October 2015 Open Thread

More thread.

Here's a proposition to animate some commentary...

A day will come within the next century when secular public opinion will see climate change denial/inaction as a capital crime, and religious society will see it as an utterly irredeemable sin.

Of course, by that time the damage will be so great as to render moot any such shifts in public sentiment.

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

Maybe so or maybe not not Bernard J?
http://www.news.com.au/national/western-australia/miranda-devine-perth-…
" He has found that, while the underlying physics of the model is correct, it had been applied incorrectly.
He has fixed two errors and the new corrected model finds the climate’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide (CO2) is much lower than was thought."
It turns out the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has over-estimated future global warming by as much as 10 times, he says."

While I'm guessing that me posting this article will unleash a fair bit of vitriol, let's not forget that this individual has relevant qualifications:

" A former climate modeller for the Government’s Australian Greenhouse Office, with six degrees in applied mathematics, Dr Evans has unpacked the architecture of the basic climate model which underpins all climate science.
&
"Dr Evans is an expert in Fourier analysis and digital signal processing, with a PhD, and two Masters degrees from Stanford University in electrical engineering, a Bachelor of Engineering (for which he won the University medal), Bachelor of Science, and Masters in Applied Maths from the University of Sydney.

BTW Bernard?
Capital Crime and/or utterly irredeemable sin?
You often claim that I am one of those deniers. Considering my personal footprint is probably at least carbon neutral if not carbon negative, what do you propose would be the benchmark for charging people with these capital crimes and/or I guess some type of excommunication from their religion?

Evans is wrong. Has he ever been correct about anything climate?

Evaans is ideologically attracted to 'anything but CO2', and has flirted with solar and cosmic ray crankery at every opportunity for the last decade.he keeps making the classic rejectionist mistake in not understanding how climate models work, imposed properties versus emergent ones.

Its funny how AGW deniers get all huffy when the credentials of statured scientists are mentioned in discussions on CC: but they do it all the time. Stu2 digs up the latest crank (Evans) and lists his degrees. Again, he's an outlier. For every Evans there are hundreds if not thousands of equally or much more qualified scientists saying something very different. Who do I believe, speaking as a scientist?

Not Evans.

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

Evans' pathology is obvious, and an obvious hindrance to credibility in his engagement in the climate change 'discussion'. For years he has been searching for some 'science' he can fit to his aversion to AGW, and his clearly healthy self-regard steers him to frequent ' swim against the tide' postures. He's another tiresome brilliant neo-Galileo.

His comments -frequent crude smears about 'government science' and gravy trains- reveal his ideological dislike of government and antagonism to the idea of government scale responses to social and environmental problems.

This latest beat up is obviously timed to give the Murdochian crank army something to spout now that Tony Abbott has been dumped in the lead up to the talks in Paris. Jo Nova and hubby are doing their bit for that ' amazing little black rock'.

"But wait!" shriek the far-right opinionators at News Ltd., "We have Dr Credentials, and he's overturned climate models"...it's so predictable...and it's all based on Evans attempting to conflate simple models with GCMs, and the usual debunked assertions about hot-spots, and politics in science..

http://www.desmogblog.com/david-evans

Yup, Stu2 has quoted anther pseudo. Evans has no peer-reviewed papers on climate science and apparently hardly any in other fields. Why does Stu2 even try? Where does he scrape these people up?!

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

So still not answered BBD's question.

"Its funny how AGW deniers get all huffy when the credentials of statured scientists are mentioned in discussions on CC:"

But eminence on a realists' side is met with some variation on "He wants to keep his job" or "He's part of the conspiracy",

Considering my personal footprint is probably at least carbon neutral if not carbon negative

Bullshit. Put all your numbers on the table.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 05 Oct 2015 #permalink

Bah.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 05 Oct 2015 #permalink

He doesn't exist, hence he's less than the average, hence he's negative.

Some sort of mathturbatory BS.

Or a flat out lie.

1) My wife & I have planted over 200,000 native trees over the past 2 decades ( no subsidies)
2) We grow at least half of our own food.
3) We recycle.
4) We are not on town water & we recycle that too.
5) We don't use electricity or gas to heat our home.
6)We are net producers not net consumers.
I could add more but that will probably suffice :-)
so Bernard J?
What's your benchmark for those capital crimes and/or excommunications?

Stu 2, I match you (at least) on 2-5, and I know from my own deconstructions that they are woefully insufficient to counter the use of consumer items like conventionally constructed houses, vehicles, electronics, clothing, and the sundry other stuff with embodied fossil carbon that many like to ignore.

On your tree planting program, what's your success rate? I spent a summer in my teens rehabilitating mine sites, and more recently replanting my own valley, and I am intimately aware of the difficulty of establishing a high rate-to-maturity. And as you acknowledge that you live in an arid area your stats will be interesting indeed. Further, on what country type did you plant? One of the fallacious accounting tricks that pisses me off about carbon-credit grabbers is that they pretend that the land planted would not have regenerated vegetal biomass without their plantings - in such circumstances it matters not a whit if you planted 2 million plants: their carbon is not to your credit.

Further, revegetation offsets tend to ignore the fact that much regrowth is actually labile over the period of a few years to a few decades and hence returns to the atmosphere in short order, reducing the claimed effectiveness of the revegetation.

You will of course have the workings to illustrate that your efforts are of a magnitude that they make you a "net producer". See, with my own revegetation on my own landholdings I could say the same thing, but the fact of the matter is that it's all one wildfire away from literally going up in smoke. And the wildfire risk is escalating in my corner...

The hard facts are that as much as we should plant like crazy it's not the answer to global warming. Reduction and cessation of emissions must come first, then permanent removal of carbon. Revegetation has its benefits, but if there is any risk of drought or fire in the regions of revegetation much of that benefit is fleeting, or simply spurious.

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

"The hard facts are that as much as we should plant like crazy it’s not the answer to global warming. "

Indeed. To manage to be so,we'd have to increase the amount of plant matter by something around 100 billion tons a year.

Not plant, INCREASE.

And all to stay still if we merely stop increasing our energy use from fossil fuels. That doesn't revert us to the Holocene optimum our cities were laid out in, but puts us at a climate where most of the Penn, Oregon, Michigan, et al areas were under shallow water, along with Oxford, most of the australasia islands, so on and so forth.

To COMBAT it,we'd have to spend 50 years at DOUBLE that increase, 200Gt/y.

That's a lot of effort and expense (and loss of land) when we could do better by doing less.

200,000 over 20 years is 10,000/year. That's an average of about 30/day.

By turboblocke (not verified) on 06 Oct 2015 #permalink

Apparently Nicaragua is the third poorest country in the western hemisphere yet, In 2013 Nicaragua produced 40% of its electricity from non-hydro renewable energy and in 2014, on an hourly basis, it produced up to 50% of its generation from wind power alone (CNDC 2015).
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/10/104002

By turboblocke (not verified) on 06 Oct 2015 #permalink

So Bernard J?
What therefore is your proposed benchmark to charge for capital crimes and/or excommunication?

In answer to your question:
As previously mentioned, ur expertise is in Agriculture and NRM.
Our success rate is very high as we actually know what we're doing and why we're doing it and of course how to do it successfully.

Very good Turboblocke, I can see that you know how to average both @ # 15 & 16
I'm not sure what you think it means?
Tree planting is not a daily activity as there are certain seasons and conditions when one should plant trees and others when one shouldn't plant.
30 trees is a piece of cake. When we get cracking in the right conditions we can plant many hundreds in a day.

Stu 2, if you've planted 200,000 tree over twenty years you should be able to give a detailed account of percentage success/failure over time - "very high" is a meaningless statistic.

And I repeat, if you're planting in an arid area you are going to have high loss given the number of trees that you apparently plant. It's the simple tension between getting large numbers into the ground and providing ongoing care. And at the rate that you claim you must be planting tubestock or small pots at the most, which have an especially high loss rate in arid areas unless long wet periods follow planting.

So, I say again - can you put numbers on the table?

Further, you claimed that you and your wide planted these trees with "no subsidies". This implies that you are not talking about anything done through NRM: if you're counting NRM trees then you are falsely inflating your own carbon footprint, as the offsets don't belong to you.

And once again you engage in logical fallacy and misrepresentation. I did not offer any "proposed benchmark to charge for capital crimes and/or excommunication" in my first post: you are falsely attributing that to me. Nice job though trying to throw some mud.

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

Bernard J.
We have replanted/revegetated what was there before previous governments decreed that farmers had to completely clear their land.
As long as they're planted in the right conditions and the right seasons the success rate is very high. Any that don't make it, are replaced by reseeding and regeneration by the vast majority that do make it.
Contrary to your assertion, the species that are native to this area are very good at surviving. That's why they were here in the first place. Right climate, right soil types for those species.
It's not at all hard to give them an initial watering if necessary. This area may be semi arid but it also part of Australia's most productive food bowl due to irrigation storage and infrastructure.
NRM is the acronym for Natural Resource Management.
Once again, contrary to your assertion, NRM is not just a government portfolio or a departmental responsibility. We have planted them at our own expense because we believed it was right thing to do. It has sweet FA to do with claiming carbon offsets. That wasn't why we did it. However, it is indeed a carbon offset anyway : is it not?
And finally.
Your first post says:
" Here’s a proposition to animate some commentary…"
I was animated to make a comment and ask a question about this:
" A day will come within the next century when secular public opinion will see climate change denial/inaction as a capital crime, and religious society will see it as an utterly irredeemable sin."
I still have the same question.
What's the criterion or the benchmark to charge for this capital crime or excommunicate people from their religion?

When you've answered BBD's question, THEN you get to demand answers to your newest ones.

Otherwise you need to say whether you dance with the devil in the pale moonlight.

While I’m guessing that me posting this article will unleash a fair bit of vitriol

You mean like pointing what a stupid fucking intellectually dishonest cherry picker you are? Hey everybody, here's a guy who says that every climate scientist in the world is wrong, and he's got credentials!

Do everyone a favor and get hit by a truck, you vile piece of shit.

Odd, isn't it.

You can post insane shit and insult an entire institution, but apparently it becomes proof that your insult is true MERELY by predicting that those you insult will get angry at you for insulting them.

It OUGHT to be the case that the deniers whines about being called deniers PROVES that they are deniers because calling them deniers unleashes a fair bit of vitriol against those who do so.

But apparently, that's not allowed to work there. Apparently only works if the one doing it has bugger all evidence of the veracity of their statements. Some rhetorical version of the "Conservation of Ninjitsu". The fewer arguments you have for your position, the more the few remaining become "more valid".

Petri:

"Adding cursing and invectives and the Pres of Sierra Club would sound and act exactely like a Deltoid:"

You mean " The Sierra Club's president sounds better informed than Ted Cruz"? It's not hard to be better informed than Cruz.

Nick, well if you think not answering questions and using mantras free from science "informed", I guess you are right.

He was full of knowledge as were the old witchhunters. :-)

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

That's it, Lappers, yip away!

And, hey! Good to see you on the side of getting Stupid to answer BBD's question!

So, Op, do you think Cruz is getting anywhere by arching his eyebrows and peering over imaginary glasses?

He's utterly mole-whacked on his claims, and has been ever since you were a lad. But I understand, when all you have is a sad GOP self-deluder and somebody-language, you'll go with it.

Yeah, galloing diarrhea doesn't have any credentials. That claim was overblown.

But when are you going to answer BBD's question, stupid?

Stu , i didn't see many climate scientists in your Wiki list

By turboblocke (not verified) on 10 Oct 2015 #permalink

Thanks for replies to my query on glaciers in
the August thread.
Ive got a new one. About thermal expansion.
Get a container of brine and add heat carefully
so the heat is stratified. Measure expansion.
Then mix it quickly so the heat is relitivly even.
Is the level more less or same after mixing?
Im sure its basic physics but im a real idjit at
such stuff.
Thanks in advance.
Li D.

I should perhaps clarify the reason for
the above query. Ive read a post on a
interweb site ( not a shit denier blog btw)
and the poster reckons current SLR is
a response to heat from early 20th centery and the time lag is the dissipation ( mixing )
rate. Im almost certain this idea is full of shit
but would like to competently understand
for sure for my own knowledge.
Couldnt give a rats arse about the poster.
In my mind if heat is added the thermal expansion
is instantaneous no matter the location.
But unsure if warm water ( say ocean surface) with x heat added
is equal in expansion to cool water with same
x heat added ( ie heat moving down to lower ocean
layers by mixing or conduction.

Li D,

I'm fairly sure your correspondent is full of shit, too, but to a couple of aspects to think about:
Water density changes at different rates depending on the base temperature. Heating 12 degree water by 1 degree takes the same energy as heating 4 degree water by 1 degree, but the resultant expansion is as much as 40 times as great in the first case. For water between 0 and 4 degrees, it actually contracts as it warms.

Imagine a body of water, insulated from additional heat gain or loss, with an even temperature profile from 20 degrees at the top to 4 degrees at the bottom. As heat equilibrates through the column, and the temperature of the whole becomes uniform, the contraction of warmer water losing heat will be greater than the expansion of the colder water as it warms, resulting in a net overall contraction.

While that is a very-not-real-world example, it is illustrative of one aspect of a complex process. Some of the deep water in the ocean hovers around zero degrees, and if that is being warmed, it will offset some of the expansion of warmer areas being heated. Similarly for where warm water is losing heat to cold water; while the cold water expands, the warmer water contracts by more, unless more heat is flowing into it to maintain its temperature.

Of course, where the example above is really not-real-world is that the surface is being continuously heated and expanding...

Current expansion is not attributable to current warming, or last year's, or last century's. Rather it is a complex function of all the history of warming (and cooling) for however long it takes for heat to penetrate through the whole depth of the ocean.

But where I think you correspondent has it totally wrong is that energy absorbed a long time ago has progressively (on average) moved from warmer water to cooler, it has a net negative effect on SLR over its "lifetime" after initially warming surface water. If it were not for excess energy entering the oceans now, the passage of heat from warmer water to cooler water would cause sea levels to drop.

My 2 cents

Waaaaa! No wonder theres so much noise
in some graphs with so much complexity!
Thankyou Frank D for clear reply.
So much more to think about now.
Kudos to people who devote their careers to
trying to give the public and policy makers a clearer
picture of how our little biosphere works.
They deserve every encouragement. Which includes
honest skepticism. Which is not what the denier freaks do.

Kudos, Li D.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 12 Oct 2015 #permalink

O'louse, if we thought that "using mantras free from science" = informed, you and your ilk would be treated like enlightened masters. We'd be prostrating (no, not prostituting, dumb-ass) ourselves in front of every denier, begging for knowledge... for words of wisdom. Hang on...I can hear one of masters meditating _ "Ommm...Ommm...global warming is a hoax...Ommm...climategate...Ommm...the pause...Ommm...CO2 is plant food..."

2Stew says, "I still have the same question. What’s the criterion or the benchmark to charge for this capital crime or excommunicate people from their religion?"
Well, you've got one thing right. Denial, which is belief without evidence, is indeed like a religion. But as far as charging any deniers for crimes against humanity, you and the other dummies who come here are quite safe; you'll plead ignorance and I don't think anyone of us could argue against that. We're not interested in the sheep; only the shepperds _ those who persistently feed you the shit that you so happily swallow.

"...one of the masters..."

Here you go fellas.
https://medium.com/@pullnews/what-i-learned-about-climate-change-the-sc…
My take home message is that we are doing more damage to ourselves and our environment via this political mess.
The money and the time could be far better spent on challenges that we can actually do something about.
I also think this one is worth noting:
" Consensus is not an argument for any scientific principle. Many important scientists toiled alone to make discoveries that were less than popular. One key paper can be worth more than thousands of papers reinforcing a myth. The claim that 97 percent of scientists believe in man-made global warming is one such myth. Almost all scientists expect a small man-made contribution to warming, so the claim is misleading. But it doesn’t matter. What matters is gathering evidence, analyzing it, and changing our view when we learn something new"
There are links on the page to follow re this point.

"Here you go fellas."

What? You think there are moron deniers on the internet? We already knew that.

"The money and the time could be far better spent on challenges that we can actually do something about."

How can you know we can't do anything about if if it's unsettled????

"” Consensus is not an argument for any scientific principle."

Why? Just because you have no idea what the consensus is caused by?

"Many important scientists toiled alone to make discoveries that were less than popular."

Go on. Prove that that is a reliable method of determining the facts.

"One key paper can be worth more than thousands of papers reinforcing a myth."

Yes. However, your idiocy is such that you think that AGW is a myth. It isn't.

"The claim that 97 percent of scientists believe in man-made global warming is one such myth"

No, it's a fact.

"Almost all scientists expect a small man-made contribution to warming"

Now THERE'S a myth!

"What matters is gathering evidence, analyzing it, and changing our view when we learn something new”

Yeah, except deniers don't learn anything new. They're in denial.

Wow.
There is a link provided at that site for you to use to advance your argument.
Considering how quickly you have posted here, you probably haven't read it. The essay itself is approx 9000 words, let alone the other references.
I'm not interested in engaging with your uninformed, strident name calling.
Go and engage with Mr Siegal.

"Wow.
There is a link provided at that site for you to use to advance your argument."

yes, I noted the http: URL and the blue underlined stuff. It was why I said that we already know that denier nutters are on the internet.

"The essay itself is approx 9000 words, let alone the other references."

And Atlas Shrugged is a long book. Its length doesn't mean it is accurate or not insane ravings.

The stuff you repeated was indication enough that it is a load of bollocks.

Go read the IPCC report. It's even longer. And have hundreds of references. If length is indication of validity for you.

"I’m not interested in engaging with your uninformed, strident name calling."

Only time for your uninformed strident name calling...

“If you don’t agree with my conclusions, please fill out the survey so I can record your vote. You can see the survey results if you’re interested"

Except truth isn't decided by a vote, retard.

It is NO WAY to engage, because the moron won't bother to change its mind when most people (if they polled the general public) voted that they were wrong.

You engage by doing SCIENCE to counter the science in the IPCC reports. Not feelings. Not conspiracy theories. Do science.

"It might be a good idea to read it first however "

Why? The bits you copied indicate they are a moron without a clue, just repeating denier mantras.

Wow.
You quite clearly haven't read it.
The piece is largely about a change of mind.
He would entirely agree with your point about doing Science rather than feelings IMHO.

"You quite clearly haven’t read it."

I've read enough. Or did you pick out the least important bit to quote for us? Because that would be stupid.

Why don't you read the IPCC reports? See if you want to change your mind.

Stu 2 repeats what The Australian has to say about Evans,
" A former climate modeller for the Government’s Australian Greenhouse Office"

I am of the opinion that this is a false statement.

In Evans' own words:

"I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia’s compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector."

Not climate modelling.

Once again The Australian attempt to puff up the credentials of the outlier opiniators whose views they prefer to the genuine scientists'.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 18 Oct 2015 #permalink

Sorry Craig?
I quoted the Miranda Devine article. There are also others in the SMH.
Are you saying that David Evan's qualifications and work experience mean he is precluded from commenting on modeling of the effects of CO2 and Carbon because it's not specifically climate modelling?
He did work for the Australian Greenhouse Office and was involved in the FULLcam modelling, specifically carbon accounting.
There are plenty of people who work in modelling and who even work in climate modelling who do not specifically call themselves climate modellers.

Well I can do the company accounts, but I can't model the economy.

By turboblocke (not verified) on 19 Oct 2015 #permalink

Perhaps a little hyperbolic ianam?

Not enough to matter, you vile piece of denier shit. You're so dishonest, you even deny being a denier, while pushing every denier meme and defending deniers against "a little hyperbole". What a despicable creep.

Here you go fellas.
Ah, yes, a link to some ignorant cretin's blog post is worth reading because Stupid nodded along when he read it.

I also think this one is worth noting

Because, again, Stupid nodded along with this ignorant and intellectually dishonest drivel.

Here's a clue: all accepted science is accepted by consensus. That's what "accepted" means. Without consensus, there is no science, and no scientific progress.

In most cases, the size of the error bars (uncertainty) around the number is more important than the number itself. says Siegel. And then presents a load of charts without any error bars

How about, "It could easily be a complex relationship, but CO2 changes do not initially cause historical temperature changes. Yes and arsonists do not historically start forest fires.

Surface stations project: LOL. The USA is not the world. Talk about hook, line and sinker. I think he swallowed the rod too.

I could go on, but is there any point in trying to explain to the hard of thinking? Let's face it: once you've invested all that energy in the mental contortions to deny reality, a few words and facts is not going to make you change your mind is it?

By turboblocke (not verified) on 19 Oct 2015 #permalink

"Sorry Craig?
I quoted the Miranda Devine article. "

So you believed what you were told without any skeptical inquiry at all?

SURELY NOT!

Maybe before spouting some bullshit again, you need to check your facts.

"He did work for the Australian Greenhouse Office and was involved in the FULLcam modelling, specifically carbon accounting."

It wasn't climate modelling.

"Surface stations project: LOL. The USA is not the world. Talk about hook, line and sinker. I think he swallowed the rod too."

it also shows that the adjustments made by GISS are probably overcompensating for UHI, since if you take "well positioned" stations and do the raw data analysis of trend, it's higher than the GISS trend.

Which is why Tony dumped the project and people had to do the papers themselves (and get told off by Tony and cronies for "stealing" their data and producing the paper on it).

I have been having a field day annihilating comments from GC and Kim over on the September thread. But folks, you gotta read this one. Its a whopper. It came from Gc on a comment he made on DeSmog Blog a couple of years ago:

"While high temperatures cause problems, there are benefits such as ice free poles. Antarctica becomes temperate (http://www.scotese.com/earlyeoc1.htm); the frozen parts of Canada and Russia become fertile"

Utterly, totally, ridiculously crazy! Its this kind of stupidity that characterizes the denier mindset. They honestly and seriously believe that if the polar regions were to attain temperate climates within 100 years that humanity would benefit. And that if Minnesota were suddenly as warm as Florida that all would be well. I cringe when I read this bilge.

Here's the problem: if the planet were to warm to that level within 1000 years, let alone 100, natural ecosystems across the planet would collapse so quickly and generate a mass extinction event so massive that it would dwarf the other great 5 that have preceded it. Homo sapiens would be the most obvious victim, but you could throw in most terrestrial vertebrates, vascular plants and inverts into the mix, leaving some pathogens, bacteria, fungi etc. to pick over the planetary carcass. Its as simple as that. The very fact that Gc made such a stupid remark didn't surprise me, given how vacuous most of his views are, but what stuns me is that there are people out there at all who believe this stuff at all.

They think that species and populations can simply adjust in a few decades to temperatures well outside of their thermoneutral zones; that acid soils characteristic of boreal zones will magically transform into alkaline soils that will allow us to grow crops on them; that ecosystems that have evolved under a relatively narrow range of temperatures will simply switch over the new systems with temperatures way, way above those in which they evolved.

This is comedy gold. Really. Gc also makes dumb comments about species thriving in warmer, C02 enriched conditions when its known that diversity on the planet was higher in the recent Holocene than at any other time in the planet's history. If I were to go to a major conference - say the next International Ecological Congress - and present a talk saying this stuff I'd be laughed out of the venue. Seriously.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 19 Oct 2015 #permalink

I think that they're confused by the Mercator projection and think that there's huge amounts of land up North. They also fail to realise that the growing seasons and amount of light impinging are not what our crops are used to.

By turboblocke (not verified) on 20 Oct 2015 #permalink

BTW... Nice one Canada!

By turboblocke (not verified) on 20 Oct 2015 #permalink

They also fail to realise that the growing seasons and amount of light impinging are not what our crops are used to.

Indeed and here is a snippet

But this dormancy is much more than a period of suspending animation. It's part survival mechanism, part housekeeping exercise, all meant to help plants gear up for warmer days ahead.

From this article What happens to plants in winter?. I suspect Jeff could add more.

And these ignoramuses (statement of fact not name calling) wonder why the are lambasted with monikers they don't like.

I wish The Rabett would do something about choice of reply options for Russell Seitz has once made a over simplistic comment, I quote:

Russell Seitz said...

As lightning is a primary inorganic source of atmospheric NOx , Brian should prevail on Jerry Brown to criminalize worship of Zeus, Thor, and other popular Hollywood dieties, lest empowering them lead to rye grass proliferation : to avoid multicultural indignation, he'd better ban Ceres and Tlaloc as well.

So much for sartorial sarcasm.

See Allergic to Volkswagen

One could just as easily point out that CO2 is naturally produced but that does not mean we should be adding more to the atmosphere.

Poor ol' jiffy is as usual sucker-bait for a con on AGW with hurricane Patricia reports.

When past hurricanes of "much lesser strength" have managed to kill half a million people he still believes in the crap sci of his favourite religion.

Not one death reported yet jif. Highest windspeed recorded on land all of 65 knots.

Yawn !

I've been sailing in stronger breezes than that.

Get a mind, jiffy.

How can you doltoids keep endlessly lapping up this crap?

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 24 Oct 2015 #permalink

How can you doltoids keep endlessly lapping up this crap?

