March 2016 Open thread

More thread.

More like this

By popular request. Comments from Brent and folks arguing with him are cluttering up more useful discussions. All comments by Brent and responses to comments by Brent should go in this thread. I can't move comments in MT, so I'll just delete comments that appear in the wrong thread.
By popular request. Comments from El Gordo and folks arguing with him are cluttering up more useful discussions. All comments by El Gordo and responses to comments by El Gordo should go in this thread. I can't move comments in MT, so I'll just delete comments that appear in the wrong thread.
This thread is for people who wish to engage Ray in discussion. Ray, please do not post comments to any other thread. Everyone else, please do not respond to Ray in any other thread.
By popular request, here is the Jonas thread. All comments by Jonas and replies to his comments belong in this thread.

Hmmm, is this thread actually working? I've posted a few times with no result.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 07 Mar 2016 #permalink

There ya go...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 07 Mar 2016 #permalink

Assistance required to understand something
about Antarctic ocean surface salinity.
The idea seems to be ( in a very brief way )
decreasing salinity on the surface ( cuz fresh water is
less dense ) is a major factor in increased sea ice.
This makes sense to me.
However, the source of this fresh water is primarily
subsea, at the base of glaciers.
Im having trouble picturing bubbles of fresh water rising
to to surface without mixing substantially.
If anyone knows a good source for info about
the thing im trying to mentally picture ( subsea fresh inflows
rising in saline ) please share.
Thanks.
Li D

Oh, and just wait for the denialist screams of
its a an el nino, concerning Febs record,
completely ignoring trend with ENSO removed.
El ninos are just as fucking scary as la ninas.
From a certain viewpoint, la ninas are more scary in trend.
Thanks again if anybody can help with above query.

On "Antarctic waters freshening" which term I used for search, turns up this list:

https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=Antarctic+waters+freshening&hl=e…

plenty there to comb through.

Bottom water surfacing aside, I think that much of the freshening effect of Antarctic surface waters is from calving glaciers and precipitation - which some of the above cited sources explore.

I'll consider further to let my brain cells bring ideas to the surface.

WRT ENSO, what is not grasped by the less than intelligent, or honest, is that increasing energy (heat) of El Niño is a mark of warming global fluid systems where each El Niño event can be thought of as the next higher step. The amplitude of change and also frequency of these steps could also be a signal of warming.

Li D

What I did not mention above was the role of glacial meltwater in freshening Antarctic surface waters.

Now on bottom water I did notice that paper from Sarah G Purkey which may be worth a closer look.

Visit Hot Whopper to then visit the Facebook page and Like, also invite Friends to like.

Thankyou very much Lionel A for that info.
Checking it out now.

Piece in Bloomberg via GWPF,

"Energy Socialism In Action: Venezuela To Shut Down For A Week To Cope With Electricity Crisis"
http://www.thegwpf.com/energy-socialism-in-action-venezuela-to-shut-dow…

"The ruling socialists have blamed the shortage on the El Nino weather phenomena and “sabotage” by their political foes, while critics cite a lack of maintenance and poor planning."

And the actions of the USA to destabilise the government has nothing to do with it, right?

Sheesh, you're so transparently bigoted and blind.

Probably why you're a kiddie fiddler.

How significant this is I am not sure but occasionally if I click on a recent comments link (right hand side bar) I get a connection security warning, strange thing is this seems to happen when our goosey has contributed more awful offal. Coincidence....?

It's giving a link of https rather than http, and there isn't a valid security certificate for this site on https. Just change the url to point to http rather than https and it works fine.

I pondered that Wow but it is OK now.

It comes and goes. It appears to be a change in the representation of the links in "Recent Comments".

It will turn up again.

I would suggest not accepting the untrusted cert, just in case, since until you click on another "Recent Comment", changes in the URL from https to http is retained. And its not every time the Recent Comment links have the error.

No system of government is perfect.
Castro's regime was far superior to the one it replaced.
It benefited from Soviet subsidy, but was undermined by malicious economic warfare perpetrated against it by the USA.
As can be seen in China and Vietnam, the benefits of capitalism are eventually leveraged by any kind of regime, if it has economic progress as its goal.
And economic progress is the key to improving citizens' standard of living, not ideology.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 22 Mar 2016 #permalink

GSW: Get lost you clot. I'm sick of you. The rest of us here are too. As for loathsome regimes, look closer to home. I am sure you'll learn something. Now go away you infantile twerp.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 23 Mar 2016 #permalink

"The “Communists in denial”"

Still incapable of reading what your eyes see, only what your heart tells you, hmm?

I guess it goes with the imaginary sky fairy friend shit you obey. I too once KNEW I could walk through the secret tunnels in the walls of the house.

In my defence, I WAS only 3 at the time.

