November 2015 Open Thread

More thread.

From the September thread, in response to:

"Stating the truth might be redundant (as long as everyone is already aware of it) but that doesn’t mean it is meaningless.

At least we are now all agreed that there is no necessary problem with data being adjusted, e.g. RSS, UAH, BEST, NOAA, HADCRUT4 (I presume), GISTEMP, Karl, etc.

The fact that both satellites [however the data were arrived at] agree

You mean both these satellites, the ones you choose above? Whatever happened to beta UAH 6.0?

agree with the unadjusted global mean awa millions of radiosonde balloons

They might agree with the radiosonde balloons somewhere in the atmosphere but AFAIK, the radiosonde balloons have to agree with the surface thermometer next to them at the moment they are released. Wouldn’t be very good thermometers otherwise!"

sd writes:

NASA and Jay Zwally have..

A non sequitur is to be expected from a Stupid olD man.

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

#3 Yep, that's going to trouble the satellite-huggers...expect to see it unmentioned.

And will the rejectionists read to the last paragraph? :

The study's findings don't apply to the ice sheet's lower elevations, where surface melting, soot and dust result in more pronounced declines in reflectivity and where warmer temperatures may promote algae growth that further erodes reflectivity.

Hottest October on record?

Ya mean from the BoM's new ACORN network that started 3 years ago after their HQ system packed up its tent and faded away in the night because it was found to be exaggerating temperatures by over 40%?

That same BoM who are strongly resisting an audit but are happy to audit any other gatekeepers books.

How believable is homogenised data like that?

"Just not a prollem", was the Doltoid reply.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 02 Nov 2015 #permalink

"Satellites. Totally reliable, if you don’t like the ground truth…"

From the only-when-it-suits file.

You Doltoids have been using the GRACE gravy meter and satellite altimetry ad nauseum when it suits your argument.

Doltoid hypocrits.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 02 Nov 2015 #permalink

But when we get satellites doing much less complicated jobs like measuring temperatures and producing evidence that is agreeing with millions of radiosondes awa each other, suddenly they are unreliable.

Funny stuff ☺

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 02 Nov 2015 #permalink

much less complicated jobs like measuring temperatures

"Much less complicated" as in requiring all of these changes just up until 2012, let alone more recent changes.

Even on their own admission, Spencer and Christy's 2LT was too complicated to get right even after 23 years (1992-2015) after which there was yet another major correction. Talk about fakery in the bakery.

Only a Stupid olD man would think this is "much less complicated".

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 02 Nov 2015 #permalink

"Talk about fakery in the bakery."

At least it agrees with other raw data and doesn't cook the books unlike your selective Doltoidian fakery.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 02 Nov 2015 #permalink

"Thanks for reminding us that the new, correct, network still shows lots of warming in Australia"

It must be a fabulous "new correct system" hey, CoN otherwise they would let someone else check it.

When their "adjustments" invariably lead to greater warming Doltoids like CoN can't for the life of them see any reason for being a little sceptical.

What days do you pray, CoN?

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 02 Nov 2015 #permalink

“Thanks for reminding us that the new, correct, network still shows lots of warming in Australia”

When Ken Stewart did a quick check of ACORN recently, this is what he found:

"A warming bias in adjustments to minima of 45 %, which has the effect of increasing the network-wide temperature trend by 66.6 %. The adjustments have predominantly cooled pre-1971 temperatures and warmed post-1971 temperatures."

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 02 Nov 2015 #permalink

How many times a day do you pray, CoN?

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 02 Nov 2015 #permalink

Drongo accuses:
When Ken Stewart did a quick check of ACORN recently, this is what he found:

“A warming bias in adjustments to minima of 45 %, which has the effect of increasing the network-wide temperature trend by 66.6 %. The adjustments have predominantly cooled pre-1971 temperatures and warmed post-1971 temperatures.”

And the evidence that adjustments are unwarranted? None.
And the evidence that Stewarts's work is credible? Have you checked it Drongoman?

Observations tell us that NZ glaciers have lost 40% of their volume since the mid 1970s, Drongo.

Is this because of data homogenisation?

"Observations tell us that NZ glaciers have lost 40% of their volume since the mid 1970s,"

Not your obs though, hey nick?

Ever studied the history of glaciers?

How's the New Guinea one goin'?

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 02 Nov 2015 #permalink

#19... you're such an idiot.

You're pathetically desperate, nick.

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=west+papua+glacier&biw=1132&bih=619&…

Glaciers come and go over the centuries but the ones that count are probably gaining as your mate found out the other day.

The net result is SLR and the faker bakers are wringing that out to the max but when there has been nothing happening with SLR in my lifetime, there is no net melting.

Change the sheets and go back to bed.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 03 Nov 2015 #permalink

#22 the latest Google earth imagery of Punjak Jaya is from March 2015...you really don't want to look at that.