Apposite words indeed which nod at the inanities of the rest of that post and the impossible to validate bragging.

Short answer, with some stomach churning.

Strangled parrot:

Poor ol’ jiffy is as usual sucker-bait for a con on AGW with hurricane Patricia reports.

When past hurricanes of “much lesser strength” have managed to kill half a million people he still believes in the crap sci of his favourite religion.

That religion thing again, look up the difference between religion and scientific understanding and stop looking like an utter ignoramus (not an ad hominem BTW).

Not one death reported yet jif. Highest windspeed recorded on land all of 65 knots.

Now where did you pull that 65 knots figure from? Don't bother I know and it isn't pleasant.

It looks like you dropped a leading one and confused the units (or your source ? did).

Now tell me brave mariner, of you were sailing off the Pacific coast of Mexico as Patricia roared in what wind speeds would you have had to cope with? More than your skill set and vessel could stand up to I would warrant.

Here read the whole article from which this is an extract:

Patricia weakening at landfall
Late-afternoon data from a NOAA hurricane hunter aircraft in Patricia indicates that the hurricane is forming concentric eyewalls, presaging an eyewall replacement cycle, where the inner eyewall collapses and is replaced by an outer eyewall that forms out of a spiral band. This process typically weakens the peak winds of the hurricane by up to 20 mph, but spreads out the highest winds of the storm over a larger area. This process typically reduces the wind damage from a storm, but makes a larger storm surge, leading to more storm surge damage.

Now more on your landfall wind speed claim, oops looks like you were wrong again:

Hurricane Patricia weakens.

Oops. Left out a simple forward slash.

Strangled parrot:

Poor ol’ jiffy is as usual sucker-bait for a con on AGW with hurricane Patricia reports.

When past hurricanes of “much lesser strength” have managed to kill half a million people he still believes in the crap sci of his favourite religion.

That religion thing again, look up the difference between religion and scientific understanding and stop looking like an utter ignoramus (not an ad hominem BTW).

Not one death reported yet jif. Highest windspeed recorded on land all of 65 knots.

Now where did you pull that 65 knots figure from? Don't bother I know and it isn't pleasant.

It looks like you dropped a leading one and confused the units (or your source ? did).

Now tell me brave mariner, of you were sailing off the Pacific coast of Mexico as Patricia roared in what wind speeds would you have had to cope with? More than your skill set and vessel could stand up to I would warrant.

Here read the whole article from which this is an extract:

Patricia weakening at landfall
Late-afternoon data from a NOAA hurricane hunter aircraft in Patricia indicates that the hurricane is forming concentric eyewalls, presaging an eyewall replacement cycle, where the inner eyewall collapses and is replaced by an outer eyewall that forms out of a spiral band. This process typically weakens the peak winds of the hurricane by up to 20 mph, but spreads out the highest winds of the storm over a larger area. This process typically reduces the wind damage from a storm, but makes a larger storm surge, leading to more storm surge damage.

Now more on your landfall wind speed claim, oops looks like you were wrong again:

Hurricane Patricia weakens.

"When past hurricanes of “much lesser strength” have managed to kill half a million people "

So what is that supposed to mean, spanky? That this one, being even more violent is more potentially dangerous to life and property?

Seems like you should be alarmed at it, then.

"he still believes in the crap sci of his favourite religion."

What? He's Christian, is he?

Because science isn't a religion. And it's odd that you, who whine so badly about being labelled denier because it's like, the holocaust, man!, yet feel 100% absolutely fine saying that believing in a religion is a really REALLY bad thing.

I guess you're a bit of a Stalin, eh?

"Not one death reported yet jif."

Yeah, hard to record the future. Unless, like you deniers, you go ahead and make it up

And the thing is, part of the reason for the low death count so far is that we "alarmists" have told you all about the problem THEN PEOPLE DID SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

Odd how that works, innit?

Liarnel A thinks Patricia was worst hurricane EVAH !!! because all the Doltoids get their science from alarmist rags that, like them, depend on crap sci for a living.

Got any reliable AWS records for your wind speeds, Li?

Here's one "reliable" one you would love:

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/ja22vel2_60…

1800 klm/hr

Woo Hoo !!!

And what about those 120 metre high waves?

Too bad about the non mass destruction though.

Mexicans seem to be tidying up the aftermath with no more than a broom.

What a Bummer for Barry's Paris Party.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 25 Oct 2015 #permalink

"Liarnel A thinks Patricia was worst hurricane EVAH !!"

So you disagree with the observations of Patricia, then.

Oh, and please stop with the denier blogrolls that aren't even worth wiping an arse on.

And only a denier would be sad about a lucky break.

Bit embarrassed, hey Wowsie?

I would be too with the crap you Doltoids serve up.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 25 Oct 2015 #permalink

"And only a denier would be sad about a lucky break."

More crap from wowsie.

That's not a "lucky break" wowsie, you clot.

Patricia is simply the non-event it always was.

You Doltoids were praying for and claiming it to be something it never was.

How so unlike doltoids ☺.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 26 Oct 2015 #permalink

What is clear from his pathological behavior is that SD thinks he's a really big guy on Deltoid, whereas in the real world of science he's a complete and utter nobody, anonymous, beyond parody. Science long ago moved on from the crap he spews out here. And he's stuck on blogs, continually pasting links to sites nobody here but he reads, as if he is making a point. WUWT is not science in any way shape or form; its an obese ex-weatherman and a motley crew of nobodies preaching to the ignorant and telling them what they want to hear. Do scientists consult WUWT for information? Never.

He also equates the strength of a hurricane or typhoon solely on its human impact. Totally daft and beyond worthy of a reply.

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

Unlike you, jiffy luv, I don't claim to be an expert on anything. Just a reasonably rational person who looks at carpetbaggers like you with a certain amount of scepticism.

Poor foolish jiffy is in complete denial of the fact that Patricia was a pussycat.

Read what French mathematicians think of you:

https://translate.google.com/translate?depth=1&hl=en&prev=search&rurl=t…

Chapter 1: The crusade is absurd
There is not a single fact, figure or observation that leads us to conclude that the world‘s climate is in any way disturbed‘. It is variable, as it has always been, but rather less so now than during certain periods or geological eras. Modern methods are far from being able to accurately measure the planet‘s global temperature even today, so measurements made 50 or 100 years ago are even less reliable.

Concentrations of CO2 vary, as they always have done; the figures that are being released are biased and dishonest. Rising sea levels are a normal phenomenon linked to upthrust buoyancy; they are nothing to do with so-called global warming. As for extreme weather events – they are no more frequent now than they have been in the past. We ourselves have processed the raw data on hurricanes.

Chapter 2: The crusade is costly

Direct aid for industries that are completely unviable (such as photovoltaics and wind turbines) but presented as ‗virtuous‘ runs into billions of euros, according to recent reports published by the Cour des Comptes (French Audit Office) in 2013. But the highest cost lies in the principle of ‗energy saving‘, which is presented as especially virtuous. Since no civilization can develop when it is saving energy, ours has stopped developing: France now has more than three million people unemployed – it is the price we have to pay for our virtue.

Chapter 3: The crusade is pointless

If we in France were to stop all industrial activity (let‘s not talk about our intellectual activity, which ceased long ago), if we were to eradicate all trace of animal life, the composition of the atmosphere would not alter in any measurable, perceptible way.

This just goes to show the truth of the matter: we are fighting for a cause (reducing CO2 emissions) that serves absolutely no purpose, in which we alone believe, and which we can do nothing about. You would probably have to go quite a long way back in human history to find such a mad obsession.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 26 Oct 2015 #permalink

SD says, "[I am] Just a reasonably rational person"

Well there you go. Wrong, wrong, wrong. There's nothing rational about your views on science in any way. You're a hysterical AGW-conspiracy believer whose views lie well outside of the scientific mainstream. The latest link you provided is further proof. Complete garbage. You cite two fringe academics as if they have a monopoly on wisdom. I looked them up on the Web of Science. I found one paper. ONE. With two citations.

I will save you the problem of laughing and do it for you. HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! etc. etc. etc.

If this is the best crap that you can scrape up, you really are more desperate than I thought.

You cannot debate or argue your way out of a soaking wet paper bag. Every link you put up here is by fringers or nutters or shills. I've dealt with and dispensed with people like you many times over the years. A legion of dopes.

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

"More crap from wowsie."

More asinine claims from the latest dangling shithead on deltoid.

Your actual words prove my claim and refute yours, retardo.

"Patricia is simply the non-event it always was."

Because you're nowhere near it, and you HATE anything that may show what your idiocy and religious intransigence have done.

The only non events we have are your appearance, moron.

(BTW Jeff, Spanky here IS the soaking wet pantie bag)

StrangledDingo

Liarnel A thinks Patricia was worst hurricane EVAH !!!

And you know I think that because ....?

What a tosser you are and a few corks short of an Aussie bush hat at that.

Poor ol' jiff. I do feel your pain.

It must really strike an alarmist's tender spot.

It's a bit hard to handle that sort of criticism from a beetle scientist let alone a mathematician.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 26 Oct 2015 #permalink

"Poor ol’ jiff. I do feel your pain."

That's because it's you projecting, again, retardo.

Nerve impulses don't travel down ethernet.

See my comment on the other thread. SD links to some minnow with 1 paper in their career. The only riposte he can come up with is that I am a 'beetle scientist' - despite the fact that I really don't study beetles at all.

SD scrapes up any drunks/misfits/outcasts/shills etc. as 'experts' for his so-called scientific arguments. I am still waiting for him to cite that big name who supports his bilge. Just one... let alone 10 or more. Truth is that the denial ranks are worse than thin when it comes to statured scientists. Every link is to some fringer who is a complete unknown and who has no pedigree in the rigid journals.

Is it any wonder that deniers are so easy to ridicule? SD admits he has no relevant expertise and shows this by citing a pile of non-experts. The French mathematicians probably moonlight as stand up comedians, their chapter was that bad. Or worse. Where he scrapes up this nonsense is anybody's guess. Maybe through the denial echo chamber?

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

Ref #78.
" upthrust bouyancy "
Are you taking the piss?
By golly i read some bullshit.
All the water is coming from upthrust fucking
bouyancy!!!! Not melt. Not thermal expansion.
Is this how physics works in a drongoverse?
Cuz it aint this universe.
Wake up to yourself. This shit aint normal thinking.
Its not even abnormal its such an outlier.

Um, apologies to readers about the
language in the above post.
It was just such a shock to see such
drivel. The term upthrust bouyancy seems
so nonsensical in the context.
Could possibly make sense in some sort of parody song. Except
there was nothing preceding to rhyme
it with.

“Patricia is simply the non-event it always was.”

Just a little multi-billion disaster from some small spin-off in Texas and some daily rain records doubled (which is how records go these times).
Otherwise, pray. It really really works.
---
"Many people have asked why didn't Patricia cause more death and destruction? The pundits are quick to rationalize that Patricia passed over an area that is sparsely populated. That may be so, but the secular world does not believe in the power of prayer. Patricia was to pass further north and affect more populated areas, but it veered more to the south for no unknown reason. Millions of people prayed for Mexico prior and during the passage of this extreme hurricane. The president of Mexico asked the world to pray for his country in a national broadcast and guess what? God answered those prayers. Now the pundits don't want to believe it was supernatural intervention that spared the country from mass death and destruction. Why do our leaders ask for prayers when a disaster threatens and then offer secular rationale to explain the results? Storm Hunter"
---
The more Haiyans and tsunamis 'God' sends, the more they love Him.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 26 Oct 2015 #permalink

The term upthrust bouyancy seems
so nonsensical in the context.

Absolutely.

Yes it becomes tiresome reading such repeated bilge from these ignorati and does tempt one to use abusive language. The thing is a denier is a denier as much as a prokaryote is a prokaryote, providing an accurate name is not an ad hominem (another level of ignorance displayed by those who throw that about). Deniers and prokaryotes demonstrate about the same level of cognitive coherence.

strangling-drinker quoted:

Concentrations of CO2 vary, as they always have done;

Nobody is saying otherwise. The issues are with cause and rapidity of changes and Bill Ruddiman has looked closely at this see:

William F Ruddiman

1 'Plows, Plagues, and Petroleum: How Humans Took Control of Climate'

2 'Earth's Climate, Past and Future'

3 'Earth Transformed'

Take the time to watch Ruddiman as he delivers: The Tyndall History of Global Warming Lecture GC43B.

the figures that are being released are biased and dishonest.

No, the way in which the arguments you quote are phrased betray bias and dishonesty.

"if we were to eradicate all trace of animal life, the composition of the atmosphere would not alter in any measurable, perceptible way"

This is a quote from that vile piece of garbage SD cited. Again, barely worthy of a polite response. What is shows is that the authors have their heads stuck firmly up their arses. The statement is total and utter gibberish. A qualified scientist would not write such drivel. It explains why they have to publish it in an obscure Russian book. Trust SD not only to find it but to actually use it as an argument.

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

Trust SD not only to find it but to actually use it as an argument.

I doubt very much if SD found that all by himself, he hasn't got the gumption [which reminds me] and was more likely fed it on a plate by one of the usual suspects.

[Gumption was the name of a cleaning paste I had to use at the end of a day to clean out the coffee and hot milk dispenser tanks used in a Joe Lyons Tea-Shop come restaurant. The smell from that milk tank was nauseating. This was whilst in limbo between leaving school and joining up. The three mile cycle ride to work in the early hours became colder and colder as winter came on at the end of 1962 - one of the coldest winters on record. With each day another layer of frost was added to that from the days before on tree branches which overhung the road. One had to watch out and listen intensely to the sounds because branches were snapping off under the increasing weight.] Sorry for the memory lane.

More sci-denial from Doltoids.

No, billy lid, SLR is not a problem. Even the BoM agree but they are too spineless to admit it:

http://www.bom.gov.au/pacific/projects/pslm/index.shtml

And Sydney's Fort Denison has 0.65mm/year of SLR in the last century but has sunk at a greater rate.

If SLR is happening, like justice, it would be seen to be happening.

Got any personal obs of SLR, billy lid?

When and if you Doltoids read and absorb that report you may, in a rare, rational moment, become aware of the fundamental truth there.

I can but lead you to water.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 26 Oct 2015 #permalink

"More bullshit-denial from Doltoids."

FTFY, dearie.

"No, billy lid, SLR is not a problem."

For who?

"Got any personal obs of SLR, billy lid?"

Yes. Every ob posted by the US government is observed by a person.

It indicates sea level rise is rising.

Spangled Drongo has been called on his "Fort Denison is sinking" claim more than once - never has he provided any evidence of observations to support this claim.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 26 Oct 2015 #permalink

There, there, Liarnel A, dry your eyes and wash the sheets [but just don't gimme the sheets, eh] you can go back to bed now.

"No scientist will come out and say Patricia is caused by global warming."

Except the ones that do [like the Doltoids]

"But even with all of the projections on how global warming will exacerbate extreme weather, there’s no evidence hurricanes are becoming more frequent or more intense as global temperatures rise.

"University of Colorado climate researcher Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. told Congress in 2013 that “it’s misleading, and just plain incorrect, to claim that disasters associated with hurricanes, tornadoes, floods or droughts have increased on climate timescales either in the United States or globally.”

"Pielke’s findings are backed by IPCC, which found “no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century. … No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin.”

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 26 Oct 2015 #permalink

Once again, our Dunning-Kruger inflicted layman, SD, tries to give the impression that the only people who believe that humans are driving climate warming are contributors to Deltoid. He's been called out on this rather silly point numerous times, and yet he returns to it in almost every post he makes here. 'The Doltoid religion', 'Doltoiders are believers in fairy tales etc'., its the same old nonsense every time he writes.

Somehow, in all of this posturing, the views of 97% of the scientific community, every major scientific organization on the planet, every National Academy in every country, and the climate science community writ large - are continually airbrushed out by SD. Its as if they don't exist, and its Deltoid versus everyone else. Why else would he have to continually refer to blogs run by fat shills, or cite obscure French nobodies in obscure Russian books in support of his views? If ever proof were needed where most scientific opinion is based, this is it. The book he cited yesterday was so utterly bad that I was forced to look through it for some laughs. I wasn't surprised that the authors published this bilge in there. They appear never to have heard of scientific journals. And then citing Pielke Jr? Bob Carter? Need I say any more?

Really folks, is it worth engaging with such a deluded moron as SD? He knows full well that the vast majority of scientific opinion differs profoundly from his, and yet he returns time and time again to the 'Doltoiders are out of step' meme. He is a pitiful individual.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 27 Oct 2015 #permalink

Jiffy, Carter and Pielke Jr are so far ahead of you it's no comparison.

They at least address the evidence. Rather than butcher the messenger.

What a sad man you are.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 27 Oct 2015 #permalink

"“never has he provided any evidence of observations to support this claim.”

I seem to remember you bad-mouthed Bob Carter for claiming likewise."

You don't seem to be able to manage any coherent memory, spanky, so we really need to know two things

a) is your memory correct
b) what the hell that has to do with anything

Yes, I know, your M.O. is to make non-claims and show an attitude that it is somehow an actual claim.

But go, on, answer it.

"“No scientist will come out and say Patricia is caused by global warming.”

Except the ones that do [like the Doltoids]"

Nope, doesn't appear once here. Go and prove me wrong, moron.

"“University of Colorado climate researcher Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. told Congress in 2013 that "

Yeah, he's not a climate researcher. Go check his publication history and his education.

"Pielke’s findings are backed by IPCC,"

Then why did he make them???? It would be as accurate as Pielke agrees with the IPCC.

What it DOESN'T mean is that there is no effect, just that we can't statistically say what the effect is.

But here's a question for you, spanky, how do hurricanes form? And why do they fail when they pass over land?

I KNOW this is all a mystery to you, a "tides come in, tides go out, you don't know why" sort of thing.

"its the same old nonsense every time he writes."

It's all the idiotic buffoon has. And as reality proves him time and time again as wrong, utterly wrong, and as people leave his religion because of the batshit crazy fundamentalist loons like spanky here, he will only get more and more irate and irrational.

"Jiffy, Carter and Pielke Jr are so far ahead of you it’s no comparison."

In what way? In larceny and lies? Indubitably.

In knowledge of science? Well, as far as climate science, absolutely not, retardo.

Spungled, Trenberth, Hansen, Mann, Schmidt, Santer, Mahlmann et al. x 1000 are so far ahead of Carter and Pielke that there is no comparison.

You lose - again.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 27 Oct 2015 #permalink

I am working on the discussion of my PhD students thesis, pop over to Deltoid and there are more loony ravings from SD. Creating more strawmen. Trying to give the impression that my views are at odds with his and most of the scientific community. For this he's now scraped up Carter and Pielke Jr. to join the ranks of his fringer-mathematicians.

While of course conveniently ignoring the vast amount fo scientific opinion and the agreed positions of every major scientific body on the planet. He cannot counter this at all. In fact, he doesn't even try.

Its so easy crushing his puny views; the scientific consensus is so strong and he cannot deal with it. That's why he's blog detritus. A floating troll.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 27 Oct 2015 #permalink

I am much too busy to waste any more time on Spungled trollo. This joint NAS/RS paper, authored by many prominent climate scientists, is the bottom line:

http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/exec-office-other/climate-c…

Trollo can go away. He's lost. Its over. The scientific community has moved on. Humans are driving climate change and we need to take urgent action to curb C02 emissions. Inaction may have serious ecological and societal implications. This is not just my view but the view of most scientists around the world and of every major scientific body. SD relies on acaddmic outcasts, fringers and blogs. Given he has no pedigree in relevant fields at all, one wonders why he thinks he knows more than National Academies and their members.

The answer is simple. Its his ideology. Its political.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 27 Oct 2015 #permalink

“No scientist will come out and say Patricia is caused by global warming.”

That is a malformed statement and wherever did you pull that from. Typical denier behaviour - coy about sources.

Now have you checked out Bill Ruddiman yet?

Jiffy, Carter and Pielke Jr are so far ahead of you it’s no comparison.

Only in your fevered mind SD. Sheesh!

Bob Carter

Roger Pielke Jr. summed up in one statement:

Dr. Pielke's work on climate change effects has been criticized by Dr. Stephen Schneider, who said that with Pielke "one consistent pattern emerges-he is a self-aggrandizer who sets up straw men, knocks them down, and takes credit for being the honest broker to explain the mess-and in fact usually adds little new social science to his analysis.

Now going by your custom I will leave that as an exercise for you to discover a source.

As you do not engage with honesty (I hear nothing about Bill Ruddiman's work from you) you are probably best left in your own personal ideological cesspit.

Spangled Drongo makes an arse of itself again.

"spangled drongo
October 27, 2015
...
Maybe he was aware of this:
http://www.sonel.org/spip.php?page=gps&idStation=2405
Like you should have been."

Spangly, explain, what is "this"?
In your own words, what do you imagine the data at that link is telling us?
For bonus points, please acknowledge you have read the following extract from the Fort Denison GNSS form:

1. Site Identification of the GNSS Monument

Site Name : Fort Denison
Four Character ID : FTDN
Monument Inscription : Fort Denison CORS
APREF DOMES Number : AUM000263
CDP Number :
Monument Description : STAINLESS STEEL MAST
Height of the Monument :
Monument Foundation : CONCRETE BASE / SANDSTONE WALL
Foundation Depth :
Marker Description : CORSNET-NSW ANTENNA MOUNT (SS), THREADED SPIGOT
Date Installed : 2012-05-21T00:00Z

Only one acronym is appropriate to Spangly's latest contribution:
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wottamoron.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 27 Oct 2015 #permalink

Only Spangled Drongo is capable of making an assertion backed with no data, then, when challenged on it, providing entirely irrelevant data that has no bearing on his assertion.

This illustrates nicely the mindset of the denier:
- starts with conclusion, scrapes together random factoids to bolster the conclusion.

Contrast this with the mindset of the sceptic:
- starts with scepticism. Reads the available data to determine if a conclusion is tenable.

In the case of Bob Carter's "Fort Denison is sinking", we can see there is no data to support this assertion, therefore the sceptical position would be to reject the assertion.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 27 Oct 2015 #permalink

Spangly, explain, what is “this”?
In your own words, what do you imagine the data at that link is telling us?"

No wonder you have trouble with your science, Cragie, when you can't even read a simple page like that and understand what it's trying to tell you in very plain data.

But that doesn't stop you from bad mouthing anyone who gives you evidence on a plate that you don't wish to see.

No wonder Doltoids have to butcher the messenger as witnessed in all the above evidence-free posts when they can't even READ the message let alone deal with it.

Why don't you ask CoN, jiffy or Li what they think it says?

Even wowsie might be able to tell you.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 27 Oct 2015 #permalink

Contrary to your assertion, the species that are native to this area are very good at surviving. That’s why they were here in the first place.

I didn't assert that endemic species weren't "good at surviving". If I did please indicate where I did so.

I did say that many replanting projects suffer high attrition rates, but we still don't have any indication of how you do your revegetation and what the actual success is.

On which point, the fact that you're replanting endemics which survive best in those areas validates my point. The species that you are planting are those that by your own admission grow there successfully themselves, and therefore your claim of their carbon embodiment as offestting your own emissions is false accounting - which is the whole point of the discussion anyway.

I'm not saying that it's not good to revegetate Stu 2, I'm saying don't indulge in same the facile tingle of angelic endeavour that so many city wannabe greens get when they recycle their plastic shopping bags or install half an acre of double glazing on their beachfront properties made with about 150 tons of concrete and steel. Count your real emissions, and your actual offsets that would have not occurred unless you and only you explicitly acted to sink that carbon, before you claim the moral high ground.

Anyone who does so with impartiality and self-awareness will likely be shocked to discover that they are very likely still passengers on the biosphere and on future generations, no matter how much they might have imagined otherwise before making the calculations.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 27 Oct 2015 #permalink

I'm not much online these days (there's been a fundamental shift in focus to assisting local communities deal as best as they might with unavoidable consequences of human damage to the environment) and so I've missed Drongo's reappearance. Two of his corkers though require addressing just a little more...

Concentrations of CO2 vary, as they always have done; the figures that are being released are biased and dishonest.

OK Drongo, let's take if from the other end, rather than just looking at the Keeling curve.

Quantify human fossil carbon emissions over the last 150 years. Quantify the rate at which those extra carbon emissions are ansorbed by biotic and non-biotic sinks. Works out how much carbon is not sunk, and therefore how much is left to increase the atmospheric concentration of CO2.

Show your calculations.

Rising sea levels are a normal phenomenon linked to upthrust buoyancy; they are nothing to do with so-called global warming.

Explain the physics underpinning this, and whilst you're at it explain why meltwater and thermal expansion don't contribute to sea level rise.

Refer to primary sources for your physics, and once again show your calculations.

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

Ah, Bernie !! How nice !

Bernie and his alarmist mates can't quantify anything that gives evidence of AGW but simply worship their models that are replete with incorrect forcings and feed backs that are wrong and getting wronger and he thinks I should haul his chestnuts out of the fire for him.

Perhaps he could start by explaining to the other doltoids here just how much Fort Denison is sinking and what that says about SLR on the East Coast.

