source for convection and is associated with cloudiness and rainfall.

However, during El Niño years, the trade winds weaken and the central and eastern tropical Pacific warms up. This change in ocean temperature sees a shift in cloudiness and rainfall from the western to the central tropical Pacific Ocean."
http://www.bom.gov.au/watl/about-weather-and-climate/australian-climate…

Again "El Niño Southern Oscillation(ENSO) is the term used to describe the oscillation between the El Niño phase and the La Niña, or opposite, phase."

La Nina is only a term or name that is used to indicate that different air/water temperatures and wind directions have coincided at the same time and have reached certain thresholds.

The combination of these events/phase is called ""La Nina"".

Poor befuddled bernie, the warmed western pacific is already in place,
""La Nina"" does not do anything other than act as a word to quantify a certain set of weather conditions.

Now bernie, try again to explain to myself and your fellow co2 extremist compatriots, how does La Nina warm the western pacific when it is only a word?????

Spotty.

Y*A*W*N*.

Back to your own asylum thread. Your views fall well outside the scientific mainstream. Take your 'brilliance' to them where you will laughed into oblivion. Until then, go away.

By jeff Harvey (not verified) on 30 Jul 2015 #permalink

His views fall outside sanity.

" that the piddly bit of co2 that came from burning fossil fuels had already caused warming " try 400 ppm HCN to your body, quote Paddy who said "Yes I am an idiot" if you can. 25-30 piddly grams of cynanide. Enjoy. And please selfietube it, macks.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 31 Jul 2015 #permalink

Bernard and Jeff, I think you are mischaracterising Freckles posts - they are nothing so quotidian as "moronic", they are, if I can presume to quote myself, a highly-refined, if rather idiosyncratic form of performance art.

Freckles doesn't have problems parsing posts. Posting links that disprove his arguments is his schtick, like Stephen Colbert's hyper-patriotic wingnut. Fleshing out his self-defeating links with a steady stream of incomprehensible burbling is just a sort of circus oompah ostinato.

Sunspot, I've seen some pretzel attempts to stand by an incorrect claim but yours takes the cake.

In 20011 I spoke of the La Niña increasing western Pacific temperatures, and hence enhancing rain distribution over Queensland. You appear to be saying that I was wrong, because the western Pacific was warm...

Congratulations for agreeing with me in order to refute me.

Perhaps you're confused because land temperatures on the Australian east coast tend to follow a slight inversion of the sea temperatures. There's a reason for this, and I'm curious if you can work it out yourself (if you're anything like Spangled Drongo you'll still be scratching your head in 2017...).

And since you apparently missed it the first time, have another read of this:

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/history/ln-2010-12/

Pick anything on that page that is incongruent with anything I've said, and cmpare and contrast. For brownie points follow the links provided and conduct the same exercise.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 31 Jul 2015 #permalink

bernie boy, this is more about your hysterical arm waving and your tone implicating co2 as the culprit.

eg...(less the links)
"The extraordinary flooding of Queensland, including [yesterday’s devastation near Toowoomba, [Grantham]), and other towns in the area, is in large part a consequence of the La Niña conditions that the state is presently experiencing. The scale of these floods might not be quite apparent to international readers because Australia’s population density is so low compared to other countries, but rest assured that this summer’s events are setting records time and again."

The truth was........
Wivenhoe dam had been warned about the impending large precipitation event and muffed the flood mitigation http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/queensland-floods/engineers-em…
Amongst the towns Wagner’s quarry was flooded and the dam wall burst and sent a large wave of water through Grantham and caused major damage and multiple deaths.

bernie boy went into panic mode, flailing his arms around, as he was spraying spittle at his poodah screen he punched out a panicked post to the Deltiod team, upon reading everyone was perplexed and quivered in horror.
Between the lines was bernie boy saying? AAaaaarrrrrrrrr... CO2 ARMAGEDDON IS HERE!!!

