December 2015 Open Thread

More like this

That was a good read the first time, Bernard, and I reckon I will enjoy reading it again.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 06 Dec 2015 #permalink

As I've just noted at Sou's...

I'm surprised and pleased that the outcome of Paris was as good as it materialised. I was fearing that it would be coöpted by the usual suspects and diluted to uselessness by the end of the negotiations, but the result this weekend is sufficient to keep hope that perhaps we can do sufficient to prevent the worst of it.

It certainly has me revising my plans. I'd expected a desultory commitment to 2 °C, and in that case I was prepared to basically disconnect from my involvement in the blogosphere and focus mostly on local resilience preparation. It seems though that the message has finally started to filter through - and the Climate Council certainly seems to think that the online community has made a difference:

http://www.climatecouncil.org.au/whats-happening-in-paris

Now is the time to start really lifting up the rocks and revealing the lurking recalcitrant trolls of denialism and vested interest that would have their own material and ideological comforts placed before the security of the rest of the world, and before the future of the world.

So... once more unto the breach my friends!

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 12 Dec 2015 #permalink

So… once more unto the breach my friends!

Amen to that Bernard. So to kick off I'll repeat a comment I dropped into the 'What’s it Like Outside? Let me Check the Satellite… ' article thread at Climate Denial Crock of the Week. This was a tilt at John Christy who recently was amongst the confusionista at Ted Cruz's recent farrago.

I wonder if John Christy had remembered what went down at Joe Barton’s 2005 Congressional Hearing when he, as Mike Mann put it in ‘The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines’,
‘…presenting himself as a paragon of virtue when it came to sharing source code: “When asked by others [scientists at Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) in California], we provided sections of our code and relevant data files. By sharing this information, we opened ourselves up to exposure or a possible problem which we had somehow missed, and frankly this was not personally easy. On the other hand, if there was a mistake we wanted it fixed.” ‘
Henry Waxman then pinned Christy to the wall as can be seen in the ensuing exchange also reported on by Mike Mann in his book:

The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines..

Thanks again to Admiral Titley for applying the heat during that farce, one that would even baffle the Monty Python crew.

Eddie giggles like a paedo left alone in a daycare centre with the key to the biscuit tin in his hand.

Hey, deniers, wanna talk about the recent temperature record and the 'pause'?

Eh?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 16 Dec 2015 #permalink

^^^^#9
Hahaha
I reckon the idjits might finally be
starting to get the drift.
On air pollution matters i noticed a comment
to editor in a paper from someone who said a great thing.
If ya can SEE the air, ya know ya got problems!
Unfortunatly cant remember commenters name or i would
credit it.

Congratulations on reaching double figures for comments so early in the month. Long may this successful and stimulating blog continue.

Troll @ #11

Our work has been effective, so much for those 'last nails' in the coffin of the 'global warming religion' such a shame that your lot are running low on nails.

But. I wish it were otherwise and that it really was some elaborate hoax.

Thanks to the efforts of such as Exxon and The Kochs, and all those rogue scientists and media blowhards they turn to (we know who these are) we have lost time which could have been used to slow the onset of severe climate change consequences, consequences already manifest.

Best you lot could do, eh?

Never mind, I'm sure you'll be able to make believe this was a zinger.

Good little lapdog.

Heh, two denialists post and neither has the courage to touch their precious 'pause' with a barge-pole. What's up petals, can't you stomach the fact that you're wrong?

And as Lionel says, the lack of comments here seems to be a direct proxy for your coyness in the fact of galloping warming. Nice try (2 for 2 as it happens) at strawmen and squirrel pointing though.

Numpties.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 16 Dec 2015 #permalink

No, GSW, we don't give a damn about you. So TOGTFO.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 17 Dec 2015 #permalink

Yas know who really amazes me?
The dipshits who reckon the sea level aint
rising.
And the ones that do, but reckon its sediment,
pumped groundwater, tectonic bullshit,
ANYTHING except thermal expansion and
melting ice.
A special catagory of wankers for sure...

#17 - A big 'wir haben es nicht gewusst' being made as we look on. Well, ha, ha.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 17 Dec 2015 #permalink

#19
Senator Canavan is another credulous patsy repeating the very tired and very debunked talking points of the last quarter, and obviously the only place where he can be given space to repeat this dirge has to be The Australian, the newspaper that destroyed its capacity and will for fact checking long ago.

Senator Canavan at first frames science as a 'debate', then later claims it is 'not a democracy', and again that it's a 'debate'...it's the usual logically-deficient garbage that passes for thinking with LNP idiots....Canavan has just coughed up the dumb script from Ted Cruz's recent pantomime inquiry.

#models do not reproduce past ...this is trivially wrong, a simple image search shows Cnavan hasn't checked his script
#satellites show little or no warming over eighteen years.... [using John Christys orphan graph, the one without provenance or peer reviewed content with the sneaky baselining].....and the reasons for the satellite divergence are abundant and well-discussed, Stu. Even you could find them.
#In just the past 18 years we have experienced one-third of the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide since the Industrial Revolution, but temperatures have not increased as expected.....this is the sort of kindergarten 'gotcha' that fooled Judith Curry. While the quantity/time frame is true [and the 'expected' claim exaggerated], it's at root intentionally misleading: the appeal to a big figure avoids the reality that total atmospheric CO2 has increased by 8% [not an implied 33%] overall in the last two decades. Apparently only ACO2 is radiatively active!
#climate sensitivity is overestimated...a claim made with the thinnest of references, including a misrepresentation of the one paper mentioned.

Canavan is too late -- the conga line of fake sceptic idiots and professional liars has already worn out his stupid claims -- and he clearly has not the wit to gather his own material.

You know what is so pathetic about idiots like GSW and Rednose? They try and equate climate science with the number of comments on a blog. In their lame opinions, if the message board at Deltoid is quiet for some period, then that alone is somehow evidence that science supports their denial. They think that appalling non-science blogs like Bishop's Hill, Climate Audit, WUWT, Climate Depot et al. ad nauseum represent the 'bottom line'. In their mindless opinions they ignore the actual research institutes and universities where the research is being done and where there is virtually unanimous agreement that humans are dangerously forcing climate. Neither of these clowns goes anywhere near these research centers; instead they constitute part of an army of ignorants who inhabit the blogosphere.

As Bernard says, their most recent mantra was the alleged 'pause'; now that's been shot to bits, they are left licking their wounds while scrabbling desperately for the next meme on which to deny.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 18 Dec 2015 #permalink

So is stupid here trying to use the words of a politician to promote what it thinks is truth? Why doesn't it take the words of Al Gore, then, if it's going to take a politician's word over a scientist?

Truly, Stupid really doesn't think.

Neil, you know what's so dumb about that "CO2 has increased by a third!" BS is that they're 100% on board the idea that only 0.7% or whatever of the CO2 in the atmosphere is from human activity.

They really don't bother to think, and rely on nobody else thinking either, which is why Stupid gets sucked in so easy.

Don't know why I said Neil, Nick...

(and scrolled up to see if my reassessment of the letters was correct)

#18
Looking into usage of that phrase in German
was both heartbreaking and enlightening as to
the way people treat each other and
and sometimes engage in a sort of
wilful ignorance of reality.
It led to some introspection of what
I may be choosing to ignore in my life,
even as i can " hear the shots in the distance"
so to speak.
Wanted to say thankyou cRR Kampen for that post.

Not terribly bright is our GSW but when it comes to referencing highly scientific, highly credible sources for his opinions, consistency is definitely one of his attributes. And here we have another one.

One sentence into what he links we find this kind of thought-provoking stuff. (Warning: place something soft, e.g. folded towel or similar, on desk to protect forehead)

_ One thing I like to do with treaties is search for words like "legally binding," "penalties," and "deadlines." None of those words are in there.
Because think about it: How do you bind Mother Nature to a certain temperature?_

I guess it's too much to expect the likes of GSW to notice the non-sequitur.

More empathetic people would feel sorry for deniers like GSW and 2Stu stuck on the 'stupid loop' _ idiots exclusively seeking fact-free sources where vapid opinions and simplistic arguments abound which in turn reinforces their ideological positions. Convince the sheep that the scientific establishment can't be trusted, that there's a conspiracy going on and voila! _ the plan is complete; you have a captive mass of followers who are forever stuck on that loop of disinformation, never to get off. In their pathetic, illogical minds alternatives to WTFUWT and JoNova's, such as RealClimate and SkepticalScience are propaganda sites despite, or perhaps because, the fact they link to real scientific papers. As we all know, the science referenced by the IPCC is not to be trusted whereas stuff coming from deniers sites is the Gospel truth. "Gospel" being the operative word.

"Still can’t make this site work from my PC so can’t really contribute."

Thank god for small mercies.

Two things to say here:
_ Please don't fix the PC.
_ "contribute" is the wrong word to use for whatever you've written in the past, and surely for what you intend to write.

For what we were unable to receive, may the lord make us truly thankful...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHNF-s43lRg

I don't know who Senator Markey is, but great worlk!

Check out Curry's "response" - I now realise she's a complete idiot, and a liar.
She states, "The IPCC has no explanation for the increase in ice in Antarctica". No honest scientist would say that, because it is based on a *very* uncertain assumption, and is a false statement.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 19 Dec 2015 #permalink

Bernard J.
Ive just read a comment you
made on a Tamino blog entitled "oh shit "
from 2012, asking for more urgency
in communications from science academies.
An outstanding comment and completely
correct.

#25, It's human psychology in general and it is a pathology. It guarantees people won't learn anything exactly about those subjects that threaten them worst. I chose to not use the infamous German phrase.

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

I don’t know if this will work.

No, it just resulted in garbage.

A happy and safe festive break, everyone.

Let's hope that the planet's snow and ice don't continue their inexorable decline in the coming year...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 25 Dec 2015 #permalink

And to all a good night (and an excellent 2016)

By Eli Rabett (not verified) on 25 Dec 2015 #permalink

Happy Christmas* to Tim and the climate science maintainers in the face of often hostile and puerile odds.

*other religious and/or commercial festivals are available.

Well I hope you all are having a good break. Cough, cold and sore through broke on Christmas morning so I sound like a dog, 'Rough, Rough!'.

But at least I am not under water like the poor souls up north (in Lanc's & York's UK) who are having a very tough time. And by the look of things it ain't over yet.

Good to see you around chek, all the best.

Darn it - those keyboard gremlins again, correction, 'Cough, cold and sore throat ...'.

Thaw on its way to the North Pole now.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 30 Dec 2015 #permalink

Happy 2016 everyone.

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

Not quite yet for some Bernard but thanks. I see good times ahead for Ark and bottled water futures. Ordinary people - not so much.

Lindzen's complete research work is up in smoke because he couldn't identify lunisolar tidal gravitation as the forcing behind Quasi-Biennial Oscillations (QBO) of upper atmospheric winds.

http://contextearth.com/2015/11/21/qbo-model-sensitivity/

Out with the old deniers and in with the new science.

By WebHubTelescop… (not verified) on 31 Dec 2015 #permalink

As yet more nails in the coffin of AGW science turn to rusty dust we are getting a real feel for what is coming and to what this is due as robertscribbler so elegantly puts it.

Are Duff and Rednoise now too confounded and embarrassed to come out from under their rocks? Has BarkingBeetle finally realised that he was backing a loser as real world experience makes a mockery of his peculiar brand of tom-fool arguments?

I wish that the climate was not changing so rapidly and monstrously as it is, we sure are in for a rough ride.

How are people in the North of England going to react when they realise that the government's spokespeople are only offering inadequate platitudes and nothing like the huge changes in policy - environmental, energy and social that are really going to be required.

As homes and properties become uninsurable. Some have already succumbed to that trap will these properties be left to rot? Where will their former inhabitants find shelter - in the vastly overpriced, and under maintained, private rental market with the fat profits going to those in government and their friends (profit streams hidden from oversight by shell corporations and thus also not fully taxed which is ironic because taxes are used to cover some of the rental costs).

Then there is the pollution of water sources and agricultural land (a big rethink on farming practices is required) so safe food and water become premium priced commodities.

Fracking should now be the last thing this UK government should be pushing for. Scrub that - fracking should now be abandoned - we have enough trouble without this spawn of Sauron being continued.

And UCG should be a non starter - especially in the Thames estuary where lies the remains of a WW2 ammunition ship. The SS Richard Montgomery still has enough explosives to re-arrange the geography of the Isle of Sheppey, Isle of Grain and Southend-on-Sea.

Nah, it's the *weather* that has changed, not the *climate*!

We won't know if the climate has changed until it's stopped for 30 years, so lets wait another 30 years and THEN we'll see who's right!

And anyway, it's not us, because God won't let the world flood again, so OBVIOUSLY these floods around the world CANNOT be happening, and it's all a liberal commie pinko nazi illuminato plot to take all our money and or give it away to the poor so that they can continue to live lavish lifestyles and control everyone by taking all the money and/or giving it all to poor people, who, by definition ARE POOR, therefore don't DESERVE money, else god would have GIVEN them money!

The invisible hand should be allowed to give you a right proper fisting if it thinks that is what you deserve!

(Or something like that)

I think this site has now decided to operate from my PC again.
Happy New Year to all.
It's a bit wet and chilly today at my place.

How come you had plenty of time to tell us all about your "PC Woes", which we have FUCK ALL interest in and can do bugger all about, but BBD's query remains 100% unanswered a year later?

Oh, and I take it that the fact that these floods were predicted to happen by the climate scientists as a consequence of AGW will in your own diseased "mind" be proof that AGW is wrong, right?

It doesn't matter what the prediction is or what the facts are, for you denier morons it's all proof AGW is wrong.

Warmer weather? Proof AGW is wrong.
Colder weather? Proof AGW is wrong.
More flooding? Proof AGW is wrong.
Severe drought? Proof AGW is wrong.
More hurricane damage? Proof AGW is wrong.
Food shortages? Proof AGW is wrong.
Refugees fleeing countries collapsing and unable to feed itself? Proof AGW is wrong.
Proof AGW is right? Proof AGW is wrong.

Wow.
You are ranting.
The question was answered...you either didn't understand or didn't like the answer.
Let's move on.
Happy New Year.

Stupid, even if that were true (in fact, that post or yours is a rant), it's irrelevant, and it STILL doesn't answer BBD's question.

"Stu 2

January 3, 2016
I think this site has now decided to operate from my PC again.
"

Really? This site (Scienceblogs) is operating from your PC? How amazing.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 04 Jan 2016 #permalink

ha ha :-)
Very funny Craig.
Also ironic that people wilfully and deliberately misinterpret comments and draw incorrect conclusions while at the same time complain that others are denying and misinterpreting information.
:-)
Happy New Year.

Well, it made as much sense as YOUR post, stupid. Why the fuck would anyone care if it worked or not? Nobody here sabotaged your PC. Nobody here believes that the reason for your (unfortunately temporary) absence was some sort of PC problem. Nobody here CARES.

And it's rather rich you whine and bitch about "denying and misinterpreting information", when that's all you've done (see your claim about the cold wet winter when it's the warmest one on record). It seems like you won't accept being told it, and you won't accept having it illustrated to you.

But, given you have now found this hatred of denying and misinterpreting information, you will no longed do so, right?

Of course you damn well won't: you are a retarded moron.

The year would be happier knowing you had changed your mind, even if that required the cessation of life in you, which appears to be the only method by which your mind will ever change.

Wow.
In my part of the world and according to BoM we had our wettest winter on record in 2015.
You can believe or disbelieve whatever you like.
It makes no difference.