Now that's a very simple request, Bernie luv. Do you think you could manage that?

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 28 Oct 2015 #permalink

Spangly, I don't understand your response - I *did* read the page your link took me to, and nowhere did I see any data relating to Fort Denison, and therefore no data telling me that Fort Denison is sinking.

It seems you are seeing something that doesn't exist, because you *want* to see it, just like fairies at the bottom of the garden.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 28 Oct 2015 #permalink

I just realised Spangly needs this explaining to him and expecting him to actually learn something by researching the answer to a question is a vain hope, so here it is:

The link you refer to shows some GPS data.
The data is not from Fort Denison.
There is no Fort Denison GPS data in the graph.
The map accompanying the graph clearly labels Fort Denison as not a GPS station.
The Data covers a period of 2005 to 2011.
Fort Denison had a GPS station installed in 2012.
The data is from other stations, far from the water around the stable rock upon which sits Fort Denison.

Have you ever tried self-doubt, Spangly? It might be a safer bet than the ludicrous confidence you currently exhibit in your own (in)abilities.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 28 Oct 2015 #permalink

Craigie-boy, when you're in a hole, stop digging.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 28 Oct 2015 #permalink

Drongo, a few months ago I took you on a world tour of tide gauges. You seem to have missed the posts, or been unable to interpret their import.

You should revisit them and eschew your perpetual state of enforced ignorance/recalitrant denial. If not for your own dignity, then for the dignity of your relatives and decendants.

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

Bernie, we know how you love to quote the sites that are sinking so why don't you explain to Cragie what's happening in Sydney?

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 28 Oct 2015 #permalink

"Bernie and his alarmist mates can’t quantify anything that gives evidence of AGW"

And spanky and his denier mates continue to project their incapability so that they can hide the fact that they will NOT do the calculation suggested, since they would have to explain where the trillions of tons of CO2 each year is going.

Which is ruinous to their deception.

Hence, to be avoided at all costs.

"Bernie, we know how you love to quote the sites that are sinking"

More childish projection.

From the cesspit of ignorance:

But that doesn’t stop you from bad mouthing anyone who gives you evidence on a plate that you don’t wish to see.

No wonder Doltoids have to butcher the messenger as witnessed in all the above evidence-free posts when they can’t even READ the message let alone deal with it.

Your outlier sourced otherwise unsupported fictoids do not count as evidence. You had better check out the meaning of that latter term.

Time your cesspit was encased within a padded cell.

The voice of Cess speaketh thus:

Bernie, we know how you love to quote the sites that are sinking so why don’t you explain to Cragie what’s happening in Sydney?

The Pacific ocean floor is slipping under the continent of South America but that does not mean that the sea bed around all coastlines is doing likewise. But then you are daft enough to believe in an expanding Earth which tends to make subduction difficult to account for.

The transgressions of Big Oil were highlighted by a recent creative protest at the British Museum: Bringing oil justice into the British Museum.

I found New Internationalist by way of the book Austerity by Kerry-Anne Mendoza which is a very good primer, in plain language, for those who don't quite understand the current socio-economic trends and how they got like this. It should blow both feet off Chancellor 'Scrouge' Osborne who is but the latest in a stream of socio-economic-environmental villains since Bretton Woods in 1944. And many before that too.

"The Pacific ocean floor is slipping under the continent of South America"

You may be right, Li, but Bernie [who just loves to concentrate on sites that are sinking which then show data that feeds his confirmation bias], Cragie et al need to know what's happening on Australia's east coast wrt SLR as described in that link above.

We all know that over the last century the SLR there has averaged 0.65 mm/yr with no acceleration.

They need to know correspondingly how much the land has been sinking.

Can you help?

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 28 Oct 2015 #permalink

And I meant to add, Li, instead of waffling, please be specific about that Fort Denison link.

You know from specific?

Like, stick to the message, eh?

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 28 Oct 2015 #permalink

Spangles is the horse that has been taken to the edge of the water but refuses to drink.

Not sure how much clearer I could be:
your link does not show anything about Fort Denison sinking.
The graph at that link is produced from data that does not come from Fort Denison.

Are you *really* so think you can't see this?

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 28 Oct 2015 #permalink

Poor cragie thinks that because Fort Denison is on a rock it CAN'T POSSIBLY SINK !!!

Give up, cragie luv. You're in mindless denial mode.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 28 Oct 2015 #permalink

Nowhere have I said Fort Denison "can't possibly sink".
Nowhere have I made any assertions as to whether it is or is not sinking, for the very good reason that I am not aware of any data that would support either contention.

Spangles, on the other hand, asserts that Fort Denison is sinking.

Based on what data do you make this assertion, Spangles?
I remain sceptical.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 28 Oct 2015 #permalink

Craigie remains sceptical that even though Sydney is sinking, Sydney Harbour surrounds and islands are doing likewise.

Well, craigie, that's one way to prevent SLR.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 29 Oct 2015 #permalink

Spangly, where is your data, showing that Fort Denison is sinking?

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 29 Oct 2015 #permalink

...because taking data from a GPS station a couple kilometres inland, above many metres of disturbed rock and earth traversed by numerous, often leaking, services including a constantly rumbling underground train system would seem a very poor way to base assumptions about the data that might one day become available from a stable rock in the centre of a deep sea harbour.

...but maybe I'm just way more sceptical than you are. Maybe I should just believe Bob Carter, despite the fact his assertion has no data to back it up, just a vague assumption...?

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 29 Oct 2015 #permalink

Doltoids have to butcher the messenger

says he who butchers every last messenger of global surface temperature.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 29 Oct 2015 #permalink

The rank hypocrisy is strong with this one (SD). He belittles a number of scientists who he doesn't like, licks the feet of Watts, Spencer and others who he does, and then accuses his opponents here of 'butchering the messenger'. On the September thread he now claims that he is fully aware of the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change - then attacks me as if I and others here on Deltoid are 'outliers' in arguing that humans are the primary culprit.

He places all of his stock in atmospheric temperature readings when its conditions in the biosphere that matter. Spencer's data mean diddly squat as far as the planet's living surface is concerned, because its this that we and other contemporary life depend upon. Its warming across much of the planet's surface, the oceans are taking up more heat and becoming more acidic, and organisms are responding in various ways, as a huge amount of data show.

Sd is therefore left to peddle conspiracy theories about surface data manipulation, clearly ignoring the aforementioned studies with plants and animals, then switches to the 'natural variation' meme, then back to conspiracies and data tampering, then over to it was warmer in the early Holocene with lower C02 concentrations, then back to natural variation, etc. etc. etc. He's all over the place in his denial. As the evidence for AGW continues to accumulate, he's left in a panic going all over the denial strategy book picking various chapters out of it as 'evidence'.

He's not the only one. They are all doing it, and becoming increasingly desperate as this year's record warm data comes in. The hiatus chapter is being closed in favor of new chapters to utilize. Watch as the surface temperature manipulation meme comes more and more to the fore.

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

"Spangly, where is your data, showing that Fort Denison is sinking?"

And has it personally observed this sinking???

"and then accuses his opponents here of ‘butchering the messenger’"

Of course, claiming that the scientists reporting AGW is real are all charlatans and liars is ALSO butchering the messenger, but it doesn't mind doing that.

Because it prefers to believe what it wants REALLY REALLY badly to believe is true.

"Bishop Hill has been chewing on the grapes of wrath again."

The Bashing Bishop has been SITTING on grapes of wrath for many years now...

"Nowhere have I said Fort Denison “can’t possibly sink”."

I wonder if spanked has ever claimed that AGW can't possibly be true?

SD, your senile old coot, you are right. The hiatus chapter isn't closed amongst shills, liars, manipulators, academic fringers, idiots, morons, fools, and the like. Includes the blogs you link up here including the Hill. Nary a qualified person in sight.

Its closed amonst mainstream academics, national academies, large scientific organizations and senior scientists with relevant expertise.

You are such a silly twit. You have not got a clue about anything you write.

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

As an addendum, notice that the study in question was based on 15 years - ending in 2013. So what's happened in 2014 and 2015? Record warm years; this year is miles ahead of 2014 as well.

More garbage served up by SD. He's being hammered comprehensively here yet he keeps coming back. Sucker for punishment?

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

"clearly ignoring the aforementioned studies with plants and animals"

Poor, deluded jiff.

Hey jiffy, I bet you can prove, as a bugologist, that flora and fauna that can stand daily temperature variations of 30c will die like flies in less than 1c of climate variability.

If you have any trouble check with bern.

He's a past master at it.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 29 Oct 2015 #permalink

"Its closed amonst mainstream academics, national academies, large scientific organizations and senior scientists with relevant expertise."

Is that right, jiff?

Ya mean until the govt employed ones that won't show their taxpayer-funded fakery get locked up.

Which is what Congress is investigating right now.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 29 Oct 2015 #permalink

"He places all of his stock in atmospheric temperature readings when its conditions in the biosphere that matter."

The drivel that issues from the brain of "scientists" is wondrous to behold, is it not?

Jiffy luv, I'll type very slowly for your benefit. The reason TLT readings are much more representative of the true state of global warming is because they cover a wider area of land and ocean, completely dispense with any UHI effect and do not need infilling, kriging, homogenising, reconstructing and all the other Fakery at the Bakery that is so well known and documented.

When "scientists" who have a well-proven track record of their religious beliefs are allowed into this reconfiguring workshop the end result is often a little suspicious and needs auditing so while it would be wonderful to simply measure the biosphere, we simply are not capable of doing it as accurately as TLT.

Unnerstan now, jiff?

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 29 Oct 2015 #permalink

I refuse to trail through the refuse littered, dung stinking streets of the Shrill_Bishop but I guess spangly is on about the antics of congressman Lamar Smith, who's Wki entry contains this revelation:

Smith graduated from T.M.I.: The Episcopal School of Texas (1965), Yale University (1969), and Southern Methodist University Law School (1975).[2]

...He was a business and financial writer for the Christian Science Monitor (1970–72).

Clearly his intellectually limited academic background combined with his religious training make him ill equipped to criticising science and scientists, but then he is on a witch-hunt (like Ken Cuccinelli. before him and that went well) and time wasting mission because he does not like the messages coming in from space based science. Messages which provide inconvertible evidence for a slew of climate change markers.

Spangly, this is nothing to celebrate any more than that of some crack-head causing mayhem amongst the neighbours.

Down to earth: Lamar Smith will be the most expensive legislator ever imposed on the American public, will put millions of Americans out of work and cost the U.S. economy billions of dollars, and will most impact financially vulnerable families who already struggle to find employment and pay their bills.

So much for any religious conscience that may once have inhabited the Lamar screaming skull.

Yours, and the Shrill-Bishop's, take on this is obnoxious in the extreme.

"So much for any religious conscience that may once have inhabited the Lamar screaming skull."

That moron probably DOES think that AGW is real and it's going to destroy the earth, but thinks this is what god wants for his Armageddon that they've been waiting for for two thousand bloody (literally) years.

Spencer is one of the AGW denier movements pin-up boys. Yet his publication record and citation numbers are extremely mediocre. This is the BEST they've got folks.

And I'll take NASA and NOAAa temperature records over Spencer's crap any day of the week. As I said, they are restricted to the biosphere. Spencer's readings arent'. And again, he's an AGW denier, who is linked with all kinds of sordid organizations.

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

Drongo wants govt to poke in private conversation.
There is a lot of fascism in climate revisionism.

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

No response on Spangly as to whether he believes it is wise to assert "Fort Denison is sinking" in the absence of any data to support such an assertion.

How many more of Spangles' beliefs are held in the absence of any supporting data?

Roy Spencer is a creationist.
As such, any relationship between any product of Spencer's intellect and reality would be of a similar nature to a broken watch's relationship with telling the time: it might sometimes be correct, but that would only be an accident.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 29 Oct 2015 #permalink

"And I’ll take NASA and NOAAa temperature records over Spencer’s crap any day"

If only you would jiffy luv, we could all get some peace:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1998/trend

But just use their most accurate one and avoid the fakery at the bakery.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 29 Oct 2015 #permalink

'No response on Spangly as to whether he believes it is wise to assert “Fort Denison is sinking”'

Pardon me, craigie, for not subscribing to your wonderful scientific theory that although Sydney is subsiding at a greater rate than SLR in Sydney Harbour, the tide gauge in Sydney is exempt.

I'm afraid I'm just not quite religious enough to manage that.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 29 Oct 2015 #permalink

Well, there's the obvious avoiding the answer from spanky there.

Why, spanky, do you even bother to quote the question when you so clearly did not answer it?

Our resident bugologist's comments on the hiatus:

"Its closed amonst mainstream academics, national academies, large scientific organizations and senior scientists with relevant expertise."

Sadly you are right, jiffy luv, like you and the rest of the Doltoids, they are absolute deniers of unadjusted data:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1998/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/fr…

Could it be that this global cooling not only conflicts with their religious beliefs but that it also plays larry dooley with their taxpayer-sourced incomes?

Who was it said; “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it"?

I seem to remember that it was a Lefty Doltoid too, so you would think Doltoids would bear that in mind.

Particularly when it is religion awa salary that is involved.

Aren't Doltoids supposed to deny religion?

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 29 Oct 2015 #permalink

I guess that's the difference between sceptical scientists and gullible Spangly: no sceptic would assume that GPS measurements of vertical movement in one part of Sydney can be assumed to apply to all other parts of Sydney from which no data is actually available.

What you are displaying there, Spangles, is an example of a cognitive bias called "confirmation bias" - a systematic error of inductive reasoning.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 29 Oct 2015 #permalink

"What you are displaying there, Spangles, is an example of a cognitive bias called “confirmation bias” – a systematic error of inductive reasoning."

Says one who is so biased he won't allow that a point that provides data that suits his argument is not affected by measured movement in the same area.

Is that socratic irony, cragie, or just hubris?

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 29 Oct 2015 #permalink

" As I said, they are restricted to the biosphere. Spencer’s readings arent’."

More genius from our resident bugologist.

The Doltoid theory on AGW relies on surface warming only and neglects warming in the atmosphere together with convective currents that neutralise thermal effects.

Satellite TLT measurement covers a much more complete picture.

Better stick to your bugs, jiffy or put your mum on.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 29 Oct 2015 #permalink

Hi Drongo, so you've escaped the care unit for an afternoon? Still keen on Bobby 'Lyin' Eyes' Carter & His Bum Notes?

I followed your link to " The Proof That Fort Denison Is Sinking!!!"....the GPS site you linked is at the National Measurement Laboratory. in West Lindfield. It gives you 7 years of data, ending in 2011.

As the station summary helpfully notes, your site is 10775 meters from Fort Denison as the crow, sorry, as the drongo flies....

Are you OK?

Bernard J @ # 15.
In answer to your question.
Your comment from the previous page.

"And I repeat, if you’re planting in an arid area you are going to have high loss given the number of trees that you apparently plant. It’s the simple tension between getting large numbers into the ground and providing ongoing care. And at the rate that you claim you must be planting tubestock or small pots at the most, which have an especially high loss rate in arid areas unless long wet periods follow planting."

I think you're just arguing for argument's sake.
Contrary to your assertion above: the species that are native to this area are very good at surviving. That’s why they were here in the first place.
I didn't think you were saying that revegetation is not good Bernard but the rest of that sentence is hilarious.
I agree the city boffins are definitely aptly described by you as " so many city wannabe greens ". They don't have a clue.
Also Bernard this comment is equally hilarious and downright counter intuitive:
" The species that you are planting are those that by your own admission grow there successfully themselves, and therefore your claim of their carbon embodiment as offestting your own emissions is false accounting – which is the whole point of the discussion anyway."
What is false accounting Bernard?
If we have revegetated successfully then we have revegetated successfully and the revegetation does indeed offset.
Because we have done it for other reasons is entirely irrelevant.
The point was more about who or what should be jailed and/or excommunicated in your opinion.

Nick, like cragie, extrapolates from the data that Fort Denison isn't sinking even though the surrounding countryside is.

How do you manage that, Nicky?

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 30 Oct 2015 #permalink

I wonder why the entire scientific community goes along with NOAA/NASA data and a few shills don't? Care to answer this dumbo? What makes a nobody like you a sudden expert and everybody doing the research dishonest?

I'll take Schmidt, Hansen, Trenberth, Mann etc. and thousands of others over you and gormless any day. They'd wipe the floor with you and you know it. That's why you don't try and publish your 'wisdom' in scientific journals. On blogs you stay.

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

"Nick, like cragie, extrapolates from the data that Fort Denison isn’t sinking even though the surrounding countryside is.

How do you manage that, Nicky?"

I manage it because I'm not a moron...sadly, you are a moron, old fellah.

It takes a spectacularly misplaced confidence to attempt the leap you have...after all, it is you who has made the extrapolation_ using a miserable 7 years of data from one [1] site on a ridgetop 10.775 km away, you have concluded that Fort Denison is sinking.

That's your extrapolation. Y/N?

Where's your scepticism, you silly old coot? Wait a minute, you never had any, did you! A man who can extrapolate one anecdotal observation into a confidence about global trends would think he was in data heaven to have one 7 year snip of GPS data from !

You're the one who's gone under, SD.

In the seven years of that West Lindfield GPS point's data, it sank about 4cm, while moving north about 45cm and east about 20cm. Look out for that continental drift, eh.

The last two graphs are pretty darned conclusive.

Oh, and to Sd and Gc: please go through the link to the joint National Academy of Science/Roayl Society link and explain why two dopes like you are correct and the people who contributed to this - real bonafide climate scientists as it turns out - are wrong.

http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/exec-office-other/climate-c…

This should be fun.

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

Jiffy luv, pay attention. I answered all that waffle in #49.

Did I type too fast for you again?

But you doltoids are too thick to understand that even with all your fakery at the bakery added in, we are still not up to average natural climate variability.

How many more times must I tell you ☺.

Just relax and go back to sleep.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 30 Oct 2015 #permalink

".. we are still not up to average natural climate variability."

what's your baseline ?

Oh, I forgot, you only need one irrelevant distant spot, so I'd guess ten square metres of Pluto 1951-1980 should be more than good enough for your standards

"what’s your baseline ?"

Well this paper says .98c per century average nat var for the last 80 centuries but you could always go through the ice cores yourself and make your own arrangements:

http://multi-science.atypon.com/doi/abs/10.1260/0958-305X.26.3.417

Seeing as the global unadjusted data since 1850 is less than 0.8c we still have a bit to catch up.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 30 Oct 2015 #permalink

"Where’s your scepticism, you silly old coot?"

Fuck, where's his personal observation of subsidence? He's hot on ignoring evidence that isn't personally observed, except here.

"Well this paper says .98c per century average nat var for the last 80 centuries "

Nat Var doesn't explain the rise, moron.

Because the Nat Var doesn't last a century.

Not enough info there, drongo, and published in fake journal, to boot. Ice cores from one location high up on Greenland, known to have high variability [and always below freezing] do not give you direct insight into global scale temperature variation. Sounds like he's taken a limited data set, and thrown most of it away to draw his conclusion.

You, and your new friend Phil, seem very fond of extrapolating from single data locations, don't you.

Certainly, organic matter uncovered by retreating ice sheets in Canada and the Arctic contradicts the idea of a routine large centennial and less scale variation in mean temperature. There are some papers on this: retreat is unprecedented in 1600 to 4000 years in various places, more in others. Likewise what we are seeing in the Alps has blown the MWP out of the picture.

"Likewise what we are seeing in the Alps has blown the MWP out of the picture."

I wonder how Hannibal got all those elephants across the alps back in Roman times, Nicky?

Big snowshoes?

Try reading the Climategate emails. Even they admitted the MWP was warmer.

But of course that was before this latter-day fakery at the bakery:

http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/2015-10-29-16-…

But tell me, nicky luv, after 4 centuries of the coldest period in civilisation, what direction do you think climate natural variability should head in and what is a reasonable amount of temperature change to expect?

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 30 Oct 2015 #permalink

DrongoDrops at #55

RSS is a cherry pick , one beloved of Monkfish and the GWPF, now please explain why that is.

As for your tilt at Nick WRT Hannibal, Alps and Elephants you may want to recheck on your history.

"I wonder how Hannibal got all those elephants across the alps back in Roman times, Nicky?"

Dunno, drongo..do we have any good evidence that he got them across?..and where exactly? ...still, 'no evidence' is the way you like to roll.

And now the biggest glacier in the Alps has retreated to levels not seen in 3,400 years. 1000 years before Hannibal.

"But tell me, nicky luv, after 4 centuries of the coldest period in civilisation, what direction do you think climate natural variability should head in and what is a reasonable amount of temperature change to expect?"

We should be very slowly getting cooler, old fool, which has been the long term trend since the Holocene Optimum.. ..instead we have rapidly become warmer.

Don't know much about your favorite subject do you.

this paper says .98c per century average nat var

That paper says .98c per century average nat var for just two locations combined (Greenland and Antarctica).

As I pointed out more than two weeks ago:

If I look at the temperature record of, say, Laverton Aero, then the annual average temperature can vary by more than 1.5℃ over just a few years. The annual global average surface temperature, on the other hand, varies by no more than about 0.4℃ over periods of a few years. So you simply cannot assume global variance in temperature is going to be the same as two combined temperature records (Antarctic and Greenland ice-core proxies). Especially Greenland which is known to have very large short-term variations in temperature.

Actually, I just looked at one of the Greenland records and it has short-term variations of more than 2.5℃. Anyone who thinks that you just need a Greenland record and an Antarctic record to estimate global variability is just being a dumb clown. Like you sd.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 30 Oct 2015 #permalink

this paper says .98c per century average nat var

That paper says .98c per century average nat var for just two locations combined (Greenland and Antarctica).

As I pointed out more than two weeks ago:

"If I look at the temperature record of, say, Laverton Aero, then the annual average temperature can vary by more than 1.5℃ over just a few years. The annual global average surface temperature, on the other hand, varies by no more than about 0.4℃ over periods of a few years. So you simply cannot assume global variance in temperature is going to be the same as two combined temperature records (Antarctic and Greenland ice-core proxies). Especially Greenland which is known to have very large short-term variations in temperature.

Actually, I just looked at one of the Greenland records and it has short-term variations of more than 2.5℃. Anyone who thinks that you just need a Greenland record and an Antarctic record to estimate global variability is just being a d_mb clown. Like you sd."

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 30 Oct 2015 #permalink

"Dunno, drongo..do we have any good evidence that he got them across?..and where exactly? …still, ‘no evidence’ is the way you like to roll."

Hell, did the moron actually observe the event? Personally?

(IIRC, the surviving elephants either were singular or a pair. It was a flat bust scheme as far as elephants were concerned)

"Chapala is forecast to strengthen further with winds equal to that of a Category 5 hurricane by later Friday or Saturday and could become the strongest tropical cyclone ever recorded in the northern Indian Ocean"

A week after the strongest storm (Patricia) ever recorded in the eastern Pacific. What are the normal chances of this happening? Millions to one? Its happening in the warmest year in recorded histroy by miles. Climate change folks. Just as predicted. More nails in the deniers coffins.

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

For a moment there I thought Nicky was a Doltoid with an open mind and would have some idea of Nat Var but it seems it exists in his tiny mind at zero as with the rest of the Doltoids here.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 30 Oct 2015 #permalink

Jiff, you should save all these pearls and nails for your upcoming climate paper.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 30 Oct 2015 #permalink

And poor dumb nicky crystallises the Doltoid condition perfectly by stating that in spite of knowing about millions of years of endless evidence of the earth warming and cooling by huge amounts, for Doltoids, temperatures should only head in one direction.

And what is even more ironic is that when they have been doing exactly what he thinks they should this century, he denies it.

Can you bear it?

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 30 Oct 2015 #permalink

"in spite of knowing about millions of years of endless evidence of the earth warming and cooling by huge amount"

Why in spite? We KNOW they do.

We even know WHY they do.

Something you don't.

So I guess this new squawking ignorance means the claims about Fort Denison sinking have been dropped. SD 'moves on' like a rat in a wheel.

As well as the above serious problem the deluded nick thinks if he can deny the fact that though the city of Sydney is sinking, the tide gauge isn't, long enough, then it must be true.

If ya don't ignore that sort of stupidity you could end up just like him.

What does it remind you of?

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 30 Oct 2015 #permalink

"Why in spite? We KNOW they do.

We even know WHY they do."

How refreshing to see you admitting to the Fakery at the Bakery, wowse luv.

There might be hope for you Doltoids yet.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 30 Oct 2015 #permalink

As I wrote back in July:
“Hannibal’s army numbered … 38 elephants, almost all of which would not survive the harsh conditions of the Alps”.

It is amusing however to see somebody rejecting other data and instead using historical elephant invasions as their proxy for temperature change over history...

No Spangly - *Lindfield* is sinking.
You should be comparing *Lindfield*'s GPS data with *Lindfield*'s tidal gauge data.
What does Lindfield's tidal gauge data say?

"No Spangly – *Lindfield* is sinking."

And nothing else eh, Craigie?