What's YOUR excuse?

"And economic progress is the key to improving citizens’ standard of living, not ideology."

QFT.

The basis of what those proclaiming communism=bad and that anything deleterious mentioned about capitalism==you commie.

March 23rd and only 21 comments by the same few stale alarmists who can't escape from their meaningless Deltoid routine.
Time to shut this waste of a site down....do it for the polar bears.

Conveniently birch bark tree pruner man pops up with his 0.1 cents worth of wisdom. His use of the word 'alarmist' tells us all about his outdated mind set. A bit ironic that we have not heard from him after by far the warmest year on record and with 2016 begining with two record warm months as well (e.g. February was literally off the scale).

Betula writes somehow as if, with Deltoid largely silent, that this closes the debate on AGW. Yes folks, like GSW, Betula has the same mind set. Forget the volumes of empirical evidence, forget the stacks of papers in the peer-reviewed literature, a quiet Deltoid means that there is no AGW.

What saddens me is that people like this actually exist. They are living and breathing examples of Homo stupidicus. Or at the very least, a subspecies Homo sapiens stupidicus.

Nothing more needs to be said.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 23 Mar 2016 #permalink

Look at Hardley running around in his cage all excited barking to himself. It's almost as if he just saw a spider...

"March 23rd and only 21 comments"

Could you only count that because the numbers were beside it, Betty?

Plus what on earth does it mean? Certainly not that you alarmists have shut up, but maybe that you're being so marginalised by reality that you're really not putting up any noise any more.

Yet more evidence, in Europe at least, we're transitioning to a post "Climate Alarm" era. From the Guardian,

"European clean tech industry falls into rapid decline"
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/23/european-clean-tech-…

"Investment in low-carbon energy in Europe last year plummeted by more than half to $58bn, the lowest level in a decade, analysis show"

Striking graphic showing decline from Bloomberg here,
http://oi59.tinypic.com/8vyio3.jpg

Not as much traction in the meme these days.

No, not more "evidence".

Just evidence that you're a moron, Gitter. If you really believed it, you'd just sit back and cackle and wait for it all to crumble. Reality,however, doesn't conform to your desires.

You could just as well call this evidence that your fantasy world is crashing down, gitter:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/sep/22/leonardo-dicaprio-jo…

Institutions worth $2.6 trillion have now pulled investments out of fossil fuels

Coalition of 2,000 individuals and 400 institutions are shifting assets from coal, oil and gas companies...

I guess the bottom has fallen out of your world, eh?

Craig, money isn't the definer of wealth. GDP increases have nearly nothing to do with income when a capitalist system has captured government to ensure that money floods up to the privileged.

Just remember that.

Note how John Birch and Gormless don't even try to dispute what by now is bleeding obvious: its warming and warming rapidly. Their hiatus is well and truly dead and buried. Both are right wing idiots, of course, which by now is patently clear. GSW feebly tries to link political apathy amongst the corporate elites and their poodles in government as evidence that AGW is either not happening or else is no problem. I'm sure there were plenty of people aboard the Titanic who believed that the great ship could not sink even as it listed and began to slide into the depths. Of course there are similar people in power today who cannot think farther than 1-2 years ahead, and the corporate sector has trouble going beyond a fiscal year. None of tis counters the evidence that we are going to hell in a hand basket in comparatively slow motion.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 23 Mar 2016 #permalink

Craig at #18

We can both agree on something there.

It wasn't a spider Jeff noticed but the crapping of a 'roach that crawled out from under the bark.

Said 'roach of course ignores the fact that most have now stopped arguing about AGW issues except for the few crazies of the type that Desmog, Sou, Sinclair and Potholer regularly expose.

Correction to Craig @ #18, my remark applies until one goes beyond the first four lines.

Shorter Hardley......"Scientists predicted the Titanic would sink, and they were right!"

Stupider Betty..... Nah, nadir of intelligence reached with that specimen.

Remember folks, this is the same Betula who argued that greenhouse conditions, with high C02 levels, are a good proxy for complex adaptive natural systems, and that the health of eastern North American habitats is good on the basis of the success of reintroduced wild turkeys and because white tailed deer are thriving.

Both of these assertions represent a child's eye view of environmental science, and both are not even worthy of a response.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 24 Mar 2016 #permalink

This fine piece by Sou on Hot Whopper explains how desperate deniers are becoming as their numbers dwindle and science overwhelms them:

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2016/03/despondent-deniers-why-fake-sceptics…

Its a perfect commentary for dupes like GSW. Betula, Rednose and Olaus, who talk little about science these days because it just isn't on their side. No more discussion of a hiatus, no more exclamations of how the Arctic ice extent is recovering, nothing about glaciers, nada, nada, nada. For them it will soon be over. Even WUWT is essentially a blog for bitter losers these days. One excuse after another.