One thing is for sure Stu2: 2015 was by far the warmest year on record globally and humans are the primary culprit. We've crashed through the 1 C barrier and are headed into hitherto unforseen and potentially dangerous territory. The hiatus mob have gone predictably silent as they plan new strategies in their quest to continue denying what by now is patently obvious.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 06 Jan 2016 #permalink

Jeff.

The hiatus mob have gone predictably silent as they plan new strategies in their quest to continue denying what by now is patently obvious.

Well those in the UK who wish to hide the truth are hiding behind the smoke of ISIS and the mirrors of EU membership to keep the obvious out of the headlines. That the political system here is now totally corrupt is manifest in the recent award of a knighthood to an Australian political toady who helped the most regressive (which will in time move to repressive just you watch) administration since the days of the Corn Laws and the Peterloo Massacre.

Government policies have ensured that heavy rainfall in the UK resulted in thousands of swamped properties with buildings and bridges that have stood for centuries succumbed. That Tadcaster bridge collapse was greeted by 'well it was so old it was probably weak....' from somebody close to me. I held my peace only partly because local government funding cuts could have lead to reduced maintenance and been a factor. That so many old structures have succumbed leads to clear conclusions about the rarity of such events.

"In my part of the world and according to BoM we had our wettest winter on record in 2015."

Australia? That would be your SUMMER, you haven't had your WINTER yet. Dumbass.

In mine, we've had the wettest, according to the UKMO.

The USA have also been told they've had one of the wettest too.

Your point? Avoiding answering BBDs question

"You can believe or disbelieve whatever you like.
It makes no difference."

Which is perfect illustration of this stupid deniers' credo: "it doesn't matter what you tell me, it makes NO difference".

Actual skeptics don't decide a priori that there is no way to make a conclusion.

That's why you're deniers, not skeptics.

For those who claim that fossil fuel funding is not behind the campaign of denial of AGW and resultant climate change swallow this The Irony of Tim Jones: Climate Disruption in Missouri and GOP Politics.

The likes of Tim Jones are beneath contempt seeing as they treat those who they are supposed to have represented with contempt. But that is Koch Kreatures for you.

Jeff Harvey

Over at ATTP a certain Alberto Zaragoza Comendador has been making outlandish extinction statements below the article A grand scheme of scientists you may like to take a look.

"Stu 2

January 5, 2016
... ironic that people wilfully and deliberately misinterpret comments and draw incorrect conclusions"

You've certainly put your finger on some classic irony there.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 06 Jan 2016 #permalink

Wow.
We certainly have had our winter 2015. The next winter here will be 2016.

Ypu haven't had this year's winter, retard. And therefore that winter IS THE LATEST WINTER. Ergo the same claim as I made,

YOU just supported my claim, rather than refute it, dunbass.

"In my part of the world and according to BoM we had our wettest winter on record in 2015.”

Can't see what your problem is with this, Wow. Emphasis is on "had" and "2015". Yes, we've definitely had that winter, as well as the 2014 winter...and all the previous years. I don't recall that we missed any.

On this occasion, maybe you should apologize to Stu2. It looks a bit dumb to be insulting someone when you're the one who's wrong.

But on the more substantive point, what are you trying to say, Stu 2? Are you now agreeing that global warming is affecting the weather? If would be good if you were but the realist in me tells you're probably not saying that.

What a coincidence, though. The science predicts more extremes of weather as the planet warms and, lo and behold, the extremes are all arriving in steps with a record hot year. I guess in denier-world it's got nothing to do with physics _ as in more heat, more evaporation, the atmosphere holding more water, therefore more drought in certain places and when all that water falls down again, more flooding. In denier-la-la-land they're just chance, random events.

"Can’t see what your problem is with this, Wow. "

Look who it is from, JP.

If you don't see the problem, please don't bother telling anyone what you DO see. Because you only bother to "see" what you would like to see there.

"Wow.
We certainly have had our winter 2015"

You definitely had a winter in 1956, you know. It happened because the southern pole was tilted toward the Sun at that period in the orbit, and happens because the axis of rotation of the Earth is around 23 degrees from perpendicular from the orbital plane of the earth around the parent star we call "The Sun", a yellow dwarf G type star nearly 5 billion years old.

"But on the more substantive point, what are you trying to say, Stu 2?"

JP, THIS is what the problem is.

The fucking moron doesn't make any substantive points. YOU are meant to do all the work of working out what he "might" have meant, then rebut that only to be told you're "strawmanning" him and you're wrong.

It's also why your whine to me is pure bullshit.

Here is a thought provoking article on some, and to some unexpected, hazards from a melting cryosphere including permafrost: Bugs in the ice sheets: Melting glaciers liberate ancient bacteria.

The Andromeda Strain on top of the Day After Tomorrow with a touch of Tremours thrown in. What is not to like about the future? If you are a budding apocalyptic survivor that is.

In my part of the world and according to BoM we had our wettest winter on record in 2015.

You know what they say about trust but verify: Rainfall during winter was 16% below the long-term mean for Australia as a whole. Rainfall was lower than average for the season in most of Victoria and southeastern South Australia, much of Tasmania, southwest Western Australia, and along the east coast of central New South Wales to southeast Queensland. Much of northern Australia is seasonally dry at this time of year—this meant very small negative anomalies resulted in a drier-than-average season for parts of northern Queensland and much of the north of Western Australia.

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/season/aus/archive/201508.summary…

By turboblocke (not verified) on 07 Jan 2016 #permalink

I'm amused by the comments.
Averaging over large continents and/or globally is just averaging.
The weather isn't like that especially when talking about precipitation.
There was nothing extreme about our winter that we HAD in 2015. The only extreme was it was an extremely good season for agricultural production here.
What all your hand waving does not reveal is that it's not just about how much precipitation we have in a calendar year but also about when we have it.
Any farmer can explain that it's possible to harvest a bumper crop in a below average rainfall year and vice versa and variations ad nauseum.
Ironically, BoM reports 2012 as 30% wetter than average but because it all happened in late Summer/early Autumn, the harvest was below average.

Turboblocke. It was one of our wettest winters on record in my part of the world. BoM even said so in several media releases.
Typically for Australia, that was not the case everywhere.

"Averaging over large continents and/or globally is just averaging."

And averaging is not just averaging.

"The weather isn’t like that especially when talking about precipitation."

Yes it is, especially when talking about precipitation.

And if you don't like to talk about how wet it is, don't talk about how wet it is. Nobody forced you, retard.

Wow.
I think you could benefit from taking a deep breath or 2 & then relax.

Stu 2 at #70: so what was the point of your claim?

By Turboblocke (not verified) on 08 Jan 2016 #permalink

In my part of the world and according to BoM we had our wettest winter on record in 2015.

So what?

By chris O'Neill (not verified) on 08 Jan 2016 #permalink

Fuck, what was the little retard's point of its post #72?

But one thing is for sure, this fuckwitted moron isn't going to say anything substantive. EVER.

2015 is also the 5th hottest in Australia according to BoM.
Turboblocke, the point is that there is lots and lots of information and data but it's not particularly transparent or useful.
The climate and the weather are not particularly interested in conforming to human invented calendar years or averaged global trends.
In our part of the world we had a good season because the rains came at the right time for ag production.
In other areas that was not the case.
Waving around averaged yearly figures does not capture what really matters.

"...we had our wettest winter on record in 2015."

"There was nothing extreme about our winter that we HAD in 2015."

My understanding of language is that when you have an adjective ending in "est" it usually means an extreme in one direction or the other.

"there is lots and lots of information and data but it’s not particularly transparent or useful."

Damn data. Not very useful...or compliant. Can't teach it to do what you want _ why does it have to go up when we want a pause?

"The climate and the weather are not particularly interested in conforming to human invented calendar years or averaged global trends."

Meaning? Relevance?
Years are useful for us to keep track of time but climate and weather are going to do their thing regardless of how long that year is and guess what? The trend would look the same whether it was 150 years of data or one year lasting 54,750 days...and it's still going up...at a rate unseen for X hundred thousand years. Can't remember the figure _ somebody can look it up.

We were all hoping that might improve your "contributions" starting 2016 but it's not looking good, Stu2.

@77.
No.
An extreme weather event would be a flood in this instance.
We had one of those in 2012.
A wetter or a wettest winter is just a seasonal precipitation figure.
We didn't flood and the area had excellent yields.

"My understanding of language is that when you have an adjective ending in “est” it usually means an extreme in one direction or the other."

And does your understanding now encompass what the problem is with stupid's posts?

The moron wants to remain relevant.

Nothing else.

He never answered BBD's question (just kept insisting that his response (which was a nonsequitur) was an answer).

And he sure as hell won't answer yours.

Wow.
Please read comment #72

Stupid, read #75.

Stu 2

January 9, 2016
@77.
No.
An extreme weather event would be a flood in this instance.
We had one of those in 2012.
A wetter or a wettest winter is just a seasonal precipitation figure.

Funnily enough, the professional body charged with recording the relevant data calls them "extremes":

If your area was "wettest", then BoM calls that an "extreme" and records it as such:
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/extremes/extreme_graphs_annual.cg…

The thing deniers haven't seemed to grasp about language is that it doesn't mean whatever they feel like they want it to mean, when maths, science and/or statistics is concerned, it has an agreed meaning.
In this case, the word "extreme" has an agreed meaning which is *not* compatible with Stu2's witterings here.

And wow, stfu. You're being an idiot.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 10 Jan 2016 #permalink

Don't mention BoM.
BoM is not Halal is denier circles. If those guys can manipulate the data the way they do, they won't have any qualms about manipulating the language.

"If those guys can manipulate the data...". Referring to BoM, that is. Deniers don't manipulate data because they don't have any to manipulate. But they sure love to cherry-pick other people's data.

"A paper, written by a team of geographers from the University of British Columbia, analyzed the effects that extreme temperatures, floods, and droughts have had on the last five decades of crop harvests. What they found was that both droughts and heat waves had a marked impact on a country’s crop production, cutting into cereal crops like wheat, rice, and maize by 10 percent and 9 percent respectively."

But...but..., CO2 is plant food. Therefore, more food for the plants = better crop yields. End of story.

Another scare-mongering, fraudulent so-called scientific paper. Friends of Mike Mann no doubt.

From: "our wettest WINTER" and
"nothing extreme about our WINTER "

to: "An extreme weather EVENT would be..."

Nice little rhetorical sleight of hand, Stu2. Unfortunately, you guys do this kind of stuff too often and we've learnt to look out for them.

"A wetter or a wettest winter is just a seasonal precipitation figure.
We didn’t flood and the area had excellent yields."

What can I say, Stu2. You're absolutely correct.
And a record hot year is just a temperature reading on a thermometer. And if we have good yields in our neck of the woods it doesn't matter what happens anywhere else because we can build a great big fence to keep out the hordes of refugees and even build a big roof to keep out global warming.

"And wow, stfu. You’re being an idiot."

Die in a fire you shitforbrains faggot. I'll talk when I want, this isn't your private domain, no matter how much your pestilent and overinflated ego wants it to be.

Did I EVER tell you to shut the fuck up, dickmouth?

"Deniers don’t manipulate data because they don’t have any to manipulate."

Wrong.

Case in point: UAHv6.

Looks like Stu 2 is getting it after all.
'Hiatus' = 'only records'...

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 11 Jan 2016 #permalink

Wow, you thoroughly embarrassed yourself with your incomprehension of when the Southern Hemisphere winter occurs.
You've now doubled-down on your stupidity, like a petulant child, and are appearing even more of an idiot with each subsequent post.
Just fuck off, you're boring.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 11 Jan 2016 #permalink

Daily Fail demonstrates once again everything that is wrong with "science" reporting in the mass media:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3394071/Icebergs-help-su…

"a previously unknown effect", "surprise findings", "revelation", "The finding is at odds with previous research"...
and yet...

"Satellite imagery shows how icebergs affect Antarctica's food chain", Schwarz, 2002.
"Icebergs boost phytoplankton growth in the Southern Ocean", Schwarz & Schodlok, 2008.
"Impact of drifting icebergs on surface phytoplankton biomass in the Southern Ocean: Ocean colour remote sensing and in situ iceberg tracking", Schwarz & Schodlok, 2009.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 11 Jan 2016 #permalink

Craig, no I didn't embarrass myself. I know when the southern hemisphere winter occurs. That is why it hasn't had its 2015 winter yet like we have.

Are you congenitally stupid, or are you just desperate?

"Just fuck off, you’re boring."

Piss off you mindless bigot.

The wow-clown says,
" I know when the southern hemisphere winter occurs. That is why it hasn’t had its 2015 winter yet like we have."

The Australian Bureau of Meteorology says,
"Winter 2015 temperatures for Australia as a whole were actually above the long-term average, "
"much of Australia saw a dry winter with above-average temperatures"
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/

But what would they know, eh?

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 11 Jan 2016 #permalink

And notice the BoM's data makes Stu2's claim,
"according to BoM we had our wettest winter on record in 2015"
somewhat suspicious:
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/awap/rain/index.jsp?colour=colour&time=latest…

As you can see, QLD, TAS, Perth and Adelaide had very low rainfall throughout the year, with the rest of the inhabited parts of the country mostly getting average.

Unless he lives in Muswelbrook, Inverell or Broken Hill, his claim is probably bullshit anyway.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 11 Jan 2016 #permalink

BOOORING!

Look, just because I won't let you blame AGW on the third world for having lots of babies, doesn't mean you get to be a twat.

So fuck off you retarded little bigot.

#62 Wow
January 7, 2016

Ypu haven’t had this year’s winter, retard. And therefore that winter IS THE LATEST WINTER. Ergo the same claim as I made,

---

In Australia, this year's winter will be in 2016. All Stupid is doing is pretending that somehow his old information changes the facts of this year's northern hemisphere winter.

Because Stupid is dumb as fuck.

Chuck here wants to blame the nig-nogs for dropping sprogs so that if they stop banging, he doesn't have to change to stop AGW, and I won't let him, so of course he's going to help Stupid conflate things.

Have any of you seen the creature we have on the hook over at Climate Denial Crock of the Week under:

Will Climate Denial be as Persistent as Racism? ?

When we slip the line, soon, he will tangle himself up as he has spun out so much of it.

The entertainment value of this goon is priceless.

Message to self, don't ever pretend to know everything like that example of D-K with knobs on there!

I see Climate Alarmism's getting a bit of a pasting at the moment. Someone's been taking a pop at Loonie Lew in the Sydney Morning Herald,

"Distorted universities need a reality check"

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/distorted-universities-need-a-reality-che…

"My favourite example, which encapsulates all of the above, was provided by Dr Lee Jussim, a professor of social psychology at Rutgers University in the US. He dissected a paper published by a respected journal, Psychological Science, in 2013, and found that it was rubbish....The paper was entitled 'NASA faked the moon landing – therefore (climate) science is a hoax'"

"The social psychologist[they mean Lew]s who conducted the study had disguised the data and smothered it under a layer of obfuscation. No peer reviewer or journal editor took the time to check the raw data. Instead, the paper was published because it buttressed a pervasive ideological bias in the field."
;)

"Climate Alarmism"

Yeah, don't tell someone that they're going to fast and are going to crash until AFTER they've lost control. That's EXACTLY the time to tell them that they need to slow down!

I take it you don't use alarms or anything, because they're all just there doing their "not getting to work alarmism" on you.