And still Craigie can't see the elephant in the alps.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 30 Oct 2015 #permalink

this paper says .98c per century average nat var

And that paper claims .98c per century average nat var by combining ice-cores from just two locations, Greenland and Antarctica. As I pointed out more than two weeks ago:

"If I look at the temperature record of, say, Nord Ads in Greenland, then the annual average temperature can vary by more than 2.5℃ over just a few years. The annual global average surface temperature, on the other hand, varies by no more than about 0.4℃ over periods of a few years. So you simply cannot assume global variance in temperature is going to be the same as two combined temperature records (Antarctic and Greenland ice-core proxies). Especially Greenland which is known to have very large short-term variations in temperature."

Anyone who keeps repeating ad nauseum that you just need a Greenland record and an Antarctic record to estimate global variability is just acting like a mindless drone. Like you sd.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 31 Oct 2015 #permalink

spangled drongo
October 31, 2015
“No Spangly – *Lindfield* is sinking.”
And nothing else eh, Craigie?

I don't know.
Do you have any data?
Or are you trying to fudge it by pretending that 7 years' data that shows a 0.2m movement at Lindfield somehow means something about Fort Denison, which is over 10,000m away from Lindfield?

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 31 Oct 2015 #permalink

#87....drongo, as Wow noted, you did not personally observe the seven years of GPS data at West Lindfield, so in the name of consistency you will not be able to base any claims on it, eh. Stupid man you are!

You cannot sanely claim to be certain of anything much from that one point. You do not know what is happening at the site, expansion and contraction of substrate, nearby earthworks, data quality, and etc....

And West Lindfield GPS point remains 10.775km from Fort Dension...and it remains one point...and there are no other GPS points giving you data to even approach the possibility of land subsidence of any scale...and there has been no notification of Fort Denison subsiding [if there was it would be no secret]. You do not know why data stop at the start of 2011. Why don't you make some inquiries? contact numbers are in the metadata.

Please cite papers, articles and documents that demonstrate 'Sydney is sinking'...and not just any old ten square metres of Sydney, next to a construction site, a busy road, on shale, weathered rock, or over an old mine. Maybe Bobby 'Lyin' Eyes' Carter can help you out, you sad old idiot...

The time to get out of your rat wheel starts now...

I have a climate paper out, Spungled Dungo (to go along with a book chapter last year). It examines the effects of warming on trophic interactions, citing a huge number of other studies showing biotic effects across a range of ecosystems. Its my 160th career scientific paper on the Web of Science; how many do you have in any fields in your career? I am just wondering. Last time it was a big fat ZERO. My guess is that it hasn't changed.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 31 Oct 2015 #permalink

#94, Craig, not even Lindfield is sinking....one concrete post sunk into weathered bedrock of sandstone and clay in a corner of a large suburb proves nothing about anything. And as Wow noted, if it's not a DOPE [Drongo Observed Personally, Extrapolated], then it cannot be used, anyway.

If Sydney, either wholly or partly was subsiding, it would mundane general knowledge. If Sydney was subsiding at the rate of the West Lindfield GPS trend, it would be dead obvious: 4cm in 7 years maintained, 40 cm in 70 ...the apparent SLR would be enormous. Drongo is beyond satire.

"How refreshing to see you admitting to the Fakery at the Bakery, wowse luv."

We've PERSISTENTLY pointed out your fakery at the bakery, donkey-brain.

Quite why you think we have only just started is due to your brain being completely worthless.

Check your maths nicky. You are only about 1,000% out in your calculations and there are lots of places around the world rising and falling by much more than this that no one is consciously aware of.

Also if there is No SLR but a slight fall [which is what I am seeing in Moreton Bay] it would not be generally noticeable.

Lets face it, if Doltoids have never observed any SLR [which is in line with their confirmation bias] in their lifetime, why would they notice any fall.

Doltoid Denial is a wonderful thing.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 31 Oct 2015 #permalink

"Check your maths nicky."

I did. Nothing wrong with them.

Check your opinions.

"You are only about 1,000% out in your calculations"

Nope.

"and there are lots of places around the world rising and falling by much more than this that no one is consciously aware of"

Proof plz. Or don't you do data?

"Also if there is No SLR but a slight fall [which is what I am seeing in Moreton Bay] it would not be generally noticeable."

You aren't seeing SL falling. You're seeing engineering works, and a site that is far far inland, not the sea.

But you've never been there, you have no idea where it is you're talking about.

"Lets face it, if Doltoids have never observed any SLR "

Neither have you, moron. Or falls in sea level.

Or the lift of some GPS station.

Which, like Moreton Bay, you had no clue was MILES away from where you thought it was.

#98 Dear Spangled Crank, I might have the wrong unit...so what?? I can't be bothered following your link again....what is it, 4mm instead of cm...4mm in 7 years, that's still a 'big' rate if it was confirmed with hundreds of other observation points of high quality...but you don't have them....YOU HAVE NO OBSERVATIONS, not even your DOPE 'quality' ones!. You were directed to a number you liked, and your tiny mind and unshakable self-delusion did the rest, and again you are completely exposed as a clueless time waster.

It's one point in the entire Sydney Basin....no credible person, no person interested in genuine informative exchange, would make any claim about the land movement of Sydney from one data point with 7 years data!

Don't you understand that? It beggars belief, your ability to deceive yourself is weapons-grade.

Liarnel A thinks Patricia was worst hurricane EVAH !!! because all the Doltoids get their science from alarmist rags that, like them, depend on crap sci for a living.

Depends how you define worst, such sloppy language use is foreign to us but not to you as this is one of your hallmarks.

Watch this and listen to the words spangles (aka fruit drops).

So much idiocy and ignorance, so much projection from that one statement of yours. Go see a head doctor.

While I am at it, as it says in my previous post, Chapala is the 23rd category 4/5 hurricane/cyclone/typhoon of the 2015 season, beating the old record by an astounding 5. Patricia should have classed as a category storm 7 at its peak.

But since Sd doesn't do data he dislikes, my guess is that he will claim that the stat above was rigged somehow and that few of these storms reached category 4/5. He's a conspiracy nut. Like Gc. Note how Gc always affixes 'C' (catastrophic) to the term AGW. As I said earlier today, neither he or Sd understands the concept of environmental change relative to human perceptions and evolutionary history.

Its funny watching Sd dig deeper and deeper with his conspiracy theory crap and to cite Goddard/Heller as his 'authority' on data manipulation. As an aside, Barry Brook would probably think both of you are complete idiots were he to be asked for his opinion. I had a good belly laugh today reading your opinions of him as if you were able to judge his qualifications. But give how strong the D-K effect is with you both, that is hardly surprising.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 31 Oct 2015 #permalink

Nicky gets it 1000% wrong but "just cant be bothered".

Danger, Doltoids at work !!!

Jiffy who abuses me for quoting blogs, then quotes Tamino.

Can you bear it.

And the same jiffy who thinks he is a climate bugologist really needs to get a clue on the true state of global cyclone activity if he is ever going to tell the truth in his climate affected bugologist papers:

http://policlimate.com/tropical/global_running_ace.png

Nothing to wet the bed over here jiff.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 31 Oct 2015 #permalink

The source of Drongo's self-deception is Bobby Carter's deceitful opinion piece in The Australian from 2014....in it, Carter claims that data from '2005 to 2014' show that 'Sydney' [carefully not specifying Fort Denison itself] is sinking at 0.49mm/year. This is Carter's careful framing.

"For example, measurements at Sydney between 2005 and 2014 show the tide gauge site is sinking at a rate of 0.49mm/yr, leaving just 0.16mm/yr of the overall relative rise as representing global sea-level change. Indeed, the rate of rise at Fort Denison, and globally, has been decreasing for the past 50 years."

The claim is made that Fort Denison datum is sinking....only with mention of data 'at Sydney', without citing sources. Carter has probably used the West Lindfield data without noticing it stops in 2011.

A number of papers have been published on Fort Denison trends recently, and while there is extensive discusiion of teh site and history, there is no make mention of any sinking, in the past or recently , of the datum. There is no data from Fort Denison that shows it is sinking, rising or staying unmoved: Carter is having a lend.. The only tide gauge with datum is the Port Kembla SEAFRAME unit, and datum there has not changed in the 20 plus years of its existence...while the SLR rate is 2.6mm/year after all factors are reckoned.

Naturally enough, Carter and his dopey acolyte won't mention Port Kembla...or the full suite of global observations. And obviously enough if Sydney in toto was showing a subsidence trend it would be common knowledge, easily searchable.

Simple request , Drongo: Produce your referenced refereed sources that state that Fort Denison is is sinking.

And no, Bob Carter provides no refs.

Meanwhile NASA finally wake to the real world with: "A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers."

http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-…

So, Doltoids, you have confirmation of what I have been telling you here for years.

No SLR to worry about.

You can wash the sheets now.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 31 Oct 2015 #permalink

Fro Drongo's link :

“The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,” Zwally said. “But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.”

There is no need ,surely, to repeat that Drongo doesn't read stuff..but there, I did it for him. If Antarctica is net subtracting from OBSERVED SLR, then the contributions of Greenland, Patagonia and gloabl mountain glaciers are probably being underestimated.

What is it Drongo, still got sleep in your eyes?

sd:

http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-…

I hate to burst your bubble but that also says:

"If the losses of the Antarctic Peninsula and parts of West Antarctica continue to increase at the same rate they’ve been increasing for the last two decades, the losses will catch up with the long-term gain in East Antarctica in 20 or 30 years"

and

"But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for."

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 31 Oct 2015 #permalink

Jay Zwally, the author and NASA alarmist who has "calculated" lots of Antarctica melt in the past, of course has to cover his arse with the following statement:

“I know some of the climate deniers will jump on this, and say this means we don’t have to worry as much as some people have been making out,” he says. “It should not take away from the concern about climate warming. As global temperatures rise, Antarctica is expected to contribute more to sea-level rise, though when exactly that effect will kick in, and to what extent, remains unclear."

Doltoids would recognise this as immediately as true "Doltoid Science".

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 31 Oct 2015 #permalink

Well, what did I tell ya !

Con's and my comments crossed and sure as night follows day there he goes with true Doltoid Science.

Alarmist warming predictions are always great Doltoid Science.

Is that a prediction or a projection, CoN?

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 31 Oct 2015 #permalink

#11..."cover his arse"? Because sea level is rising, but Antarctica's total contribution may actually be negative?? Certainly, Zwally has your measure, in predicting the exact response that you have given here. And you quoted him obliviously! Sigh...

Drongo, your reading comprehension, and your knowledge of the scale of global, regional and local change processes is non-existent.

How are you going to cover for that?

Woo, Hoo !!! nicky too !!!

You pathetic Doltoids are so predictable !!!

No wonder you swear by the 102 IPCC GCMs that are wrong and getting wronger by the day yet the IPCC claim 95% confidence.

If it wasn't so pathetic and serious it would be screamingly funny.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 31 Oct 2015 #permalink

If Antarctica is net subtracting from OBSERVED global SLR, then the contributions of Greenland, Patagonia and mountain glaciers are being underestimated. Or thermic expansion is underestimated, or a combination of both....

That's what Zwally has told you in that article, Drongo.

Is there any way to make it simpler for you?

Maybe this is simple enough?> Global sea level is rising>Antarctica is not contributing > therefore, Antarctica is not the only source of sea level rise.

That might still be a little complex for you, but I don't think it can be reduced further.

"If Antarctica is net subtracting from OBSERVED global SLR, then the contributions of Greenland, Patagonia and mountain glaciers are being underestimated. Or thermic expansion is underestimated, or a combination of both…."

Or you could try putting your head out the window and seeing for yourself....

Zwally is a Doltoid who got it wrong and grudgingly admits it but the rest of the Doltoids can't bear to admit it.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 31 Oct 2015 #permalink

putting your head out the window

So how does putting your head out the window tell you what causing sea level to rise?

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 31 Oct 2015 #permalink

sd:

102 IPCC GCMs that are wrong and getting wronger by the day yet the IPCC claim 95% confidence

Global average surface temperature is within the 95% confidence interval of those GCMs (admittedly toward the low end until last year and this year) so obviously your problem is with something other than the GCMs prediction of global average surface temperature.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 31 Oct 2015 #permalink

So sd, nothing about the bad news that if the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for?

I guess you are in the bad news denial business after all.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 31 Oct 2015 #permalink

#17 From the content of your blurt, it's clear you have not understood a thing in the article, nor have you been able to respond to the kind work we have done in making it simple enough for you to possibly follow it....you are as stupid as ever, Drongo. And I think there is enough data to say you are getting stupider....

"So how does putting your head out the window tell you what causing sea level to rise?"

Obtuse as always, hey CoN?

It tells you IF, not WHY.

And in my 70 years of observations against many fixed benchmarks it is stable in many and falling in some but it is rising in NONE.

If Doltoids have any personal observations to the contrary against good benchmarks I would be happy to hear of them.

Zwally is a Doltoid scientist who has been using the GRACE gravimetric system which has a known flawed reference frame and now he finally gets it a bit more accurate.

Doltoid scientists have been using all sorts of Doltoid science to make their arguments but the fact is that, as instanced by this reversal, they simply don't know so instead they do their usual fakery at the bakery.

Zwally's reluctant, arse-covering backdown here is proof positive of the questionable practices used by these people.

So don't be gullible galahs. Try paying attention to what's been going on around you all your life.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 31 Oct 2015 #permalink

This overdue paper from Zwally simply supports, vindicates and confirms what I have been trying to tell you Doltoids for years.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 31 Oct 2015 #permalink

Study, not paper.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 31 Oct 2015 #permalink

I'd be gullible if I believed you had seventy years of quality benchmark-standard observations, drongo. You've described many times the 'quality' and nature of your observations. They're crap.

"This overdue paper from Zwally simply supports, vindicates and confirms what I have been trying to tell you Doltoids for years."

'Overdue'? What, did he break a deadline?

'... supports, vindicates and confirms what I have been trying to tell you..'

It does no such thing.

Dopey, the paper does not say there is no global SLR. It estimates that Antarctica's contribution is not positive.

Do you understand that? Y/N?

Zwally has made no backdown, nor is he covering his arse...no study on Antarctic mass balance has ever claimed to be the last word on it. These findings will be always under scrutiny, as were the last. But then, you know nothing about how science works, or how to apply quality standards in observation.

Thanks for the farce, drongo, unintended as it always is.

Care to meet me at the Cleveland Lighthouse at the next king tide, nicky

You can judge for yourself.

"‘Overdue’? What, did he break a deadline?"

When you tell lies, nicky, corrections are always overdue.

"Dopey, the paper does not say there is no global SLR. It estimates that Antarctica’s contribution is not positive."

Who said it did?

It is simply saying the reverse of what Zwally has always previously claimed.

He simply reversed the fakery at the bakery in just one particular area and when the rest of the Doltoid scientists do likewise and are as factual as this there will be nothing left to wet the bed about.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 01 Nov 2015 #permalink

Ianam,

You are wasting your time with these idiots. They don't do peer-reviewed studies in the top journals like Nature, Science or PNAS. Their 'data' comes primarily via third party hacks on blogs.

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

And while Sd is smearing Zwally, why has he not written up his 'brilliant' analyses into a paper and submitted it to one of the three journals I mention above? Its a question I've asked the armchair expert denial brigade on here a million times and I NEVER get an answer from them, which means they of have no intention of humiliating themselves publicly. So as anonymous nobodies on blogs they stay.

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

"Care to meet me at the Cleveland Lighthouse at the next king tide, nicky

You can judge for yourself."

Neither of us can detect SLR at Cleveland by eye and anecdote. Stop fooling yourself.

"When you tell lies, nicky, corrections are always overdue."

Except when you are sincerely deluded, like yourself.

"It is simply saying the reverse of what Zwally has always previously claimed"

Fabuluous, you're implying that if the findings change, you shouldn't correct yourself...just brass it out, not unlike yourself. Great advice. See where it's got you: you're a basket case, a stranger to reality.

And again with the incomprehension and confirmation bias: you rejected all of Zwally's work, all of the time...but somehow he's not lying now. Because you thought you liked the sound of it...not realising that you misread the whole thing, and SLR continues. As Zwally explicitly states.

You're a mess.

#27 The Danish Met Institute web page on Greenland and SMB points out that Greenland is losing mass:

" Note that the accumulated curve does not end at 0 at the end of the year. Over the year, it snows more than it melts, but calving of icebergs also adds to the total mass budget of the ice sheet. Satellite observations over the last decade show that the ice sheet is not in balance. The calving loss is greater than the gain from surface mass balance, and Greenland is losing mass at about 200 Gt/yr."

Someone has mislead you again: it's not just about SMB.

Ongoing SLR is a fact that you cannot dispute. You won't succeed by being snot-nosed, uncomprehending, repetitious and dismissive...every bluff of yours has been called long ago.

Gc on the September thread writes this utter piffle: "If temperatures increase, most animals including humans will benefit"

According to who??? YOU???!!!! Don't make me laugh you dork. Stick with your lasers. I don't wade into your field and you are very, very stupid to wade into mine. Your CV is very mediocre as I said yesterday and there is NOTHING remotely in it which suggests that have been anywhere near an ecology or evolutionary biology lecture. You do not have a frigging clue what you are writing about. You do not understand the importance of scale - temporal and spatial - in evolutionary ecology. You do not understand the word 'constraint' as it applies to phylogeny. You probably have never read anything by McArthur\Wilson on Island Biogeography theory or of the Neutral theory of biodiversity by Hubbell. You speak off the top of your right wing head. The fact that you cite bilge a the far-righr rag like Forbes sums up your mindset.

As I have said, we are now seeing the consequences of a 500 year system of conquering, exploiting, plundering and polluting the biosphere. The real wage for the poorest Americans has stagnated since 1968 whereas wealth is concentrated more now than at any time in human history. The ecological effects of the global capitalist experiment are dire, as evidenced in just about every major scientific report on the current state of terrestrial, freshwater and marine ecosystems.

As to your stupid, in fact vastly ignorant comment that humans and nature thrive in warmer conditions, this statement is so utterly wrong but I am sick of countering it. You clearly do not understand basic English, gormless. Too much time spent in the laser lab I guess? The fact is that current biota across the biosphere evolved under low to moderate C02 concentrations and temperature and precipitation regimes that characterize biomes across the planet in which they are found. Thus, temperate fauna and flora are adapted to temperate conditions, tundra fauna and flora to tundra conditions, tropical wet forest fauna and flora to wet tropical forest conditions, dry tropical forest or savanna fauna and flora to dry tropical forest or savanna conditions and so and and so on. Species in these biomes can adapt to change within normal boundaries; once the rate of change goes beyond critical thresholds then they will be unable to keep up. These thresholds may be species-specific, population-specific, association specific but rarely operate at larger scales. The result of rapid warming - and the current rate of warming IS rapid, given the huge global data set showing a vast array of biotic responses - will alter food webs and communities, simplifying many and reducing their inability to function properly. NOE OF THIS - NONE!!! - IS CONTROVERSIAL AMONG ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS. As one of them, I agree, and NOT with laser scientists who cannot tell a mole cricket from a giraffe.

Current climate-related changes are occurring against a suite of other anthropogenic stresses across the biosphere - habitat destruction and fragmentation, other forms of pollution, over harvesting and invasive species effects on native flora and fauna.

Now back to temperature. The planet evolved the highest biodiversity - species and genetic richness - under fairly recent environmental conditions. High temperatures were not a pre-requisite. As I discussed before, I found a comment on (I think) DeSmog Blog written by gormless where he says that the melting of the polar ice caps and much warmer conditions in temperate, boreal and tundra regions would benefit biodiversity. There is not a qualified scientist on the planet who would say such gibberish. Gormless seems to think that rapid warming - in the time scales he talks about - would create a green utopia. Its bull****. Acid soils characteristic of boreal forests will not magically become alkiline and enable temperate trees from the Carolinean forests further south to grow there. You are not going to change a hug e range of species adapted to boreal and tundra biomes into temperate-adapted species in a century. It takes tens or hundreds of thousands of years, or even millions for species will longer evolutionary histories, to adapt to these and to radiate new forms that become acclimated. Boreal forests grow where they do because temperatures are hospitable for them and for their assorted mutualists such as mycorrhizal fungae, other soil organisms, and a range of above-ground biota. A sudden and rapid rise in temperature - at least along the lines that gormless is intimating - will annihilate boreal ecosystems and the species that depend on them. That he does not get the importance of scale says everything I need to know about is mindset. Its hard wired towards a simple cause and effect scenario, linear thinking in fields that are decidedly non-linear. If one of my undergraduates wrote an essay at the level of argumentation put forward by Gc here, I would fail him or her.

Gc and people like him are extremely annoying. They cannot argue with scientific facts or with the empirical evidence - note that gormless never cites any primary scientific literature to support their daft views - but with their 'gut' instincts, peppered with their jaded right wing political ideologies. I am fed up with this kind of willful ignorance.

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

Ian's bullshit article says in effect when you are paying a scientist a fabulous salary to live in paradise and tell us if we have a problem you are never gonna be told, "sack me, you don't have a problem".

It's always, "Oh no !!! It's worse than we thought !!!"

We get this all the time from Ove H-G and his mates up at Cape Ferguson and then the UN comes along and gives us an OK.

Whales are dying???

They're in record numbers.

Stop with the stupid hysterics, Doltoidian.

Nicky, the local council has conserved that 1946 benchmark so you can observe if the next king tide covers it.

Who knows? You might learn something in spite of yourself.

Spare us your crap on Zwally, nicky. Zwally has no more idea of SLR than he had of net melt of the ice cap for the reason that he was using a faulty process and revised it.

Greenland’s ice sheet has seen more growth so far this year than in the last four years. Greenland’s growth in 2015 is also higher than the mean growth for 1990 to 2011.

"Ongoing SLR is a fact that you cannot dispute."

If there is a net rate of SLR [with all the rising and falling of land around tide gauges there is much uncertainty and there is plenty of evidence that 2,000 year old ports are drier now than they were then], one thing that has been demonstrated with certainty is that there is no acceleration in SLR and that destroys the AGW/GHG theory very effectively.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 01 Nov 2015 #permalink

1946 benchmark at Cleveland...how stable is the datum?...and what does it prove? Your problem was you don't understand the difference between long-term incremental change in SLR and high tides potentiated by onshore winds and low pressure. It still is your problem: you don't prove anything about SLR by pointing to an extreme tide. That point was established long ago, and its truth is not contingent on your acceptance.

"If there is a net rate of SLR [with all the rising and falling of land around tide gauges there is much uncertainty and there is plenty of evidence that 2,000 year old ports are drier now than they were then], one thing that has been demonstrated with certainty is that there is no acceleration in SLR and that destroys the AGW/GHG theory very effectively."

hahahahaha....SD has doubts, SLR could be happening, what a concession....the stuff about acceleration being a proof of AGW/GHG is fatuous nonsense, pure invention... the global data set shows acceleration, and it's of no consequence that some sites show none, as regional values are expected to vary.

Enough of your tosh, ignoramus.

"As to your stupid, in fact vastly ignorant comment that humans and nature thrive in warmer conditions"

So where's the thriving metropolis in the Sahel?

I guess the New World Order HQ is set up there, along with the palatial mansions of the climate scientists...

"Nicky gets it 1000% wrong but “just cant be bothered”."

Nope. Both claims incorrect.

Not 1000% wrong. One figure incorrect units. The rest 100% right.

And you won't understand because YOU WILL NOT LET YOURSELF. So he won't bother doing it again for your "pleasure".

The conclusions are correct, however.

So they don't need changing.

"“both adjusted RSS and adjusted UAH closely agree with the unadjusted global mean of Hadcrut 3″.

Since all data that comes from satellites is adjusted that is a meaningless statement"

100% wrong.

It means that it's adjusted, which you use as a priori and incontrovertible proof that it's wrong.

You provide nothing other than it was adjusted as "evidence" for the ground truth being wrong.

There were NO caveats like "except for satellite".

"Since 1820 wealth has exploded to the point that GDP per capita is $6,000."

Since 1820 the price of a meal has gone up from 1 penny to $15.

Since 1820 social programs were introduced for social housing, welfare, health and pensions. Taxes were introduced to all wage earners. Voting was given to women and negroes.

Not to mention the massive government build-out that got the USA out of depression, something CAUSED by private and unregulated industry.

So this, I guess, means you know that socialist ideals have produced massive gains in per-capita GDP.

"If you are wondering why there are one million times more human breeding pairs today that there were 77,000 years ago you can blame two things:

1. The current inter-glacial.
2, The Industrial revolution."

Both wrong.

It's medical care and health.

Both because of social programs to generate massive public increases in health and wellbeing from taxation.

And the reduction in latest growth rates from universal education (something you didn't mention, "oddly" enough: despite still industrial revolutioned and interglacial, birth rates are dropping. Obviously they cause loss in fertility...), another socialist act of government.

"CoN the desperate waffler."

It's always the projection.

Caught out with RSS, UAH and HadCRUT agreeing under UAH 5.6, having previously claimed UAH6.0 truth and disagreeing with hadCRUT, spanky here then desperately waffles.