"....when there has been nothing happening with SLR in my lifetime, there is no net melting."

But we all know SLR has been happening in your lifetime, it's not a matter of opinion.

Tough being you, I'd imagine.

And now Sd is an expert on glaciers. He's an armchair expert on climate, sea-level, marine biology, glaciers, and many other related fields. Never studied any of them formally, but why go to university when you can led your own inherent curiosity be your guide to wisdom? And now he's on about temperature data being fudged in Australia. he never says why any of this is being done, but let me hazard three guesses in Sds mindset:

1. Its a global conspiracy to force a communist government on everyone where their freedoms are take away;
2. Its done to scare the public so that scientists can get more grants from those evil governments.
3. Both of the above: governments and scientists are in cahoots.

What else can this twit say?

Back to the real world as a result of AGW. As with climate change, there is broad consensus on the issue and tons of data proving it to be so (well, I am sure that Sd thinks all the photos of retreating glaciers are photoshopped or that scientists have paid to have the ice and snow removed in situ). The fact is that glaciers are in retreat across the planet. The rate of retreat is exceeding even the worst model predictions. Its an impending calamity:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/aug/04/speed-glacier-retrea…

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

#22 "Glaciers come and go"..... going, gone in Irian Jaya, SD.

Apparently 'the ones that count are probably gaining' according to non-personal obs and 'weasel' Zwally...leaving us with the ones that don't count driving SLR...yep, they help drive SLR because they 'don't count'.

Current ice remnants on Puncak Jaya are what's left of a 5000 year old ice cap. They'll be gone by 2030, probably sooner

So we are very close to the mid Holocene Optimum conditions which saw the range ice free from 7000 to 5000y BP. Conditions in the sub-Arctic and Europe confirm that.

Now, SD will say Mid-Holocene good, but reject SL of that period because of the magical thinking that decouples earth system responses every time he thinks about them.

LOL SD

Are you Doltoids really trying to tell me that glacier retreat is only happening now?

And what has the Holocene Optimum got to do with AGW?

"They’ll be gone by 2030, probably sooner"

That's Pachauri's line.

It's very easy to test your powers of perception on SLR, nongy nick. I've already explained how you do it so now you will be able to report what you observe.

If you are capable of observing, that is.

And jiff the jerk makes his usual wrong assumptions. At least, jiff, I don't crack myself up to be a climate bugologist who shows he hasn't got a grasp on what's going on around him.

"The rate of retreat is exceeding even the worst model predictions. Its an impending calamity"

Jiff, you puerile bedwetter, how many times do I have to tell you those "model predictions" are exactly what your mate Jay has finally woken up to and if you had been just a little sceptical you would have realised the models have been getting their data from a flawed GRACE gravimetric system.

How will you maintain cred when the Zwallys of this world continue to wake up to the fact that their fake models are playing them for fools and ever-increasingly ditch their religion for the truth.

You'll be in deep doo-doo, jerky jiff.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 03 Nov 2015 #permalink

Are you Doltoids really trying to tell me that glacier retreat is only happening now?

No. You are confused, as usual. No one has ever tried to tell you that glaciers never fluctuate in mass. They are trying to tell you about the cause and implications of current retreat....as if that wasn't fucking obvious.

And what has the Holocene Optimum got to do with AGW?

Can you really be so obtuse? Recent retreat in the global cryosphere is matching reconstructed levels for that period, while we continue to warm under ongoing ACO2 forcing.

It’s very easy to test your powers of perception on SLR, nongy nick. I’ve already explained how you do it so now you will be able to report what you observe.

Your explanation has no utility, beyond proving again you are incapable of recognizing the fallacy of your ideas, techniques and expectations. Your powers of perception have failed you, and you lack the ability to recognize and challenge your own credulity.

other raw data

Satellite raw data is radio signals, i.e. satellite raw data is not temperature at all, let alone temperature at the surface. Stupid olD man is obviously suffering cognitive dissonance.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 03 Nov 2015 #permalink

evidence that is agreeing with millions of radiosondes awa each other

Of course, those millions of radiosondes agree with the surface thermometers when they are on the surface. If the surface thermometers are wrong then so are the radiosondes even when they're on the ground.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 03 Nov 2015 #permalink

"Now, SD will say Mid-Holocene good, but reject SL of that period because of the magical thinking that decouples earth system responses every time he thinks about them."

O course. One of the Articles of Faith of the denier community is that there can never be any such thing as a catastrophe from climate change.

Therefore, despite the climate always changing, it isn't now, because it would cause a catastrophe. Despite it being holocene optimum or warmer, it is good because it's warmer, and he's having to up the thermostat, but it will not flood anything because that would be a catastrophe.