Also,

"Paleoclimate + genetic study confirms: Arctic species adapted to sea ice changes"
http://polarbearscience.com/2016/01/09/paleoclimate-genetic-study-confi…

"A new paper that combines paleoclimatology data for the last 56 million years with molecular genetic evidence concludes there were no biological extinctions over the last 1.5M years despite profound Arctic sea ice changes that included ice-free summers: polar bears, seals, walrus and other species successfully adapted to habitat changes that exceeded those predicted by USGS and US Fish and Wildlife polar bear biologists over the next 100 years."

Ah, so even the polar bears are going to be OK. Nice ;)

Previously from the same author,

"New genetic study confirms polar bears survived several warm Interglacials"
http://polarbearscience.com/2014/03/17/new-genetic-study-confirms-polar…

“It seems logical that if polar bears survived previous warm, ice-free periods, they could survive another. This is of course speculation, but so is predicting they will not survive, as the proponents of the endangered species act listing of polar bears have done.”

Deltoid [believe anything] halfwits take note.
;)

Also,

"At Anti-UN Climate Summit, Scientist Slams Alarmist “Religion”
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/22232-at-anti-un-cl…

"“The choice between the two is quite simple,” Dr. Markó said. “I would rather give my money to help people come out of poverty and live by modern standards than to throw the money to people who do nothing to solve a problem which does not exist.”"

Professor István E. Markó
https://www.uclouvain.be/en-204399.html

Oh no, even Ocean Acidification is hyped,

"The Fishy ‘Science’ of Ocean Acidification"
http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2016/01/fishy-science-ocean-acidific…

"Unfortunately, I can’t provide this information to you because it doesn’t exist. As I said in my last email, currently there are NO areas of the world that are severely degraded because of OA or even areas that we know are definitely affected by OA right now. If you want to use this type of language, you could write about the CO2 vent sites in Italy or Polynesia as examples of things to come. Sorry that I can’t be more helpful on this!"

So no evidence of OA either. Makes you wonder what all the fuss is about?

Cheers halfwits.
;)

Lionel, I wonder if that moron thinks that a Bull Market is only when the Stock Exchange sells bulls...?

So a new paper has it right when before the new paper (that says something you don't want to accept) wasn't.

How do you know that it's right this time?

GSW #7 You do realise that just like with global warming, the big, unequivocal problems caused by OA are yet to come. Nothing quoted from the scientists suggests otherwise.

By turboblocke (not verified) on 12 Jan 2016 #permalink

Remember, to retards like Gary Gitter here, you only are in danger of a crash when your car has already crumpled in a heap and your face is in the steering wheel. Doing anything like saying "LOOK OUT!" is "alarmism" and requires hitting the accelerator and steering into the way of the truck. So as to teach all those passengers a lesson in who is the boss.

GSW:

““The choice between the two is quite simple,” Dr. Markó said. “I would rather give my money to help people come out of poverty and live by modern standards than to throw the money to people who do nothing to solve a problem which does not exist.””

Professor István E. Markó
https://www.uclouvain.be/en-204399.html

So GSW continues to take advice from anybody *but* any scientist producing research on the issue of climate change - in this case from a bloke who works in the pharmaceutical industry.

Also note, GSW's current favourite non-expert on climate change has in the past had an affiliation with Sheffield University.
!Alarum Bells!

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 12 Jan 2016 #permalink

GSW shows his usual ignorance of science. He makes a big thing out of a paper which claims no extinctions in the past 1.5 million years in the Arctic and then concludes that polar bears are OK. The only problem with this is that polar bears haven't been around for 1.5 million years, they evolved only 200 to 300,0000 years ago.

Where does this dishonest information come from, not a scholarly journal as the link might show but from a blog from well known AGW denier Susan Crockford.

See here for her claim to fame as a denier:

http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-payments-university-victoria-profes…

Note that in the paper Crockford quoted there is a broad range estimated for the divergence between brown bears and polar bears. The fossil record is the best, molecular methods appear to be problematic.

https://darwinevolved.wordpress.com/2011/06/14/polar-bear-evolution-evo…

By Ian Forrester (not verified) on 12 Jan 2016 #permalink

It's also irrelevant, Ian. I haven't died yet, even in the past 1.5 million years, so I'm immortal????

Aha! Green selenium cheese no doubt laced with Cavorite terminals.

I see gormless is into Susan Crockford again - the pseudo shill on the Heartland payroll with 17 papers in her academic career and none on Polar Bears. I am actually writing a paper now showing how the denier blogs act as an echo chamber for blogs claiming to examine the science but which are operated by unqualified hacks - like Crockford.

What the study she hypes doesn't show are the time scales involved in previous Arctic meltdowns - which sure didn't happen in 50 years or less. They were gradual events that took thousands of years - but since GSW has no scientific acumen whatsoever its easy to see why such a relevant tidbit would sail over his puny right wing little head. He actually thinks he knows something, when his entire worldview is a combination of a far right ideology combined with obtaining all of his information from climate denial blogs. A pathetic mix.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 13 Jan 2016 #permalink

Just went through the two crappy Cronin et al. papers hyped by GSW from Crockford. Both are in very mediocre journals; not surprising since they would have been bounced from better ones after peer review. Moreover, as I said above, other polar bear experts argue that previous warming episodes occurred over much longer time scales than the current one. There's no comparison. Lastly, as expected, Crockford slyly only partially quotes the abstract of the new one in Arktos. Even an old codger like Cronin tries to be cautious:

"Climate-driven biological impacts included large changes in species diversity, primary productivity, species’ geographic range shifts into and out of the Arctic, community restructuring, and possible hybridization, but evidence is not sufficient to determine whether or when major episodes of extinction occurred".

Read the last sentence: "BUT EVIDENCE IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR WHEN MAJOR EPISODES OF EXTINCTION OCCURRED" (emphasis mine).

End of story. The authors don't know what effects warming had on Arctic quadrupeds. Crockford is being willfully dishonest, and GSW brazenly stupid by not bothering to read the paper. Can they sink any lower?

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 13 Jan 2016 #permalink

"...and GSW brazenly stupid by not bothering to read the paper. Can they sink any lower?"

The question is "can GSW rise from the abysmal depths?" when his four posts above are like concrete shoes for his credibility.

The man's an idjit.

One final nail in GSWs coffin and we move on.

Note how Cronin and others don't deny that its warming in their papers? It seems that AGW deniers are all over the place. WUWT has a guest post by shill queen Crockford claiming that Arctic biota are well adapted to massive temporal and spatial discrepancies in the extent of Arctic ice, which must acknowledge that the ice is disappearing. But wait - doesn't WUWT claim that it isn't warming at all? That the Arctic ice is intact? So why now admit that it just may be warming or accepting that the Arctic ice is disappearing? Why the sudden shift from it ain't happening to it is but everything will be OK?

This is the way the denial-o-sphere works, folks. They have multiple agendas. It isn't warming, but it is warming, there are no symptoms yet there are, its not anthropogenic etc. etc. etc. In the end, they just want to try and put a positive spin on it, while lying left, right and center.

A wretched bunch they indeed are.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 14 Jan 2016 #permalink

@Jeff #18

" through the two crappy Cronin et al. papers "..."an old codger like Cronin"

I've no idea what problem you have with this guy jeff, looks perfectly respectable to me,

Research Professor of Animal Genetics, UAF.
https://www.uaf.edu/snre/faculty/cronin/
PhD from yale..Current research programs: Population genetics of wildlife species including polar bears, brown bears, wolves, bison, and marine mammals. Scanning his bio he''s published in the Journal of Heredity (www.theaga.org), letters in Nature etc.

Why do you feel the need to rubbish him? His quote above,

"“It seems logical that if polar bears survived previous warm, ice-free periods, they could survive another. This is of course speculation, but so is predicting they will not survive, as the proponents of the endangered species act listing of polar bears have done.”

Seems perfectly reasonable. He's the one that did the work on this, live with it!
:)

"I’ve no idea what problem you have with this guy jeff, "

It's his work being of poor quality, Gitter. Something you have no problem with at all, because you have no desire for accuracy or truth.

GSW,

Cronin's publication record is weak and he doesn't get cited much. I lokked him up on the WoS and he's not a major researcher in the field. His Polar Bear studiues also end up in pretty low journals, which begs the question why? The answer is obvious, or should be. They aren't up to par. But I don't rubbish him so much as I rubbish Crockford. She's abominable in every sense of the word. And is a truly mediocre scientist. Fourteen papers in her career. Below benthic.

And he's not a climate change denier anyway; he is only out of sync when he makes stupid remarks about bears surviving previous warm periods. As soonas i read these kinds of words, I need to see caveats that he does not provide. His conclusions have also been heavily criticized by colleagues on the basis that he does not take into account rates of change. I explained that earlier but it bounces off your head like water off a duck's back. The current rate of warming and effects on the Arctic are probably unprecedented in many thousands of years. At the same time, humans are inducing all kinds of other stresses on nature - other forms of habitat loss and destruction, changes in the chemical environment etc. All bears, being at the terminal end of the food chain, are probably vast stores of chemical toxins. The effects of this when synergized with climate change and other stresses must also be taken into account. Thousands of years ago bears did not contain large concentratons of DDT etc. in their bodies. This is just something else to consider.

And of course, the fate of the polar bear in reponse to climate warming is just one example of a deleterious effect of climate chanage on nature. The empirical literature is full of studies showing other negative effects on other biological, reproductive and demographic parameters of a range of taxa.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 14 Jan 2016 #permalink

One final point about the vile dishonesty of people like Susan Crockford and the idiots like GSW who sup[port them. The Cronin paper represents one perspective on the relationship between climate change, Arctic ice loss and Polar Bear demographics. It is not the 'bottom line'. I've collected over 80 scientific papers which draw very different conclusions than those Crockford spews out on WUWT, based on Cronin's papers.

Here is the way that climate change deniers think. There may be 250 papers showing a trend in a certain direction that that the deniers don't like. The papers are often in the very best, most rigid journals. Deniers will ignore these studies, or else try and impugn the motives of the scientists who did them. Then a single paper will be published somewhere - anywhere - that downplays warming and its effects. Suddenly this paper goes viral over the denialosphere, and attmepts are made to make this single study the absolute truth. The other 250 studies drawing very different conclusions are therefore considered to be wrong.

GSW is just one of many deniers who do this. He's never read a single other paper on Polar Bears in Ecology, Ecology Letters or other top journals, because they represent studies with very different conclusions than his pre-determined views. He stumbles over the Cronin stuff because his world of science is represented in blogs like WUWT, Bishop's Hill, Nova's site, Climate Depot et al. They are a veritable echo chamber of denier science and endlessly cycle mediocre studies. That's where he finds these papers.

He's less than half-witted.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 14 Jan 2016 #permalink

Jeff, it appears as if polar bears had an accelerated evolutionary rate after separating from brown bears. That could explain why Cronin's figure of 1.2 million years of separation differs greatly from more traditional methods such as morphology and fossils which seem to indicate roughly 200,000 years of separation.

http://gbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/6/2/433.full

Looks like Crockford is using typical AGW denier tactics of choosing an outlier paper which supports her denial without looking into why it is an outlier.

By Ian Forrester (not verified) on 14 Jan 2016 #permalink

Jeff those Cronin papers are of interest for Thomas M Cronin is the respected author of Paleoclimates: Understanding Climate Change Past and Present which is well rated.

The other Cronin I am not sure about, I have just downloaded Cronin junior's latest 2015/2016 paper from Springer, do you have info on the other as the links via Crockford's crock (she has one hell of a Bogroll) go into the weeds.

@Ian #25

200,000 yrs ago still encompasses the last interglacial (~125,000 ago) when temperatures were warmer than today and the Arctic is thought to be Ice free in the summer.

Cronin's statement still stands,

“It seems logical that if polar bears survived previous warm, ice-free periods, they could survive another. This is of course speculation, but so is predicting they will not survive, as the proponents of the endangered species act listing of polar bears have done.”

So where's the beef? The statement's good, it's not an unreasonable point of view(?).

Rubbishing the guy, as Jeff has disgracefully attempted, then a pathetic save, "Thousands of years ago bears did not contain large concentratons of DDT"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqyixwqiCag

- it's not going to get dafter than that.

Enjoy ideological cretins.
;)

This is of course speculation...

Which of course it is. Those who trumpet this type of study are just ignorant of the physiology of the polar bear compared to that of the other NA species.

One study that Crockford links to has this caption beneath an image of polar bears:

Polar bears are genetically a very homogeneous species, with no evidence of brown bear genes in the population.

Now consider what the means re-adaptation to a changing climate, polar bears in isolation are unlikely to revert to the NA brown or grizzly bears because their specialised diet will fail them. Cronin senior maybe going outside his area of expertise here and Cronin junior lacks biological breadth.

You GSW, need to study the books of Richard Dawkins, particularly 'The Blind Watchmaker' to understand the situation, 'The Ancestors Tale' will be another essential read for there you will learn how DNA can be use to provide a chronological map of evolution. I figure this is where Cronin may be at fault, but certainly Crockford is twisting the truth.

@Lionel

The "This is of course speculation…" has been in the quote from the start, no big deal. Polar bears are still with us, past interglacials have been warmer/ice free in the summer, so what's new?

Anyway you answer, what makes it acceptable to rubbish the guy for saying this as educationally challenged /(I'm a tree-hugger masquerading as a scientist) jeff has done? are you going to add your voice to this? his bio again,

https://www.uaf.edu/snre/faculty/cronin/

Looks like a good guy to me. Are you going to stand with Jeff in this "Cronin’s publication record is weak", " They aren’t up to par", " I don’t rubbish him so much as I rubbish Crockford" , "he is only out of sync when he makes stupid remarks about bears surviving previous warm periods" (which obviously did, even if you use Ian's last 200,000 yrs figure).

So where are you on this Lionel? Jeff-a-nory land, or stuff that actually makes sense?

"200,000 yrs ago still encompasses the last interglacial "

Where the changes were very gradual and there weren't people living with lots of guns in the area.

So then the polar bears could "adapt" by moving onto land and eating the animals they could catch on land.

Humans don't like being bear food. They'll kill bears rather than feed them

This is not good for the polar bears.

"Looks like a good guy to me. "

So what?

His publication record is weak. Doesn't matter how nice you think he might be (and why do you?).

GSW, people like you are repellent. Most importantly, my education, especially in the relevant fields, is light years ahead of yours. Academically you don't come up to my shoelaces. Beware making outrageous statements while wallowing in your own ignorance. Your understanding of science is around that of a kindergarten student. My credentials are rock solid and established; you haven't got any. Just some inherent right wing ideology combined with spew you glean from blogs. You don't read much of the primary literature. Its my job to do so. As for Cronin, as said his publication record is weak and his work is poorly cited. Moreover, there are many experts on bears who have far better credentials who disagree with him. As I said earlier, out of sheer willful ignorance and bias you completely ignore these other scientists and write as if Cronin has the final say. He doesn't. He's an outlier. Moreover, Crockford shows her true colors when she writes a pathetic piece on WUWT in which she claims on the basis of a single paper that the Arctic biota is thriving - when even Cronin et al. admitted they had no way of estimating extinction rates over the last several hundred thousand years.