And prepares the waffle with projection.

It is plainly obvious, all in all, that neither Spanky nor Galloping Dysentry know a damn thing about the subject, but merely repeat the tired old denialist canards and annoy the shit out of ever thinking human being they contact.

It is also plainly obvious that both of them don't CARE.

They are, after all, on a Holy Crusade against Watermelons and their NWO.

Because they're shit scared of change.

#42, Spangled Galloping Drongo Camesl seem oblivious to the fact that their ignorance is obvious to others, and that there is a hard copy of their public education. There is never a concession, and never an acknowledgment or withdrawal of false claim, and an implicit conviction that the internet and its actors have no memories and will not trace a thread back. While engagement seems to spark their passions, it's otherwise weirdly and probably deliberately impersonal.

Nothing gets through to those with the Drongo's bizarre pathology. One could not construct a more absurd parody than his, so appalled by poor scholarship and bad faith while so determined to demonstrate it.

Jiffy who abuses me for quoting blogs, then quotes Tamino.

Spangles, get a grip on reality. Discover who Tamino is and what he does for a day job. Yet more spangled ignorance on display.

So sd, nothing about the bad news that if the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for?

Thanks for confirming you are in the bad news denial business.

Zwally’s backdown

When was it that Zwally claimed East Antarctica was shrinking, exactly?

my 70 years of observations

Just a Stupid olD man who is so blind he will not see.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 01 Nov 2015 #permalink

Gc on the September thread writes this utter piffle: “If temperatures increase, most animals including humans will benefit”

GC needs to disabuse himself of such wishful thinking here is some help in that direction.

First the excellent collection of articles, which although now dated are still relevant in Climate Change and Biodiversity' Thomas E. Lovejoy, Lee Jay Hannah Eds.

Also a later publication Saving a Million Species: Extinction Risk from Climate Change can be readily accessed and is well worth reading.

Here is another avenue to enlightenment for those who seem to have swallowed malicious propaganda from those assisting (the MM) the greedy socio-paths who are trying to preserve their revenue streams.

sd:

Greenland Ice isn’t melting either according to the Danish Met Institute: http://dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/accumulatedsmb.png

Stupid brain-dead olD man doesn't even understand his own citations.

That graph, plagiarised from here, shows "accumulated surface mass balance from September 1st to now", "the season 2011-12 (red) which had very high summer melt in Greenland" and "the mean curve from the period 1990-2013".

i.e. it just shows the surface mass balance relative to the 1st September in each year and shows NOTHING about the total ice sheet mass and its long term trend.

It is very interesting that the graph on the dmi website (not the undescribed one from sd), shows zero surface mass balance over the 2011-2012 year which means that in 2011-2012, Greenland received zero net surface ice mass to replace any of the ice mass lost to glacial outflow.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 01 Nov 2015 #permalink

What really irks me about Gc's willful ignorance is that I demolished piece by piece his 'a warmer world is better for humans and nature' once before and yet he comes back with it without any caveats or primary data to back it up. I know what he means, too - not that its better if it warms up over the next thousand years or even century (that would be bad enough given the scale of evolutionary change we are talking about), but he's saying that nature and humanity would be better off it it was much warmer next year or next week or even tomorrow. That it would be great if Siberia and northern Canada were almost instantaneously as warm as Florida or the Mediterranean. Yes folks, this is what the codger means. Make no mistake about it. And its so utterly stupid and daft and idiotic and WRONG but he believes it based on his own limited knowledge and inherent personal bias. I have better things to do than to deal with this kind of inane stupidity. Me and my peers know exactly what the consequences of such a sudden shift for nature would be: a huge calamity. Mass extinction and enormous ecological disruption. Humanity would be the biggest victim.

As I said before, its not what the current ambient conditions are but how long it took to get there. Humans are driving changes across the biosphere that are challenging systems at rates well beyond their capacity to respond. There's little dispute that we are well into the sixth great planetary extinction. Hughes et al. (1998) estimated that at that time the planet was losing as many as 30,000 genetically distinct populations per day as a result of human-induced changes. Climate warming at rates anywhere near projected by the IPCC will drive that figure way, way up.

Gc can also blather on about human progress etc. in a world where 1 in 8 receive so little nutrition that their minds are literally wasting away. Yet last year a report showed that the richest 200 people on the planet made 13.9 billion dollars in a single day. Its obscene. The current neoliberal economic experiment is concentrating wealth like never before. One New York Times writer described a fictional country of 'Richistan' which brings to mind Versailles in the days leading to the French Revolution. As a species we are headed in the wrong direction. And if we don't find a way to reign in the excesses of the current dominant political economic system then we are in deep, deep trouble.

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

I just saw Sds comment that 'whales are in record numbers'. When? Compared to 2014? What an utterly stupid remark. If we were to census whale numbers now and compare it with the period before whaling we'd see that we have reduced whale numbers by 98%. There are perhaps 2000-3000 blue whales now whereas before whaling there were several hundred thousand. Numbers of every baleen whale species are a fraction of what they once were. Right Whales and Bowheads were almost obliterated. The reason whaling nations now hanker after the small Minke's is because this is the only species left in appreciable numbers. Fifty years ago whalers would not have been interested in Minke whales because they were not 'economically viable'; in other words, for the effort expended the giant baleen whales were the primary target, until their numbers were decimated.

Trust Sd to expound his stupidity here on this topic as well. He and Gc belong with each other.

Thisnis the

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

On whales, and any other oceanic species, spangles hasn't a clue - why? Because he sucks at the teats of the likes of Murdoch (ugh not a pleasant thought) or nothing at all. Ignorance is his watchword.

What he needs is some priming from a scientist who has worked in the field, one such as Professor Callum Roberts: Our seas are being degraded, fish are dying – but humanity is threatened too.

Here are some other suggestions.

Any one notice how SD's link is not global cyclone energy, but global "tropical" cyclone energy. Anyone up to the taste of explaining to him the difference?

By turboblocke (not verified) on 01 Nov 2015 #permalink

Isn't it amazing how stupid Doltoids really show themselves to be?

Last century whales were nearly wiped out because civilisation needed the CARBON fuel sourced from them.

IOW, they were renewable energy that didn't work.

Just like most forms of RE.

When humans developed fossil fuel sourced energy, whales were left to regenerate which they have done very successfully.

Now the Doltoids bleat about whales while they endanger that source once more.

You couldn't make this stuff up.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 01 Nov 2015 #permalink

Nicky doesn't understand that if normal fine weather king tides regularly covered your lawn and ran into your fresh water well 70 years ago, but are up to 250mm lower today then there is not much happening wrt SLR anywhere.

Let alone any accelerating SLR that would indicate AGW.

All around the coastline since WW2 there are seafront estates that have had sea walls built by the developers to the local king tide height. Local councils required it and in Qld it was generally expressed as AHD 100 height.

I have lived at several of these places as have many people I still know well and none of them are aware of any SLR due to normal weather king tides exceeding this benchmark.

If any doltoids have any observations to the contrary, please advise.

If SLR is happening it would be seen to be happening.

Poor deluded nicky thinks because global "data" shows SLR then it must be happening.

Just like he worshipped Zwally's "global data".

That is, until it ceased to exist.

But he probably still worships it.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 01 Nov 2015 #permalink

Have you ever read such a hubristic rant as jiffy's #32?

So, jiff, was the last 2.5 million years of ice ages the height of biodiversity?

And how about those hotter-than-now interglacials?

Does it possibly dawn of your tiny mind that our current less-than-normal climate variability is as good as it's likely to get?

But I'm sure you could always consult with Paul Ehrlich who is here at present and work out a better solution.

Just be sure the two of you are the first to volunteer.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 01 Nov 2015 #permalink

History has shown us what happens when climate NV goes cold and it's disastrous.

Civilisations that have thrived in warm NV have collapsed in cold NV.

Smell the roses, Doltoids.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 01 Nov 2015 #permalink

Blithering jiffy in full cry:

"Humans are driving changes across the biosphere that are challenging systems at rates well beyond their capacity to respond. There’s little dispute that we are well into the sixth great planetary extinction"

That could be due to humans, jiff, but not current natural variability of climate.

Try being specific.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 01 Nov 2015 #permalink

More blitherin' jiff:

"As I said before, its not what the current ambient conditions are but how long it took to get there."

Go back to school, jiff.

"The warming phase, that took place about 11,500 years ago, at the end of the Younger Dryas was also very abrupt and temperatures increased by 7°C or more in a few decades (Johnsen et al., 1992; Grootes et al., 1993; Severinghaus et al., 1998)."

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 01 Nov 2015 #permalink

And maybe CoN could stop HIS blithering long enough to produce his personal obs of the dreaded SLR he continually wets himself over.

What's that you say, CoN?

You might wet yourself but you don't bother to look?

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 01 Nov 2015 #permalink

#53, moronic comment, with typically unpleasant tone. because whale harvesting was unsustainable therefore all renewable energy is unreliable ...major fail SD. It takes longer to grow a whale than harvest a photon with a solar panel, to simplify it for ya.

#54 Absurd anecdote...if what you allege is normal in that way is not still seen today, then other factors are not accounted for. I suggest your childhood's lawn got raised and you don't remember, or nobody told you, or you are a liar...which is very likely.

And for the umpteenth time, occasional extreme tides are not relevant to whether there is a trend in sea level over decades...extreme tides will not give you enough data to determine a trend. It's also been pointed out that some areas have seen much less net SLR than others...you cannot extrapolated from anecdotes at Cleveland. All it tells us is that you are unteachable and determined to stay that way.

#55,56,57. All clueless about biodiversity changes and dynamics. The quote you have snipped from TAR about warming rates has been doctored to exclude "central Greenland": it should read:

"The warming phase, that took place about 11,500 years ago, at the end of the Younger Dryas was also very abrupt and central Greenland temperatures increased by 7°C or more in a few decades (Johnsen et al., 1992; Grootes et al., 1993; Severinghaus et al., 1998)"

You're a fuckwit.

# 61...in 2007, Zwally was quoted in an NG article by journo Seth Borenstein as saying:
"This week, after reviewing his own new data, NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: "At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions.""

That 'could be' is always omitted at the hands of the quote-miners. And you just pile on.
You're caught out every time you comment here, SD. Ouch.

"because whale harvesting was unsustainable therefore all renewable energy is unreliable"

I agree, nicky the nong, you would have to be a fuckwit to say that.

But I didn't, you did.

I'm not asking you to believe me, nicky the nong, just check the facts and turn up at the next king tide and draw your own conclusions. Only a denialist fuckwit wouldn't.

Are you in denial, too, that the Younger Dryas didn't produce natural variability temperature increases many times in excess of current 0.8c nat var.

Can you possibly be that big a fuckwit?

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 01 Nov 2015 #permalink

"That ‘could be’ is always omitted at the hands of the quote-miners."

But they're the favourite weasel words of Doltoid scientists

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 01 Nov 2015 #permalink

#63 SD claims 'I didn't say that'

This is what you said, mister-short-term-memory-collapse:

"Last century whales were nearly wiped out because civilisation needed the CARBON fuel sourced from them.

IOW, they were renewable energy that didn’t work.

Just like most forms of RE"

I just parodied you, idiot.

#64..."could be" is an informed qualifier, used for obvious reasons in the context...obvious except for you fools. ZWally is well-aware of interannual variability and the limits of models. It's his work to explore the processes and model them. If he didn't continually update and review the work in his field, he's not doing science.. but you idiots think to revise your views is to be 'wrong' , to 'lie, to 'weasel', and all the other cheap rhetorical shallowness you try to pass off as 'informed criticism'. Rats in wheels, is all you are. Stuck in one spot, spinning.

You'll be by yourself at the next king tide, drongo. Everybody else knows outliers are irrelevant to detecting long-term change...you probably know thistoo, but to admit it at this stage is too personally humiliating. You know, when a storm tide exceeds your fabled memories, it still won't prove anything about SLR trends.

#63..."Are you in denial, too, that the Younger Dryas didn’t produce natural variability temperature increases many times in excess of current 0.8c nat var."

Why did you snip out the "central Greenland"...do you think that rapid change on the elevated ice cap is analogous and directly scalable to change throughout the habitable latitudes?? More fool you.

I told you , you keep getting caught out. You don't know why it's not directly transferable. And you don't know other reasons why big changes are detected in proxy data high on the ice cap, do you. You don't know enough to use that info in good faith, or with context> Somebody has lied to you again, and you didn't know.

"I just parodied you" with a fuckwit parody, not what I said.

And you have the hubris to say I leave things out even though we all know that Greenland is the proxy.

And why didn't you answer my question whether you consider the NV warming of the YD of between 6c and 14c over ~ 50 years was many times warmer than the recent NV of 0.8 over 150 years?

Jay Zwally is a bum covering weasel but you, nicky, are nothing more than a dodger and a denier, who cant bear to look facts in the face.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 01 Nov 2015 #permalink

#67 parody is more than you've earned after you last year of nonsense and snark.

Somebody went to the trouble of removing the location from that quote...it's verbatim from TAR but for "central Greenland" why would anyone bother to remove just two words, if not intending to misdirect??

Recent warming is not NV, and you will find no credible expert saying otherwise. Rapid change in the high Arctic, with larger swings is typical of the Arctic amplification effect, predicted by climate experts....so the younger Dryas' leap does not translate to global average change, even though changes further afield were big. Abrupt vegetation changes occurred across the NH, nothing to comfort you when you realise currently the summit of the Greenland Ice Cap is warming at six times the global rate...and of course we are not finished with warming.

How do you think our current arrangements would fare in a Dryas-like change? You have not challenged Jeff's contention that current change is rapid enough to bugger our support systems, in unison with the habitat fragmentation we have already achieved.

Your smear of Zwally continues to be lazy and childish.

Stu 2 at #63.

I reiterate: my comment about potentially high attrition was not about restocking of endemics but about the typical "revegetation" programs that are littered with the legacy of rows and rows of plastic windbreak tubes housing forlorn dead twigs. If you are using endemics more power to you - but I would still like to see your stats on trees planted vs survival at 5 or 10 years. You've offered nothing in that department. At all.

And for Pete's sake, what's with this:

Contrary to your assertion above: the species that are native to this area are very good at surviving. That’s why they were here in the first place.

I know that Stu 2 - I said as much. In fact you yourself confirmed my statement to that effect immediately after your comment:

Also Bernard this comment is equally hilarious and downright counter intuitive:
” The species that you are planting are those that by your own admission grow there successfully themselves...”

Grok? I made the point that endemics are successful in their natural ranges.

And then:

...and therefore your claim of their carbon embodiment as offestting your own emissions is false accounting – which is the whole point of the discussion anyway.”

Really? Counterinutitive?

1. You plant species endemic to the region.

2. By implicit definition they are successfully adapted through evolution to grow well in the ambient conditions.

3. Your reintroduction of endemic flora is simply restoring the land's natural capacity to sequester carbon. Claiming restoration of previous loss of storage capacity is not the same as having a net negative contribution to carbon emissions yourself, especially if the endemics could have grown under their own auspices. Unless of course the land was severely degraded, but to repeat for the upteenth time you've provided no substantive evidence to validate your claims of high success, and such success without intensive care would be remarkable in an arid environment. Especially if it really is under your own banner, rather than for the NRM for which you apparently work, and most especially if you've grown hundreds of thousands of your own plants in an arid area with little to no after-care.

Perhaps I need to spell it out in one or two syllable words so you understand the point.

1. You plant trees that are native to the area.

2. They are native to the area because God made them able to grow there.

3. Including for carbon offests from plants that grow where God put them is usually tricky accounting. More so if they would have grown anyway or if you're doing it for someone else.

Using your logic the palm oil barons in Indonesia are wonderfully green environmentalists, because their plantations sequester far more carbon than their international flights and palacial concrete houses consume. The fact that someone who may or may not have been paid by them trashed the rainforest that was there previously is just a minor technicality.

I plant trees on my land to, Stu 2. I don't count most of them as offsets, because my land would have managed the regeneration on its own within a few years after my plantings.

One of my first jobs was revegetation of mine sites where the topsoil had been completely removed and not replaced, and erosion had worsed the landscape that remained. We planted endemics, but it was bloody hard work to keep them going until they could establish themselves to the point where they could create leaf litter and microclimates that would sustain an ongoing plant community. If you didn't have to work to look after the plants you put in, then you were working with a relatively benevolent landscape where the edemics would have recolonised under their own steam in a period that makes your offstes effectively imaginary. If you successfully revegetated a severely degraded lanscape that could not have recolonised itself, then you must have put in a lot of aftercare to make it so.

If, on the other hand, you spent 20 years successfully planting 200,000 trees with almost no after-care, in damaged landscapes, with a "very high" success rates to the point that you actually made real differences to captured carbon amounts, the world would want to see. Especially if you could do all that in your own time, outside a day job.

So where's your evidence?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 02 Nov 2015 #permalink

his personal obs of the dreaded SLR

Stupid olD man doesn't realise that personal obs at a couple of places, especially ones affected by artificial structures, mean diddley squat.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 02 Nov 2015 #permalink

"Jay Zwally is a bum covering weasel"

Another ad him from our resident self-righteous nutter. He does it to whomever he doesn't like. Gavin Schmidt for example. But complete nobodies like Goddard/Heller who's temple he worships at are treated like Gods.

Game, set and match. Its why Sd is stuck on blogs. He won't go anywhere near a scientific venue where he will be laughed into oblivion.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 02 Nov 2015 #permalink

...oopps ad hom.... but you get my drift.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 02 Nov 2015 #permalink

Sd you simplistic twit, the planet thousands of years ago had not had its surface altered so profoundly by a single evolved species. The rate of climate change now is, according to the VAST MAJORITY of the scientific community, unprecedented in many tends of thousands of years. In previous warming episodes the planet's ecosystems were largely intact as a starting point. This time they have been significantly simplified, making it considerably more of an evolutionary challenge for the reduced genetic pool to respond.

And yes, we know that biodiversity ion terms of species richness and genetic variation reached its zenith in the last million years. Perhaps in the last 5,000 - before Homo sapiens became utterly dominant and started its last 500 year rampage.

Sigh. Are you that utterly thick? I guess so. You clearly have never been near an ecology lecture.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 02 Nov 2015 #permalink

Its fun watching Sd squirm. His whale comment was hilarious. So, so wrong. And he is a real data miner. Picks out things he likes and selectively dismisses what he doesn't.

I am wondering why he hasn't chastised Gc for his 'things would be better for nature and mankind if it was warmer' goobledegook yesterday. As I said, Gc means virtually instantaneously. He's an old guy, so he wants those Floridian temperatures up in Minnesota asap. He hasn't challenged Gc because he agrees with this crap.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 02 Nov 2015 #permalink

Shitty Dickhead says

No SLR to worry about.

Despite the article that it cites flat out contradicting it, surprising no one.

Ianam,
You are wasting your time with these idiots.

Jeff Jeff Jeff. Try actually reading the comment you responded to.

And then you go on writing lengthy post after lengthy post responding to the idiots, as you have been doing for years.

ianam, ya got me there. Point taken.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 02 Nov 2015 #permalink

"could be” is an informed qualifier, used for obvious reasons"

Yeah, very obvious! Particularly when someone like Zwally awa Doltoids generally, only make predictions in one direction.

"Recent warming is not NV"

But the YD with up to 100 times the rate of warming in some places, was?

You're a fully converted Zwally disciple, nicky. Try putting your head out the window for once in your life and see what's happening in the real world.

Who knows, you might actually observe some SLR.

"Recent warming is not NV"

Only if you mean the Fakery at the Bakery.

"Recent warming is not NV"

Well, not for the last 18.5 years anyway.

"reached its zenith in the last million years. Perhaps in the last 5,000"

So, jiff, it was better during the Holocene optimum?

I could agree with that.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 02 Nov 2015 #permalink

"Put your head out the window" and observe the LGM, Cleveland Clown. Were you there? Nope..but, while you're interested in regional and global temperature excursions back then, what do all the proxy studies tell us about CS?

Agrees there was a period known as the Holocene Optimum..but wasn't there to personally observe it. Bummer.

You can do it if you really try, nicky. I realise you're dying to see if there really is SLR.

I realise that no SLR, no Doltoid Religion.

I realise you've probably never done any real observations in your life but I'll even hold your hand if it gets too much for you.

But I can understand if you'd rather make your own arrangements.

Just be sure to let me know if you do observe any SLR all by yourself, though, won't you.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 02 Nov 2015 #permalink

"what do all the proxy studies tell us about CS?"

If by proxy studies you mean GCMs, the answer is bullshit x 100 but when gavins grow clever and sceptical and sort out their +/- signs wrt feedbacks, correctly quantify NV, UHIE and all the other current unmeasurables, ECS could be somewhere between +/- 1c.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 02 Nov 2015 #permalink

"Why did you snip out the “central Greenland”…"

Because the quote mine allows denier idiots like spanky here to cliaim a lie and "support" it by a quote.

#81 By proxy studies, I do not mean GCMs, I mean palaeoclimate studies using proxy data, from which estimates of CS can be drawn.

"....correctly quantify NV, UHIE and all the other current unmeasurables,"

You promised me all the rise since 1850 was NV, but it's apparently currently unmeasurable. UHIE is also actually observed and calculable.

So your endorsement of Evans comes off a strong base, eh.

"#53, moronic comment, with typically unpleasant tone. because whale harvesting was unsustainable therefore all renewable energy is unreliable"

Coal and oil extraction is unsustainable.

I guess spanky is all about going back to wind and solar power, then...

"It’s also been pointed out that some areas have seen much less net SLR than others…you cannot extrapolated from anecdotes at Cleveland. "

So he's changed his meme from Moreton Bay? Was that because his claim was based on SAYING it was at the seaside, but proven not to be, therefore he, after many months of searching for "plausible" candidates, has selected yet another place for his childhood "memories" of king tide observations? Observations he never made, either at Moreton or Cleveland.

"That ‘could be’ is always omitted at the hands of the quote-miners. "

And "At this rate".

Since it didn't continue at that rate, the fact it was still somewhat there 2013 is not proof Zwally was wrong.

Indeed if you draw the sea extent and extrapolate, he was 100% right.

"#63 SD claims ‘I didn’t say that’"

Of course he did. Just like Stupid and the other deniers, they deny their own words.

One reason they like to IMPLY a problem, rather than state what the problem is. Therefore they can pretend they didn't MEAN that problem, they meant another.

"You promised me all the rise since 1850 was NV, but it’s apparently currently unmeasurable. UHIE is also actually observed and calculable."

Indeed, I wonder how it can all be natural variability but ALSO the UHI effect, AND ALSO deliberate doctoring, AND IN ADDITION, not happening because some short period of selected satellite version of data shows otherwise.

So many reasons, some of which say it isn't happening, can't be happening, and some saying it's very very normal.

Obviously the more you lie, the harder it becomes to keep your story straight...

#83...Verdier is a journalist who took a degree in Sustainable Development a while back.
He is neither meteorologist or physical scientist, and he has no publications, but as he's a 'popular TV weatherman', I guess he must be listened to, like Anthony Watts and Joe Bastardi. He might even be as sharp as those guys...

#87, Wow, this Cleveland is a bayside town on Moreton Bay that has become an outer suburb of greater Brisbane. It's also the location of an early canal estate -a reclamation for a suburb with canal waterfrontages- called Raby Bay, which may well be responsible for changing the tidal dynamics of the area. Drongo won't comment on that. [Well, he will now I've mentioned it again]

#90

"Indeed, I wonder how it can all be natural variability but ALSO the UHI effect, AND ALSO deliberate doctoring, AND IN ADDITION, not happening because some short period of selected satellite version of data shows otherwise."

Never mind the incoherence, feel the passion!

"Verdier is a journalist....."

The hypocrisy of Doltoids is breathtaking. A sceptical climate messenger writes and publishes a book of his ideas and he gets crucified by Doltoids.

Alarmist climate messengers manufacture fakery and when asked for details, refuse lawful govt requests but are worshipped by Doltoids.

Is there something I am missing here?

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 02 Nov 2015 #permalink

"It’s also the location of an early canal estate -a reclamation for a suburb with canal waterfrontages- called Raby Bay, which may well be responsible for changing the tidal dynamics of the area. Drongo won’t comment on that. [Well, he will now I’ve mentioned it again]"

If you paid attention, nicky the nong, you would know this has been discussed before ad nauseum.

Cleveland Point is where the lighthouse is. It is on a deep channel and was intended as the original Port of Brisbane. The miniscule hydraulic affect of Raby Bay canals [which were previously a deep tidal creek and possibly drew a similar flow of tide anyway] is upstream of CP. At high tide equilibrium there would be no difference. The two main entrances to Moreton Bay are extremely wide and CP is directly fed by them.

To suggest that this canal development reduces SL in Moreton Bay in typical Doltoid science.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 02 Nov 2015 #permalink

“Indeed, I wonder how it can all be natural variability but ALSO the UHI effect, AND ALSO deliberate doctoring, AND IN ADDITION, not happening because some short period of selected satellite version of data shows otherwise.”

Obtuse does not even cover these dumb remarks but I suppose they are desperate to Party in Paris.