Anything that they can't accept can't happen. Even if the things that cause it to happen are accepted.

Because it's an article of faith: no such thing as a catastrophe.

"Even on their own admission, Spencer and Christy’s 2LT was too complicated to get right even after 23 years (1992-2015) after which there was yet another major correction. Talk about fakery in the bakery."

Remember, only adjustments DOWN are allowed. Any adjustment that doesn't go down, or doesn't go down FAR ENOUGH to cause a cooling trend are BAD adjustments.

It's an Article of Faith for the denier congregation.

"Are you Doltoids really trying to tell me that glacier retreat is only happening now?"

Are you trying to say you've never thought glaciers have retreated before?

Are you trying to say that glaciers can only retreat once, and never again?

Are you trying to say that glaciers can't be retreating now because of AGW unless they retreated because of AGW before?

Are you making shit up and turning it into a dumbass question, AGAIN?

At least sd has given up claiming for the time being that satellite temperature remote sensing is "much less complicated".

Not that he's capable of learning anything significant though.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 03 Nov 2015 #permalink

"evidence that is agreeing with millions of radiosondes awa each other"

If that were the case, why did satellites have to be changed due to differences with the radiosondes???

At least it agrees with other raw data

I should hope that raw data agrees with "other" raw data since there is only one set of raw data when it comes to satellite MSU radio signal measurements used for remote sensing of atmospheric temperature.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 03 Nov 2015 #permalink

Yet somehow adjustments make the trend disagree, yet deniers don't think this is concerning, merely "proof" that there's no AGW...

Somehow....

"... it was found to be exaggerating temperatures by over 40%?" - what a moron. Writes complete ballyhoo.

UK busted nationwide Nov record. So did Finland on Sunday and today again.
Florida is going for it again this very morning.
Yemen just took the first hurricane landfall in its history while being benignly genocided by our good friend Saudi.
Nationwide date record for Holland today is no news.

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

#19 the moron's been absolutely everywhere. Even on New Guinea's glacier.
Didn't see him in Norway though. Better get the ass there drongomoron cause glaciers melting there just too fast.

#22 asserts that ice has a higher density than water. Apart from the magic supposed in that post.

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

"#19 the moron’s been absolutely everywhere. "

And, apparently, at all the time in each place too.

How else could the moron personally observe glacier advance and sea level rises?

I hope drongomoron can report right now from Invest 95A/Arab Sea which could become a Chapala 2.0.

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

Who knew that the spangled drongo was so closely related to the ostrich?

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

Except the ground is too hard where he lives, so he shoves his head up his arse rather than in the ground.

it's hard to hear anyone else speaking with his ears in his colon, but he gets GREAT reception from all those echoes he hears agreeing with himself in there!

Woof woof, lappers!

Good boy! Beg for the biscuit!

Weird, isn't it, lappers comes along and posts a link and says nothing.

Did he think that somehow people who look into the research going on have not been looking into the research going on? Can't be that.

Indeed, is is it we have to wonder what he thought? BECAUSE HE DIDN'T SAY A THING.

We have to spend energy and effort wondering what he's trying to imply while he gets to avoid any effort in making clear what he wants to say, AND gets to weasel out of any accusation by pretending it wasn't what he meant.

Every single one of lap dog's posts here is a barking from a tiny dog, with no more meaning than that which a dumb animal might give when barking its head off.

"Thomas says: “In this region, the same storms that have driven increased snowfall inland have brought warmer ocean currents into contact with West Antarctic’s ice shelves, resulting in rapid thinning. Thus the increased snowfall we report here has not led to thickening of the ice sheet, but is in fact another symptom of the changes that are driving contemporary ice sheet loss.""

Good news? Hardly.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 05 Nov 2015 #permalink

Drongomoron was investigating Invest 95A in the Arab Sea and found the thing developing. Her name is TC Megh. The Yemen island of Socotra, wiped by it's first hurricane force hit in recorded history, may quit the clean-up business to wait out Megh which is projected to do another full hit on the place.

#49, it is just confirmation of the bad news already in.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 05 Nov 2015 #permalink

#49

Oily has fallen to the same faulty thinking that stimulated Drongo to post the claim about Greenland. Too impatient to read through, no idea about the total change in the system.

And ignorant of the fact that such change had been projected.

Olaus Petri, over the years I've repeatedly told you why parts of Antarctica accumulate snow, and why this is a result of global warming, and why the southern pole differs in phenomenology compared to the north one. Are you able to provide a succint description of the factors involved?

I'll give you a hint: one of the things involved is a continental land mass...

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

Date record min temp for ALL Dutch stations.
Tomorrow the abs Nov min temp should go.
Nights warmer than hottest summer normal.