Cronin's arguments are nonsense because he ignores the rate of warming. A number of bear experts made this point when he spoke about his 2014 study. They rightfully said that what happened thousands of years ago his no relevance whatsoever to what is happening now. Previous warm episodes elapsed over thousands of years. The current warming far exceeds any past warming by hundreds of times at the very least. And, as I said, bears are exposed to multiple stressors now that did not exist previously. We know that they store vast amounts of pesticides in their metabolisms; a consequence of being at the end of the food chain in a world that humans have doused in chemicals. This certainly challenges the bears to cope with rapidly depleting summer ice. There's enough studies out there showing Polar Bear populations skewed towards older animals, reduced per capita fitness and very low recruitment. They are in trouble, as almost every one working with them is well aware. Deniers are looking under every rock in order to find anyone who will say what they want to hear. When they do find someone, that person is given a megaphone in the echo chamber.

Lastly, Cronin's argument is akin to gambling; a throw of the dice. He implies that things might be OK (or indeed they might not) but let's see how it all turns out. Stay the course. Let's keep burning those fossil fuels, watch the ice melt away and see what happens. Given the deleterious effects warming is having on many ecosystems and their biota that is already very well documented, its insanity.

As for you, what else can I say? You are an intellectual lightweight. Given your supine worshipping of Jonas over in his now defunct thread, its not really surprising. The problem is, in true Dunning-Kruger fashion, you actually think you know what you are talking about. That you understand ecophysiology and complex adaptive systems.

You haven't got a clue.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 14 Jan 2016 #permalink

To underline GSWs brazen ignorance, a number of studies have shown high concentrations of chemicals in the bodies of Polar Bears. They are having all kinds of potentially deleterious effects on survival and reproduction. Here's just one:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969702003030

And yet GSW didn't even know what I meant when I brought this topic up earlier; his sole response was to put up a stupid Youtube clip he thought was funny. Yes folks, this is the intellectual depth of a climate change denier.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 14 Jan 2016 #permalink

"GSW says,
Cronin’s statement still stands,

“It seems logical that if polar bears survived previous warm, ice-free periods, they could survive another. ""

Gosh, I once survived a car crash, therefore it seems logical that I could survive another, therefore I shouldn't make any effort to avoid it.

Fucking morons, the lot of them.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 14 Jan 2016 #permalink

University of Wollongong attracts the attention of the global science community:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2016/01/14/thats-not-a-thesis-its-a-…

http://sciblogs.co.nz/diplomaticimmunity/2016/01/14/a-phd-by-stealth-bs…

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2016/01/13/the-university-of-wollongo…

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2016/01/14/brian-martin-and-judy-wily…

If the University of Wollongong don't see this as a crisis that needs to be urgently addressed, they are going to have some serious trouble.....

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 14 Jan 2016 #permalink

" the last interglacial (~125,000 ago) when temperatures were warmer than today"

Proof plz.

Crazy climate revisionism... The hotter it gets now, the hotter it was some random time ago.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 15 Jan 2016 #permalink

So where are you on this Lionel? Jeff-a-nory land, or stuff that actually makes sense?

That you have to ask that question GSW further demonstrates how poor your reading comprehension is. Firstly I expressed my intention to only pass full judgement on Cronin and Cronin (you do realise that there are two here) WRT this 2015 paper once I had a chance to read both papers linked to, well sort of in the case of the earlier one.

However it is clear that Cronin and Cronin 2015 does not come to any specific prognosis for the future of polar bears under conditions of a climate warming more than since the Pliocene and faster at that. Carefully reading of the Abstract alone will demonstrate that.

My beef is with the spin Crockford puts on ANY polar bear story - after all that is the sole topic of her bog. If Crockford came up with analysis of how the Arctic warming with resultant early break up of winter ice effects the population of the polar bear then she would hold more credence — but she does not.

It is now well recognised that polar bear population distribution is shifting away from younger populations as mother bears fail to be able to nurture a full litter of cubs and indeed the adults have to resort to cannibalism to survive, this also can happen when a mother and cubs run into solitary males. The increased distances between ice floes also increases mortality as the cubs and adults in their weakened state cannot negotiate the distances without dying from exposure from lack of nourishment.

Also polar bears are known to have taken to eating the eggs of geese, e.g. the Lesser Snow Geese. An adult bear will need to consume the contents of 40 nests to compensate (compensation has a specific meaning WRT food webs) for one lost day of ringed seal hunting.

The effect on the populations of the Lesser Snow Goose could be severe, this is what happens when a keystone species (another important term) is put under ecological stress.

Cronin senior is well respected in Palaeoclimatological circles for that area of study. Population dynamics under climate change not so much. As has been shown this 2015 paper has little to add about that. Crockford is wrong to use it as a hook for climate nuttery.

Refer to Driven to Extinction: The Impact of Climate Change on Biodiversity by R. Pearson pages 90-91, 147-151.

Also The Diversity of Life by E. O. Wilson pages 154-158, 168, 295, 332.

but do try to read each book in its entirety for only then will you grasp the overall true picture.

@Lionel

Thanks, I'm going to take it your #38 "well respected" means you're distancing yourself from jeff's abusive 'rubbishing' of Cronin.

As for your links, his quote again,

““It seems logical that if polar bears survived previous warm, ice-free periods, they could survive another. This is of course speculation, but so is predicting they will not survive, as the proponents of the endangered species act listing of polar bears have done.”

Cronin accepts that others disagree with him, his assessment is a little more level headed. I mean look at whats been proferred up - polar bears evolving in to non polar bears and jeffs DDT crisis as "climate change". It's all a bit of reach, polar bears seem more than capable of surviving ice free summers and that's all he ever intended.

"from jeff’s abusive ‘rubbishing’ of Cronin. "

Which "abuse" only exists in your own mind, retard.

PS Humans have guns and will insist the government kills any polar bear adapting to the lack of winter ice by moving home.

Thanks, I’m going to take it your #38 “well respected” means you’re distancing yourself from jeff’s abusive ‘rubbishing’ of Cronin.

Well GSW you turd, do not make things up. I have explained my position quite clearly.

That quote you have included is untrustworthy and likely taken out of context, note it is supposedly from a press release, as I have been unable to examine the paper concerned as none of the cited sources at Crockford turn up a link to the paper.

You may like to examine this paper from early 2014 Population Genomics Reveal Recent Speciation and Rapid Evolutionary Adaptation in Polar Bears which says this:

Polar bears are uniquely adapted to life in the High Arctic and have undergone drastic physiological changes in response to Arctic climates and a hyperlipid diet of primarily marine mammal prey. We analyzed 89 complete genomes of polar bear and brown bear using population genomic modeling and show that the species diverged only 479–343 thousand years BP. We find that genes on the polar bear lineage have been under stronger positive selection than in brown bears;...

Now just consider the ramifications of the above for the well-being of polar bears as the Arctic continues to warm and lose ice at unprecedented rates during the period of their existence as a species.

If you cannot, then you have no business opining on this. Stop being such an ignorant twerp.

"polar bears seem more than capable of surviving ice free summers" - except they probably never experienced one.

Given the acutely graying demography of Nanuk today, they may not even have experienced years with as little ice as past decade.
So 'it seems' that the end of Arctic sea ice is indeed the end of Nanuk.

Hastened thru the point Wow makes - 'first we make them refugees, then we shoot the refugees'.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 15 Jan 2016 #permalink

That "untrustworthy quote" came from his university's press release,

http://news.uaf.edu/bear-species-genetic-relationships-determined/

I struggling to see how it's been taken out of context(?), if you think it has, take it up with UAF.

As for your quote, what am I supposed to take issue with? The fact polar bears are adapted to life in arctic? genes have been under stronger positive selection in polar bears than brown bears? I'd pretty much taken those as read.

Your last bit, "the ramifiications...well-being polar bears". Cronin is Research Professor of Animal Genetics:
Population genetics of wildlife species including polar bears, brown bears, wolves, bison, and marine mammals.

I'd say it was pretty much his job to "consider" these things, from more informed position you, and he thinks they're going to make it. Seriously, whats the problem? I can't see why you are struggling with this.

Oje point I want to make clear: I never rubbished Cronin. I said he's an outlier, and that his views on Polar Bears fall outside of the mainstream. There are many more qualified bear researchers who disagree with him yet laypeople like GSW ignore them, proof that he harbors an agenda. Cronin is also disingenuous in suggesting that because Polar Bears have survived past warming events they are OK thus time around. As I said, past warming events were gradual and elapsed over millennia. Humans are driving these same changes in decades, which underpins the scale of the problem.

As for DDT, my point still sails right over (or through) GSWs little head. Metabolic storage of chemical pesticides is harmful to bears and almost certainly confers costs on reproduction, survival and fitness. These costs make their ability to respond to rapid warming and other anthropogenic stresses that much more difficult. Changes in the chemical environment are indeed a major factor reducing the adaptive responses of many higher trophic level organisms to other environmental problems. Rapid climate warming will act in concert with these other stresses in condemning many species to extinction.

GSW exasperates me in his willful ignorance. He wallows in it. I certainly have better things to do than to repeatedly debunk his wafer-thin arguments.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 15 Jan 2016 #permalink

You did rubbish him jeff; his "crappy papers", he's an "old codger", "his [papers] aren’t up to par", as well as rubbishing the American Genetics Association's Journal of Heredity that he publishes in. When you find a view you don't agree with your rubbishing paints with a wide brush.

We've done the "stressors" thing before jeff, you've got it wrong every time.

Bees - climate change, only the literature says it not- so jeff falls back on the last refuge of the environmental ideolog- its a "stressor".

Frogs - climate change, only the literature says it not- so jeff falls back on the last refuge of the environmental ideolog - its a "stressor".

And now polars bears and DDT's a "stressor", in jeff speak that means it will have no quantifiable effect whatsoever, but you'll say its important anyway.

Cronin's a good guy, whereas you're more charlatan than academic.
;)

Good show GSW, and poor Jeff, naturally, starts inventing his own reality. Isn't it funny that "climate deniers" only exists in Jeff's own lobal world of conspiracies? Like the psychiatrist concluded in Fawlty Towers: "There is enough for an entire conference". Call on Lew!

And as always nothing is said about what's wrong with Cronin's paper. :-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 15 Jan 2016 #permalink

"I struggling to see how it’s been taken out of context(?)"

This surprises nobody.

However, jeff has explained the problem with it: it doesn't say what that moron you have your face buried ass-crack deep in claims. Got anything why Jeff's quote is out of context? Because it ruins the claims you and the denier mouthpiece in blogland have made.

"You did rubbish him jeff; his “crappy papers”, he’s an “old codger”,"

Nope. The crappy papers were rubbished. You don't know why you like them, except that you think they say what you like to hear, not that you see their scientific rigour and evidence. And he is an old codger. That's really nothing like a "rubbishing".

But you can't defend the science, and you haven't a clue why Cronin is defensible, so you rubbish jeff instead.

I struggling to see how it’s been taken out of context(?), if you think it has, take it up with UAF.

How many times do I have to point out that the UAF links went into the weeds. Thus, until I could check the paper for myself, I was giving Cronin the benefit of the doubt and considering that the quote, in the Press Release and echoed by Crockford, was taken out of context.

Why is this so hard for you to understand?

Now GSW is trying to take me on in population ecology. Does the twerp never give up? Like his intellectually challenged twin, Olaus, he claims I am making up my own reality when he has not a single qualification in the relevant fields. He's a real hoot. Doesn't do research, doesn't read the primary literature, but claims to know good science from bad science. Here's some advice to the both of you: piss off.

GSW, get off your lazy ass and log into the Web of Science and you'll find hundreds if not thousands of papers detailing the effects of warming on individuals, populations and communities. The pages of journals like Global Change Biology, Ecology Letters, Ecology, Oikos, Oecologia, and the big ones PNAS, Nature and Science are full of them. Your strategy is to believe that because you haven't read any of these papers, then they don't exist. Talk about creating your own reality.

And Wow is correct. If Cronin's papers were so important he would have gone for a very high impact journal and not much lower ones. Perhaps he did and they were rejected after peer-review, which is much stricter in journals like Ecology Letters and GCB, which reject 90% of submissions. Lower journals are far more lenient. His work is hardly cited by his peers. That says something. And as I said earlier, you only find out about these papers via the echo chamber you inhabit. You don't go to the journals and look up studies for yourself but rely on shills like Crockford and WUWT for your information.

And yes, we have done stressors before, but since you don't read any of the scientific literature, I might as well be speaking to a ventriloquist's dummy. You cannot discuss material you have never read and do not understand. You and Olaus think that by reading sites like WUWT and little else, you have a deep understanding of science. I've got news for you: you don't. In any public arena I'd eat you alive in a debate on climate change effects on nature and biodiversity. And you know it. That's why you hide behind an anonymous handle here and are nothing more than a hit-and-run troll.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 15 Jan 2016 #permalink

What a surprise, Jeff keeps on inventing his own reality, this time adding that we don't believe there is "effects of warming on individuals, populations and communities".

Where did you find that statement, my dear little Napoleon? :-) Everybody knows nature adapts to climate change. :-)

It can't be easy being you Jeff, that's for sure. :-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 15 Jan 2016 #permalink

Olaus, you dope, I said a lot what was wrong with Cronin's papers. SCALE! SCALE! Get that through your head. I said it, and in several articles that discussed Cronin's studies, other scientists said it too. There's no comparison between the current warming episode and previous events. None whatsover. And FSW still doers not understand how accumulation of toxins up the food chain can make species more susceptible to other environmental threats. This is kindergarten level stuff, folks, but GSW hasn't quite left his intellectual sandbox yet. Again, environmental scientists are well aware that pesticide accumulation makes individuals and populations less resilient because it reduces per capita fitness. When Peregrine falcons accumulated high concentrations of DDT, it led to a significant decline in reproductive success, and made them more susceptible to habitat loss and other human-mediated threats. Polar Bears, by virtue of their trophic position, are highly susceptible ot pesticides. I found piles of papers which examined the potential consequences of this on reproduction and survival in the bears. And in addition to this new threat, they also have to deal with rapid climate warming and hunting.

One thing is for sure: they are in trouble. No ifs ands or buts. As I said yesterday, recruitment is down in many populations and the age structure is being skewed towards older animals. the prognosis is grim if the warming continues at anywhere near the present rate.

Now Olaus can start writing about his hiatus again. Go on, Olaus. Let's hear all about it.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 15 Jan 2016 #permalink

Nature adapts to climate change?

A remark that could only be made by an ignoramus. No caveats, no context. Again kindergarten level stuff. Lionel, Wow etc. now can you see what I am dealing with here? Its this kind of puerile crap that makes me cringe. It would be laughed out of any scientific venue.

HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! Thanks for the comic relief Olly. You are a real laugh.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 15 Jan 2016 #permalink

"What a surprise, Jeff keeps on inventing his own reality, "

With deniers, it's ALWAYS projection.

Good boy, lappers! Bark away!

@Lionel

"How many times do I have to point out that the UAF links went into the weeds."

I've no idea what you're on about, the link works for me, here is it again,

http://news.uaf.edu/bear-species-genetic-relationships-determined/

It was the University of Alaska Fairbanks that provided the quotes in their press release. -if you think 'they done wrong', take it up with them, I'm sure they would love to hear from you.
;)

Jeff, Jeff, Jeff,

Pasting endless crap is not an argument. The guy thinks the polar bears will be OK because they were before, there's a logic to it.

You're saying that polar bears would probably be OK as well, if it weren't for DDT? - is that where your coming from on this? That seems to be what you're saying, but it's hard working thru the dross you post.

You've never made a coherent argument about anything yet. Try making an effort instead of flaunting your sub-mediocrity.
;)

"“How many times do I have to point out that the UAF links went into the weeds.”

I’ve no idea what you’re on about"

Where is the link in post #40?

Obviously you don't know what YOU'RE on about.