The problem is that deniers were never going to win the scientific debate. That was lost on day one. What they aimed to do was simply to sow enough doubt amongst the general public as to render any action to mitigate warming mute. On that score they have done very well. They have ensured that humanity fiddles while Rome burns. I don't know if it is a good thing, but the immense weight of empirical evidence is so great now that even many deniers are throwing in the towel. Let's hope it is is not too late.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 24 Mar 2016 #permalink

Poor Hardley, your solitary confinement in Deltoid has you imagining that "folks" actually read this blog. You are destined to continue talking to yourself while living in fear of a catastrophic-only predicted future...
Good luck with that.

Betula, in case you hadn’t noticed, I work at a research institute, give many lectures at universities and attend international workshops and conferences where the effects of climate change are discussed. Your posts are utterly bizarre.

There’s also no solitary confinement at all when it comes to blogs; those simpletons like you who still deny AGW are the ones stuck in some form of intellectual solitary confinement. As Sou shows on Hot Whopper, your ranks are dwindling and dwindling rapidly. The empirical evidence is undermining you.

As for the term ‘catastrophic’, its you and your lot who made this up. Its a desperate, last ditch effort to downplay the more serious effects of warming. Sure, inaction in time will have serious repercussions (already is) but only dopes like you and other deniers would frame AGW in such a way.

We didn’t miss you here when you were away. So please go away again.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 24 Mar 2016 #permalink

Poor Hardley, your solitary confinement in Deltoid has you imagining...

Says a crank demonstrating that he is as totally deluded about Jeff's situation as he is about the state of the Earth's climate and why it is in that state. Hey, you don't happen to wear a ginger wig do you?

In an attempt to be noticed, Lionel bangs his tin mug on the wall in the cell next to Hardley's...

Classic.

Note Betula's inability once again to discuss anything remotely scientific. Like GSW, he barges back into Deltoid with his arrogant brand of supine ignorance. Note he refers to ' solitary confinement' without looking in the mirror. I guess the fact that I am a Professor in Population Ecology who lectures at universities and conferences and who has been interviewed by the media on issues relating to global change does not factor into Betula's empty smear. Once again, its those in denial of AGW who are becoming an ever dwindling number.

As fort the classic comment as well, once again look in the mirror tree pruner. You are hitting closer to home than you might think.

Now go away.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 25 Mar 2016 #permalink

As a final riposte to Betula, countless folks may not read this blog, but they sure as heck do know what NASA, the NOAA and every major scientific organization on Earth is saying. None of these - not a single one - are in your corner.

That says it all and says who is living in solitary confinement. You really aren't that bright a bulb, are you Betula...

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 25 Mar 2016 #permalink

Instead of sticking their heads forever in the sand, the deniers on here should read a bit more. Her's a good start:

http://climate.nasa.gov/news/

Maybe they might learn something when they emerge from their echo chamber.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 26 Mar 2016 #permalink

What a relief, Polar Bears are still ok!

"Demographic and traditional knowledge perspectives on the current status of Canadian polar bear subpopulations"
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ece3.2030/full

" We suggest that the correspondence between TEK and scientific results can be used to improve the reliability of information on natural systems and thus improve resource management. Considering both TEK and scientific information, we suggest that the current status of Canadian polar bear subpopulations in 2013 was 12 stable/increasing and one declining (Kane Basin). We do not find support for the perspective that polar bears within or shared with Canada are currently in any sort of climate crisis."

"We also look empirically at reported Greenland harvest data and a climate-related time series for sea ice, global temperature estimates, Arctic temperature estimates, and ocean temperature estimates. We choose to look at this information collectively rather than simply accept what others have written because we are concerned that the polarizing influence from climate politics may have generated perspectives about polar bear conservation that are more argumentative than objective."

"If polar bears emerged any time prior to or during the previous glacial cycle, they would have persisted through the Eemian interglacial period. During the Eemian interglacial, mean annual temperatures were 4°C warmer than the current interglacial (Holocene) for northern latitudes (Müller 2009), and some northern locations reached temperatures as high as ~7.5°C warmer than the mean temperature for the same area over the last thousand years (Dahl-Jensen et al. 2013). Both scenarios suggest that polar bears are able to mitigate impacts from sea ice decline to an extent not fully exhibited in modern times."

"Given the persistence of polar bears through the current and previous interglacial periods, and their ability to accommodate extended retreats onshore and based on the empirical observations of climate and sea ice change (S7), it seems unlikely that polar bears (as a species) are at risk from anthropogenic global warming."