Last night's min temps were actually above the date record for average daily temp, not by a few tenths but by degrees. The way records are broken these times!
First decade of the month shrieking thru the records too.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 06 Nov 2015 #permalink

#54...counting snow patches in the Scottish Highlands is very genteel, but it suggests someone has to much time on their hands. Let me know when it turns into an icecap.

Meanwhile, the glaciers and icecaps of Europe, Scandinavia and Iceland are shrinking.

More Nat Var for Doltoids.

From the "science is the belief in the ignorance of experts" meme:

"Consensus" told Linus Pauling 30 years ago he was wrong about Vitamin C & cancer. New paper finds he was right.

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

More Nat Var for Doltoids.

Well, mebbe not Var:

I finally got my climate sceptic cheque from Exxon-Mobil & it's got a lot of zeros in it: $0000000.00

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

More Nat Var for Doltoids:

“The presence of the moon (which has about 1/81 the mass of the Earth), is slowing Earth’s rotation and lengthening the day by about 2 ms every one hundred years.”

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

#60...not surprised you can't get a Bob Carter-style stipend from Heartland

#58 - Now show the plot for the Northern Hemisphere! The one you've shown is not news to anyone - except you Spangly!

By Neil White (not verified) on 07 Nov 2015 #permalink

#61 - again this is well known - to anyone with a clue (a group which doesn't include Spangly in its membership)!

By Neil White (not verified) on 07 Nov 2015 #permalink

Neil @ #63

Are you suggesting I should cherry pick?

#64

You Doltoids are so parsimonious with your Nat Var I am just bringing everything [including milliseconds] to your attention.

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

#65 "Neil @ #63

Are you suggesting I should cherry pick?"

Al you ever do is cherry-pick, old bird!

"Are you suggesting I should cherry pick?"

No, he's telling you you're cherry picking.

Moron.

I have no idea why I would click on the link, so I won't do so.

Nothing says what I will expect to see, so I won't try to find out, since I have no idea whether the effort will be wasted.

#70, keep in mind the response distribution is fat-tailed. Chance of 150M or even 200M is much larger than 50M.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 09 Nov 2015 #permalink

Spangled Dumbo you do realise that linking to denier sites such as:

http://www.climate4you...

show you up as as a wilful ignoramus who is unable to tell truth from fiction.

Some perspective:

Crux of a Core, Part 3... Dr. Ole Humlum

and

Comment 27 by CM at RealClimate describes science4u as 'stealth denial site'

But of course you are so steeped in your own righteous ignorance that even now you will not understand.

Oh and #61 try telling us something we do not already know after all that is Oceanography 101.

cRR, the response distribution also increases with continued delay in mitigation, and over time no matter the nature of the response in the 21st century.

Of course this only matters if one places value on human and non-human life beyond the year 2100...

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

Liarnel murders another messenger.

What a creep you are Li.

Whitey is bad enough, virtually claiming that giving global data is cherry picking, but he at least acknowledge the data.

OTOH, you just ignore the facts and murder the messenger.

What a scientific approach you Doltoids have.

Please deal with the message.

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

Whitey is bad enough, virtually claiming that giving global data is cherry picking, but he at least acknowledge the data.

That's rich.

Remember when I gave you a global tour of tide gauges?

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2015/06/03/june-2015-open-thread/commen…

I seem to remember that your only defence was that I'd cherry picked, and that you didn't notice that I very specifically hadn't cherry picked.

Daft old bugger.

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

Dwrongo.

What's the current rate of global sea level rise?

Your primary scientific sources would be of great interest.

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

Spangley

With regard to: "Whitey is bad enough, virtually claiming that giving global data is cherry picking, but he at least acknowledge the data." in message 74:

Firstly, I never suggested that you were cherry picking. What you seem to be doing is going around the dodgiest web sites and blogs that you can find looking for graphs that seem to support your position. This is not quite the same as cherry picking.

Arctic (NH) sea ice has been rapidly declining over recent decades. Antarctic (SH) sea ice has been expanding. These hemispheric trends are both entirely consist with the predictions of the mainstream climate science community. The increase in the SH is largely due to increased precipitation over Antarctica (related to warming). If you add the two together (a completely meaningless thing to do) you get a curve that is fairly flat. Please tell us what this really says! Please tell us what the graph you linked to has to do with 'nat var'!

Where this whole discussion (again) floats off into the ludicrous is that some of us here have tried very hard to explain about 'nat var' (and its cousin regional variability) in the context of sea-level rise to you, but you take no notice and just blather on with your own nonsense and bang on about your one alleged data point.

Please stop making an idiot of yourself!

Neil

By Neil White (not verified) on 09 Nov 2015 #permalink

"What you seem to be doing is going around the dodgiest web sites and blogs that you can find looking for graphs that seem to support your position."