Gitter, gitter, gitter.

Pasting endless crap is not an argument.

@Olaus

Det var länge sedan vi sågs sist! Even after Global Warming/Climate Change/Climate disruption has long since dropped of the public concern radar, it's nice to know deltards are still keeping the sacred "flame of climate doom" alive - entertaining too if you push the buttons in the right order.
;)

"The guy thinks the polar bears will be OK because they were before, there’s a logic to it."

No there isn't.

Polar bears didn't exist at one time. Therefore just as "logically", they don't exist today.

Proclamation and irrelevant comparison does not a proof of logic make.

"disruption has long since dropped of the public concern radar"

California Drought - State of California
ca.gov/drought/

With California facing one of the most severe droughts on record, Governor Brown declared a drought State of Emergency in January and directed state officials ...

The most egregious comment in Cronin's paper is that the Arctic was ice free approximately 200,000 years ago. This, quite frankly, is just a guess and comes from only one set of data. The only place I can find any mention of that is in the reports from the Arctic Coring Expedition. Their data come from only four cores, all drilled in close proximity to one another. Thus for anyone to claim that the whole Arctic Ocean was ice free at that time is just not acceptable.

http://www.eso.ecord.org/expeditions/302/302.php
http://iodp.tamu.edu/scienceops/maps/exp/302/302w_map.pdf

By Ian Forrester (not verified) on 15 Jan 2016 #permalink

Given Vostock has ice cores from WAAAAY before 200,000 years ago, it can't have been THAT ice free up there, can it.

Unless somehow after melting, the water came back and reformed, along with all the gas it had at the time it froze before, into ice at the right layer down...

@Ian

I think it's part of the accepted wisdom that the Arctic was Ice free in the summer during the last interglacial.

http://phys.org/news/2012-06-climate-cold-arctic-eemian.html

"It has long been assumed that such conditions also prevailed 125,000 years ago. Accordingly, the Arctic should have been by and large ice-free in the Eemian summers."

I'd imagine everyone's free to take a view.
;)

GSW visit the second link in your #5 and click on the link in one of the two lines that look like this:

Cronin says this about the results in the UAF press release (pdf here)

Where does it go?

@Lionel

I've no idea Lionel. I've given you working links to the press release twice- it's there. How hard can it be to click on either of those links just once?

GSW did you actually read that article you linked to? it says the exact opposite of what you are claiming (no surprise there).

Here is a major quote from the article:

However, in a study which appears in the recent issue of the international journal Geophysical Research Letters Dr Bauch, Dr Evgeniya Kandiano of GEOMAR as well as Dr Jan Helmke of the Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies in Potsdam now show that the Eemian warm period differed from the present day situation in one critical aspect – the development in the Arctic Ocean.

In our current warm period, also called Holocene, oceanic and atmospheric circulation delivers large amounts of heat northward into the high latitudes. The most well known heat conveyer is the Gulf Stream and its northern prolongation called the North Atlantic Drift. The currents provide not only the pleasant temperatures in Northern Europe, they also reach as far as the Arctic. Studies in the last years have shown that the oceanic heat transport to the Arctic has even increased, while the summer sea ice cover in the Arctic Ocean seems to be decreasing continuously. It has long been assumed that such conditions also prevailed 125,000 years ago. Accordingly, the Arctic should have been by and large ice-free in the Eemian summers.

Dr Bauch's group examined sediment cores from the seabed in which information about the climate history of the past 500,000 years is stored. These come from the Atlantic to the west of Ireland and from the central Nordic Seas to the east of the island of Jan Mayen. The sediments contain minute calcite tests of dead microorganisms (foraminifers). "The type of species assemblage in the respective layers as well as the isotopic composition of the calcitic tests give us information about temperature and other properties of the water in which they lived at that time", explains Dr Bauch.

The samples from the Atlantic delivered the higher-than-Holocene temperature signals so typical for the Eemian. The tests from the Nordic Seas, however, tell quite another story. "The found foraminifers of Eemian time indicate comparatively cold conditions". The isotope investigations of the tests, in combination with previous studies of the group, "indicate major contrasts between the ocean surfaces of these two regions ", according to Dr Bauch. "Obviously, the warm Atlantic surface current was weaker in the high latitude during the Eemian than today." His explanation: "The Saalian glaciation which preceded the Eemian was of much bigger extent in Northern Europe than during the Weichselian, the ice age period before our present warm interval. Therefore, more fresh water from the melting Saalian ice sheets poured into the Nordic Seas, and for a longer period of time. This situation had three consequences: The oceanic circulation in the north was reduced, and winter sea ice was more likely to form because of lower salinity. At the same time, this situation led to a kind of 'overheating' in the North Atlantic due to a continuing transfer of ocean heat from the south."

Too bad you didn't take your own advice "to take a view".

By Ian Forrester (not verified) on 15 Jan 2016 #permalink

"@Lionel

I’ve no idea Lionel. "

Then the problem wasn't Lionel's fault, it was your own, idiot.

"I think it’s part of the accepted wisdom that the Arctic was Ice free in the summer during the last interglacial. "

It's part of the accepted wisdom that polar bears are heading for extinction, and that AGW is a real and present danger.

"I’ve given you working links to the press release twice"

But not until AFTER Lionel called them questionable.

A quite reasonable assertion based on them being sourced by you alone at that point.

Accordingly, the Arctic should have been by and large ice-free in

I pointed out your problem, idiot.

@Ian

Yes I did, as far as I'm aware the

"Accordingly, the Arctic should have been by and large ice-free in the Eemian summers"

Is the accepted wisdom. If you want more, try Polyak et al 2010,

"most of the Arctic Ocean may have been free of summer ice cover during these intervals.These conditions make sense in the context of high insolation intensity and elevated temperatures in the northern high latitudes during the last interglacial"

That's what makes sense/ is the accepted wisdom. Well yeah, next?
;)

"Yes I did, as far as I’m aware "

However, you have shown time and time again you don't even bother to look. You just leap to assumption, and then go "as far as I'm aware", when you're aware of NOTHING.

As far as I'm aware, you're a rightwingnut who is plotting to shoot your elected representative in a bloodbath after the next election.

As far as I'm aware, this is 100% the case.

“most of the Arctic Ocean may have been free of summer ice cover"

As far as you're aware, "most" and "may have been" weren't in the quote...

Hej på dig GSW! Ja, det var ett tag sedan. :-) But the deltoids are the same, if not worse. :-)

And poor little Jeff. He mouths off against his inner demons. It never stops to amaze me how he finds them. A true lewser. :-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 15 Jan 2016 #permalink

@Olaus ;)

He doesn't seem to have progressed does he? still pushing the line that his degree in environmental activism is somehow a "science". No maths, no physics, doesn't/cant/won't read the primary climate literature,looks and finds "climate doom" in every spider, cockroach, penguin, polar bear, bee, frog... no rational thought's been anywhere near his in years/ever. He's embarrassing to everyone else and he's remains totally unaware of this. Go figure.

Anything interesting happening in your neck of the woods Olaus? Climate activism's pretty much died in the UK.
;)

The MET office has become something of a running joke, that story's from 2013,

"The Met Office is now predicting that spring will not arrive until the weather starts to warm up a bit and then stays like that for a while."

It's as if they are talking about a season, but not quite. It's winter, it needs to warm up a bit and last for while, and then it will be spring.

"Met Office to build £97m supercomputer"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-29789208

If we'd never had the supercomputer, we'd never have known about spring.
Enjoy Olaus!
;)

GSW seems to think that a Met Office computer built last year is responsible for a fictional story that appeared 2.5 years previously.

Are our resident clowns getting confused between reality and satire?

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 15 Jan 2016 #permalink

Can’t see what your problem is with this, Wow

Wow is a pathetic asshole who is incapable of admitting a mistake .... his psychopathy is extraordinary. It's quite a hoot when even someone as stupid as Stu2 has the better of him. It would be so much more appropriate if Wow were on the other side, as he shares their ethics.

That is why it hasn’t had its 2015 winter yet like we have.

Wow thinks that the Southern hemisphere 2015 winter happens in 2016.

Well, no, he actually doesn't, but he's going to pretend to because he is so fucked up and intellectually dishonest that he is utterly incapable of admitting even so obvious a mistake. And so he blathers about "latest" winter when the subject is the 2015 winter as if somehow people reading here are as stupid as they would have to be to not realize that he's digging deeper and deeper into his shitpile.

If you have ever considered Wow an ally, do not forget this.

@77 GSW

Jeff Harvey is a widely respected scientist with a considerable track record in ecology and your dishonest blather about this disqualifies you completely from any serious debate.

What are your qualifications in science?

"Wow is a pathetic asshole who is incapable of admitting a mistake"

You misspelt inam.

Well, GSW, the Lewsers her in Sweden are still at it, but they are more and more becoming a laughing stock in the eye of the ordinary man. Sweden has probably the most developed infra structure for insimination of unscientific governmental crap, with start in 1922, when Sweden's State Institute for Racial Biology was founded.

I guess Jeff could study his bugs there, racial buggeryology would be right up his dark alley, and from there recommend suitable actions to clense society from bad elements. ;-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 16 Jan 2016 #permalink

"still pushing the line that his degree in environmental activism is somehow a “science”. "

Nope, not at all.

Activism isn't science. But science is science. Most humans know this already, but you seem to miss the boat on that one.

"No maths, no physics, doesn’t/cant/won’t read the primary climate literature,looks and finds “climate doom” in every spider, "

It;s always projection with you retards isn't it? Jeff and Lionel pointed you to the primary literature, whereas you had a press release. You never read the literature.

"He’s embarrassing to everyone else and he’s remains totally unaware of this. Go figure. "

It;s always projection with you idiots, isn't it.

Inane at #80, where the fuck do you get that quote from, by the way?

Or is this the insane dribbling of a turdbrain again?

Just curious.

"Sweden has probably the most developed infra structure for insimination of unscientific governmental crap"

Of course, no data for this.

Because lappers is too busy barking at the intruders... Good lappers.

"Wow thinks that the Southern hemisphere 2015 winter happens in 2016."

No, the 2015 winter starts in 2015.

You think what you like, moron, let me think what I think.

So, inane, when the end of the year is the middle of the year in the south, when does the winter in that year occur?

We have had our 2015 winter. The Southern hemisphere haven't HAD a winter start *this* year yet.

But, hey, I guess you will answer our queries about what the fuck Gitter was wibbling on about in his claims for last years' winter. After all, you seem to know what everyone thinks here, and Gitter, as usual, refuses to say what the hell the point of their datum was.

So go ahead, inane, wow us with your insight and knowledge: what the fuck was the point?

More inane comments from the Bobsey twins GSW and Oluas. Craig's analogy is correct: because one survives a minor car crash doesn't mean they will survive a major head-on collision. And Cronin has failed to explain the rate at which the Arctic lost ice in previous events - which most certainly was not anywhere close to the rate it is disappearing now. And we have no idea what the extent of ice loss was. To argue that Polar Bears will survive the current disaster unfolding in the Arctic is frankly nuts. And, as I said, and which GSW clearly does not understand, bears are faced with multiple threats - hunting pressure and pesticide poisoning, which both reduce their resilience to warming.

I also find their hypocrisy with respect to a person's scientific qualifications quite revealing. They are happy to wave the CV of deniers or people they like all over the internet, but equally or more qualified scientists who have different views are routinely smeared. I am the first to admit that I defer to the expertise of climate scientists on the issue of warming, something the Dunning-Kruger denier army never do. Lastly, I have studied physics and biochemistry and molecular biology, gormless, so you slap yourself in the face once again. But ecology is the most complex of the life sciences because of the decidedly non-linear relationship between causes-and-effects. Also, understanding the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning is exceedingly complex because of the huge number of scales involved. The bottom line is that I am a very qualified scientist with the education and papers to prove it and neither you nor Olly are. You both are internet trolls with no formal education in the fields in which I am professionally trained, yet that does not stop you wading into them and throwing arguments around as if they have merit.

A case in point is Olly's silly adaptation argument yesterday. I'd like to ask him why dinosaurs didn't adapt to the asteroid impact at the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary, or why 90% of biota suddenly became extinct at the end of the Permian. Why did't the species adapt then? Why aren't species adapting better to the massive destruction of tropical forests? Adaptation is based on a number of ecophysiological factors, including the genetic constitution of the species and more importantly of populations relative to the stresses and constraints they face in nature. We are now living in the Anthropocene. Owing to a suite of human-indued stresses, we are challenging species to adaptively respond at rates that well exceed the ability to many to survive. This many explain why 1 in 9 bird species is threatened with extinction, which is higher in amphibians, fish and vascular plants. To argue that species will adapt to climate change is, frankly stupid and certainly over simplistic. Along with several colleagues, I am writing a paper on the traits in insects that make them most susceptible to climate change. As I predicted, Lepidoptera species that overwinter as eggs are most susceptible and data from The Netherlands shows a sharp decline of species in this group over the past 3 decades. They clearly are not adapting, in part because their life cycles are becoming desynchronized with the optimal stage of their food plants. We have lots of evidence for this through phenology. Species do no exist in isolation - they interact with other species. Warming unravels food chains and webs through differential effects on various species in the web. Colleagues in Amsterdam are finding that warming of soil food chains also simplifies them. The empirical literature - which GSW and Olly do not read- is full of similar studies.

This is why Olly's 'adapt' remark was so ridiculous. It has to be placed in context, something uneducated deniers are incapable of doing.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 16 Jan 2016 #permalink

Frogs – climate change, only the literature says it not

Oh really?

Please expand on this in as much detail as you can possibly provide. In other words, please supply your annotated bibiolography, covering a representative range of the literature pertaining to the various ecological impacts on anuran population biology.

And don't disparage the concept of a "stressor" - such is integral to the manner in which climate change affects (or does not...) the ecology of anurans.

[By way of disclosure, I know well the smell of chytrid fungus in culture (it's distinctive and surprisingly not unpleasant...), the smell of leaf mold under which many frog species æstivate, and the smell of about two dozen different frog species as they wriggle against vernier calipers, so you might want to make sure that your boot laces are well tied.]

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 16 Jan 2016 #permalink

I guess Jeff could study his bugs there, racial buggeryology would be right up his dark alley, and from there recommend suitable actions to clense society from bad elements.

Ahhh... so, have you stopped being a pædophile Olaus Petri?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 16 Jan 2016 #permalink

I guess Jeff could study his bugs there, racial buggeryology would be right up his dark alley, and from there recommend suitable actions to clense society from bad elements.

Ahhh... so, have you stopped being a pædophile Olaus Petri?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 16 Jan 2016 #permalink

To the best of my knowledge, lappers is still a paedophile.

I’ve no idea Lionel. I’ve given you working links to the press release twice- it’s there.

GSW, once again the your first link to Crockford's article about the 2014 Cronin paper had a link, as described above, which now goes nowhere. And, FYI I did find a press release but IME it is not always a good thing to go by such press releases alone especially when they have been used in such a fashion by such as Crockford. It was a link to a relevant 2014 paper by Cronin et. al. that I was looking for.

I did find a possible candidate but after download and running a search the string that Crockford echoed could not be found, nor any subset of same. Did you look at the actual paper?

But then its just assertion from ignorance and obfuscation with you.

Lionel, just say, as far as you're aware, the quote is incorrect and unsupported.

WOW I note you objected to Stu2 writing In my part of the world and according to BoM we had our wettest winter on record in 2015.”