Anyhow, one question that has always been avoided is this.
Was the Wivenhoe dam water levels held at such a high level because bureaucrats, pollies and stakeholders were convinced by the co2 alarmists that it was never going to rain again?

Indeed, those Qld floods in all likelihood may have been caused by co2 phobia !

Now this...
"In 20011 I spoke of the La Niña increasing western Pacific temperatures, and hence enhancing rain distribution over Queensland. You appear to be saying that I was wrong, because the western Pacific was warm…"

Yes bernie, you were wrong, the water temps were already high, you need to read up about what actually instigates a La Nina event and you will see that those processes precede and are within the La Nina event.

from the BOM....
"Sea surface temperatures north of Australia were also at record-breaking highs – October, November and December 2010 tropical sea surface temperatures north of Australia broke previous records by large margins and, in contrast to temperatures over land, ocean temperatures around Australia were the highest on record during 2010.This contributed to the strength of the 2010–11 La Niña and its impacts on Australia"

Nowhere is there evidence confirming your "I spoke of the La Niña increasing western Pacific temperatures",
and your, "La Niña does indeed cause warming – in the western Pacific."
Contrary to your befuddled statements is the fact that the already very hot waters fueled the La Nina.

The BOM goes on to say.....
"The very high sea surface temperatures contributed to an increase in evaporation and high (and at times record) humidity levels over Australia. The increase in humidity was associated with the Australian monsoon arriving earlier and being stronger than normal during the 2010–11 northern wet season. Ultimately, the increase in monsoonal activity and evaporated water added to the potential for high rainfall over northern and eastern Australia.

bernie, your piffle about the La Nina causing the Qld floods and heating the ocean was simplistic, misguided, wrong and alarmist..............
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/history/La-Nina-2010-12.pdf

Spots is one deluded clown. He writes here as if Bernard was the only person on Earth arguing that climate change was primarily driven by increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Earth to Sunspot! Earth to Sunspot! This is the conclusion and accepted view of the bulk of the scientific community and of climate scientists. Patrick Moore doesn't make the grade. Its also the position of every major scientific orgaization on the planet, as well as of their members.

Get lost, you D-K afflicted creep.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 01 Aug 2015 #permalink

pinocchio you are nothing but a cheer squad, you obviously don't have any knowledge about the subject matter and can only pathetically mouth off.

You are a credentialed master of seal wanking and no doubt you can taste the 20th century anthropological co2 in your samples, you should write a paper on it to go with your other useless driveling writings.

No doubt when faced with a history of many flood events in Qld stretching back many many years, your likely explanation for them would that Dr Who was going back in time and opening his phone box door....... sheeeez your a nuffie.

http://www.bom.gov.au/qld/flood/fld_history/index.shtml

Bitches gotta bitch.

Back to your kennel, retard.

Right on Wow. But its actually quite amusing watching this deluded slimy creep (Sunspot) unravel before our very eyes. Suggesting that I am a "cheer squad" for thousands of tenured climate scientists who have more expertise and knowledge in their pinkies than Spotty has in his entire body x 1000 is utterly hilarious as well as ironic. Of course I defer to their expertise over an unhinged fruitcake with delusions of grandeur. They have done the mileage; Spotty hasn't even got past the start line. To Spotty: if you are such an esteemed self-taught expert then why aren't you considered a leading expert in climate science? Where is your lengthy publication list? At what academic institution are you the shining light?

We all know the truth here, being that you an anonymous nobody who is stuck on the blog circuit. To quote Norman Finkelstein, I pay about as much attention to your posts as I do to dudt on the floor.

To reiterate: you were banned from general threads at Deltoid because of your idiocy. Go back to your box where you can be the king of your own castle. On your own, that is.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 01 Aug 2015 #permalink

pinocchio, you have no hope of understanding?
You don't even realize that I have supplied information directly from the experts that you speak of.