The evidence just keeps stacking up; Cronin, Crockford and now a team from Ontario. Go Canada!
;)

What a blasphemy GSW! :-) But I'm sure our dear Little Napoleon's "first hand spider" can debunk this obviously very fossil fueled research. :-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 28 Mar 2016 #permalink

Own goal again, guys. Sorry, try again. This paper is published in Ecology and Evolution, an open access journal recently created by Blackwell for rejects of papers in Journal of Animal Ecology, Journal of Ecology and Functional Ecology. The editors of those much better journals often reject papers and suggest to the authors that they submit them to E & E, which has a heft fee attached to it. I reviewed a paper for E & E in which I and another reviewer were very critical of the paper yet E & E still accepted it. This is exactly why I and many colleagues have expressed reservations about open access. Clearly, the authors of this piece have tried to get it published in better journals but it has probably gone through several rejects, and ended up again in a bottom-feeder.

But you two clowns have never peer-reviewed anything and thus have not got a clue about the process. This paper will be rebutted for sure by the authors of papers in much more rigid journals. The reason it is fatally flawed - as I have said before - is that it bases polar bear demographics on the recent or current status of the bears. I have said before, but you dopes clearly cannot read, that a certain reduction of ice probably benefits the bears in the short term because it opens up more available habitat for foraging. But the ice is not expected to stabilize, but ti continue decreasing, as it is. The authors appear blind to this - that the Arctic death spiral has not stopped but is ongoing. Its a great example of drawing conclusions at an asymptotic peak just before the curve goes into a steep decline.

Easy to debunk, and I am sure other experts on these great mammals will beat me to it.

Back to your crayons, kiddies.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 29 Mar 2016 #permalink

Oh, and I just found this out: the last author, Mitchell Taylor, is affiliated with the Heartland Institute. Un-be-lieve-able. Do these clowns have no dignity?

Seriously. I cannot make this up. This paper will end up in the garbage bin along with the other dregs from climate change deniers. None of the authors, from what I saw, have much in the way of pedigree. It shows the perils of open access up once again.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 29 Mar 2016 #permalink

Just finished reading the Yrok et al. paper (York is a Master's student by ther way with little scientific pedigree and we know already that Mitchell hangs out with the wrong company).

Try this paper published last year in Science, a journal about 1000 times more prestigious than E & E:

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/349/6245/295

Note also how Olaus only pops in here when he thinks there is something to support his ever weakening views. Where's your hiatus Olaus? And where are your links to graphs showing how well the Arctic is faring?

As I have also said, there's a huge dataset showing how warming is negatively affecting a wide range of biota, and not just Polar Bears. Piles of studies. GSW is just playing the old Serengeti Strategy. Badly.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 29 Mar 2016 #permalink

Jeff your,

"The authors appear blind to this – that the Arctic death spiral has not stopped but is ongoing. Its a great example of drawing conclusions at an asymptotic peak just before the curve goes into a steep decline."

If by "drawing conclusions at an asymptotic peak ", you mean Polar Bears are actually doing ok at the moment- well the authors agree with you.

"We do not find support for the perspective that polar bears within or shared with Canada are currently in any sort of climate crisis.” - An important point.

The interesting thing here is the growing number of academics drawing the same conclusions from the evidence available. A couple of months back it was UAF's Matt Cronin, by way of a refresher,

“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.”

;)

An increasing number = 2. One of whom is affiliated with the Heartland Foundation. They publish their articles in bottom feeding journals. Why not high impact ones? Answer: shoddy science.

If the ice continues to decline at the present rate, the bears are in serious trouble. No ands, ifs or but. Previous warm periods took many centuries to get there if no millenia. We are talking ehre about 50 years or less.

And as I said warming is having highly deleterious effects on a range of biota across the globes terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Not only Polar Bears.

Time for you to desist GSW. You cannot and never will win a debate over AGW. Its over.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 29 Mar 2016 #permalink

"If the ice continues to decline at the present rate, the bears are in serious trouble. No ands, ifs or but."

Well yes there are if's, ands, and buts. There's empirical evidence that Polar Bears survived prior/warmer periods than present, everthing else is doubtful "hypothesis".

You seem to be conceding however that Polar Bears are not in crisis *now*, which is some progress at least. The authors will agree with you on that.

You seem to be conceding however that Polar Bears are not in crisis *now*, which is some progress at least.

Your logic is so warped that the above is 'not even wrong'. How did you escape the circus you clown? I guess you had to go because everything fell off your argument vehicle and like that stunt for adults this is no longer funny. Your village needs your return.

Thanks for saying what I wanted to, Lionel.