OK Neil, here's another graph on global sea ice:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.wi… and:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/iphone/images/iphone.anomaly.gl…

"Arctic (NH) sea ice has been rapidly declining over recent decades."

Sorry, Arctic sea ice WAS declining but is now gaining but global sea ice has been around normal for some time. Give or take some Nat Var:

"Please stop making an idiot of yourself!"

As to who will be the bigger idiot in the long term, you and your mate John with your 3+ mm/yr based on your satellite adjustments will continue to be shown to be the fakery it is.

"What’s the current rate of global sea level rise?"

Why don't you ask Neil?

Be interesting to see how honest he really is.

And burn sends me 5 short term Qld tide gauges and reckons he's giving me a global picture.

Burn, have you put your head out the window yet?

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

"Sorry, Arctic sea ice WAS declining but is now gaining.."

Rubbish, the data do not support you,, . You are a liar, time to tell it like it is. You're not deluded, you are a liar.

" but global sea ice has been around normal for some time. Give or take some Nat Var:"

Convenient to mask the radical change in the north by appeal to the more subtle changes in the south

And of course the entire Arctic and sub-Arctic is showing massive change: ice caps, permafrost, seasons, the lot

Would the liar like to appeal to ignorance one more time?

Dwrongo at #79, I did indeed copy the wrong bookmark, and I am more than happy to admit it.

I meant to paste this one:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2015/06/03/june-2015-open-thread/commen…

My first link though raises an interesting point, which I may revisit once we've slapped you around a bit more with the current batch of ignorant ravings in which you are indulging.

Anyway, knock yourself out. You can go for that tour of the world now and explain why sea level is not rising. Which reminds of something else - you avoided the very fundamental question that I asked at #76, to wit:

...what is the current rate of global sea level rise?

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

Spangley (#79)

With regard to: "Sorry, Arctic sea ice WAS declining but is now gaining...", have a look at : http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ - looks like a downward trend to me!

You just don't get the point about global sea ice, do you?

The global mean sea-level rise rate over the last 20 years or so is around 3mm/year.

Please tell us more about the 'fakery'! Actual facts, not rant, please!

Neil

By Neil White (not verified) on 10 Nov 2015 #permalink

“Sorry, Arctic sea ice WAS declining but is now gaining..”

Nick's not only a LIAR and DENIAR but stupid to boot:

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/old_icecover.uk.php

And it looks like burn sent me lots of links to tide gauges where there is known geodetic movement downwards.

After I had left the room.

Have you done your full global geodetic tide gauge audit yet, burn?

Let me know when you have.

In the meantime, in an area of no known geodetic movement there has been no SLR for 70 years.

But if you've personally observed any please let me know.

As I have said before, if SLR is really happening, it would be seen to be happening.

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

"Please tell us more about the ‘fakery’! Actual facts, not rant, please!"

Neil, you really mean you aren't aware of all the reconstructing of the data that NASA and NOAA have been up to over the years?

How they've inflated the warming?

How just recently Thomas Karl and Thomas Petersen rewrote the data to make the "pause" non-existent and when Congress subpoenaed the details they wouldn't produce them?

Don't you live in the real world?

No need to answer that, I already know.

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

#83 4th lowest summer extent in the satellite era is not recovery, silly bird. Decline in area is not going to be monotonic, that would be unphysical, as in physically impossible, and not a reflection of the processes that influence ice extent throughout the year. I am not a liar. You are certainly stupid , though.

As I have said before, if SLR is really happening, it would be seen to be happening.

This remains as wrong an assertion as it was first time round...for all the reasons that have been explained to you, and that you have blanked. You have been givien a wealth of information over the months that documents the complexity of global oceans and SLR...I would have thought you'd find it interesting. But you're scared of it, instead.

"As I have said before, if SLR is really happening, it would be seen to be happening."

As I have said before, it is seen to be happening.

"Please tell us more about the ‘fakery’! Actual facts, not rant, please!"

No, I'm afraid spanky only has a nursery rhyme to use, so he's damn well going to use it!

The only fakery is spanky's claims.

"Firstly, I never suggested that you were cherry picking"

He is, though. He's picking the cherry that was picked for him by his denier blogroll owners.

#87 drongo is a literalist. The only true 'seeing' is with the eye. All that science-style 'seeing' is just conceit....

Except when he's found a concrete pillar some where near Fort Denison that might have moved for a number of reasons/

And it looks like burn sent me lots of links to tide gauges where there is known geodetic movement downwards.

Actually, no. Check all the links you dodo, and check the literature too.

Holy Odin you're thick.

After I had left the room.

Again, no. All you have to do is to look at the subsequent posts. Contrary to your incorrect claim, you hadn't "left the room".

Have you done your full global geodetic tide gauge audit yet, burn?

Let me know when you have.