Doltoids simply can't understand that the less than 0.8c of non adjusted increase since the coldest period in civilisation already includes an unmeasurable quantity of UHI making Nat Var somewhat less than this already fraction of average Nat Var.

And the fakery at the bakery is an add-on but is of course a Doltoid figment.

And the non-warming this century adds nothing more.

Is that spelt out simple enough, nicky and wowse?

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 02 Nov 2015 #permalink

"UHIE is also actually observed and calculable."

I agree that it is observed and if not accurately calculable should at least be adjusted for by cooling the present and/or warming the past instead of the reverse but the BoM and the rest of the world's gatekeepers are in denial.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 02 Nov 2015 #permalink

"I agree that it is observed and if not accurately calculable should at least be adjusted for by cooling the present and/or warming the past "

It is.

However, YOU whine about "it's ADJUSTED!!!!".

Yet here you are, now, demanding that they adjust the raw data that you DEMAND that they don't adjust because that's faking something or other....

"And the non-warming this century adds nothing more.

Is that spelt out simple enough, nicky and wowse?"

Yes. It's simply wrong.

'“I agree that it is observed and if not accurately calculable should at least be adjusted for by cooling the present and/or warming the past ”'

"It is."

Where?

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 02 Nov 2015 #permalink

Stupid olD man claims:

fakery at the bakery

and yet made the dishonestly misleading claim

Greenland Ice isn’t melting either according to the Danish Met Institute

Greenland ice might not be melting at every instant or even over the whole year but if it doesn't replace the ice lost down glaciers then it will disappear.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 02 Nov 2015 #permalink

Stupid olD man:

the non-warming this century

according to a series of radio receivers above the atmosphere whose

required corrections are as large as the trend itself

.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 02 Nov 2015 #permalink

"required corrections are as large as the trend itself"

But not as large as Gavin's fakery at the bakery.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 02 Nov 2015 #permalink

Is there something I am missing here?

insight, drongo

#97 UHI is calculated and adjusted for, you silly man. How can you keep up this display of ignorance?

Doltoids simply can’t understand that the less than 0.8c of non adjusted increase since the coldest period in civilisation already includes an unmeasurable quantity of UHI making Nat Var somewhat less than this already fraction of average Nat Var.

UHI is calculated and accounted for, no matter how many times you want to claim otherwise.

"UHI is calculated and accounted for, no matter how many times you want to claim otherwise."

You mean in the Fakery at the Bakery, nicky?

Y'know, where they ignore the only data that doesn't measure UHI and then add warming?

That's a very clever answer, nicky.

Did you get that from Wow?

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 02 Nov 2015 #permalink

#7 obviously too clever for you, Drongo

That's the way, nicky, when you have no evidence whatsoever just use authority. Or bang the table.

That's how Doltoid science works.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 03 Nov 2015 #permalink

I'm only banging the table in laughing at you and your incoherent nonsense.

Since you did not personally observe UHI, personally develop methodology and calculate its effects, and you reject the authority of national meteorology groups who have done so, I guess you have wedged yourself.

You are arguing from your own lack of authority, appealing to your self-proclaimed purity as compensation for your self-imposed ignorance. You are sure of one thing, and you reject all evidence besides your own 'experience', apart from your frequent misreadings of the science you constantly reject.

That has left you with banging the table as your only option, hasn't it, old bird.

Here's some information on the Holecene optimum:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/holocene.html

Note the caveat at the bottom, that warming today is totally different from the climate of 6000 years ago. But Sd will avoid this caveat and draw his own conclusions. Nick nails it above. Sd argues as if he, and he alone, is able to separate reliable data from fudged data. It goes like this: if Sd likes it, its good. If he doesn't, its fudged. And then he attacks the messengers of what he perceives to be the fudged data.

His latest petty rant is against Jay Zwally. I have said it once and I will say it again. LET'S SEE SD WRITE UP HIS BRILLIANT REBUTTALS IN A PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL. Put his money where hismouth is. Science by blog won't impact policy but science by journal will.

But we all know that Sd is a big-mouted arrogant nobody who acts like a silverback on a blog but when push comes to shove he'll run and hide like all of the other deniers here. He's scared. He argues from his own perceived 'authority' and rejects all data that does not fit in with his pre-determined worldview. Its a case of selective data interpretation littered with conspiracies. How does one argue with such a buffoon? The other day off the top of his head he said that whales are in record numbers when this is utter tosh. He wades into fields he's never studies and derives his own conclusions.

In a face to face debate he'd never get away with this hit and run nonsense but on blogs he can. That's why engaging with him is a waste of time.

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

"Here’s some information on the Holecene optimum:"

That's not information, jerky, that was written by Zwally-clones before the penny dropped.

SLs during the HO were 2.5 to 4 metres higher than today [I'm sure you can find that evidence].

I'll say the warming was different !!

It was warmer and wetter with no ACO2.

IOW, Nat Var.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 03 Nov 2015 #permalink

As in warmer and wetter Nat Var with no human causation.

Why, pray tell, could that happen then and not today?

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 03 Nov 2015 #permalink

not as large as Gavin’s

That should read, less than Gavin’s, Richard's, Karl's, Phil's, Cowtan's, the folks from Japan, etc.

It's the global conspiracy I tells ya.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 03 Nov 2015 #permalink

"The other day off the top of his head he said that whales are in record numbers when this is utter tosh."

Sorry, jiff, you're the one talking tosh. 100 years ago many species were on the verge of extinction yet we kept killing them for another 50 years. Tangalooma was still killing and processing whales with ever more sophisticated ships in the '60s until they were virtually wiped out and it became unviable. When whaling stopped there was a rapid recovery of many species and todays census is well and truly in record territory compared with a century ago.

What is truly bizarre with doltoid philosophy is that by wanting to shut down fossil fuels as they do they would commit these animals to a similar fate.

You're not only a mad ranter, jif, you're a hypocrite to boot.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 03 Nov 2015 #permalink

You know what Sd? You lose and argument and you still think you win. Do you honestly think that Fin, Blue, Humpback, Right, Bowhead and Sei whales - which produce one offsprign every tow or three years - can recover from the annihilation of their numbers on 40-50 years? We know that there were perhaps a million Fins and several hundred thousand Blues, and that their numbers are not in the low thousands at most. It will take a thousand years or more for them to recover even close to their original numbers.

Gee you are a twat.

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

Here we go again - more conspriacy crap from Sd. The guy is a loony. Probably holes himself up in a single room like John Malkovich in 'In the Line of Fire'.

More demolition of his whale b* here.

http://www.nature.com/news/world-s-whaling-slaughter-tallied-1.17080

The only reason i respond to this clot is because he is so easy to humiliate, either being wrong with respect to science, smearing people he doesn't like, coming up with endless conspiracy theories etc.

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

Population trends of Blkue Whales:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_whale#/media/File:Blue_Whale_populat…

All balleen whales are in numbers that are a fraction of their historical numbers. What Spungled dumbo is trying to do is say that there are more than there were about 40 years ago. Its dishonest, of course, like everything else he says. Look at the graph of Blue Whale numbers and tell me how well they have recovered. Its a tiny fraction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_whale#/media/File:Blue_Whale_populat…

Game, set and match. Dumbo has to move to another topic - and fast.

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

"He argues from his own perceived ‘authority’ and rejects all data that does not fit in with his pre-determined worldview."

What factual data did I reject, jiff? But spare me the BS models and GRACIE, won't you.

Some famous concerned alarmists for you jiff so you don't have to feel lonely:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2014/08/25/nick-bowers_n_5701202.html?…

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 03 Nov 2015 #permalink

I wonder what those many species of whales are out there in the ocean that number into the millions, jiffy?

And stop ranting.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 03 Nov 2015 #permalink

Jiffy the ranter is so thick he doesn't get when we are fundamentally in agreement. After I tell him the whales were all but wiped out and they are now in record numbers compared to that era, he sends me links confirming exactly what I say.

Maybe he would have understood better if I had used the fake word doltoids love: UNPRECEDENTED?

You gotta admit, yer a pompous twit, jiff.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 03 Nov 2015 #permalink

"You are arguing from your own lack of authority"

When there are no specialists who know what they hell is going on in the subject, all they have is lack of authority.

So of COURSE they will argue that it's the only (and sole reliable) method of determining expertise.

"You know what Sd? You lose and argument and you still think you win."

Oh spanky doesn't think he won, he just deniers being wrong.

There's a difference.

If you're a denier.

"And stop ranting."

LOL!

So showing how a denier is wrong again and again, is "ranting".

I suppose it means that you think you have "rebutted" the facts and evidence against you because they're "only ranting", not "actual evidence".

#12, 13 the cherry-pickin' stupid runs deep with SD

It was warmer and wetter with no ACO2.

IOW, Nat Var.

No shit, Sherlock! Who knew it was warmer? The scientists you scorn and spurn told you, dipshit.

And why, because we know about climate excursions and the factors behind them, would we exclude ACO2 as a forcing now just because it wasn't a factor in a past warming??

[and how you can push palaeo evidence at us, when you utterly reject the way it is derived, is one of the hilarious excruciations of your self-ignorance. You stuck your head out the window of your time machine??]

As in warmer and wetter Nat Var with no human causation.

Why, pray tell, could that happen then and not today?

It could happen today if there was similar regional forcing of course. The whole fucking climate community tells you that!! And has told you for decades

But it ain't happening that way now, and only ACO2 provides the forcing behind this climate excursion.

All we have to do now is watch SLR's lagging response catch up with the CO2 forcings change to the ocean/atmosphere energy budget, and you'll have you mid-Holocene sea levels...and the measure of that is not your dim memories of Cleveland Point. How could it be? Are you insane?

"IOW, Nat Var."

The fuckwit uses that phrase like it's some sort of mystic charm.

"Tides go in, tides go out" he can't explain why. It's naturally varying!

If the moron had even high school reading skills and a vague hint of honesty, they would have read the attribution chapter of the IPCC report and found out WHY the changes took place, and that those effects are still in place, WHICH IS WHY THERE IS AGW.

But it doesn't care. "Nat Var! Nat Var!" types it out so much it HAS to shorten it. then shorten it to "NV!NV!NV!NV!".

No clue, no CARE to have a clue.

A full on moron denier.

"As in warmer and wetter Nat Var with no human causation.

Why, pray tell, could that happen then and not today?"

Why, pray tell, could such variation be cause by human acts?

"As in warmer and wetter Nat Var with no human causation.

Why, pray tell, could that happen then and not today?"

Why, pray tell, could such variation be NOT caused by human acts?

(lag spike rendering bollocks. when I clicked, I was in the bloody comment box, but no, adverts want to pop in and change the layout...)

Why could that happen then and not today?

Yet another logical misrepresentation. No-one's saying it couldn't happen today. It (natural forcing) is just not happening today.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 03 Nov 2015 #permalink

And what's the difference between climate change caused by factors that nature introduces and climate change caused by factors humans have introduced?

What magic knowledge does a CO2 molecule carry that lets it know it was anthropogenic, and therefore should not absorb that IR photon?

If CO2 naturally causes global climate change, then humans burning fossil fuels naturally cause climate change.

If spanky wants to claim CO2 doesn't, then what natural variability explains the temperature changes in the past, and what stops IR being intercepted by CO2 causing the energy loss from the planet to drop and causing the planet to heat up, exactly as putting lagging on a hot water pipe does?

"It (natural forcing) is just not happening today."

Oh to be a Doltoid !!!

The brilliant prescience of the evidence-free Doltoids somehow just know.

Can you bear it.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 03 Nov 2015 #permalink

#32, another attempted scoff based on facetious literalness. You're only making a fool of yourself.

Drongo fundamentally does not know what caused the LGM, and does not know what the scientific community knows. Yet he is willing to believe in NV,and to claim certain things about NV, and the mid Holocene are true, but reject knowledge about present time...even though they are drawn directly from the same fundamental knowledge of the planet's orbital conditions, built from physical laws of motion and gravity!

Extraordinary 'work', drongo...at root your whole theory of knowledge and its application is broken. Kaput. You invest in NV a property of divine mystery... your knowledge is pre-Newtonian.

prescience

A brain-dead response from a Stupid olD man.

Prescience has nothing to do with it AND even if it did, you changed the point from whether changes in natural forcing could happen today to whether they are happening today.

BTW, have you worked out what the dmi means by surface mass balance since September 1 yet?

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 03 Nov 2015 #permalink

"And what’s the difference between climate change caused by factors that nature introduces and climate change caused by factors humans have introduced?"

Wowsie finally asks an intelligent question. Pity he gives a dumb answer.

Wowsie, luv, temps have always changed. Got that?

At an average for the last 80 centuries of possibly around 1c per century.

And we are currently nowhere near average.

The GHG theory is just that. A theory.

Never been proved or quantified.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 03 Nov 2015 #permalink

"“It (natural forcing) is just not happening today.”

Oh to be a Doltoid !!!"

What? So you can understand reality?

Or is this yet MORE *claim* free as well as evidence free spittle from a denier moron?

"Wowsie finally asks an intelligent question. Pity he gives a dumb answer."

Luckily you think dumb is something you don't want to be true.

"Wowsie, luv, temps have always changed. Got that?"

Dipshit, they don't change for the hell of it.

What a fucking dumb answer!

"Oh, they always change!!!" So it gets warmer at night, because that's CHANGE and it always happens, right?

What a dumbass world this moron lives in.

I bet it doesn't know why its pants keep getting piss and shit on them, just thinks "They ALWAYS get piss and shit on them!".

"And we are currently nowhere near average."

We're well above that average, numbskull.

The GHG theory is just that. A theory."

Well, THERE'S an empty claim, if ever there was one! Gravity is a theory. Go jump off a tall building to contest it.

"Never been proved or quantified."

Yes it has. Over 100 years ago.

Look up "Svante Arrhenius".

temps have always changed

but they haven't always increased like we've seen in the past 40 years. Global cooling ended in the 1950s. If we only get global warming and no global cooling then eventually we're toast.

GHG theory

Actually, a GHG is defined to be a gas that is measured to absorb IR radiation. Not theoretical. It's a measurement.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 03 Nov 2015 #permalink

"but they haven’t always increased like we’ve seen in the past 40 years."

Wake up CoN !! Temps increased at the end of the YD at possibly 10 times the current warming of the last 40 years.

And even the warming in the first half of last century was the equivalent of what happened in the past 40 years:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1860/to:2015/from/plot…

What you are looking at here is Nat Var writ large.

"Actually, a GHG is defined to be a gas that is measured to absorb IR radiation. Not theoretical. It’s a measurement."

OK, pedant, you know that I'm referring to the Doltoid GHG theory of CAGW. I just thought I'd spare you the embarrassment.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 03 Nov 2015 #permalink

What you are looking at here is Nat Var writ large

Sorry, drongo, there is no evidence for it being 'natural variation'. Natural variation, all climate variation, has definable causes, but to you it's an unknowable 'divine intervention'.

Attribution study rejects your guesses. And since you reject orbital factors, deny all remote sensing and proxy evidence, and are stuck in a pre-Newtonian paradigm, your appeal to your own ignorance is obvious.

...temps have always changed... At an average for the last 80 centuries of possibly around 1c per century.

Really? You have references for that?

You do realise what you just said?

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

Hn. Should watch the autocorrect on a 'phone. I'll try again...

…temps have always changed… At an average for the last 80 centuries of possibly around 1c per century

Really? You have references for that?

You do realise what you just said?

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

"Wake up CoN !! Temps increased at the end of the YD at possibly 10 times the current warming of the last 40 years."

WAKE UP SPANKY! THEY DIDN'T!!

NOT IN THE LEAST!

"OK, pedant, you know that I’m referring to the Doltoid GHG theory of CAGW. I just thought I’d spare you the embarrassment."

No, you pederast, you know that CAGW is YOUR invention. It's a Denier Article of Faith, that CAGW must exist or there's no AGW.

Looking at all the ice cores available, bern, what would be your lernard, considered estimate of average Nat Var per century for the last ~ 80 centuries?

Bearing in your wise and rational mind that climate always changes and temperatures are never in equilibrium?

Wadda ya reckon?

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 04 Nov 2015 #permalink

" there is no evidence for it being ‘natural variation’."

So you think that something as chaotic as weather and climate doesn't have any natural variation?

Are you saying the warm and cold periods of the past didn't exist?

Or were caused by unnatural forcings?

When do you think the last Nat Var might have occurred then, nicky?

And why it doesn't happen anymore?

Please explain it all in detail.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 04 Nov 2015 #permalink

Sds mindset is simple: he and a few shills and fringers are the experts. The rest of the scientific community, including members of academies and major organizations just have not seen the light or are dishonest. I find it remarkable however that one scientifically illiterate guy and a bunch of right wing non-scientists on blogs have it right and those with Professorships, careers in the field, years of pedigree, hundreds of papers etc. in scientific journals just don't understand the science.

If one looks at it this way, then Sd comes across as a complete lunatic. If the cap fits, wear it...

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 04 Nov 2015 #permalink

It reminds me of exchanges I once had on Milloy's vile Junk Science blog many years ago. There was a discussion about biodiversity and its importance in terms of the material economy, and this 18 year old kid named Thomas Rhone (apparently not his real name) wrote in with some utterly childish gobbledegook claiming that extinction rates were low, that biodiversity was expendable, and similar stuff. I countered it and cited examples from the peer-reviewed literature as well as from my professional training as an ecologist and the result was predictable from the unenlightened idiots who of course were Milloy's fans. Rhone was described as being 'better informed than the so-called ecologist' and less polite smears were aimed at me, not because I was wrong, which I wasn't, but because my views did not concur with those of the posters. They had their-pre-determined worldviews about how nature worked and if some dopey kid said what they liked to read, then he was right and everybody else was wrong, no matter what their professional background was. It was a good lesson for me in confirmation bias. Sd exhibits it here. He tends to avoid topics he doesn't like - as for instnace in trying to explain why every major scientific organization on Earth and the scientists in them are either wrong or ill-informed whereas he and others with no relevant expertise or pedigree are right. As I said in my last post, this poinbt alone makes him look like a total loony. He makes points here about previous climate-related episodes, natural variation etc. as if the climate science community knows nothing about it or have manipulated the truth. He makes things up with no evidence whatsoever, such as claiming that NOAA or NASA data sets are written up by Gavin Schmidt on his own (as if he would be allowed to present temperature graphs or data that are not scrutinized by his peers) and that NOAA articles on the Holocene Optimum are written by Jay Zwally.

How does one debate with such ridiculous assertions? Its impossible on a blog. In public SD would of course be humiliated and laughed into oblivion where he belongs for many of the assertions (or even innuendos) he provides on here. But he can hide behind his anonymous handle here and get away with it.

He's been clearly caught out on his whale status comment which was easy to debunk. For me that was a slam-dunk. I was waiting for him to claim that graphs showing whale numbers were being manipulated by Jay Zwally. Given what a clown he is, I would not put it past him.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 04 Nov 2015 #permalink

"Looking at all the ice cores available, bern, what would be your lernard, considered estimate of average Nat Var per century for the last ~ 80 centuries?"

About 1/10th the rate today.

Duh.

The average rate of change, nearly 1/10th of that.

”So you think that something as chaotic as weather and climate doesn’t have any natural variation?"

So you think that something is chaotic cannot have any cause of change????

So you don't know what you think, but make it completely up out of thin air????

What IS "natural variation"????

Its taken em a few minutes to get up off the floor from this gem of a comment from SD:

"After I tell him the whales were all but wiped out and they are now in record numbers compared to that era, he sends me links confirming exactly what I say".

What a total and utter idiot. Its like saying that "there were 100 whales before whaling began, but whaling reduced the number to 3 at the lowest and now there are 5". The analogy is correct. Whales are recovering - albiet very slowly, given their low natality, although the Southern Right Whale may never fully recover and all baleen species are still endangered except for the Minke and perhaps Gray. To say they are at 'record numbers' is totally dishonest bullshit and even someone as dumb as Sd knows it. He's dug himself a deep hole and its getting deeper and deeper. Record numbers in terms of near extinction? So going from being critically endangered to just endangered is interpreted as 'record numbers'?

The guy is a hoot. Even when he's blatantly wrong he tries to put a winning face on defeat.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 04 Nov 2015 #permalink

Here's a quote from the Nature commentary that Dumbo thinks confirms what he said about 'record numbers' of whales compared with their lowest point:

"The devastation wrought on whales by twentieth-century hunting is well documented. By some estimates, sperm whales have been driven down to one-third of their pre-whaling population, and blue whales have been depleted by up to 90%. Although some populations, such as minke whales, have largely recovered, others — including the North Atlantic right whale and the Antarctic blue whale — now hover on the brink of extinction"

Kinda destroys his point, doesn't it? What a clown. Its fun though hammering him.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 04 Nov 2015 #permalink

”So you think that something as chaotic as weather and climate doesn’t have any natural variation?”

So you think that if there's natural variability, there can't be anything OTHER than natural variability?

”So you think that something as chaotic as weather and climate doesn’t have any natural variation?”

So you think that something that reacts chaotically to change is safe to change ourselves?

#47 ” there is no evidence for it being ‘natural variation’.”

So you think that something as chaotic as weather and climate doesn’t have any natural variation?

Weather wobbles. Read more carefully, climate scale excursions happen because of forcing changes. The GAT rise since the 1850s is not weather, it's ACO2 forcing climate. There is inter annual variability but the trend is clear.

Are you saying the warm and cold periods of the past didn’t exist?

Or were caused by unnatural forcings?

What gives you that impression about my views? Certainly nothing I've written! You need some new tricks, drongo, that sort of rhetorical incredulity never works when there's a written record.

When do you think the last Nat Var might have occurred then, nicky?

And why it doesn’t happen anymore?

'NV' ,whatever you mean it to be this week, or whatever causes it, never stopped--it just is not able to counter increased ACO2 forcing at present. We're at a stage in the Milankovitch process that has seen GAT drift slowly lower since the mid Holocene, until ACO2 has intervened with a stronger counter Look at the rate change in that link, and the discussion of orbital changes.

Do you think that just because one forcing can induce climate change, the other forcings are removed or are magically stopped? The interaction between forcings, subsequent feedbacks, the distribution of land and ocean, seasonality, all are sublimated into variation seen in the circulation and thus a global metric like temperature.

You need to get a better understanding of climate, what is a forcing, and the multiple forcings and feedbacks that operate constantly.

You want detail? You need to crack some climate primers and IPCC reports. Being fed facetious snatches of nonsense from Roy Spencer and people like Watts will not help you.

Temps increased at the end of the YD

Logic is obviously your weak suit Stupid olD man. I said:

they haven’t always increased

which means they have increased in the past, but they have also decreased.

And as I pointed out, global cooling ended in the 1950s and there have only been periods of either global warming or no significant change since then.

If we don't get another period of global cooling then sooner or later we'll be toast. You can ignore that because you're just a just a Stupid olD man who won't live much longer and doesn't give a rat's about anyone who outlives him.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 04 Nov 2015 #permalink

deny all remote sensing

Actually, he doesn't deny all remote sensing, he accepts the beta version that suits his prejudices.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 04 Nov 2015 #permalink

Temps increased at the end of the YD at possibly 10 times the current warming of the last 40 years

A blatantly false claim. The biggest 50 year jump in NGRIP 11,500 years ago was about 1℃ and the increase in global average temperature would have been (as always) a fraction (less than half) of this.

Claims of 10 times the rate of the past 40 years of global warming happening at the end of the YD are purely delusional and can only come from sources such as Stupid olD men.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 04 Nov 2015 #permalink

Kinda destroys his point, doesn’t it? What a clown. Its fun though hammering him.

Except for the fact that the truth is bad news for the planet and all who sail in her.

Innit amazing how Doltoid science can ignore the bleedin' obvious, like:

1/ well documented proxy evidence of a possible 10c of NV warming over 50 years that occurred in both hemispheres:
"The tendency of climate to change relatively suddenly has been one of the most suprising outcomes of the study of earth history, specifically the last 150,000 years (e.g., Taylor et al., 1993)."

and bedwet over 0.8c warming since the LIA nearly 200 years ago.

and 2/ whales in record numbers today compared to when we hunted them [in some cases to extinction] for their carbon based energy as witnessed by their millions that people the world over observe on a daily basis today.

You doltoids should be writing nursery rhymes.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 04 Nov 2015 #permalink

"You doltoids should be writing nursery rhymes."

You could start with a bedtime story about the aboriginals walking to Tasmania and then finding they couldn't get back because the sea had suddenly risen 400 feet.

And how tonight the kiddies can all rest easy and not wet the bed because we have no change in SLR.

Jiffy, Nicky and CoN.

Winken, Blinken and Nod.

Wowsie is the wooden shoe.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 04 Nov 2015 #permalink

"Wowsie is the wooden shoe."

Try not to hit any whales hey, wowse.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 04 Nov 2015 #permalink

Looking at all the ice cores available, bern, what would be your lernard, considered estimate of average Nat Var per century for the last ~ 80 centuries?