Why don't you go and do a bit of homework yourself instead of sounding off like an ailing retard
in an echo chamber.

and jeff continues chanting..........
see oh too
see oh too
see oh too
seeohtooseeohtoo seeohtooseeohtooooooooooo
EVERYTHING is caused by seeohtooseeohtooooooooooo

Only nutters deny physics, clownspot.

Now fuck off, as others have suggested.

Sunspot continues his descent into insanity. Desperate measures are necessary if he is to have any hope.

His latest rant - suggesting that I alone implicate the dominant role of CO2 in driving climate change - is a case in pont.

It turns out that every major scientific body on Earth recognizes the prominent role of CO2. Every Academy of Science, and in the US alone NASA, NOAA, the EPA, AGU, etc. and given that each of these bodies has many thousands of staff or members, I tend to place their views over our clearly loopy flea on this thread.

I have repeatedly asked spotty where his publications are, and for a lust of the many esteemed venues where has presented his unique theory that runs counter to the scientific mainstream. And every time I get the same shrill and ulltimately vacuous reply. Which is to avoid the question. But of course he does.

As Stuart Pimm and I once wrote in Oikos, in any scientific debate there sre 3 main criteria to follow. First, follow the data. That of AGW deniers goes cold very quickly. Second, follow the credentials. In Spotty's case there aren't any. Most other deniers are on the academic fringe. Third, follow the money. We know that there is a very well funded industry of denial.

As for poor old Spotty, he's a sad little man whose ego is pumped up by the blogosphere which he feels gives him an identity. But he of course is a nobody. Now if only he would go away.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 01 Aug 2015 #permalink

Well, i would prefer a LIST...

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 01 Aug 2015 #permalink

Denial of radiative physics is a sure sign that one is dealing with a nutter.

And that is what Clownspot is doing. He denies that CO2 is dominant among the non-condensing GHGs in controlling planetary temperature by engaging and sustaining water vapour (positive) feedback.

If Clownspot cannot be bothered to do his homework and educate himself on the scientific understanding of this topic, then he is in no position to accuse others of poor topic knowledge.

That putrid little shitstain isn't in a position to say fuck all. Everything it does is a waste of space and only the raving outpourings of some diseased little hittlerite hating everything that they don't understand.

The puling little cockgobbler deserves to be taken out shot in the head.

And no, this isn't rhetorical.

Sigh. A troll counts a victory when they've goaded you into channeling Lubos Motl.

bbd, " He denies that CO2 is dominant among the non-condensing GHGs in controlling planetary temperature by engaging and sustaining water vapour (positive) feedback."

I don't recall saying that?

But....I am confident that there were a few inputs missing and a lot of dodgy temperature data going into those climate models.

wow,

"The puling little cockgobbler deserves to be taken out shot in the head.

And no, this isn’t rhetorical."

wow, you need to get off your xbox for a while, if I had of said that you lot would have rang the coppers and yelled and screamed blue murder.

and stop sooking like a little cry baby !!!

cRR "It snows somewhere, thus disproving global warming."

cRR you must have missed bernie boy getting all flustered and hysterical about the slightly warm ocean around Tassie a couple of years ago.

Au contraire............. It warms somewhere, thus proving global warming?

I'm here Sunspot, but underwhelmed by your stupidity/inability to parse to the point that I am disinclined to waste too many electrons repeating what uyou are contitutionally incapable of understanding. As Spangled Drongo helped me to demonstrate, even my seven year old is more knowledgable and deductive than your lot.

And it seems to have escaped your notice, but the cold weather over Tasmania is not a funtion of the ocean temperatures around it. That you have it wrong is simply further evidence that you just make shit up that fits your world view.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 03 Aug 2015 #permalink

Still waiting to see your lengthy publication list on climate Spotty, along with details of the conferences you have attended and scientifc lectures/seminars that you have presented.

My guess is that Spotty can answer these relevant queries with one figure: 0.