I don't need to Dwrongo, because thousands of oceanographers and cartographers and geologists and physicists have. But I'm still interested in seeing your data that refutes these many disciplines of work. So far you've produced zip; not even one page of data.

In the meantime, in an area of no known geodetic movement there has been no SLR for 70 years.

Which area exactly Dwrongo? And have to compared it to ocean level redistribution? Sea levels don't rise equally in all parts of the world, and indeed in some places they are decreasing - I even once linked to a map depicting this for you, but you seem to have missed that along with everything else. I wish that I'd bookmarked that particular post.

Oh, and Dwrongo, about your "data"... Can you tell us about the king tides in the late 40s and early 50s - the tides that you so carefully documented? Put your data on the table so that we might see that you're right and that we're wrong, and thus lead us to weeping and pulling of hair and gnashing of teeth.

Be prepared though, there is a test...

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

Changing the topic a little, after all the continued attempts at educating the spangly VI (village idiot) is having no effect whatsoever he being as dense as a black hole, and in anticipation of one of our troll collective members blurting out about Lomborg's latest deception mentioned by Joe Romm at CP where another journal may shame itself by the look of things, although it is not a scientific journal.

As Romm warns,

Anyone thinking of citing Lomborg’s latest nonsense should be aware his analysis rests on several assumptions that range from factually incorrect to intellectually indefensible:

as for that journal 'Global Policy' nothing by Lomborg is showing up as yet.

"Can you tell us about the king tides in the late 40s and early 50s – the tides that you so carefully documented? "

Of course not, he never did anything like that.

He's displayed nothing that you wouldn't get from a half-assed googling after being questioned on repeating a rumour you heard.

E.g. not knowing that there had been dredging, that the ob was miles away from the sea and at best brackish, not ocean.

Then slowly combining these facts into the newest iteration every time of the same tired old fairytale of his 70 years of "work" personally observing king tides (why? It's not like king tides were a common passtime like trainspotting, and it's unsupportable that spanky knew that he'd have to "provide the truth" about AGW decades before anyone outside climate and weather science had heard of it.

DOUBLY so since they all claim that "science knew it was global cooling in the 70's!". Rather odd he was collecting data to "refute" something that "science didn't think was going to happen" at the time.

#92, Lomborg is up at GP as an early view article.

And of course Lomborg doesn't have to to do 'correct and defensible' work...he's not paid to. Analysis by omission...who does that remind you of?

#92, Lomborg is up at GP as an early view article.

And of course Lomborg doesn’t have to to do ‘correct and defensible’ work…he’s not paid to. Analysis by omission…who does that remind you of?

To be fair, Lomborg can just plead "lack of competence", same as he did when he was nabbed by the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty for publishing a book full of non-fact.

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

Lionel, that Disqus system is hopeless once you get to 3 or 4 pages of comments. I first found this out a few months ago when commenting and arguing with some GMO apologists but I blamed my old computer. It then crashed so I got a new one, faster and using Windows 10 but found the same problems in that thread with nonhuman. When you are writing a reply it freezes, then goes so slow, the cursor jumps all over the place, spell checker some times doesn't work and posts go into a random order. It is very hard to follow.

I gave up on responding to nonhuman since no matter what you tell him that is backed up by solid science he brings up something from a denier site to argue against you.

He seems to think that "discredited" means that I am claiming that some one has no "credentials". Of course the reason these people of his are discredited has got nothing to do with their credentials, or lack thereof, but has everything to do with the fact that what they say is rubbish and scientific junk.

By Ian Forrester (not verified) on 17 Nov 2015 #permalink

Ian, I am about to give up in that thread, somebody has been doing some housekeeping, posts have vanished. Maybe that is a part of the problem.

I am running Win 8 on one box and a late build of UBUNTU Linux on another - same thing on both.

But Real Climate has been flaky of late, oft is when a new post is going up as with today, but probably not connected to DeSmogBlog's Diqus issues.

Aye up! Lads and lassies, WTF has happened to RealClimate, has it been hacked? Been much intermittent trouble connecting there of late and then a new post went up.

October was so much warmer than any other October in history that the data are starting to look terrifying. This year will be the warmest year n record by a country mile. So much of the much ballyhooed hiatus that deniers depended on. That's dead and buried. What lie/deception/distortion will these vile idiots come up with next? Now that the alleged (non) hiatus is consigned to the garbage bin, its back to the old memes: that scientists are fiddling with the data. Its all they have left folks, and its the one lie they can try and peddle for ages. You've seen it on Deltoid with dopes like SD and GC.

Here's the rundown: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/un-climate-conference/paris-2015-soar…

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

Channeling an old friend here: how do you know it's warmer? Have you measured the temperature of every square inch of the planet? Until you've done that, your climate "science" is pseudo-science.