The fact is that it is warming at rates faster than in at least hundreds of thousands of years, if not millions. Previous warming events took many factors longer to manifest themselves. The bears might stand a chance if the Arctic ice stabilizes at present rates (but this is highly unlikely) or if the descrease slows dramatically then reverses. Here is the crux:

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2681.html

66 million years AT LEAST. Let those words sink in. Against this onslaught, Polar Bears will have to adapt and adapt within a single generation to the complete loss of their ice during summer. They will not be able to. Its as simple as that. We are on the asymptote now heading into the abyss. Deniers are singularly incapable of thinking ahead. Its all NOW, NOW, NOW and forget the future. Its like saying that tropical rainforest-inhabiting birds will survive if their forest habitat stops being destroyed. Many still surivive because their are still patches of forest left. But if the forest goes, they go as well. Its the same for the bears but replace forest with intact ice.

Its not rocket science GSW. You and the people who write trashy pieces like the E & E article are willfully ignorant. The paper won't generate any discussion among scientists, even if it goes viral over the denialosphere, desperate for any studies that support their every narrowing views. If tghey could get this into Nature, Nature Climate Change, Science, or PNAS, then I'd be more inclined to listen to them. But in E & E? Forget it. These are desperate times for climate change deniers, as the evidence overwhelms them.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 29 Mar 2016 #permalink

jeff,

Mmm... "thermal constraints and range shifts in insects" do you have an equivalent empirical study for Polar Bears? If not, it's all just puff.
;)

Shorter Hardley - "Polar Bears, insects, what's the difference?"....."Look, a spider!"

Shorter Betula: I don't understand basic population ecology so I'll instead make a snide comment....

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 30 Mar 2016 #permalink

GSW: I want to take this discussion beyond Polar Bears to explain the broader effects of rapid warming on a wide range of plants and animals. The empirical literature is full of studies. I've made my case for Polar Bears. If the Arctic ice continues to dwindle in response to warming, at the rate it is at least, then they are in trouble. Deniers can live in the recent past all they like, but its the projected effects of their habitat loss that matters. The analogy I presented yesterday with tropical forest-dependent birds is appropriate. The dynamics of forest loss are borne out in studies showing declines of birds and other tropical forest species. These declines are gradual, or only occur at specific tipping points. This means that the loss or fragmentation of forests can be tolerated to s certain point and then populations collapse. In some species, fragmented patches of habitat are even preferred and they do better at edges, as I have seen in Costa Rica, Brazil, Ecuador and elsewhere in the neotropics as well as in India and old world tropical forests. But many of these habitats do not ned in stasis but are eventually destroyed completely. Its when these habitats reach critical thresholds that populations crash.

Its the same for Polar Bears, and most biologists, even probably those like Anderson and Crockford associated with the Heartland Foundation, know it. They are simply playing for time. I can see through it and so can the scientific community by and large. They are stalling. By saying how great Polar Bears are doing now (ignoring the age-structure of the population as well as per capita fitness) presupposes that Arctic ice extent will level out very soon. But that is not happening nor is it expected to. And you know it too. If summer ice disappears entirely in the coming decades, then the bears are in serious trouble. Unlike temperate species, they cannot move polewards as they are as far north as they can go. They cannot adjust their range. Species adapted to tundra biomes are in the firing line.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 30 Mar 2016 #permalink

@jeff

" I want to take this discussion beyond Polar Bears"

Of course you do. You've been asked to back up your assertions with empirical evidence - which you clearly don't have. As usual we're just entreated to your "feelings" on the subject.

Come on, where's the empical evidence?

Do your own homework GSW. The scientific literature is full of species that disappeared when their habitat was destroyed.

Polar Bears are totally dependent on pack ice to forage. They require some at least during all seasons so that they have access to their main prey - seals. If the ice goes, so do the bears. This is not rocket science. The bears survive right now because there is still available habitat for them to forage and to reproduce. If the ice goes, so do they, just as tropical forest inhabiting species disappeared when the forests were cut. Read the article I linked to and learn soemthing.

You are a willfully ignorant clot. Your argument is the same as telling foresters to keep clear cutting forersts because species dependent on them still survive in fragments. What scientists with any pedigree are saying is that once the forests are completely cut then the species that depended on them go as well. This is a simple FACT. Its the same for the bears: replace forest with intact pack ice. You are stuck in the mindset of NOW, NOW, NOW, and the recent past. Climate change is eliminating Arctic ice progressively. If this continues, the bears are gone.

Now take your bullshit elsewhere.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 30 Mar 2016 #permalink

Yes jeff, we got that.

If by "destroyed" you mean Ice free summers - the Polar Bears survived in the past and will do in the future ( See Cronin and York references)

Again from #45,

"“If polar bears emerged any time prior to or during the previous glacial cycle, they would have persisted through the Eemian interglacial period. During the Eemian interglacial, mean annual temperatures were 4°C warmer than the current interglacial (Holocene) for northern latitudes (Müller 2009), and some northern locations reached temperatures as high as ~7.5°C warmer than the mean temperature for the same area over the last thousand years (Dahl-Jensen et al. 2013). Both scenarios suggest that polar bears are able to mitigate impacts from sea ice decline to an extent not fully exhibited in modern times.”