Again, as I keep saying over and over and over and over again, every major scientific organization on Earth accepts (1) that AGW is happening, (2) that it poses a serious threat to both natural and managed ecosystems, and (3) that the human combustion of fossil fuels and attendant increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations is the primary driver.

So the science on this is settled. Get that through your granite-thick skull Spotty. The science is settled. The remaining uncertainties relate to projected increases in regional and global temperarure patterns. This is where the debate amongst the scientific community is now. We - meaning scientists Spotty, not self-educated denier nobodies like you - have moved on. Get used to it.

Oh, and when you come up with insults and smears, try and think for yourself, if that is indeed possible. On Deltoid the deniers - with not a scientist amongst them - are a veritable echo chamber when it comes to smears. No an originsl one in the bunch. But then again since they are all simpletons, it figures,

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 03 Aug 2015 #permalink

Sunspot says,
"But….I am confident that there were a few inputs missing and a lot of dodgy temperature data going into those climate models."

So you think there are uncertainties others are ignoring.

That being the case, what on earth is the source for the certainty of *your* opinions, backed-up as they are by even fewer "inputs", virtually no "data" and certainly no professional "models"??

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 03 Aug 2015 #permalink

To reiterate: I anxiously wait for Spotty's esteemed credentials. Its so exciting this wait - knowing full well that it will amount to a great big zilch.

And when he comes back with his usual refrain which is to say that he has as much acumen as me to discuss GW, he always leaves out the little bit about my views being in concert with the overwhelming majority of real experts in the field. Its like me saying that I defer ti the expertise of 98 per cent of brain surgeons when they make a prognosis, simply on the basis that they are trained in this field and I am not. Spotty goes with the 2 per cent yet has no qualifications in the field of the human brain either. So what wonderful enlightened talent enables a nothing like Spotty to confidently belueve he knows more than 98 per cent of the world's experts? Now this is where the crux if the matter lies.

The truth us that he, like other 'armchair experts' is seriously afflicted with a bad case of the Dunning-Kruger syndrome. That is, their own rank incompetence prevents them from seeing how utterly ridiculous and simple their arguments are. I was trained in population and evolutionary ecology and I am fully aware of where not to cross the line. Poor Spotty isn't. He is like a car without brakes. They also play it safe and hide out as anonymous entities on blogs, as they know full well that were they to take their supposed 'wisdom' to acameduc bodies and conferences that they would be laughingstocks.

Hence why I ask Spotty what his bonafides are. At the same time, since its pretty likely that nobody in climate science has ever heard of him, why does he write in here? What is his point? If he is so utterly sure that he us a genius, why not take this brilliance to the climate science community? I have answered that abive. He knows he would be eaten alive.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 03 Aug 2015 #permalink

Jeff Harvey @ 63
"Still waiting to see your lengthy publication list on climate Spotty,"

Jeff, it would be a real hoot if you would post a few links to your climate science papers also.

sunspot @ 51
"Why don’t you go and do a bit of homework yourself instead of sounding off like an ailing retard in an echo chamber."

Jeff Harvey @ 63
"Oh, and when you come up with insults and smears, try and think for yourself, if that is indeed possible. On Deltoid the deniers – with not a scientist amongst them – are a veritable """"echo chamber""""" when it comes to smears. No an originsl one in the bunch. But then again since they are all simpletons, it figures,"

hahaha.......christ your a nuffie !!!!

Bernard J. ENSO esq. @ 62

Put as simply as I can, YOU FLUNKED FAILED FUCKED UP !!
Tripple F for you, back to school bernie boy. http://www.climate101.org/

"I defer ti the expertise of 98 per cent of brain surgeons when they make a prognosis, simply on the basis that they are trained in this field and I am not."

I'm terribly sorry to hear about your brain injury Jeff, I hope the experts can sort it out.

Sunspot, how did I "flunk"? Hm? Don't dribble and spray - use a coherent argument with at least semi-literate punctuation and logically-defensible comparisons and contrasts. Oh, and get with the program and learn some basic html tagging.