By Turboblocke (not verified) on 16 Jan 2016 #permalink

Craig @#97 & 98 previous.
I do actually live in one of those areas. Well done.
I have recently returned from a trip through SW NSW, SA & NW Vic.
The landscape tells the real story. Some areas have had an excellent season, some average & others a shocker!
In 2015, we were one of the lucky ones. The BoM figures are a yearly and/or seasonal average. Those figures, although interesting, are not necessarily helpful when considering such things as agricultural productivity or wetland/river/ecological health.

Turboblocke @#96
:-)
I don't think WOW realises that the southern hemisphere seasons are opposite to his but the calendar year is not?

I don’t think...

Well that is your problem right there.

"WOW I note you objected to Stu2 writing In my part of the world and according to BoM we had our wettest winter on record in 2015.”"

And what was my objection? How did I word it?

"I don’t think WOW realises that the southern hemisphere seasons are opposite to his "

Really?

Was this "to the best of your ability" because I said here:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2015/12/04/december-2015-open-thread/co…

Australia? That would be your SUMMER, you haven’t had your WINTER yet. Dumbass.

So you don't know that Australia is known to be in the southern hemisphere and that when we have our winter you have your summer, but then project that onto me.

Like a complete dumbass.

Turbo, JP also had a problem with Stupid's claim. See #63 on Page1.
YOU also had a problem with Stupid's claim. See #68 on Page 1. And again at #73, same page.
Chris O'Neil post 74, page 1 again, had a problem with stupid's claim.
Hell, post #76 on page 1 shows even STUPID had problems with stupid's claim. As pointed out by JP on #77 and #88.

According to the Great Stupid Wanker, "Climate Alarmism’s getting a bit of a pasting at the moment".

That's a rather ironic claim coming after the year in which the "pause" died.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 17 Jan 2016 #permalink

You didn't expect reality to play a part in gitter's tirade,did you Chris??

:-P

WOW.
It's not rocket science.
We HAD our winter 2015 in June/July/August 2015.
Consequently, Winter 2015 can be reported in my part of the world.
In your part of the world, that was your Summer.
Our Summer crosses over a calendar year like your Winter does.
The Winter season in the section of Australia where I live was a good season for Agriculture.
That was partly because the rains came at the right time.
BoM reported it as one of the wettest on record for our area.
The bulk of inland NSW, Vic and SA, did OK over 2015 even though it wasn't necessarily as wet as here.
Typically for Australia, that was not the case everywhere.
NW Vic missed out on timely precipitation, for example.
However, the yield totals for Vic as a whole were OK.

#1 WOW I interpreted "Australia? That would be your SUMMER, you haven’t had your WINTER yet. Dumbass as objecting to him stating " In my part of the world and according to BoM we had our wettest winter on record in 2015.””

It is clear that the BOM feels that there was a Winter in 2015 as the link to their Winter 2015 Report shows. Note that Stu2 didn't call it Winter 2015, he just said,"... wettest winter on record in 2015."

I did doubt Stu's claim that it was the wettest winter on record, but he has now clarified that he didn't mean Australia, just his local area IIUC. Although I don't recall him giving a link and the BOM report doesn't talk of any records being broken: perhaps you could oblige with a link Stu2?

By turboblocke (not verified) on 17 Jan 2016 #permalink

@ Stu2, on a recent excursion towards the most southerly of the 3 areas mentioned, I noted very green hills where usually they would be very brown at this time of year.
It is good to see that I can put your observation and BoM's published data together and successfully get the answer to 2 + 2 = ?

As for Wow, farknose what he realises. Your statement was,
"...we had our wettest winter on record in 2015", to which he gave the rather bizarre response,
"you haven’t had your WINTER yet".
Wow can admit he made a mistake, or he can claim his response was a 100% non-sequitur.
What he can't do is claim the exchange reflected on anybody else's comprehension skills.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 17 Jan 2016 #permalink

Craig.
Correct.
The landscape does tell the story.
Everywhere I have been in the 3 areas mentioned, with the exception of NW Vic, has had a good season.
There is healthy ground cover, healthy stubble, healthy stock, good yields, healthy trees, plenty of bird life & etc.
Another exception is the depletion of water resources in the Menindee/Broken Hill/ Lower Darling, but that is mostly the result of mismanagement on the part of State and Federal NRM departments.
The actual winter season in those areas was fine.
BoM however has a 'drier than average' figure for Australia over Winter.
My point remains that even though that is an interesting calculation, it doesn't capture what really matters in our highly variable climate. That particularly applies to precipitation and agricultural/wetland/ecological productivity.
2012 was reported by BoM as 30% wetter than average but because the bulk of the rain and the flooding occurred in late Summer, early Autumn those precipitation figures did not translate into good results right across the TBL.
Our area was actually flooded in 2012, but because there wasn't good rains in Winter/Spring agricultural/wetland/ecological productivity was not as good as 2015 has been.

"#1 WOW I interpreted "

That was your problem, then.

"It is clear that the BOM feels that there was a Winter in 2015 "

And where did I say there wasn't a winter in 2015? All I said they haven't had their winter yet.

You DO know that there's another winter due in Australia in the next few months, right?

"I did doubt Stu’s claim that it was the wettest winter on record"

So I can assume that you think no water fell from the sky in that winter and make fun of your stupidity.

"It’s not rocket science.
We HAD our winter 2015 in June/July/August 2015."

It isn't. What it also isn't is relevant. You never said "HAD". And you now think that it isn't the wettest winter. Or it is. Or something.

What you also don't know is what the fuck you're trying to say.

Because you don't do meaning. Only proclamation.

"Our Summer crosses over a calendar year like your Winter does."

So you only just found out? I knew years and years ago. Hence my "this would be your summer". Obviously you don't know that summer exists in Australia.

"As for Wow, farknose what he realises. Your statement was,
“…we had our wettest winter on record in 2015”, to which he gave the rather bizarre response,
“you haven’t had your WINTER yet”.
Wow can admit he made a mistake, or he can claim his response was a 100% non-sequitur."

No Craig "Stop the nig nogs dropping sprogs" McAsshole, when stupid made the stupid comment you adore so much and wish to promote for reasons best left between you and stupid's dick cheese, that Australia were having their summer and their winter was yet to come.

But you hate the idea that I tell you off for wanting to kill of the niggers who are the "elephant in the room" for climate change because they have children faster than the whiteys. You don't WANT to know that it's worse for a rich white kid like yourself than for a poor black family because you're so damn profligate with your energy.

But you don't want to change, so it must be those darkies' fault.

So you want them to die off.

Hey, Craig McAsshat, is the response to Stupid's ridiculous claim "So what?" ALSO a nonsequitur?

I think you need to read up what the fucking word means.

Since not much happened here, just a repost.
--

“polar bears seem more than capable of surviving ice free summers” – except they probably never experienced one.

Given the acutely graying demography of Nanuk today, they may not even have experienced years with as little ice as past decade.
So ‘it seems’ that the end of Arctic sea ice is indeed the end of Nanuk.

Hastened thru the point Wow makes – ‘first we make them refugees, then we shoot the refugees’.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 18 Jan 2016 #permalink

Wow : when you're in a hole, stop digging.

By Turboblocke (not verified) on 18 Jan 2016 #permalink

WOW.
We most certainly have had our Winter 2015.
As I previously commented, it's not rocket science.
Australia's winter 2015 was June-August 2015.
In my area it was a wet season. BoM says one of the wettest.
At this juncture we don't know how wet our winter 2016 will be.

You most certainly haven't had the winter coming, Stupid.

What? Do you think you're a timetraveller???

Tudbo, when I want a hole, I'll ask you. Advice isn't going to be something you're asked for when you think that the entire winter season had no rain...

WOW.
Our next winter will be June - August 2016.
We have most definitely had our 2015 winter here in Australia.
In my area it was very wet. BoM reports it as one of the wettest.
It resulted in a good season for ag production.
It seriously isn't rocket science.
Your seasons are opposite to ours on the calendar year.
You are having your 2015/16 winter now.
It's Summer here in Australia.
Our winter 2015 has already happened.

Wow says,
"You never said “HAD”"

But, Stu2 had said, in the post that has excited Wow well past the point of intellectual coherence,
"we had our wettest winter on record in 2015"

Turboblocke said,
"Wow : when you’re in a hole, stop digging."

I'm going to go out on a limb here: Wow is trying to reach China.

As for cRR Kampen,
"first we make them refugees, then we shoot the refugees’"
Paternalistic nonsense.
Apparently the 3rd-world are not responsible for their situation - only Whiteman has the capacity to choose its destiny.
I guess your Victorian attitudes towards the Races of Man give you some kind of comfort...

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 18 Jan 2016 #permalink

Hey, halfwits and other morons.

What is your problem with "THIS IS AUSTRALIA'S SUMMER"???

They are currently what? In their winter? No. In their spring? No. In their autumn? No.

What do you think the season IS in Australia?

What problem do you have with the statement I made:

Australia? That would be your SUMMER, you haven’t had your WINTER yet. Dumbass.

Or are you doing-a-GSW and reading only what you like to read? And I'm looking at you, you racist holocaust promoter, Craig.

Craig, those 'refugees' alluded to polar bears.

As to human refugees, check out what Holland did in the 1930's with the German refugee Jews. They were put in camps, ready to be taken to Bergen-Belsen or Sobibor a couple of years later.

Don't ever try me again on this subject. Don't project your obsessions on me. Thanks.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 19 Jan 2016 #permalink

That's a deep hole you're digging Wow.
We most certainly have had our Winter 2015 in Australia.
In my part of the world it was a wet Winter.
BoM says one of the wettest.
It resulted in a good season for Agriculture.

What hole? The one that isn't saying what your problem is with the statement " Australia? That would be your SUMMER, you haven’t had your WINTER yet. Dumbass."?

Despite being asked several times, your "problem" with it is still indeterminate, but "endemic" to whatever psychotic little alcove you've stuffed your ego into.

But you won't stop digging this wall of ignorance around you, and then pointing at everyone above you and going "Stop digging a hole!!!!".

Because you're a retard, and you haven't got a clue what you're talking about.

Maybe if you just admitted to your mistake and accepted that you're currently in summer time where you are you could at least START on getting out of the corner you've painted yourself into...

But you daren't ever admit mistake. After all, once you've admitted one, you may be asked to admit all the other ones too. And then eventually you'd have to give up your fairytales about how AGW is a illuminati scam or whatever your fevered ego has latched itself onto.

Well, Stu2, you can see Wow has a fair point - after all, when you foolishly use words which indicate the past tense, such as "we had", it is clearly *your* fault when somebody else confuses that past tense for the present.

*Obviously* when you said "we had winter in 2015" you are being unacceptably ambiguous as a perfectly reasonable person would be excused for thinking you were talking about the present Summer.

In other news:
"your “problem” with it is still indeterminate, but “endemic” to whatever psychotic little alcove you’ve stuffed your ego into."
...it's always projection....

Such a shame Wow isn't a climate-change denying creationist - we really don't need nutters pretending they are on the side of reason...

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 19 Jan 2016 #permalink

Wouldn't mind seeing the rainfall data from BoM to support the "wettest winter on record in my area" claim Stu2. Overall Aust had a slightly dry year and many agricultural areas are experiencing very dry conditions and failed crops.

BtM

By Billy the Mountain (not verified) on 19 Jan 2016 #permalink

I'll reiterate BtM's point. There are many places in Australia suffering drought and even record dryness, and yet Stu 2 impliess that because his ankles are wet there is no global climate change.

Can anyone spot Stu 2's logical fallacy?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 19 Jan 2016 #permalink

Yes Billy the Mountain.
I have already commented that typically for Australia, that was not the case everywhere.
I have also already commented that an average precipitation figure does not capture what really matters in terms of agricultural/wetland/ecological productivity in Australia.
Any farmer can tell you it is possible to harvest a bumper crop in a below average precipitation year or vice versa and further variations.
When it rains is just as important as how much.
BoM reported 2012 as 30% wetter than average but because those rains mostly fell in late Summer/Early Autumn it did not translate into a particularly good season for Ag in my area, even though we were flooded in March 2012.
Craig linked some of the rainfall data, for that Winter that Wow doesn't think we have had yet on a previous page.
He also tagged the area that I am talking about, along with other areas that had wet winter seasons.
In our local media, BoM was quoted as saying that we had the wettest winter on record.
That has translated into a pretty good season because the rains came at the right time.

Bernard J
I have made no such claim.

2012! Keep up man. Just wanted to see which area in Australia during 2015 had record winter rainfall.
BtM

By Billy the Mountain (not verified) on 19 Jan 2016 #permalink

I established that the BoM's figures show that for the Winter of 2015 (not to be confused with the Summer of 2015/2016), there was a tiny minority of Australia's inhabited land which saw very high rainfall, roughly, Cobargo, Nowra, and Griffith:
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/awap/rain/index.jsp?colour=colour&time=histor…

Given Stu2's obsession with crop yields, we may be safe in assuming he is suggesting he lives in Griffith.

Note from the map that overall, Australia's trend for decreasing rainfall is continuing and that the Winter of 2015 was dry - critically it was very dry over much of Victoria, Adelaide, Sydney and the Brisbane/Gold Coast area - these are the areas that support most of our population.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 19 Jan 2016 #permalink

...oops, I left out Perth. Very, very dry Winter there, too.

Remember Tim Flannery warning that the trend for decreasing rainfall represented a risk for the water supplies of Perth, Adelaide and Brisbane that needs to be addressed?
Remember the Denier-dopes castigating him for making "false predictions"?
Turns out Flannery's warnings are still correct......

https://www.nccarf.edu.au/sites/default/files/attached_files_publicatio…
(graphic on p2)

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 19 Jan 2016 #permalink

A simple "oops, misread/misunderstood what Stu2 said" by Wow would have been quick and painless. No one would have given a stuff about it, and it would have avoided so many unnecessary insults to and fro. But I'm glad we've moved on (I hope) _ I won't say any more on it.

On the declining rainfall trend in Perth and the SouthWest of WA, from Craig's link: "The average flow rate into Perth’s dams has declined steeply: the 2006-2010 average was 57.7 GL/year compared to an average of 177 GL/year for the period 1975-2010."

A two-third reduction in rainfall; quite alarming if I may say so. Unless you're a denier, of course. Then cognitive dissonance and ideology will make sure that no inconvenient truths or facts will enter your conciousness and your shallow and intellectually dishonest thought processes _ which have a propensity for lying, distorting and cherry-picking _ will, not surprisingly, be incapable of comprehending the significance of the various trends, e.g. the steeply rising global warmth, the steeply declining Arctic ice, (in Perth) the steeply declining rainfall _ and envisioning any scenarios which run counter to the Pollyanaish simpleton's mindset of blind faith in the capitalist dream of guilt-free and consequence-free limitless consumption.

Thank Christ we spent a couple of billion dollars on two desalination plants in Perth otherwise we'd be up shit-creek...wouldn't even need a paddle as we'd be stuck on the rocks. We'd have to adapt to drinking seawater. Well...why not? Look at polar bears, they might as well turn adaptation into a hobby. They haven't just adapted throughout the eons _ they've adapted back and forth. Poor things are dizzy.

"Well, Stu2, you can see Wow has a fair point – after all, when you foolishly use words which indicate the past tense, such as “we had”,"

Well, moron, I guess you just can't bring yourself to say what issue you have with the statement:

Australia? That would be your SUMMER, you haven’t had your WINTER yet. Dumbass

i guess you really can't admit that it IS summer in Australia at the moment and they haven't had their winter yet, for reasons you really can't describe, much like stupid here. After all, you're invested in the idea that I must be wrong,but not able to work out why and unwilling to admit that failure of intellect on your part.