I repeat your statement Drongo:

…temps have always changed… At an average for the last 80 centuries of possibly around 1c per century

Really? You have references for that?

And again, do you realise what you said? ...1°C per century for 80 centuries?

Which ice core shows that the planet was 80°C cooler 8,000 years ago?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 04 Nov 2015 #permalink

"Innit amazing how Doltoid science can ignore the bleedin’ obvious, like:"

How you make up everything on the fly
Haven't a clue what you're talking about
Hasn't a care about changing any of that

Yeah, we noticed, spanky.

"1/ well documented proxy evidence..."

You just left the documents in your other pockets...

"2/ whales in record numbers today compared to when we hunted them.."

But only at the very latest end of when we hunted them. You know, not the time we started hunting them, oh, no. No, when we hunted them to near extinction. Oh, yeah, only that date counts as "when we hunted them".

Who would have guessed? We stop killing the animals, and they survive!

"And how tonight the kiddies can all rest easy and not wet the bed because we have no change in SLR."

Only the credulous kids would believe you, spanky.

And what the hell was #64? Acid hit? Brain fart. Actually, scratch that, if it farted it wouldn't have enough force to blow a gnat's hairstyle out of fashion.

Looking at all the ice cores available, bern, what would be your lernard, considered estimate of average Nat Var per century for the last ~ 80 centuries?

I repeat your statement Drongo:

…temps have always changed… At an average for the last 80 centuries of possibly around 1c per century

Really? You have references for that?

And again, do you realise what you said? ...1°C per century for 80 centuries?

Which ice core shows that the planet was 80°C cooler 8,000 years ago?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 04 Nov 2015 #permalink

I guess, though spanky is saying yes, he DOES think that if there's Natural Variability, nothing else can be changing the climate. And he DOES think that if a system is chaotic in how it reacts to changes, it's ABSOLUTELY FINE to go pushing it about.

And so on and so forth.

It seems he REALLY DOES believe all that braindead shite.

What Drongo is effectively saying (amongst many other stupid poorly-informed things) is that because "noise", no "signal".

Guess the logical fallacy.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 04 Nov 2015 #permalink

well documented proxy evidence of a possible 10c of NV warming over 50 years that occurred in both hemispheres

i.e. moving the goalposts to yet another blatantly irrelevant claim to global average temperature. What a Stupid olD man.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 04 Nov 2015 #permalink

The entire range of d18O in Taylor et al., 1993 (GISP2 and GRIP ice cores) is 12 per mil which corresponds to 5.5℃ so claims such as:

well documented proxy evidence of a possible 10c of NV warming over 50 years: Taylor et al., 1993

are obvious bullshit.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 05 Nov 2015 #permalink

As I was trying to explain to the brain-dead, temps have always warmed and cooled, except for the last 60 years where the only change was warming.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 05 Nov 2015 #permalink

#62
1/ well documented proxy evidence of a possible 10c of NV warming over 50 years that occurred in both hemispheres

There is no such evidence. You have misread your sources, and are extrapolating without basis. And the warming was not mystical NV, it was Milankovitch cycle forcing with regional amplification.

Spungled continues to dig a deeper and deeper hole for himself. At this rate he's going to end up in a massive crater. Its good to see Chris, Nick, Wow and Bernard here exposing his nonsense, and showing that he makes up his arguments on the spot.

He's even tried again to justify his 'record numbers' argument about whales when i have debunked that repeatedly. As I said yesterday, stocks of the great baleen whales were reduced by about 90-98% by whaling. Some have slightly recovered since then, but all species are still endangered, some critically. For a dope like Sd, 'record numbers' means that numbers have recovered under protection by a few per cent. So whereas 95% of blue whales were gone at their peak, this has risen by 5% since the 1970s. This is his 'record numbers'.

Need I say any more? He is such an arrogant, self-righteous idiot that he cannot even admit when he is so glaringly wrong. If baleen whales have slightly recovered since whaling was mostly stopped, then this can be described as 'record numbers'? Its ludicrous. Baleen whales are extremely rare. All of them except the Minke and perhaps Gray. His tourist comment was a strawman. I saw Southern Right Whales off the coast of Argentina in 2009; on the tour, we went to a bay where up to 30-40 can be found at peak season. he species is still critically rare, but, using Sds inane logic, one might ask, 'What's the problem"? First, whales often congregate in certain waters in order to breed, making it easier to track and observe them. So tourist operators know where to take people to see them. Second, many baleen whales were driven to such low numbers that they approached conditions of minimum genetic viability. For long lived vertebrates with very low fecundities, populations of less than 1000 (even in a panmictic population) can be unviable due to the accumulation of harmful alleles. Populations like this can be known as the 'living dead' because accumulations are not expunged but stay within the population and eventually drive it towards extinction. Since many whales are found in tiny remnants of their original population sizes, this remains a very real concern, and explains why species like the California Condor, which dropped to as few as 13 individuals but which has now recovered to several hundred, are not out of the woods yet.

Of course this is all over Sds little head. He has no basic understanding of genetic variation, of the red queen hypothesis and how this applies to K-selected organisms. So most baleen whales are not in record numbers at all but continue to hover near extinction.

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

and bedwet over 0.8c warming since the LIA nearly 200 years ago

The concern is over the likely rise out to 2100 and beyond...and predictions are good so far. It is not going to stop just because you appeal to your own ignorance.

Anyone who is willing to make a thorough and unprejudiced reading of AR5 WGI Chapter 5, and in particular 5.3.2, 5.3.3, 5.3.4 and 5.3.5 could not make such claims as SD does...
Which kinda proves he's never read any thorough analysis of past climate.

This is what makes him so credulous. Someone can point Lloyd's stupid E&E 'paper' at him , and he's helpless at defending himself from it and identifying where he is being lied to.

Lernard bernard says in all seriousness:

"Which ice core shows that the planet was 80°C cooler 8,000 years ago?"

Bet you wish you could retract that bit of Doltoid stupidity, hey bern?

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 05 Nov 2015 #permalink

#78

You've only got your self to blame for that misunderstanding: what you wrote is ambiguous, and your long woeful record of incompetence makes it easy to think that's what you meant. Why would anybody with journal access ever look at E&E, a known fake science vendor? There's too much real research to consider elsewhere.

Bernard can't be bothered finding the back posts where you climb over a mountain of credible research to pick Philip Lloyd's mathturbation. The paper is rubbish, filtering out already sparse data to fit 100 year intervals, and explores a pointless line of 'reconstruction'. Lloyd's intention is to obscure, and he relies on credulous ignorami like yourself to promote it. You've been stung...again.

#80 Yep, you missed the point.

Nicky the nong @ #79

Why don't you try answering the question @ #46 yourself?

You have been dodging it for ages.

At least Philip Lloyd was as gentle as possible on Doltoids like you and could have included the YD which would have made average NV higher but more realistic.

He treats you with kid gloves and you still abuse him.

Stick to nursery rhymes, nicky.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 05 Nov 2015 #permalink

Bern's up to his old tricks reading CAGW into everything bad that happens to wildlife in the environment yet it is obvious that after a severe cold spell when they no longer had their winter coats:

"Update 9 June 2015: More than half the world’s enigmatic saiga antelopes – some 134,000 animals – have been wiped out in Kazakhstan within just three weeks. The culprit has been identified as haemorrhagic septicaemia, caused by the bacterium Pasteurella multocida, according to the World Organization for Animal Health, which says the outbreak is now over."

And nicky the nutter claims I missed the point.

Are you saying that bern had no intention of inferring that climate change had anything to do with this?

Stick to nursery rhymes, nutty.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 05 Nov 2015 #permalink

# 82 I've 'answered' your 'question' in many ways already...but you're so short on palaeoclimate knowledge you can't recognise that fact. The 'average natural variability of the last eighty centuries' on a centennial scale is a number of utter irrelevance...who needs to know it? What is it useful for? Why ask? We know what has forced the last 8000 years of climate.

We have reconstructed actual climate variability of the last 8000 years...why do ignore citing that work or linking graphs from it? Lloyd's 'view' comes from high up in Central Greenland, where temperature/always below freezing, shows higher variation than any global mean variation.

Lloyd's been quite hard on you ,chump. You are putty in his hands.

Bern’s up to his old tricks reading CAGW into everything bad that happens to wildlife in the environment yet it is obvious that after a severe cold spell when they no longer had their winter coats

As predicted, you completely missed the point.

And you lied to boot. I most certainly do not "read... CAGW sic into everything bad that happens to wildlife in the environment", but because you can't grok science this fact would completely sail over your head.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 05 Nov 2015 #permalink

Lernard bernard says in all seriousness:

“Which ice core shows that the planet was 80°C cooler 8,000 years ago?”

Bet you wish you could retract that bit of Doltoid stupidity, hey bern?

Not at all. Parse your comments. Think about what you said. Think about how you can't string together a coherent argument, or understand one when it's presented to you.

Think about how someone in your degree of dotage should have learned better how to tease apart fact from ideology - dementia and similar debilitations excepting.

By the way Drongo, many months ago I asked you to supply your evidence that satellite measurement of sea level rise doesn't work, or on fact shows no rise. You were emphatic then that satellites can't measure SRL, so I am sure that you have the scientific evidence to hand. References?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 05 Nov 2015 #permalink

Lernard bernard pontificates:

"this is the sort of systemic unpredictability that makes substantial habitat change dangerous for all species,"

"The reason so many animals died at once is linked to the fact that the local females all calve within one week, providing ideal conditions for disease to spread between the animals and to their calves."

And a drop in temperatures at that time from warm to below freezing would not have helped.

Any global warming here would have been a big plus for these poor unfortunates.

What a lot of Doltoids you are.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 05 Nov 2015 #permalink

#83, You continue to miss the point...

#88..unshiftable ignorance from Drongo... the note about calving mode was omitted from The Guardian's otherwise identical content from the same sources. And the articles themselves both mentioned climate change could have been a factor... as in:
Ongoing climate change could also have had an impact, with significant temperature rises in the region in recent years, he added. Changes to vegetation and soil and the presence of toxins are being further investigated.

And you,drongo, omitted the observation that while there had been a big weather shift, this was not uncommon, and was not considered a factor. It was spring, and the location is on a climate zone margin in a continental interior.

If this animal is a boom or bust breeder, in lower numbers in fragmented habitats over a reduced range, climate change is only going to make them more vulnerable...only a fool would argue otherwise.

My bad , the truncated New Scientist article did not discuss climate factors, while The Guardian alone mention Prof. Richard Kock's thoughts about climate change influence

"You were emphatic then that satellites can’t measure SRL"

WRT satellites compared with tide gauges Beenstock and colleagues reached the result that sea level rise on a global average is only 1 mm/yr and that by the end of the century it will rise only 10 centimetres; only 1/3 of the stations showed a detectable rise, 61% showed no movement and 4% showed a drop.

Geodetic tracking of tide gauges is showing even less SLR whereas satellites show in excess of 3mm/yr.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 05 Nov 2015 #permalink

"“Which ice core shows that the planet was 80°C cooler 8,000 years ago?”

Bet you wish you could retract that bit of Doltoid stupidity, hey bern?"

Aaand here AGAIN we have a non-statement from the moron. Says nothing.

Implies that it says something.

But does not.

Why quote a question you're not going to answer, dipshit? Espectially so after it's been reported to you you are doing it? What on EARTH do you think it is for?

"“BTW, I’m sure that there will be predictable misinterpretation of my point…”

No misinterpretation, bern."

Ah, it's deliberate lying, then.

Okey dokey.

"Nicky the nong @ #79

Why don’t you try answering the question @ #46 yourself?"

Why don't you?

"spangled drongo
November 5, 2015

Bern’s up to his old tricks reading CAGW into everything"

Projection again. This denier moron is reading CAGW into AGW. Again.

"Any global warming here would have been a big plus for these poor unfortunates."

It was pretty shit for the people starving to death because of crop failures or dying of heatstroke.

But I guess THAT catastrophic climate change is fine and dandy, you LIKE that existing. It's just the one that you deny can't exist. Nope, no catastrophe possible from warming, because this decaying fossil puts the heating up every winter and whines about the cold.

And NEVER thinks of moving to somewhere warmer.

"WRT satellites compared with tide gauges Beenstock "

Global is not Beenstock, dipshit.

Drongo, you're apparently over 70 years old. Well over this age, if your claim to have been monitoring tides for 70 years has any basis in truth.

So you'll be facing your death in the not-too-distant future. There's a weird thing that happens when death is imminent, especially in the last moments. Time stretches out like something in a science fiction movie and perspective completely changes. Preconceptions drop like scales from one's eyes, and I would presume that ideologies might follow that trend too...

I have some experience of this phenomenon, having been involved in a rolling car wreck in my youth where I thought - no, I knew - that the approaching power pole was going to mash me and that I had bare seconds to live. Fortunately a slick road changed the trajectory at the last moment and I and the others climbed through the shattered passenger's window utterly shaken but unscathed...

I hope that when your time comes in that not-too-distant future, you are at peace with your years of misrepresentation of things about which you know less than next to nothing, and with your willful participation in a movement whose existence will bring the awful horror of a similar realisation at death to hundreds of millions of people in the future: that their deaths were made profoundly the worse for people like you who let their own comfort and self-indulgent ideologies destroy the planet for future generations and for much of non-human life on Earth. For hundreds of thousand to millions of years. And that could have easily been avoided but for the simple lack of will to do so.

Can you think about that with a clean conscience when your time comes?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 05 Nov 2015 #permalink

#92 Let's use some of Drongo's material to challenge Drongo to examine himself...for instance:

Beenstock and colleagues reached the result that sea level rise on a global average is only 1 mm/yr and that by the end of the century it will rise only 10 centimetres; only 1/3 of the stations showed a detectable rise, 61% showed no movement and 4% showed a drop.

Even before we look at Beenstock's methodology, this claim is problematic because: Drongo did not personally observe any of this tidal gauge...drongo disqualifies himself from using such data.

Then, the Beenstock data shows that sea level rise is not uniform, and in some places it is not yet seen....thus ruining Drongo's contention that if SLR cannot be observed [personally] at Cleveland Point then it is not occurring anywhere. How can Drongo's contention be true if Beenstock's data show that SLR is thus far non-uniform?

Beenstock's sea level musings are pretty silly, hingeing on claims that his sample is unbiased, but he does not dispure SLR is an important problem for many places. That should be a red flag for wrongo drongo...
Beenstock has been mathturbating elsewhere, attempting to refute AGW by arbitrarily decreeing ACO2 rise and GAT rise should relate on his own peculiar terms.

It's all a bit sad, this stuff.

Looking at all the ice cores available, bern, what would be your lernard, considered estimate of average Nat Var per century

This estimate would require taking into account the fact that global average natural variation is much less than natural variation of ice cores from just two locations (Greenland and Antartica).

Brain-dead old men fail to account for this fact.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 05 Nov 2015 #permalink

it appears as if scrambled donkey doesn't have a clue about the Younger Dryas period. He seems to think that it is an abnormally warm period in history when in fact it was an exceptionally cold period and the rapid rise in temperature he is so excited about was just the northern hemisphere returning to normal temperatures. The reason for the sudden cooling is attributed to an outbreak of cold fresh water from a huge glacial lake in North America which flooded the north Atlantic with cold fresh water which tuned off the thermohaline circulation aka the Gulf Stream. The shutting off of the warm water current caused immediate dramatic cooling of northern Europe. Once the lake had drained and the flow stopped, the circulation was returned to normal quite quickly. This is the dramatic rise in temperature that SD is fixated on.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/abrupt/data4.html

As for this nonsensical statement by him:

well documented proxy evidence of a possible 10c of NV warming over 50 years that occurred in both hemispheres

Seems as if SD has never heard of the "bi-polar seesaw".

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/24039762_Climate_change_Souther…

If he reads my first link he will see that there was no temperature changes in the southern hemisphere corresponding with the Younger Dryas. Once again he has shown his complete inability to understand what he is talking about.

By Ian Forrester (not verified) on 05 Nov 2015 #permalink

Apart from Beenstock, of course, you have the recanters such as Jay Zwally who are now being led screaming to the confession booth because they finally realise their GIGO GCMs have been fed with the wrong garbage.

And then you have the early data from Envisat that showed no SLR until, like TPJ, it was likewise tortured.

And then you have a lifetime of personal observations that have never yet indicated ANY SLR.

And then you have Doltoids who, when challenged to produce any personal observational evidence to the contrary, the best they can come up with is waxing evidence-free philosophical.

At first Doltoids threw the population bomb, then the silent spring bomb and now the climate bomb.

When dopey ol' bern and nutty nick cant make their sad story of antelope deaths or jerky jiff his story of whale genocide connect in any way to ACO2 all they are left with is blither.

Desperado Doltoids.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 05 Nov 2015 #permalink

"If he reads my first link he will see that there was no temperature changes in the southern hemisphere corresponding with the Younger Dryas."

Dunno how to google yet, hey Ian?

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 05 Nov 2015 #permalink

Why don't you Doltoids all go over to Jo's blog and read David Evans' science articles?

And learn something.

ECS as low as 0.25c:

http://joannenova.com.au/2015/11/new-science-18-finally-climate-sensiti…

That just supports in detail the observed logic that would be inescapably apparent to any rational person.

Please assure me that, against my better judgement, that includes Doltoids

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 05 Nov 2015 #permalink

Spangled Dwrongo (thanks Nick).

You seem to be persistently missing my point with the saiga phenomenon.

As you seem convinced that you're cleverer than all the world's ecologists, as well as all of the world's climatologists, physicists and oceanographers, perhaps you could present here a list of all of the implications of an event of the nature of the saiga death. Ecological, physiological, immunological, evolutionary, and any and all other implications that arise from the recent die-off.

Come on smarty pants. You talk tough about how all scientists are wrong about their disciplines of expertise, even though you're just a barnacle scraper, so prove your perspicacity by summarising the significance of the deaths of so many of an ungulate species, and how this latest die-off stands in comparison to its history of population fluctuation.

OK, go!

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 05 Nov 2015 #permalink

#5 'better judgement'?.... drongo, all your posts prove that you have no judgement, let alone the better type.

Why isn't your rocket scientist Evans publishing this paradigm-shifting re-estimation of CS in a reputable place? Because he fears it's a steaming pile of horseshit, but he has to keep his missus' blog goons happy, and to feed to the scientifically illiterate god-botherers on the Coalition benches. Evans wants to be somebody, even if it's king of the kids...or sad old fools. A handful of stupid old men will write many letters to their representatives, advising them of the Galilean nature of Dr Evans dense calculations, and the coal industry will limp on.

"And then you have a lifetime of personal observations that have never yet indicated ANY SLR."

Your mate Beenstock understands you, drongo...but do you understand him?

Beenstock says current global sea level rise is real [even though he mathturbates to minimise it], and notes that in some few areas it is not yet detected. IOW, SLR is non-uniform....and numerous posters have attempted to help you with the reasons why. SE Queensland has not seen much SLR when compared with many other places..there are mechanisms that explain it, but you are too incurious to find them....fundamentally, even Beenstock tells you you cannot extrapolate from your local obs [never mind how low-quality] to a claim about global SLR.

Scrambled donkey has scrambled brains:

“If he reads my first link he will see that there was no temperature changes in the southern hemisphere corresponding with the Younger Dryas.”

Dunno how to google yet, hey Ian?

WTF, why this gibberish?

By Ian Forrester (not verified) on 05 Nov 2015 #permalink

"...you have the recanters such as Jay Zwally who are now being led screaming to the confession booth because they finally realise their GIGO GCMs have been fed with the wrong garbage."

Zwally does not work on GCMs, dopey...and what is he recanting? He's estimating ice mass balance and behavior from some of the available data, using methodology that some regard as problematic. He has published his work, science will deal with it, it's his professional expectation to be subject to scrutiny....And he now has to find a significant enough amount of SLR contribution from some other part of the system.

For you of course, science is a blur...until you find a result that confirms your deepest wishes, and you can cling to it...no matter how mediocre the work, no matter how quickly science bins it. You will keep a copy of that crappy analysis, and the more you keep, the further from reality you drift.

Spangled Dwrongo (thanks again Nick - that one won't tire for a while...).

I pointed you to Tamino earlier, but you appear to have missed it.

Can you explain with references and workings why there is no sea level rise along the east coast of the USA?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 05 Nov 2015 #permalink

#92
Geodetic tracking of tide gauges is showing even less SLR whereas satellites show in excess of 3mm/yr.

References please? Better be more substantial than claiming seven years of GPS from West Lindfield says something about Fort Denison....and you know the West Lindfield GPS pillar was NOT established to 'track tide gauges' don't you.

"You seem to be persistently missing my point with the saiga phenomenon."

No, bern, I can spot your gg/bullshit a mile away.

You've got far too much form to get away with that stunt.

But don't you and jerky love to air your pseudo knowledge when you really don't have a clue?

It's much smarter to shut up and let people think you are a dill than to open your mouth and prove it.

At least I admit I'm a drongo.

But you Doltoids seem to love to prove how smart Feynman was when he said; "science is the belief in the ignorance of experts".

And poor, silly Ianf really needs to broaden his reading on the YD.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 05 Nov 2015 #permalink

Foolish monkey Doltoids ignore David Evans but embrace Tamino.

Can you bear it?

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 05 Nov 2015 #permalink

But if I'm such a dill Dwrongo you should be able to give a complete summary of the implications of saiga death. Why are you avoiding doing so?

And if Tamino is wrong, why don't you say why and how he is?

You might be great at spotting bullshit Drwongo, but it's only the stuff in your head that you're seeing.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 05 Nov 2015 #permalink

"Why isn’t your rocket scientist Evans publishing this paradigm-shifting re-estimation of CS in a reputable place?"

He almost certainly will, nuttybutt, but give him time, hey.

At least he is smart enough to know that this is not accurately quantifiable currently but as the IPCC is ever more proved wrong with its crazy modelling and are led screaming to the altar of less-exaggerated truth the world will hopefully wake from stupid Doltoid evidence-and-science-free philosophy.

In the meantime you could always consult with Paul and the rest of the Sierra Club as to your next move ☺.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 05 Nov 2015 #permalink

"Zwally does not work on GCMs"

Who said he did, nutsy?

All Doltoids didn't write their current bible but the sure hate it when it's proved wrong.

As it ever-increasingly is.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 05 Nov 2015 #permalink

#12 Trust you to use the Feynman remark as if it's part of some kind of cheap self-affirmation course...you dimwit LOL

The 'ignorance of the expert' is routinely demonstrated to be worth a lot more than the ignorance of the inexpert. You are a case in point.

#13 Evans and Tamino are really working on two quite separate issues, didn't you notice?

Jo Nova swoons:
But the GCMs are ultimately tweaked to arrive at a similar ballpark climate sensitivity as the textbook model for the “basic physics” dictates.

This claim is complete rubbish. GCMs aren't designed to 'arrive at' or determine CS. They are projecting climate behavior, and CS is an incidental emergent property, not the end in itself. Nova is lying to her readers, because she know they are stupid, and knows what they want to read.

Evans is hand-waving. Tamino is crunching some numbers with full command of the exploratory tools...and because you don't like the numbers adding up to the observations and confirming the projections, you have to fake amusement and scorn. Who are you convincing? You're one of Nova's useless dupes.

#16
“Zwally does not work on GCMs”

Who said he did, nutsy?

Why , you did, dimwit!! I quoted you, and you alone:
…you have the recanters such as Jay Zwally who are now being led screaming to the confession booth because they finally realise their GIGO GCMs have been fed with the wrong garbage.”

Having your usual shitty day, drongo? Zwally is apparently one of a recanting cohort of GCM-producing climate modellers, in your considered opinion...

I know it's just infantile babble that you don't really think through...but others have every right to interpret that as a claim of yours.

# 15 ...What, peer-review by blogging to a bunch of far right breath-holders? That always bears fruit...he'll get great feedback from Jo's little friends.

Jo's blog is testimony to the ethos ;"fuck the science, email campaigns have more effect on policy"

Evans will not publish in real journal. He'll stick it on Arxiv, or buy a vanity spot at E&E.

But it's not about real science, it's about pretend science a la Monckton...blowing hard and slinking off.

"…you have the recanters such as Jay Zwally who are now being led screaming to the confession booth because they finally realise their GIGO GCMs have been fed with the wrong garbage.”

Where am I saying here that Zwally worked on GCMs?

When you can make assumptions like that, nutso, the sky's the limit, hey?

He probably does work on the garbage that goes into those GCMs, you wouldn't know, nuts, but I didn't say he did.

Stop making up lies.

You're really getting desperate now.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 05 Nov 2015 #permalink

As he just plainly demonstrated here, nutso is nothing more than a bag of wind.

And that's putting it politely.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 05 Nov 2015 #permalink

" GCMs aren’t designed to ‘arrive at’ or determine CS. They are projecting climate behavior,"

Just very inaccurately.

As NASA and Zwally are gradually waking up to.

But you gotta give these "experts" time. The penny eventually drops but it does take longer with Doltoids.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 05 Nov 2015 #permalink

#20...I'm getting desperate??

"recanters such as Zwally...their GIGO GCMs"

Are they your words? Y/N?