To date everything you've posted could be bettered by an elephant with a paintbrush.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 03 Aug 2015 #permalink

"Sunspot, how did I “flunk”? Hm?"
To answer that question as succinctly as possible...
Your overinflated ego blinds you from the fact that you are not as knowledgeable as you wish to convey.

bernies quote.................“La Niña does indeed cause warming – in the western Pacific.”

bernie again "I’m here Sunspot, but underwhelmed by your stupidity/inability to parse to the point that I am disinclined to waste too many electrons repeating what uyou are contitutionally incapable of understanding.

""""""uyou""""" ????????

""""""contitutionally"""""" ??????

hahaha........well done benie

And we have supertyphoon Souledor, another Haiyan-like tungsten disc beast of the kind that used to be rare but is now normal couple of times per year even out of season.
This one might teach Taiwan something about climate change soon.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 03 Aug 2015 #permalink

La Niña does indeed cause warming. Not only in the western Pacific, but also in the northeastern Pacific.

Deltoids, is macky always this incoherent? I've a hunch someone should call a doctor.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 03 Aug 2015 #permalink

*Soudelor

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 03 Aug 2015 #permalink

Ha!!! What did I tell you? Spots admits he has no scientific expertise whatsoever. Thanks you vile piece of nothing for being honest for once. But better still, he did exactly as I predicted - to feebly claim that I have no papers on AGW or CC either as if that levels the playing field.

But of course it does nothing of the sort. What our slimy simpleton does not admit ever is that his contrarian views run counter to the views of the vast majority of scientists including climate scientists. If I .was annihilating him in a face to face debate I would raise this not insignificant point, how does a sek educated clown somehow come to possess more knowledge in a complex field than experts who have spent decades in it?

Spots writes as if the CC debate begins and ends with contributiions to Deltoid; this is his myopic world, folks, and in creating it he has somehiw blocked a huge community of scientists and scholars out there.

The facts are these and are beyond debate. CC is real, and primarily driven by inreases in atmospheric concentrations of CO2, END OF STORY, full stop. This is the conclusion of the IPCC and of every major scientific organization on the planet, so bugger off Spots to your padded cell; we here are sick to death with your rank ignorance.

The debate now should shift to the political, economic and social forces driving CC and the wats in which we can prevent CO2 levels exceeding 450 ppm or critical tipping points that lead to altered states. Moreover, what will the effects be on ecosystem services and on natural and managed systems that sustain us?

And fir the record I have a book chaoter on the effects of CC on multitrophic interactions, another paper on conserving troohic interactions in the face of CC in preparation, and a third and most interesting one on how blogs and the media distort science in discussing Polar Bear demographics. The last one is the result of excellent work from one of my Master's students and we will be submitting it to a major journal later this year.

Spotty, for his oart, is a great big fat ZERO.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 03 Aug 2015 #permalink

PS sorry for the numerous typos but i am writing on an old IPAD. To be honest Spots is utterly brainless and an incompetent debater as well. I predict what this dope will say and he does. FrankD was right. Let's not waste our time on him. I think its time for Tim to shut the door on him - permanently this time. Let us see what we can do about it.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 03 Aug 2015 #permalink

spotty, just fuckoff, insane troll. Nobody needs you or likes you. Global warming is a truth, and you an asshole, also a truth.

Sunspot

I don’t recall saying that?

Everything you do arises from your denial of physics, including this astonishingly dishonest denial that you are a physics denier.

But….I am confident that there were a few inputs missing and a lot of dodgy temperature data going into those climate models.

You are 'confident', are you? Well, as someone who has endured your commentary for a while now, I do not share your confidence in your topic knowledge. For example, temperature data are not inputs to climate models. The temperatures are model outputs.

Who CARES what spot remembers saying or not? He's never worried about reality elsewhere.

“Sunspot, how did I “flunk”? Hm?”
To answer that question as succinctly as possible…
Your overinflated ego blinds you from the fact that you are not as knowledgeable as you wish to convey.

bernies quote……………..“La Niña does indeed cause warming – in the western Pacific.”