So you talk to Stupid here rather than address the problem because you feel a kindred spirit in the lack of intelligence with that idiot, and want to get the reassurance of another clueless fuckwit who you agree with.

Winter happens at the end of the year.
Do you think the Aborigines thought "Fuck it, lets have winter in the middle of the year"?

So what's your problem with the statement

Australia? That would be your SUMMER, you haven’t had your WINTER yet. Dumbass

Please also note that Stupid, as usual, doesn't even agree with himself on what "we had" where he lives. It's both been the wettest and also no extreme weather and also not been the wettest, but also been the wettest winter.

Of course, Craig "Kill the Wogs" McAsshat here doesn't know what he's agreeing with Stupid here either, he's just on an insane ranting against someone who doesn't let him get away with palming off the problem of AGW on the third world.

"A simple “oops, misread/misunderstood what Stu2 said” by Wow would have been quick and painless"

Except I didn't, asshat.

Go back to page 1 and read what you and turbo and others said.

If we wanted "quick and painless" a "So what" that was proffered by one poster would have been it.

Tell me, JP, why don't you admit that you have made a mistake and misunderstood what I was saying?

"_ I won’t say any more on it."

Why the fuck did you say that? Is this going to be a method by which you can assuage your guilt of not saying what you find wrong with the statement that Australia is in its summer and winter is yet to come? Or avoid having to admit you misunderstood me?

Oh, FFS Wow, are you for real? Now you've goaded me into saying more.

I might have misunderstood what you're saying, but that means YOU'VE misunderstood what Stu2 was saying because I'm confident _ 100% certainty _ that I understood Stu2.

Ok, read carefully.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 2015, REPEAT 2015, WINTER.

2015 IS GONE. REPEAT, 2015 IS GONE.

OUR NEXT WINTER IS 2016. REPEAT, OUR NEXT WINTER IS 2016.

MORE PRECISELY, JUNE-JULY-AUGUST 2016.

Phew! That was hard work.

THIS TIME for sure I'm not going to say any more on that topic.

"Oh, FFS Wow, are you for real? Now you’ve goaded me into saying more. "

Oh FFS, JP, you really only wanted to blame me for not letting you have the last word.

"WE’RE TALKING ABOUT 2015, REPEAT 2015, WINTER. "

READ CAREFULLY
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT WHAT YOUR PROBLEM IS WITH AUSTRALIA BEING IN ITS SUMMER

Refusing to say that you know what the hell I said and don't want to know, just want to rant and rave is really not going to make you sane or rational.

What, again, is your problem with " Australia? That would be your SUMMER, you haven’t had your WINTER yet. Dumbass"?

Do you have no problem with that statement? If so, what the fuck IS your problem?

Wow: #12 I'm intrigued... How can you interpret what I said about the wettest winter on record to mean that I think that "... no water fell from the sky..."?

By Turboblocke (not verified) on 20 Jan 2016 #permalink

Wow:Perhaps a timely reminder: Stu2 said,"..according to BoM we had our wettest winter on record in 2015.”

To me that means the winter that occurred in the calendar year 2015, i.e. between January and December 2015. It appears that you interpret it otherwise.

By Turboblocke (not verified) on 20 Jan 2016 #permalink

BTW back to #12, I'm really intrigued as to how you can interpret anything that I said as implying that no water fell last winter. Care to enlighten me?

By Turboblocke (not verified) on 20 Jan 2016 #permalink

And another timely reminder, this one for you, turbo, is that I said "Australia? That would be your SUMMER, you haven’t had your WINTER yet. Dumbass".

To me, this means that Australia is currently having its summer and therefore their winter is yet to come, being the future seasonal change that comes after the autumn, which is likewise in the future, though less in the future than its winter.

It appears you interpret this otherwise.

Care to say as what?

WOW.
It's not rocket science.
In that sentence I used HAD & 2015.
We have indeed HAD our winter 2015 in Australia.
BoM has even had time to report on Australia's Winter 2015.
It is indeed Summer NOW in Australia.
It's also 2016.
Australia's most recent Winter was June-August 2015.
Our next Winter will be June-August 2016.
I was commenting on Winter 2015 and absolutely, most definitely we have already had that winter season here.
It was very wet in my part of the world.
BoM reports it as a 'wettest'.

Bernard J
I have made no such claim.

You know something, I knew that you would say that. It's why I didn't use "claims" or "says" but instead used "implies" - typo notwithstanding. Because that's what you're doing - trying to minimise the fact of global warming.

Stu 2, face it. The planet is warming, we're responsible, it's scewing with our climate, and it's not good.

Any denial of these points is wishful thinking and contrary to the best science.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 20 Jan 2016 #permalink

Bernard J
I have implied(d) no such thing.

Therefore the question that is begging here, Stu2, is,
in the context of a discussion about the irrefutable facts that are global warming and changing rainfall patterns,
why is,
your part of the world (in the sense of a very strictly limited part of the world) having had its wettest winter on record,
relevant?

The inescapable conclusion is that you are denying the facts of global warming, in this case your method is Diversion through Cherry Picking.

Because most of Australia had a dry winter, which is a problem.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 20 Jan 2016 #permalink

Craig.
Some of Australia had a dry winter, some of Australia had a wet winter, some small pockets had a 'wettest' figure and other places had a drought.
A whole of country average gives a drier than average.
It's an interesting figure but commenting like that on Australian precipitation figures is neither a confirmation nor a denial of global warming.
Those figures do not capture what really matters in terms of agricultural/wetland/ecological productivity in Australia.
The landscape or the environment tells the story, not the BoM whole of country averages.

As Craig Thomas indicates Stu 2, your previous behaviour on this blog begs the question in realtio to your last comment.

So, Stu 2, here's your chance to shine.

1) Do you acknowledge that humans have increased the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere from a pre-Industrial Revolution value of 280 ppm to 400 ppm today?

2) Do you accept that CO2 is a 'greenhouse' gas?

3) Do you acknowledge that the increase in global temperature from just before the beginning of the Industrial Revolution through to today is 1.25 °C?

4) Do you accept that the science indicates that on the balance of all forcings, both natural and anthropogenic, the observed net contemporary warming is all a consequence of human CO2 emissions, and

5) indeed, that some of the warming caused by antropogenic emission has been masked by anthropogenic aerols?

6) Do you acknowledge that on the basis of the numbers above, the aggregate climate sensitivity as defined by the realised current amount warming resulting from the emissions to date, is equivalent to 2.43 °C per doubling of CO2?

7) Within the constraints* of the climate sensitivity as derived in the previous point, do you nevertheless accept that such a value is entirely consistent with an equilibrium climate sensitivity of around 3 °C (or higher...)?

8) Do you understand that an increase of anything more than 2 °C has profoundly serious ecological and social consequences for the planet, and that the damage increases exponentially (and more...) with each additional degree of warming over 2 °C?

[*This aggregate value includes some increase from earlier natural feedings-back, but it also includes the negative forcing of aerosols which are effectively a temporary input into the system. This makes the aggregate likely to be a fairly good approximation of transient climate sensitivity. I hope that it's still a high estimation though, once historic feedings-back are properly accounted for, but given the length of time required to realise most such feedings-back, and the fact that most of the CO2 forcing is relatively recent, I have reservations. Especially worrying because such a high TCS may presage a higher ECS...

I think that some fancy mathematical footwork might be able to pick both the actual transient and (at least some of the) equilibrium sensitivites from the current trajectory, but my first year university calculus is rusty... Still, a few years ago I estimated ECS at 3.4 °C, and I'm seeing no indication that I should resile from that.

Of course, if one argues that the aggregate value that I derived is not reflective of the transient climate sensitivity, and that it actually already incoorporates a fair degree of feedback as well, then one is effectively saying that the feedback sensitivity is high, and therefore that the final equilibrium sensitivity will still be high. Whichever way one looks at it, there is no get-out-of-jail card...]

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 20 Jan 2016 #permalink

Bernard J.
I question the practicalities of the policies and the politics.
In most cases and from all sides science has been hijacked.
I particularly question an underlying belief in some type of benevolent global dictatorship that uses 'the climate' and/or 'the environment' as justification.
I care about and care for landscapes and environment.
I don't care for environmental politics.
Because I live and work in rural/regional Australia I get to see the miserable failure of current environmental politics.
It is peopled by far too many like WOW who would die in a ditch that they're digging to China rather than admit that they may have got something wrong. They're also completely unwilling to undo what has proved to be poor policy.
In particular that type of behaviour from the environmental political machine has alienated the demographic that should be working with government to formulate sensible and practical policy.
I was raised to respect 'experts' and those in authority.
Sadly, since the rapid rise of 'environmentalism' in politics and academia, experience has taught me to withdraw some of that respect and trust.
I have often commented here that of course this world would be different if there was no such species as homo- sapiens.
Of course human behaviour, both good and bad has an impact on climate and environment, both good and bad.
I would like to see policies that build on what's good and what works as well as practical policies that repair the many stuff ups.

In that case, Stu 2, you and I are not too many pages apart.

I, also, have ever-diminishing respect for the hijackers of "environmentalism" who are frittering away their "Green" political capital pushing crypto-Marxist lies, fantasies and policies designed to destabilize society.

*My* page, however, includes respect for facts, logic and honesty.

A Stalin-apologist using a "Green" cloak to push her ridiculous ideologies is, you see, far less damaging in practical effect (except to the Green movement) than is the loose alliance of fossil-fuel lobbyists, transnational corporations and media empires, and dishonest right-wing lobby groups such as the IPA (not to mention all their myriad fellow-travelling clowns and useful idiots) who have all successfully so far,
- maintained a political dialogue whereby science facts are continually irrationally questioned if not downright rejected,
- maintained massive taxpayer-funded subsidies for industries which continue to externalize what we now know are enormous future costs onto the public
- blocked meaningful expenditure on the very necessary energy revolution we urgently need to provide energy security and an end to our reliance on last century's polluting technologies.

A rational personal appreciation of reality should transcend the resulting opprobrium from irrational ideologues - whether it is your opposition to the influx of 3rd-world no-hopers or opposition to the even more damaging and costly fossil-fuel interests.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 20 Jan 2016 #permalink

I see we are largely on the same page Craig.
My page however sees little to no difference in 'right wing' 'left wing' behavior.
Neither wing is particularly interested in honestly appraising good policy and/or undoing poor policy.
Much damage has been done and continued to be done right accross the triple bottom line .
I find it interesting that you label organizations such as IPA as 'right wing'.
Isn't 'right wing' part of socialism's terminology?
I would accuse IPA of being 'socialists'.

Sorry.
WOULDN'T accuse..."

What a litany of intellectually dishonest justifications, displaying the all-too-familiar lack of self-awareness common to all deniers. And confirming that denial is all about the politics. But we already knew that.

"In most cases and from all sides science has been hijacked."

There's plenty of evidence to show that the hijacking or attempts at hijacking have been coming from the conservative, denier side of politics. Just a couple of examples are the Abbott government cutting CSIRO funding and disbanding the Climate Commission and Lamar Smith's inquisition of NOAA in the US.

To say that governments who listen to consensus scientific advice and act on it amounts to a politicization of the science is absurd nonsense. Does that apply to medical science? Has medical science been hijacked by politics because governments frame their health policies around the advice from medical experts?

"I question the practicalities of the policies and the politics."

Most economists say that putting a price on carbon, whether a straight tax or letting the market establish a price through an ETS, is the most efficient way of reducing our CO2 emissions. It's disingenuous of deniers to question policies to reduce CO2 while denying that CO2 is a problem. And those who genuinely question the effectiveness of carbon pricing haven't proposed anything better. No, Direct Action, which is voluntary and imposes no penalties for not adhering to polution limits is just a pig dressed up in a tutu.

Stu2 talks about the politics of the whole thing; how about the politics of pretending to do something when you don't even believe that anything NEEDS to be done. I'm talking about the Abbott government, the ones who created the dressed-up pig. Turnbull is our side and is a "warmist" but is constrained by promises to the Nats not to dismantle their current sham Direct Action policy. So I think he'll try the best he can to tweak it without breaking those promises.

"I particularly question an underlying belief in some type of benevolent global dictatorship that uses ‘the climate’ and/or ‘the environment’ as justification."

We live in a global village, and global problems require global action, so live with it. I mean, how else could it be. Simple-minded fuckwits like GSW are probably in a bit of a panic after the Paris agreements and are deluding themselves that nobody cares about the issue anymore. But he'll get swept away by the tide of history... like a piece of garbage, like a used condom on the pavement outside a brothel on a busy Saturday night, he'll be swept away by the street cleaners in the early hours of the morning... and all will be clean and new again. Sorry, I digress.

But anyway, you either believe that something NEEDS to be done or you don't. If you DO believe then you accept the best policies for achieving that and since we're talking about a global problem then obviously it has to be tackled within a global framework. How are national, fragmented, individual policies where countries can opt in or out going to achieve anything?

"It is peopled by far too many like WOW who would die in a ditch that they’re digging to China rather than admit that they may have got something wrong."

A good start would be to look in the mirror. How many deniers have ever admitted to being wrong about anything, ever. Deniers just go around in circles; when they can't substiate one denier meme they just move on the next and when they've run out of them they start from number 1 again. How many of your dumb talking points have you admitted to being wrong, Stu2? For example, you were pushing the "BOM are making fraudulent adjustments" thing for quite a while. Have you demonstrated that those adjustments are wrong, unjustified, or fraudulent in any way? All over the net your ilk are still accusing NOAA of "adjusting" the temperatures but there's very little if any scientific analysis by them to demonstrate that those adjustments were done incompetently or were unjustified. Just conspiracy ideation... while at the same time protesting that the Lewandowski paper was unfairly and wrongly labelling them as conspiratorial idiots.

"I was raised to respect ‘experts’ and those in authority."

Lol. Again that lack of self-awareness. Back to BOM _ BOM are the experts, not Moronhassy or any of the other "experts" on your side who wouldn't know their arse from their elbow. And when you look at climate science as a whole the ratio of denier science vs established science is ridiculous. You've got less than a handful of scientists with any qualifications in climate related science disciplines and you keep trotting out those same people just to give your side some air of scientific credibility. Sure, Galileo was also in the minority, so the argument is not that we're right because we've got more scientists; we're right because our scientists produce science, just like Galileo, and your scientists have produced fuck-all of any substance. The only data that's produced by your guys, Spencer and Christie's satellite data, seems to be highly problematic and questionable; a lot of algorithmic manipulations and adjustments to turn microwave data into temperature data. And you guys, being the critically thinking, highly objective type of people you are just swooped on it and hung on to it for dear life in preference to the other data sets. Because....it showed the least warming? No?

Pathetic, Stu2. Please "contribute" something better.

OK, so skimmed all the moron responses, NONE OF YOU have said what your problem is with my statement, but none of you are willing to accept it in any case.

NONE OF YOU.

Why is that? It's not rocket science.

I said it's Australia, that they are experiencing summer, that their winter is not yet there and that stupid is a dumbass.

However I now appear to have to include not only Stupid in the dumbass category, but JP, Craig McAsshat in there too. This is not a good thing.

Stu writes some clap-trap about environmentalis, then Craig follows it up with this stinker, "I also, have ever-diminishing respect for the hijackers of “environmentalism” who are frittering away their “Green” political capital pushing crypto-Marxist lies, fantasies and policies designed to destabilize society"

The Stu2 throws in a snide remark about socialists. What this shows is that he is as thick as two planks.