You have to realise Drongo, that because you have extensive form for talking through your arse, readers are now entitled to expect you don't review or understand what you write.

What nutso doesn't get is that Evans is a scientist and Tamino is a statistician.

Evans investigates, Tamino tortures.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 05 Nov 2015 #permalink

More verbal diarrhea from scrambled donkey:

And poor, silly Ianf really needs to broaden his reading on the YD

I read the peer reviewed scientific literature and articles written by real and honest scientists not the dishonest rubbish you find in the cesspits of AGW denial.

By Ian Forrester (not verified) on 05 Nov 2015 #permalink

construct of #21 is more confirmation of #19 and #23

meanwhile #22:
” GCMs aren’t designed to ‘arrive at’ or determine CS. They are projecting climate behavior,”

Just very inaccurately.

Wrongo, drongo

As for you 'just look out the window' chaps, how are the 'simple models' of the rejectionists faring?

"their GIGO GCMs”'

How can you construe that using a GCM equates with working on it?

To claim that's what I said is plain and simple lying.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 05 Nov 2015 #permalink

#24, what you fail to understand is that Evans has never worked on a GCM in his life. He did some carbon accounting modelling for a while, now he pretty much plays with himself. At best, he's having a crack...more likely he has succumbed to the D-Ks through tension with his other crackpot world views.

He won't publish in a quality journal.

# 27 Quoting you is 'lying'? 'their' is a possessive. Zwally was apparently one of them. My interpretation of your words is justifiable, certainly I do not intend to lie about what you said.

Perhaps you need to express yourself more clearly, in future? And abandon the really stupid claims. They're quite nutty; no wonder people expect nonsense from you!

Notice how lying nutso calmly breezes on to the next issue and ignores his lying statements.

Says it all about Doltoids, hey?

Nutso supplies info on how the GCMs' hindcasts are accurate but their current "projections are 95% wrong and getting wronger. Yet the IPCC has 95% confidence in them.

Can you bear it?

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/95-of-climate-models-agree-the-obse…

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-hans-von-storch-on-…

"He won’t publish in a quality journal."

How would a liar like you know, nuts?

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 05 Nov 2015 #permalink

" ‘their’ is a possessive."

"Their", meaning the GCMs they used can never be implied to mean "they" worked on them.

When you're in a hole stop digging and apologise for lying.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 05 Nov 2015 #permalink

#30 stupid drong...you've dug your hole deeper...

You do not understand what Spencer has pulled on you with that blog post. You were warned up thread: Spencer's choice of baseline, and its brevity, is designed to make the models look bad. It's cherry-picking. There is even criticism of Spencer's action in the comment thread there [unless he's pulled them by now]

Now that the 'pause' bullshit is visually broken [it never made mechanistic sense anyway], you poor deluded deniers have clung to Spencer's manipulation. It's the next fragment of your sunken ship. Spencer is playing you.

How do I know Evans won't publish in a quality journal? Because he's already 'published' on a climate rejectionism blog. Stupid man.

#31

“Their”, meaning the GCMs they used can never be implied to mean “they” worked on them
Oh, really, Humpty Dumpty? You're quite amusing!

If you wanted to make that clear then you would have written "the GCMs they used" in the first place, instead of "their GCMs"....FFS.

You seem to be genuinely upset! You have no right to be.

You're a fast thinker, aren't you Drwongo?

By the way, I think you missed a post of mine.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 05 Nov 2015 #permalink

David Evans

Stupid olD men can get their climate science from emissions accountants if they like but I'll get mine from professional climate scientists thank you very much. (Yeah, yeah we know they're all conspirators.)

BTW, temps have always warmed and cooled, except for the last 60 years when the only change was warming.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 05 Nov 2015 #permalink

"If you wanted to make that clear then you would have written “the GCMs they used” in the first place, instead of “their GCMs”…."

Neither one of those phrases is any more implicit of "working on" than the other.

You are a proven fraud.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 05 Nov 2015 #permalink

#37 You effectively said Zwally was one of 'them', using 'their' GCMs. It's on the page above you. My interpretation is entirely reasonable. You are having a tanty.

Write out one hundred times " I must learn to take responsibility for my own mistakes"

You are a semi-literate idiot. Fort Denison sinking? The 'proof'? one GPS point 10.775km away!...no other data, no triangulation, no multi point references, no published data, no papers, no reports...just a claim in an opinion piece by Bob Carter, who is known to be a liar after Peter Gleick uncovered his little 'pension' from Heartland.

You are the fraud, old fellah.

You would think that the growth of Antarctic ice would be something of a relief amongst the alarmists:

"Here for example is Dr Jay Zwally, the lead author of this week’s surprising Nasa study that confirms that the Antarctic is gaining far more ice than it is losing.

“I know some of the climate deniers will jump on this and say this means we don’t have to worry as much as some people have been making out. It should not take away from the concern about climate warming.”

Does that sound to you like a neutral scientific opinion? Do you sense any relief at the good news that the climate apocalypse of melting ice caps and rising sea levels may not be quite so imminent after all? No, me neither."

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 05 Nov 2015 #permalink

#38.. Nope, dopey, you are ignoring the question at #16...

"faker bakers",,, if Woodfortrees is using faked data, then how can you rely on it, and then how the fuck would you know what the real shape of the last sixty years was...you have to be the dumbest denier on the block, denying yourself access to data while wanting to use whatever you can pervert of it for your pointless arguments!

#40 oh FFS sake, give over , you idiot...you've missed the point that Zwally was making and you haven't assimilated the info in the release....didn't you get to the part where Zwally implicitly shows his skepticism of his own work by talking about the SLR source implications?? He has to find where the 'missing' water is coming from, if his interpretation of the situation is sound. He states that problem explicitly.

I know Stupid olD men can't keep their rhetoric consistent so I should remember to be pedantic just for their benefit (not that that will make any difference anyway but..):

Temps have always warmed and cooled, except for the last 60 years when the only STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANTchange was warming.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 05 Nov 2015 #permalink

#41 question at #14, not 16...

As they say, 'never argue with idiots, they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience'

#14 That's just one of many questions Drongo has blanked...it's in the too hard basket, I guess.

Can you describe how Spencer manipulated his model /data 'comparison', drongo?

Have you discovered why Zwally isn't 'relieved' at the 'good news'?

Have you learned anything about journal publication policies re Evans?

Do you know why accepting Beenstock is to reject your own oft-repeated contention about SLR?

Did you see the discrepancy in amount and timing of warming in elevated Greenland and elevated Antarctica? Have you found out that Younger Dryas warming can't be simplified to your handwave? [hint look at the tropics and mid-latitudes as well]

Have you asked yourself why Lloyd would exclude and aggregate data?

“Evans investigates, Tamino tortures.”

That's not a response that is in any way defensible.

Can you point to any piece by Evans and show where his writing is actually a scientific investigation rather than a mere expounding of ideological misrepresentation of the matter at hand?

More importantly, you've just accused Tamino of "torturing". Big call from a Dunningly-Krugered afflictee. Which data does he torture, and how did he torture thrm?

For years I've pressed you for specifics when you make your brash anti-science claims, Dwrongo, and not once have you ever been able to present a reasoned justification for your attempts to sabotage people's impressions of science. Not once. Not to anyone who's pressed you for evidence. You disagree? Link us to your best answer - go on, I dare you.

When your final gasp comes and the light of awareness (such as it is) flickers from your eyes, I hope that you can die peacefully with the knowledge of your personal complicity in FUBARing the planet for billions of people in the future, and for much of its flora and fauna.

And Dwrongo, are you a fast thinker?

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

Read #40 again burn and get your mind right.

Denier Doltoids, religious hypocrites all.

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

Burn, have you started checking those AHD 100 benchmarks at king tide yet?

You need all the time you may have up your sleeve.

Don't tempt the fickle finger.

You see, I fought in ww2 and I'm a long way ahead of you.

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

"As they say, ‘never argue with idiots, they’ll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience’"

Although in real life it seems like they won't even know they lost and will keep pretending to argue.

"Write out one hundred times ” I must learn to take responsibility for my own mistakes”"

That would require knowing he made one. Which would require him not being an idiot. Which would require he'd change, which is an admission he's not perfect now, which is unpossible.

"#12 Trust you to use the Feynman remark as if it’s part of some kind of cheap self-affirmation course…you dimwit LOL"

Hey, I've never written a GCM, so I'm totally not an expert.

I say they're accurate enough. Being a non expert, this is proof for spanky that they ARE accurate.

Job done.

Unless spanky is going to claim being even LESS of an expert than me.

Which would be hard given how much he's claimed he's looked into all these personal climate observations. He'd have to say he lied about it, and that would be "proof" he's less competent than me, therefore HIS ignorance beats mine.

You see, I fought in ww2 ...oh, bullshit.

#51 impeccable channeling of drongologic

#52 even better

"You see, I fought in ww2 …oh, bullshit."

Fought the draft.

The vast majority of solidiers never fired their weapon in combat.

"This estimate would require taking into account the fact that global average natural variation is much less than natural variation of ice cores from just two locations (Greenland and Antartica)."

I've already asked CoN to explain how he knows there is more Nat Var in just two places on earth than the rest of the world combined.

But he just keeps repeating himself.

Is that the way brain-dead CoN men operate, CoN?

But feel free to elucidate any time.

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

#57 I'm on duty...let's get elucidating.

Before I start, I will say I've already pointed you to the information about this...you obviously failed to read it...or have forgotten. The short explanation is 'polar amplification' makes the poles poor proxies for the whole.

You have to look at the palaeo Chapter 5 of AR5 WG1...easy to find,but a big file to download...table 5.2 lists most multi-proxy studies that reconstruct global and regional air and sea surface temperatures for the LGM. From that info you can see that equatorial and tropical temps were a couple of degrees lower than now, while the elevated [2000-3000m] sites in Greenland may have been 20C below present and about 10 in Antarctica...that's why you cannot extrapolate from those extreme outliers in the polar frozen continents to a generalisation about global Surface Air Temperature. Global SAT was likely 4 to 7C lower [ranges are high per study]....Schmittner et al. 2011 estimate global SAT was range 1.7 to 3.7C lower than now....nothing like 10C lower can be claimed.

All the discussion in Chapter 5 should be of great interest to you...you'll be able to see where your 'friends' are trying to mislead you.

"I’ve already asked CoN to explain how he knows there is more Nat Var in just two places on earth than the rest of the world combined."

Statistics, moron.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margin_of_error

That you fail UTTERLY to know of it is one of the MANY reasons why you are completely unable to provide anything substantive or useful in ANY of the claims you have made.

I’ve already asked CoN to explain

Looks like Stupid olD man no longer contests: "temps have always warmed and cooled, except for the last 60 years when the only STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT change was warming". Took a while but pretty fast for a Stupid olD man.

Oh and relative natural variation of global and local temperature? This was the latest of a few times I've given empirical proof. I'll even provide the link to the temperature record of Nord Ads in Greenland: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=431043120… Who says I don't help out the stupid?

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 06 Nov 2015 #permalink

You see, I fought in ww2

I too Dwrongo's call bullshit lying. If he was 16 in the last year of the war he'd be 86 now, and I'm pretty sure that he's claimed to be in his early 70s.

Of course, he's also claimed to be monitoring sea level for 70 years, so maybe he really is 86. If so, he's remarkably garrulous on the internet for a person that age, his complete ignorance of science nothwithstanding.

And Dwrongo, I'm still waiting for you to explain what of Evans' execrable screeds constitutes "science" and what data Tamino has "tortured".

Links, please, or I will assume that you have nothing by way of evidence.

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

Pffft.

You get the drift.

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

Evan's rationale that warming finds its way to the TOA and escapes keeping ECS minimal as opposed to Tamino's espousing of IPCC of the sky's the limit is much more scientific and is being progressively shown to be the more correct.

The scientist v the alarmist statistician.

He is also a known plagiarist, full of vitriol, lets his rage overwhelm his reason and as a result his blog has shrunk in readership.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/06/saturday-silliness-tamino-aka-gra…

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/01/mcintyre-charges-grant-foster-aka…

This certainly applies to Doltoids

"Belief in the truth of a theory is inversely proportional to the precision of the science."

Meanwhile, the world refuses to warm:
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/clip_image0022.jpg

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

"The scientist v the alarmist statistician."

Really.

CoN, where do you think the Cariaco Basin is?

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/abrupt/images/data4-climate-changes-lg.g…

Tell me if you don't think that graph of the C Basin doesn't show considerable NV over the holocene.

As I have been asking you Doltoids consistently but have yet to get an answer; what is your own considered estimate of average NV per century over the Holocene?

Interesting that you won't answer.

Could it be that even Doltoids are aware that any reasonable answer destroys their whole CAGW religion?

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

#64 You fought in the war for people like you???

That's three links of utter helpless credulity from you, drongo

Watts was utterly wrong about fracking and seismicity, as the two years since that post prove.
Steve McI whinged that he was plagiarised, probably because he was embarrassed by the inadequacy of his 'analysis'. McI made a claim, Tamino gave an explanation, and pfft.
...and then you cite Monckton, clinging to RSS as long as he can, and never telling you the problems with it: RSS samples the troposphere, where El Nino produces an exaggerated response in T...thus the spike of 97/98 provides the outlier that gives he uses to give a misleading impression of the progress of warming at the surface...

Anyway, as soon as this ElNino generates a large spike in TLT RSS over the next six months, Monckton will drop his pause bullshit, because he knows his run is over.. Then he will find another metric to mislead about, possibly Spencer's model/obs untruth [though that may not see this El Nino out either].

using the full suite of GAT metrics, and in the knowledge of the scores of national high temps broken in the last five years,we know the world clearly continues to warm....Watts and Monckton really are just pathetic creatures.

You'd do well to have a look at Tamino on Marcott et al 2013, it'll show you how wrong, and irrelevant, Phillip Lloyd is on 'mean centennial natural variability'.

#66 drongo, you have been given the answer several times. Ignoring it doesn't make it disappear off the page...it's at #58

NV at centennial scale is just a nonsense way to look at the data. If you average the change from the bottom of the LGM to the top of the Holocene into 100 year intervals, it completely misleads about the actual trajectory of change.

And, again, look at Marcott's recon of the last 8000 years, and you'll see Lloyd is just nuts. Marcott samples a larger area of the NH than Lloyds on Greenland core. NO 1C/century OSCILLATIONS ARE SEEN! ...It is not in the natural record, GAT does not routinely range by 1C per century throughout the last 8000 years or 800000. The jumps in and out of glacials do so, but they are separated by long intervals of much less NV

Once more, YOU CANNOT CREDIBLY EXTRAPOLATE NH TEMPS IN THE HOLOCENE FROM A CORE IN GREENLAND, and ditto for one in high Antarctica.

The way you keep ignoring answers is a bit worrying. It suggests you cannot understand the data that you are being shown.

"The way you keep ignoring answers is a bit worrying. It suggests you cannot understand the data that you are being shown."

You don't say...

Evan’s rationale that warming finds its way to the TOA and escapes keeping ECS minimal. that's not a rationale, it's not an anything.

Evan's estimate for 'minimal' ECS is contradicted by the palaeo evidence YOU link to...did you realise that, drongo? ECS is a fraction of a degree , yet ice ages? LOL

"ECS is a fraction of a degree , yet ice ages? "

They have the same mental issue when it comes to the MWP being high, that means ECS is high. MBH98 indicated a LOWER ECS than prevalent at the time because there was so little warming and cooling in the graph.

Still doesn't stop them wanting MBH98 to be declared wrong because the MWP was MASSIVE, bigger than today! AND that ECS is tiny, therefore we won't be in any sort of danger for hundreds of years.

Doltoids apparently don't even know what ECS is.

But for Doltoid benefit:

Equilibrium climate sensitivity is defined as the change in global mean temperature that results when the climate system attains a new equilibrium with the forcing change resulting from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration.

They don't get that past warming CAUSED increased CO2, not resulted from it.

Doltoid science. Can you bear it?

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

#72-79 inclusive...never mind your Gish Gallop of spam, drongo...did you read anything that we've provided on your demands for answers?

Y/N? Looks like no so far.

Mann's work has been succeeded by many independent recons...and they pretty much agree with it.

Get over it, drongo.

Dwelling on the 'sins' of Mann {Bradley and Hughes never get any attention] is a sign of personality disorder, poor comprehension, field ignorance and right-wing obsessiveness..and that was obvious years ago.

Trying to bully Mann 15 years after the event is a really quite potty. It does not work.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/abrupt/images/data4-climate-changes-lg.g…

Stupid olD man thinks a change of 4℃ is "a possible 10c of NV warming". i.e. Stupid olD man is as delusional as they come or as I pointed out earlier, telling obvious bullshit.

Stupid olD man still doesn't understand and probably never will that local and global temp variation are not the same or even similar.

BTW, temps have always warmed and cooled, except for the last 60 years when the only STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT change was warming.

Stupid olD man likes being reminded of that fact.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 07 Nov 2015 #permalink

CoNcrete just doesn't understand that I am showing him the Nat Var of the Holocene in a place other than the poles where it appears at least 1c per century.

But feel free to do your own calculation and unless you can get it down to ~ 0.3c per century [which is very unlikely] we are currently well within the range of average climate Nat Var per century.

"temps have always warmed and cooled, except for the last 60 years when the only STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT change was warming."

65 years is the time AGW is supposed to apply and even using the FatB graphs there have been a lot more cooling years than warming:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1950/plot/hadcrut4gl/f…

And that warming is well below Nat Var.

Amazing how Doltoids are neither rational nor sceptical enough to even consider this simple fact.

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

CoNcrete just doesn’t understand that I am showing him the Nat Var of the Holocene in a place other than the poles where it appears at least 1c per century.

No you haven't...you point at one recon from the Cariaco basin near Venezuela, and you have not cited literature or discussed what was going on there and why its circumstances are unusual

"More Nat Var for Doltoids:"

Wrong. That's variation of temperature. Which happens for a reason.

What are the REASONS for the change?

Or do you not care for the reason? Why?

HEY,, FUCKWIT!

When you make a cup of hot coffee, do you expect its temperature to naturally vary, going up and down, up and down, varying naturally, because that's what temperatures do?

EVER seen a cup of coffee warm through natural variation?

a place other than the poles

Whoopee doo. A place other than the poles had a 1C temp increase at some imprecisely dated time (and the increases at the poles occurred at different times from each other BTW).

Stupid olD man still doesn’t understand and probably never will that local and global temp variation are not the same or even similar.

do your own calculation

I'm not the one making stupid claims like:

we are currently well within the range of average climate Nat Var per century

,

Stupid olD man.

using the FatB graphs there have been a lot more cooling years than warming

Stupid olD man still doesn't understand what STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT means.

It's worth saying it again even though Stupid olD man doesn't understand it.

Temps have always warmed and cooled, except for the last 60 years when the only STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT change was warming.

Amazing how stupid a Stupid olD man can be. Too stupid to understand what STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT means.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 07 Nov 2015 #permalink

Thing is, Chris, he's not listening to you AT ALL.

It "knows" that there is no AGW, because it knows it is right. It's been told so by WtfUWT and Inholfe and lots of other old, rich, moronic but powerful white dudes who he thinks of himself as being part of (except the reason he isn't is because of all that "liberal interference" and those "communists" and "government interference". If it hadn't been for all the laws, it would have been a billionaire, just like it KNOWS it deserves! So it hates governent and anything liberal or interfering with "business as usual" because THEY STOLE ITS MONEY!!!!

The fact that they're not wealthy because of

a) personal incompetence
b) the rich dudes don't want competition for the cash

doesn't work with it because (a) is making it their fault. Not possible to accept. And (b) would demonise the class it KNOWS it really belongs to, and IT doesn't want it poor and powerless, so they can't either.

Remember, he will project his failings onto others to make them not personal failures, just "features" of humanity, and protect the class he thinks he belongs in because he doesn't want the rug pulled out from under the class before he gets there.

So you "lie" because he does.

Billionaires are right (unless they're trying to warn him) because he wants the billionaires to have the rights they currently do when HE gets there.

Poor CoNcrete is in absolute denial that climate changes naturally.

Like the rest of the Doltoids he apparently thinks that without ACO2 nothing ever changes climate-wise.

He also denies the simple mathematics that current warming of 0.8c since the end of the LIA and the beginning of the industrial revolution nearly 2 centuries ago is considerably below the centennial average of 0.98c as per that paper I linked to.

I have continually asked him awa the other Doltoids, if they think that 0.98c is wildly exaggerated, to come up with their own ball-park figure.

Somewhere between 0c and 1.0c should not be too difficult even for Doltoids.

This British MP might assist Doltoid thinking:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytzTMqs8XKA#t=83

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

"Poor CoNcrete is in absolute denial that climate changes naturally."

Spanky, why do you make up reality so badly?

Seeing as Doltoids have trouble with simple maths and small numbers I'll give you a multiple choicer.

Do you think centennial Nat Var over the Holocene was approximately:

1/ 0c?
2/ 1c?
3/ 2c?
4/ 3c?
5/ 4c?
6/ ..you get it now...?

No answer and I'll assume you agree [reluctantly] with Lloyd and go from there.

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

#88 "I have continually asked him awa the other Doltoids, if they think that 0.98c is wildly exaggerated, to come up with their own ball-park figure."

You have been answered many times. You never acknowledge the answers.

No, a global centennial mean variation range of 0.98C over the last 8000 years is nonsense.

We know much more about the trajectory of the last 8000 years than you acknowledge or understand

#90 Lloyd's paper is nonsense for the Watts crowd....I've asked you before to justify how you can extrapolate to global scale claims from an ice core from 3000m up in Greenland, and one similar in Antarctica...given what even you should know about the nature of earth climate, you should understand your mistake.

If you want to look at the arctic and subarctic for 'NV' throughout the Holocene, look at Gajewski for instance

Your framing is useless.

Here's a few simple choices for you to take one of:

a) CO2 is IR active
b) CO2 is NOT IR active

a) burning hydrocarbons produce CO2
b) burning hydrocarbons don't produce CO2

a) Temperatures change for a reason
b) Temperatures change for no reason at all

#90...drongo, Lloyd has basically thrown out as much data as possible, kept two palaeo records, tortured them into 100 year intervals...then attempted to say something about global climate and current warming. He thinks, generate his knowledge-averse bullshit, therefore 'NV' may explain most of current warming. He really hasn't done any work, but claims he has the makings of an attributative claim. It's a farce.

This is why his paper is essentially self-published ....he's payed to put it in E& E.

You are a dupe, again.

he apparently thinks that without ACO2 nothing ever changes climate-wise

Stupid olD man can't help making shit up.

Stupid olD man keeps comparing apples with oranges (local with global).

Stupid olD man will never understand:

Temps have always warmed and cooled, except for the last 60 years when the only STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT change was warming.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 07 Nov 2015 #permalink

Dwrongo, it seems that my previous comments about natural variability did not send you to investigate the nature of your claims (which is telling, because from my experience with undergrads the ones who respond as you did are invariably the ones who fail or drop out...).

So let me put it to you in more concrete terms.

What data would one select in order to estimate Holocene temperatures at any point in time?

What statistical treatment would one apply to calculate the Holocene temperatures at any point in time?

What statistical treatment would one apply to estimate the variance in Holocene temperatures at any point in time?

How would one discriminate between varibility in the data collected resulting from a) the methodology of collection, and b) the actual variability in the temperature to which the proxy was exposed?

How would one calibrate and combine the results from different proxies, and from locations at different points on the planet?

And here's the crunch: after doing all of the above, how would one describe the planetary temperature variability compared with the local variabilities that one determined?

As I've explained several times in the past, I use questioning as one of my main pedagogical approaches. With intelligent people one or two open or even very lateral questions can often be sufficient for them to successfully direct a lot of their own learning, and with the less talented a series of step-wise questions can guide them to at least a basic discovery. The teacher is more of a guard rail in this model, or a sign post, watching to make sure that the student doesn't derail rather than pulling each and every switch-point.

I prefer questions where possible because answers that people derive for themselves, who gather and synthesise information (under the watchfulness of a teacher) almost inevitably lead to a better understanding, and to a longer-term retention of that understanding. And for folk such as you who have an ideological opposition to certain fields of understanding, step-wise guided questioning leads them at some point to confront the epistemological stations at which their ideological train wants to disembark from their journeying along the networks of knowledge.

That's if they board the train at all. There are some such as yourself who simply stare at the rail map at their home station, ignore most of it, and expound their own version of how one goes from start to whatever destination captures their imagination. Which is usually Narnia, or Atlantis, Neverland, or Camelot, or (given the psychotropic twistings of reality in which they engage) Wonderland.

The trouble is that humans have fueled their train with hundreds of millions of years worth of fossilised sunlight, and recovering that sunlight is polluting the planet to a point that the destination will an extinction event in the same part of town as some of those in the planet's past - a very real and dangerous part of town...

So explain how your understanding of the science is a scientifically-accurate map of the knowledge, rather than a fantasy imagining jaunt to a place that doesn't exist.

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