That's right KMS, I said that - and it's correct. From the BoM site to which I linked nearly a week ago:

La Niña

During a La Niña event, the Walker Circulation intensifies with greater convection over the western Pacific and stronger trade winds.

As the trade winds strengthen, the pool of warmer water is confined to the far western tropical Pacific, resulting in warmer than usual sea surface temperatures in the region north of Australia. Sea surface temperatures across the central and eastern tropical Pacific Ocean become cooler than usual and the thermocline moves closer to the surface – cool waters from the deep ocean are drawn to the surface as upwelling strengthens.

Convection and hence cloudiness over the region north of Australia increases as stronger winds provide more moisture to the overlying atmosphere and the Walker Circulation intensifies. This strengthens the Australian monsoon and, if the conditions are right, directs increased humidity and rainfall inland over Australia. La Niña events are associated with increased rainfall over much of northern and eastern Australia. Parts of northern and central Australia tend to feel the impacts of La Niña more than they feel the impacts of El Niño.

[My italics, to rub KMS's nose in what he just can't seem to grok]

This is exactly what I said, and I stand by my original statement that:

This ongoing summer rain is mostly derived from the oceans warmed during the current La Niña event. To the extent that the oceans are warmer than in the past, the resulting additional consistency of rain events, driven by La Niña, will have exacerbated the flooding beyond what it might otherwise have been.

So where's my mistake?

And if you're reduced to pointing out a couple of typos as if they're proof of any deficiency in the science I quote you're a sad, sad little basement-dweller indeed.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 03 Aug 2015 #permalink

Hmmm, italics don't work when the blockquote itself is italicised...

To help Spotty:

As the trade winds strengthen, the pool of warmer water is confined to the far western tropical Pacific, resulting in warmer than usual sea surface temperatures in the region north of Australia. Sea surface temperatures across the central and eastern tropical Pacific Ocean become cooler than usual and the thermocline moves closer to the surface – cool waters from the deep ocean are drawn to the surface as upwelling strengthens.

Convection and hence cloudiness over the region north of Australia increases as stronger winds provide more moisture to the overlying atmosphere and the Walker Circulation intensifies. This strengthens the Australian monsoon and, if the conditions are right, directs increased humidity and rainfall inland over Australia. La Niña events are associated with increased rainfall over much of northern and eastern Australia. Parts of northern and central Australia tend to feel the impacts of La Niña more than they feel the impacts of El Niño.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 03 Aug 2015 #permalink

Of course spots could do with starting at a few basics with the huge subject of Oceanography. Here you are spots a reference that will fill in some of your gaps:

Oceanography: An Invitation to Marine Science

but that still leaves some of the tougher physics and chemistry to grapple with. Atkins may be a little difficult for you but you really should persevere. In there you will learn about the surprisingly large number of phases of ice and the conditions under which they exist.

This still leaves aspects of radiative forcing, energy balance, palaeoclimatology and phenolgy in ecosystems which latter is one area where Jeff has considerable knowledge and expertise.

So, until you have absorbed more it is not worth you turning up here. So go away and learn something.

BBD A heads up but OT.

I don't know if you have seen the feature film to Master and Commander but a sound track music CD was released awhile back.

I had early obtained 'Musical Evenings in the Captain's Cabin' that was assembled by an American enthusiast group but I thought it unrepresentative of music hinted at in the book. I already had recordings of Corelli Concerto Grossi Opus 6 from which the Christmas Concerto was taken (the Pinnock double CD is still worth a look) and of Bocherini with music from his "Fandango, Sinfonie & La Musica Notturna di Madrid" (of which an excellent version is by Jordi Savil and Le Consert des Nations - Alia Vox label).

The CD introduced at the start of this post will set the mood whilst you read.

Lionel

Thank you. Your notes on the music (and on nautical reference books) have been very helpful.