(I can't remember if it was the chemist Latimer or the 1st-year Philosophy-graduate Brad).

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

Meanwhile, sailing past Fort Denison last week I was able to add to my long record of PERSONAL OBS of this site.
Conclusion: it's still not sinking.

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

AS the Paris climate talks approach, get ready for the Denialati's attempts to poison the well by pointing out the emissions coss of the meeting.

Oh, and hacks and demands for emails, although there's already been some of that with Lamar Smith's frenetically rabid persecution of NOAA.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 22 Nov 2015 #permalink

...cost...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 22 Nov 2015 #permalink

Great post by Greg Laden about Anthony 'kindergarten' Watts attending this years AGU annual meeting and presenting a poster there. Watts actually thinks that because his abstract was accepted for the poster section, that he was actually invited, a special honor, to the conference. I almost wet myself laughing. Posters are generally accepted without any real kind of scrutiny, and even many talks are accepted without peer-review provided there is space available in a session.

I have been invited to present lectures at international conferences as well as keynote and plenary lectures (which is a real honor). Clearly Watts has no clue about how science works and how major conferences deal with submitted entries. Watts' poster will be one of many hundreds and it would a real hoot to watch him standing beside it amongst a sea of others; many of the attendees may get a good belly laugh out of his poster probably being the only one there to distort climate science in an attempt to downplay AGW. Many might not have a clue who he is and just walk by to the next poster.

Having said that, the fact that he is going to the meeting is a good sign. Being a denier on a weblog does not hack it. Science is not done by blog; blogs only exist to interpret the science done by others. And WUWT is doing a piss-poor job of this.

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2015/11/09/science-denier-anthony-wat…

By jeff Harvey (not verified) on 23 Nov 2015 #permalink

WTF has happened to RealClimate, has it been hacked?

I just went there and landed on one of those virus removal spam pages that are difficult to get rid of ... best to stay away for now. According to info on HotWhopper, the domain name expired. Michael Mann tweeted that they're working on it.

ianam

I pointed this out in #2 above and also asked at HotWhopper. I also got grief from an admin at DeSmog for raising it in a thread about Marc Morano's latest attempt at FUD (grabbed a part screen copy of the page I got early last Friday evening 20.11.2015 UK time aka GMT). It was way off topic evidently - well of course it was but I wanted them to be aware that with the run up to Cop21 other blogs that the deniers don't like could be the subject of attacks.

As for renewal of DNS details I am not so sure that is the story as I had noticed that during the weeks prior I was getting increasing trouble at connecting to RC and figured they could be under DOS attacks.

Good tip Bernard J, thanks. Good to get some info' from the horses mouth.

But the first comment there is from a braying donkey, what an ass, deserves a prize even though it is only one Lemon rather than three.

BBD

if you are still lurking around here have you seen this research David B. Kemp, Kilian Eichenseer and Wolfgang Kiessling, doi:10.1038/ncomms9890, articled by Stoat?

This end of century 2deg C limit seems to be one of the memes the obfuscaters are running with leading into COP21. Then there is Lindzen having ago in the peer reviewed (Hah!) 'The Big Issue' which I raised at 'Lack of Environment' and I see has been mentioned at Hot Whopper.

What a pair Tricky Dicky and Punching Judy are!

I pointed this out in #2 above

Nothing I wrote is mentioned in #2.

I also got grief from an admin at DeSmog

It was a reasonable and accurate response:

"Lionel, seriously every comment you've made here is so far off-topic from the post above, it's comical. What are you doing? You know better. This whole thread will be zapped. Please be considerate of the comment forum and stick to relevant comments about the specific piece you're engaging with."

As for renewal of DNS details I am not so sure that is the story

Yeah, I'm sure that Michael Mann et. al. are lying.

during the weeks prior I was getting increasing trouble at connecting to RC

It may shock you, as it does deniers, but it's possible for different instances of the same or similar phenomena to have different causes.

RC is back up.

I also got grief from an admin at DeSmog

It was a reasonable and accurate response:

“Lionel, seriously every comment you’ve made here is so far off-topic from the post above,...

However, that complaint is irrelevant and ignorant and malicious.

Irrelevant: It doesn't gainsay or counter any of the comment's points.
Ignorant: It ignores that other channels were down.
Malicious: It ensures that the hack attack to close down the discussion WILL WORK AS INTENDED by closing down the discussion if it tries to route round the damage (a la internet design)

Moderators do tend to let the privilege of their position to go straight to their ego.

The worst examples are usually where, in a post claiming the thread discussion is being closed down and no more posts allowed, the "moderator" will write their own opinion.

Either moderate or opinionate.

If you do both, you're abusing your privilege to get the last word in and "win" the argument and shut down any dissenting opinion, as opposed to letting counters clarify or limit the assertion.