"“Given the persistence of polar bears through the current and previous interglacial periods, and their ability to accommodate extended retreats onshore and based on the empirical observations of climate and sea ice change (S7), it seems unlikely that polar bears (as a species) are at risk from anthropogenic global warming.”

You feel otherwise, where's the empirical evidence to back up your "feelings"?

Of course you do. You’ve been asked to back up your assertions with empirical evidence – which you clearly don’t have. As usual we’re just entreated to your “feelings” on the subject.

That does not even pass the smell test you idiot, which latter characteristic identifier does not qualify as an ad hominem by being a statement of fact. What do you think Jeff has been doing all these years by taking the time and trouble to appraise you of the scientific research that provides the empirical evidence laid out in scientific papers which he cited.

It would seem not only are you too lazy, or ignorant, to research the topic yourself but neglect to take advantage of the short cuts to knowledge provided by somebody with the expertise. That you should come out with such glib insults is, under the circumstances, nauseating. You really are a nasty little troll, in a former age you would have long since been invited out for 'grass before breakfast'!

In simple terms, for an obviously simple mind here is a wealth of related information which you should digest:

Polar Bears International

How are polar bears affected by climate change?

Polar bears have evolved for a life on the sea ice, which they rely on for reaching their seal prey. But the arctic sea ice is rapidly diminishing due to a warming earth, affecting the entire arctic ecosystem, from copepods to seals to walruses. For polar bears, sea ice losses mean:

* Reduced access to food
* Drop in body condition
* Lower cub survival rates
* Increase in drowning
* Increase in cannibalism
* Loss of access to denning areas

Scientists predict that as the Arctic continues to warm, two-thirds of the world's polar bears could disappear within this century.

There is also one quote above that with which I totally agree [1] "In fact, if our chief scientist, Dr. Steven C. Amstrup had his way, every news report on the latest weather disaster would end with these words:

"Events like these will continue to increase in number and severity as the world continues to warm."

[1] Just yesterday on the local news a weather forecaster, whilst reporting on the welcome commissioning of a new oceanographic research vessel sailing under the historic name of RRS Discovery, when discussing recent severe weather events stated that old canard about not being able to associate any one such to climate change signally failed to make the emphasis so clear in Dr. Amstrups' statement.

GSW, we have no idea how much their Arctic habitat was altered during past warming episodes - if indeed the Arctic was ever truly ice free at all. More importantly, even if it was, it took thousands of years for it to get there - and was therefore a very gradual process. The bears at least under these dynamics had a time over multiple generations to adapt to the changes. These changes are now occurring in the blink of an evolutionary eye - less than a century - which means in one or two bear generations. These large predators cannot and will not adapt to the loss of their habitat in this time frame. Case closed.

We now that during past ice ages, the extent of neotropical forests was also reduced significantly - by perhaps as much as 80% in central and South America. We also know that tropical biota survived this bottleneck, but they did so because the loss of tropical forests was also a gradual process. If the forests had vanished in 100 years, then it would have precipitated a mass extinction event.

What you are saying with Polar Bears is that we can expect a rapid, genetic-based shift in phenotypic traits such as foraging behavior, diet, and habitat preference, in 50-100 years. This would be pushing it for more r-selected species like rodents that can have multiple generations in a single year (read up on life-history theory and on trade-offs, you might, just might, learn something). But for a species like the Polar Bear at the terminal end of the food chain with extremely low reproductive potential and which trades that off against increased lifespan its impossible.

You do realize here that I am teaching you basic evolutionary ecology. Undergraduates learn this in the first year of their Bachelor's degrees, and yet here I am teaching this to you, who is clearly older. Hopefully you aren't totally a lost cause.

I won't even get deeply into time lags, relaxation times for stable equilibria or the 'extinction debt' because this will clearly bounce off of your head. However, one thing I notice among neophytes like you is that they always conflate cause and effect relationships temporally. In other words, they expect the loss of habitat area 'y' to have an almost instantaneous effect on the demographics of species 'z'. Thus, we lose habitat today, and the effects are manifested tomorrow. It doesn't work that way. Habitat loss can take decades, or even centuries to manifest itself on populations. Thus, counting the bears today and saying 'everything is fine!' is frankly ludicrous. The current demographics represent conditions as far back as the 1980s or even earlier. What we are doing now will have impacts in the future. Its this area that explains why I am infinitely more qualified to comment on than you, GSW, or even some of the outliers you cite.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 30 Mar 2016 #permalink

... and thanks to Lionel, as always, for his excellent post and the support. It means a lot. I am exasperated by GSWs wilful ignorance. Hed clearly has not read any of the other studies I linked to earlier or the many papers discussing the processes I describe above. This isn't a debate: its Sunday school.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 30 Mar 2016 #permalink

All hail the CO2 God

All hail the CO2 God

Well the sun isn't doing much to alter climate right now, not until Earth's orbits fall into forcing stages, and many millennia into the future as it becomes a red giant and engulfs the Earth, which planet would have been well roasted before that event.