What fantasies are those? That capitalism and free market absolutism are incompatible with a sustainable future? That our dominant economic and political systems are destroying nature with remarkable efficiency? Chris Hedges would eat Craig's comment and spit it out. I would too, but I don't want to waste my time on these two simpletons. I have better things to do.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 21 Jan 2016 #permalink

It's because of all that "trickle down" we're getting here outside the elite and powerful.

The mantra is that this is money, but it fells like something completely different...

But if we had less regulation or gave the rich even more money, THEN they'd be spending it and we'd all be wealthy (as long as we "deserve" it), so their hoarding is because "socialists" are soaking the rich, and they're only doing the rational thing "all of us" would do too.

JP & Jeff Harvey.
You have clearly demonstrated exactly what I was trying to say by launching into a litany about sides.
Thank you.
WOW.
In answer to your question.
It's because you doubled down, then tripled down, then quadrupled down & etc.

So you still refuse to acknowledge that Australia really IS in its summer, stupid.

As to your "what I was trying to say " how does your mis-remembererance of whether or not australia had an extreme weather event,whether it was or was not wettest, and whether that was or was not an extreme event indicate ANYTHING about "sides"????

Full wootard, stupid. Full woo tard.

"It’s because you doubled down"

On Australia being in its summer? Well only because you kept whining about me saying it was summer there. Does repeating it somehow cause you to believe it wrong? In which case you need to look at how you nontillion-downed on AGW being false.

" our dominant economic and political systems are destroying nature"

Our dominant economic and political systems have *also* identified the problem AND determined the necessary actions to address it, PLUS have developed the requisite technology to do it with.

Anybody who travelled behind the Iron Curtain would know that the alternative to capitalism not only stifled intellectual and economic growth, it also produced some of the most stunningly destructive pollution the Globe has seen.

Environmentalism is about *conservation* and respecting the value of rational enquiry and knowledge, but it is being hijacked by people pushing irrelevant progressive ideas (dressed-up in post-modern irrational claptrap) that alienate the likes of Stu 2 (and me) and reduce the value of Green political capital.

I long ago stopped volunteering at my local Greens branch when it became clear the organization was happy to act as a refuge for Stalin-apologists and as a conduit for their nasty ideas.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 21 Jan 2016 #permalink

Wow:
"It’s because of all that “trickle down” we’re getting here outside the elite and powerful."

Gosh, get with the 21st Century.
It is now obvious to anybody with a brain that unequal distribution of wealth is a function of human nature and not something you can blame on a political system you've been trained to dislike.
Even more obvious is the fact that wealth is generated and poverty minimized by the political system you decry. The alternatives produce far less wealth resulting in far worse poverty.
Of course the IPA turns this into a false dichotomy whereby the word "sustainable" becomes a dirty word. They are as ideologically blinkered as you are.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 21 Jan 2016 #permalink

"Our dominant economic and political systems have *also* identified the problem "

Only by the efforts of people that include many who think the cause is our industrialisation and capitalist system that you proclaim are poisoning "Green".

And it is currently running 20-40 years on holding doing anything substantively close to doing anything about it, but has made it actually worse.

"Anybody who travelled behind the Iron Curtain would know that the alternative to capitalism "

Anybody who wasn't an indoctrinated nincompoop would know that Stalinism isn't the only alternative to capitalism. And capitalism has done absolutely no better than communism here.

Not to mention China, a communist country, is doing far more in real terms right here and right now and planning hard for the future *and following those plans* than most of the capitalist world.

Cherry picking at its finest.

"Environmentalism is about *conservation* "

If it were, then it wouldn't need the other word.

"people pushing irrelevant progressive ideas "

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

"when it became clear the organization was happy to act as a refuge for Stalin-apologists"

IOW when you weren't agreed with and your political bigotries were espoused to the exhaustion of the patience of those around you to put up with your drivel.

"Gosh, get with the 21st Century."

Non sequitur and poisoning the well fallacy.

"unequal distribution of wealth is a function of human nature and not something you can blame on a political system"

yes you can. capitalism. unless you're going to define it as a non-political system, but since we've been TALKING about capitalism, your accusation there, is as well as being unsupported conjecture but also a non sequitur.

"Even more obvious is the fact that wealth is generated and poverty minimized by the political system you decry"

Nope, under this system ther may be more wealth but it is fitting into fewer and fewer pockets and there are more and more poor people.

5 years ago the top 138 people owned as much as the bottom 50%. Since then it's dropped to 62 people.

And poverty rates have increased.

So not a fallacy.

Just false.

Craig.
I think political environmentalism should have been about conservation.
I strongly support conservation.
You are correct that environmental politics has alienated the likes of me.
Even more disappointing is that it has alienated the demographic (ie the people who actually live & work outside the major centres) who should be encouraged to work with policy makers to build on the good stuff that actually works and get rid of the nonsense stuff that is creating further damage right accross the TBL.

To further clarify.
Yes there are already many technical solutions to address identified issues but those 'hijackers' hate all that stuff.

Clarify what? You've not said anything substantive.Again.

WOW.
Look at your comment @#60.
And then look how you landed there.
You are demonstrating exactly why so many are completely disenchanted with what you would call 'your side'.

#43 Wow: in December 2015 Australia had Summer, prior to that it had Spring and before that it had Winter. Therefore it is not wrong of Stu 2 to say ”..according to BoM we had our wettest winter on record in 2015.”

By turboblocke (not verified) on 21 Jan 2016 #permalink

Lol!
Turboblocke is dedicated. The rest of us have given up hope that the increasingly insane WoW will ever admit he stuffed up.

Meanwhile, Stu2's local "2015 was the wettest winter ever" doesn't seem to be particularly significant in the grand scheme of trying to grow stuff in Australia, as reported today:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jan/21/victorian-farmers-ca…

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 21 Jan 2016 #permalink

Craig
Yet if you look up Victoria's 2015 harvest results we see a different story.
There are indeed however pockets in Vic that had a shocker season. NW Vic is the standout for a shocker.
To me however, the story you linked has more to do with mismanagement of the water resources, particularly groundwater.
Ironically, that is one the areas IMHO that the 'hijackers' from all sides have managed to exacerbate rather than work with people like those farmers to seek sensible, practical solutions.

"Our dominant economic and political systems have *also* identified the problem AND determined the necessary actions to address it, PLUS have developed the requisite technology to do it with"

In a pig's eye. We've known that humanity and nature have been on a collision course for several decades now and have done bugger all to rectify it. Unregulated capitalism is driving our planetary ecological life support systems to hell in a hand basket and right wing political parties dominate the political landscape in the west as populations cower under the manufactured threat of Islam. Moreover, this threat would not exist were we not killing people in these countries in industrial numbers.

Technologies are controlled by the rich for profit, and they are not being freely shared with the poor lands of the south. Moreover, as I say in my lectures, many technologies are increasing our ability as a species to destroy nature, and placing faith in other technologies is severely misplaced. We do not, for example, have the technologies to replace many critical ecological services that we are destroying. And, as I said, I see no indication whatsoever that the plutocracies care about anything other than short-term profits.

As for Craig's Marxist comment, its a strawman. I never said anything about Marxism. I was talking about nakedly predatory capitalism. We are all aboard the Pequod. Tainter, Redman, Wright and other historians have chronicled the collapse of past civilizations are we are headed the same way, except that we intend on taking much of the planet down with us. The evidence is all around us, but dreamers like Craig and Stu2 believe that wishful thinking and crossing their fingers will suffice. Both of them are clueless.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 22 Jan 2016 #permalink

"#43 Wow: in December 2015 Australia had Summer"

OK, so what was your problem with me saying it,rather than you?

"Therefore it is not wrong of Stu 2 to say"

This is irrelevant. *I SAID" that it was having its summer. Why am I wrong to say it????

"Look at your comment @#60."

I did.

You look at your comment @#67, and then look how you landed there.

You are demonstrating exactly why so many are completely disenchanted with what you would call ‘your side’.

#43 Wow: in December 2015 Australia had Summer, prior to that it had Spring and before that it had Winter. Therefore it is not wrong of Stu 2 to say ”..according to BoM we had our wettest winter on record in 2015.”

By Turboblocke (not verified) on 22 Jan 2016 #permalink

#76 wasn't me. It was the echo from the bottom of the pit that wow's been digging.

By Turboblocke (not verified) on 22 Jan 2016 #permalink

"#43 Wow: in December 2015 Australia had Summer,"

Which is what I said.

Why is it wrong when I say it, not when you say it?

"#76 wasn’t me."

Yeah, I know you haven't said why it's wrong when I say it, not when you say it.

Care to actually say something, or are you going to ape stupid in this method too?

Care to excavate and use mining explosives at the bottom of that pit you're standing on your head in?

Turbo, you DO know that you have posted 77, 70, and others, and others have posted other "echoes" in this chamber you think I'm in.

You DO know what echoes are, don't you?

ech·o/ˈekō/
noun
a sound or series of sounds caused by the reflection of sound waves from a surface back to the listener.
a close parallel or repetition of an idea, feeling, style, or event.
a person who slavishly repeats the words or opinions of another.
a play by a defender of a higher card in a suit followed by a lower one in a subsequent trick, used as a signal to request a further lead of that suit by their partner.
a code word representing the letter E, used in radio communication.

verb

(of a sound) be repeated or reverberate after the original sound has stopped.
(of an object, movement, or event) be reminiscent of or have shared characteristics with.
send a copy of (an input signal or character) back to its source or to a screen for display.
(of a defender) play a higher card followed by a lower one in the same suit, as a signal to request one's partner to lead that suit.

None the less WOW.
In my part of the world (which is situated in Australia) our Winter 2015 has indeed already happened.
Our Winter 2016 will be June-August 2016.
Even BoM has had time to report on our Winter 2015.
In my area, BoM reports it as a wettest.

Nonetheless, stupid, you're still in your summer.

That you refuse to acknowledge this is why denial is only left to the retards, the deluded and the corrupt.

That you don't think wettest means an extreme is indication you're not corrupt, but the options of retard or deluded are still both wide open.

"Anybody who travelled behind the Iron Curtain would know that the alternative to capitalism not only stifled intellectual and economic growth, it also produced some of the most stunningly destructive pollution the Globe has seen." #63.

Very true indeed. But is the middle road taboo again? Is there ONLY ideology of plunder vs communism?

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 22 Jan 2016 #permalink

"To me, this means that Australia is currently having its summer and therefore their winter is yet to come" and winter 2015 lies a couple of months behind us. Winter 2015 were the months of June, July and August 2015. I take Stu 2 to mean this and whatever I have with climate revisionism I see no problems with that statement.
Unless, of course, northern hemisphericentricity or so.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 22 Jan 2016 #permalink

"and winter 2015 lies a couple of months behind us."

Irrelevant. You all apparently have a problem when I say that you're having your summer.

Except that you say it with no problem.

So what is your problem with it when I say it?

And how does a winter being in your past mean anything? You had a winter in 1653 too. Is that somehow evidence you are wrong? Or is it irrelevant?

If it's irrelevant, then please look to your "response" I quoted above. And understand it is irrelevant. Then please explain why you did it, what you thought would be changed by telling me?

Just to remind you what you said Wow: Wow

January 6, 2016
“In my part of the world and according to BoM we had our wettest winter on record in 2015.”

Australia? That would be your SUMMER, you haven’t had your WINTER yet. Dumbass.

In mine, we’ve had the wettest, according to the UKMO.

The USA have also been told they’ve had one of the wettest too.

Your point? Avoiding answering BBDs question

Apparently everyone but you, Wow, thinks that you're telling Stu 2 that he hasn't had a winter in 2015 when you write "Australia? That would be your SUMMER, you haven’t had your WINTER yet. Dumbass.

Could you please explain how we've got it wrong?

By turboblocke (not verified) on 22 Jan 2016 #permalink

"Just to remind you what you said Wow: "

Just to remind you of what you're supposed to remind me of, turbo:

OK, so skimmed all the moron responses, NONE OF YOU have said what your problem is with my statement, but none of you are willing to accept it in any case.

NONE OF YOU.

Why is that? It’s not rocket science.

I said it’s Australia, that they are experiencing summer, that their winter is not yet there and that stupid is a dumbass.

Could you please answer the question.

What do you find wrong about the claim that Australia is in its summer time and that winter is yet to come?

ESPECIALLY since you yourself say it is summer there, and have no problems when you, or anyone else other than me, says it.

Have I discovered the naughty secret, turbo?

WOW.
We most certainly have had our Winter 2015.
It was June-August 2015.
I used the word HAD (past tense) and the calendar year 2015 in the sentence.
We all know it's Summer here in Australia NOW. It's also 2016.
There was nothing at all incorrect about you pointing out that it's Summer in Australia NOW.
Nobody disagrees with that.
The problem lies in the rest of your comment.
It's quite amusing to watch you attempting to prove that even though you're 'not right' you are somehow 'not wrong'.
That type of behaviour is one of the main reasons why 'environmental politics' has alienated people.
It's amusing here and does no particular damage.
Not so amusing in the real world.

JP #37
This post got me wondering...
What do polar bears drink?

STU-PID,

You most definitely are having your summer now. It is currently January 2016. This is the SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE SUMMER.

Nobody disagrees with that. But you CANNOT accept me saying, and I have NO IDEA why.

That type of behaviour is one of the main reasons why your ‘environmental politics’ has alienated people and has left you labelled deniers and morons and idiots, WITH GOOD CAUSE. It is also why you're retreating into the gaps of your remaining ignorance as everywhere else the facts are against you, but you WILL NOT change your position.

Because you're the opposite of a skeptic.

#88.
Just looked it up.
They dont drink much it seems.
Get water from a chemical reaction
involving fats.
How clever is that!
Life in all forms is wonderfully complex.
And so perfectly adapted.
Unless you are an extreme generalist,
its pretty hard to cope with the rapid changes
going on.
One year your home is comfy Australian scrub,
and the next its a monocultured paddock.
Damn hard for plants and animals.

That's interesting Li D. I never even thought about what polar bears drink. If that question arose I would have assumed that they got their water requirements from munching on snow or ice... in winter anyway. In summer there's probably enough meltwater around. My comment was just a facetious remark on the question of adaptation, in reference to some paper linked by our resident wanker GSW purporting to show that polar bears are so old that as a species they've survived many inter-glacials. I'm no scientist but it sounds very dubious. Other papers put the age of polar bears as much younger, and as Jeff and others have said even if that paper was correct it doesn't mean that they'll be ok this time around if the Arctic melts completely because there's a time-scale issue.

It's a big problem for arctic species: eating snow means you get freezing product in your internal organs and cool down your core temperature where you can't really deal with it properly.

It really IS, as far as the animals in there are concerned, a desert.

The dic dic gets all the water it needs from the food it eats. Even though the stuff is pretty low in water content.

But eating snow directly in the arctic is a bad idea.

You're right Wow. Didn't think about that. With below freezing temperatures outside it wouldn't be a good idea to cool your core temperature by eating frozen stuff.

Could be deadly.
Main cause of death in the pole regions is dehydration.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 26 Jan 2016 #permalink

Well, yeah. But ask a plant in the snowed winter and they'd tell you snow isn't water.

But I'm not sure that your claim is correct. It may be the biggest single cause (but I doubt it is more than a minor margin), but other causes are huger.

You'll see polar bears lick the blood up. The heat of the blood melts water and even puts the temperature higher than zero a bit. But the biggest change is the melting.