Of course, in the USA, this is considered NO infringement on free speech or censorship, because they aren't the government.

The rest of the world that DIDN'T have the dumbass idea of writing into a piece of paper a definition of "free speech" that will be used (as the Magna Carta was in its day) to limit the terms to what was written, not what was intended.

You'll see a lot of merkins on slashdot claiming something isn't censorship because it's a private company or website or individual doing the silencing.

I await the day some RWNJ "states rights" (which is really "let my senator who is a bigot like me legislate against the rights of the constitution") advocate claims that the state, since it isn't federal government, cannot be limiting free speech. After all, the discrimination of gays is part of states rights because the constitution only limits federal government, and the limit on making a religious test or promoting a religion "only binds the federal government". So it's only a small step left to make for them.

ianam

It may shock you, as it does deniers, but it’s possible for different instances of the same or similar phenomena to have different causes.

I believe I had covered some of those bases in my #11. Sorry, I didn't realise I was supposed to lay out a Gish Gallop of encyclopaedic proportions to ensure that I had covered the full gamut of possible issues.

As for the #2 business, yes I read your comment hastily and produced some confusion there, mea culpa.

Now as for that DeSmog admin's comment it took me aback because there have been any number of off topic posts on recent threads there and I explained the reasons, which I thought valid, for making the points I did.

Sorry if my crystal ball was not up to snuff to appreciate that my post would cause embarrassment and also upset you. Replacement ordered!

I didn’t realise I was supposed to lay out a Gish Gallop of encyclopaedic proportions

You could also leave the strawmen to the deniers.

upset you. Replacement ordered!

Something could do with replacing, because your ability to determine mental states and attitudes is not very good. For me to be upset, I would first have to care. Mostly, I take my shots for sport.

claims that the state, since it isn’t federal government, cannot be limiting free speech

Google "14th amendment" and "incorporation".

"You could also leave the strawmen to the deniers."

You could leave the unproven accusation of strawmen to the deniers.

"Google “14th amendment” and “incorporation”."

Google "USA", then google "Planet Earth". Note they aren't the same result.

Also, leave the irrelevant and pointless demands to the deniers.

The French wrote this in 1789, two years before the USA's bill of rights:

"The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may therefore speak, write, and print freely."

NOTHING there about how only the government is restrained from removing that right. IMO it was MEANT to cover government allowing private companies from doing so too, but they didn't exist at the time without government patent, therefore be included in government mandates. But intent can go shit itself in the USA if YOUR "freedom" to restrict the freedom of others would be infringed.

Something could do with replacing, because your ability to determine mental states and attitudes is not very good. For me to be upset, I would first have to care. Mostly, I take my shots for sport.

As aggressive and combative as usual I note, strange that you should take your shots from sport and yet display bad sportsmanship of wanting to always win an argument even when there is no point, IOW a poor looser.

Never mind but just keep your distance from guns.

I leave Wow to being an intellectually dishonest asshole that I mostly ignore.

you should take your shots from sport and yet display bad sportsmanship of wanting to always win an argument even when there is no point, IOW a poor looser.

Another intellectually dishonest and somewhat dimwitted jackass, and a poor speller.

Almost time for "more thread" at this wasteland.

...and a poor speller.

And you overlooked my play on words.

So, I am a dimwitted jackass but it is you braying like a drongo and throwing your toys out of the pram.

"I leave Wow to being an intellectually dishonest asshole that I mostly ignore."

Leave it to inane to make an inane comment.

Hey, dumbass, how the hell can you mostly ignore me yet still be butthurt when i call oyu out on your idiotic ravings?

And what dishonesty? The "dishonesty" of not sucking your dick because you're so brilliant? Sorry, that's not everyone being dishonest, it's nobody liking you at all.

Get a better personality, even if you have to fake it, and maybe, MAYBE, someone will give you the wanking you so desperately need.

"So, I am a dimwitted jackass but it is you braying like a drongo and throwing your toys out of the pram."

Remember, HIS raging is YOUR fault. Otherwise the little tit would have to accept blame for something. And the tinpot little internet dictator can't have that.

Thanks for that linked to in your #24 Bernard, I was going top write this at the Hot Whopper article but thought I would save Sou's time in reading silly posts from myself.

I had started off down that road of researching that myself so incensed was I by Rose's claim about Judith's 'peer reviewed publication record' that I was preparing for a letter to the UK 'Independent Press Standards Organisation'. But not being in academia myself I hit some stumbling blocks and realised I could not do a proper job. You just have which is great.

David Rose has lost more of what little credibility he may have had with that fatuous claim, never mind the remainder of his bilge. Maybe he will soon have to resort to 'The Big Issue' like Tricky Dicky Lindzen, with Matt Ridley close behind.