...Undergraduates learn this in the first year of their Bachelor’s degrees...

And there are some of us who learned about it without that structured environment. In my case by picking up, in my teens, a copy of Darwin's famous work and studying it, looking around at the natural world and realising that the processes laid out made sense overturning what had been instilled into me by my Baptist minister grandfather and his daughter my mother.

But, I have been expanding my knowledge on evolution and ecology ever since with Dawkins featuring in the 1980s and ever since, more recently through the works of Daniel C Dennett, Jerry Coyne, Trivers, Diamond and numerous others.

It would appear that our 'Wooden-top Club' not so much.

Take this Nature study, which applies to the effects of habitat loss of species in Singapore, and apply it to species dependent on any ecosystems under threat.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v424/n6947/full/nature01795.html

Then watch this National Wildlife Federation video on habitat dependence of Polar Bears:

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=national+wildlife+federation+youtub…

and this:

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=national+wildlife+federation+youtub…

Its a simple story that even a simpleton like GSW might even be able to understand.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 30 Mar 2016 #permalink

Hardley,
I fail to see in any of your links where it states that a reduction in C02 emissions will result in the future catastrophic - only predictions being treated as non-fact.
At the same time, I have to wonder how the U.N.'s plan to develop the undeveloped nations, that is, increase use of the worlds resources and increase CO2 emissions, will result in what you deem to be future facts.... become non-predictions.

jeff,

"we have no idea how much their Arctic habitat was altered during past warming episodes – if indeed the Arctic was ever truly ice free at all."

Noone has asked you what you think you know or don't know- You were asked whether you had "empirical evidence" to back up your "feelings" about portents of doom, and you won't produce any.

Also, if it were possible for the Arctic to be 4-7.5C warmer than present (as York states in #45) AND resist being seasonally Ice free, even occasionally, we can all go home - at least we wont have to listen to the continual bleating that it's likely to happen anytime soon. :)

Come on jeff, don't prevaricate.
;)

Its a simple story that even a simpleton like GSW might even be able to understand.

Obviously not.

GSW step up to the plate and YOU stop prevaricating and actually learn something — you have had more than enough help. Polar bears are not the only 'canary in the coal mine' in what is a warming earth, many, many are squeaking, many by going extinct as they run out of range movement space due to environmental changes brought on by climate change and human development.

As for Birch-Bark - his latest didn't even make sense, he does some dangerously muddled about CO2's warming effect. He then pulls up the old canard about the poor, so called, undeveloped nations.

More piffle from the kindergarten brigade here. I specifically talk about time lags, about temporal scales, about genetic variation and adaptation, and about the effects of previous warming events on various biomes and what do I get in reply?

Pure and utter piffle. None of these points are even remotely addressed. I also said that the empirical literature is full of studies showing highly deleterious effects of warming on trophic interactions, food webs, ecosystems, and on the species in them across the biosphere. Polar Bears are symbolic but there plight is hardly unique. Yet for that I was accused of 'chaging the subject'.

GSW thinks he is debating. He isn't, because he is clearly a complete novice in the fields being discussed. Instead he writes this stupid childish stuff about 'go Canada go!' in response to a mediocre article published in a medicocre journal by a team at Lakehead University which focuses on the present without taking into consideration the future consequences of warming. I said that previous warming episodes took thousands of years at least to be manifested, whereas the present one is elapsing in under a century - very different scales - and how this makes it nigh impossible for a species like a Polar Bear with such slow generation times to adaptively respond. For saying this salient little fact I am accused or 'prevaricating'. And what GSWs posts truly revela is that he is not interested in the turh but in promoting a pre-determined view on GW - that it either isn't happening and/or is not a problem. This, based on his limited education in relevant fields.

Betula then goes on about C02 as if he has a clue of what he is writing about. C02 is direcly linked with the current warming episode. So of course its an important factor. And if the planet keeps warming at the recent rate then there are going to be all kinds of serious repercussions - as well as nasty surprises. To reiterate for the millionth time, the scientific literature is full of studies showing this. Yet Betula and GSW don't read any of them, or if they do don't understand them or worse still, wish to undserstand them. They have made up their minds based on their own inherent biases and that's that. End of story.

As for underdeveloped nations, I suppose Betula means the countries that the west, especially the US, has been looting for decades. The ones where the US has suppressed democracy or supported autocratic regimes who place the interests of investors and corporations above those of the people. Yes, we know a lot of them.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 31 Mar 2016 #permalink

One last point to GSW: in contrast with the view expressed @#45, there are many much more qualified scientists who argue that the Arctic will become ice free within the coming century if the warming continues. In fact, this is the majority opinion of the world's leading experts. Its outliers that you appear to only believe, and from there you then dispense with the majority view. One of the authors of the said paper is linked with the Heartland Foundation. Do these people have no shame? If they want to be taken seriously by the rest of us in science, then they should grow up and avoid think tanks and other corporate funded front groups with an axe to grind.

Is this how you treat science? Clearly it is - and it doesn't work. Go back to school.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 31 Mar 2016 #permalink

jeff,

More prevarication.

"and how this makes it nigh impossible for a species like a Polar Bear with such slow generation times to adaptively respond"

We know your "feelings" on the subject. We're waiting for the "empirical evidence" that supports your feelings. If there isn't any, just say - It's what you feel, rather than something a scientist would present i.e. backed up by evidence.

We know your “feelings” on the subject. We’re waiting for the “empirical evidence” that supports your feelings. If there isn’t any, just say – It’s what you feel, rather than something a scientist would present i.e. backed up by evidence.

Ah! Ha! The Wendy Wright Strategy as used by the simple minded everywhere.

I was saddened to learn that Dawkins had a stroke recently, it can be stressful arguing with those that refuse to recognise the plentiful evidence provided, over and over again.

Do something honest for once GlibSaWer [1] and engage with the literature cited.

Saw used in the sense of a saying.

Remember - predictions are facts and all facts lead to catastrophe....unless we are talking about development on a global scale that will use more of the earths resources and will increase C02 emissions....that is a fact that is a prediction, and all predictions lead to utopia.

You are another who clearly didn't read the warning label on that bottle of faecal pills eh BirchBark.

My 'feelings' are backed up by more data than you will. ever understand, GSW. My 'feelings' have been studied in detail and published in every major scientific journal in the field. My 'feelings' are being studied as I write. Myt 'feelings' are showing that species are responding to the recent warming in highly variable ways, with a clear pattern of unraveling food webs, reduced trophic complexity, and altered phenology. My 'feelings' are showing that if we don't rein in climate warming then we are going to see more communities and ecosystems under threat.

For those interested in an anology to illuminate the stupidity of GSW and his debating 'strategy', if one can call it that, here's one:

GSW, like other AGW deniers and anti-environmentalists believe that projections, trends and models are meaningless. He therefore would argue that we need to cut down all of the world's rainforests in order to 'prove' that this will drive the extinction of tropical forest-dependent biota. Until then, he will claim that cutting the world's tropical forests down isn't necessarily bad for the species living in them; that they will adapt to fragmented patches and in fact shift to occupy open habitats. He wants hard numbers showing that tens of thousands if not millions of species of insects, more than two thousand birds, hundreds of mammals and thousands of reptiles and amphibians that are found nowhere else will disappear once their tropical forest habitat is gone. If he doesn't go that far, he'll say that 10 or 20 per cent of these forests is enough to preserve sufficient populations of their biota; its up to me and other scientists to prove that clear cutting them is harmful. Until then, keep the saws buzzing.

Yes people, this is what GSW is in effect saying, but you can replace 'tropical forests' with 'Arctic ice' in this instance. GSW wants unequivocal proof that melting of the Arctic ice cap will (1) happen as a result of AGW, and (2) that its harmful to the wildlife in the Arctic that depend on it. Forget the fact that we know that Polar Bears do depend on this ice for their reproduction and survival, he wants to continue this experiment burning fossil fuels and watching the ice melt away until the scientific community can provide absolute, concrete proof that its a disaster to not only Polar Bears but other Arctic species. Then and only then will he say, 'OK, you win', but by then it will of course be too late. We are already approaching tipping points, and have probably passed many in various forms across the biosphere, but deniers forever want 'more proof'.

One thing is for sure: GSW ain't the brightest bulb on the tree. In my experience GW deniers and anti-environmentalists are a thick lot. GSW and Betula are just adding more evidence to show that.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 31 Mar 2016 #permalink

"More prevarication. "

More irrelevant.

Did you learn that word but not its meaning?

"All hail the CO2 God"

The only thing that can mean doesn't reflect well on you, spots.

I think that Barca will win the Champions League again this year.

Adrian - Just think how much C02 is emitted as a result of these games...the traveling of the players and fans, the lights, the concession stands, all the TV sets tuned in etc.

It is a known fact that this is a travesty that can only result in predicted future catastrophic scenarios.

I say ban all sports....save the polar bears and spiders!

Thank you.

When I read the likes of the last pathetic, unfunny comment from Mr. Birch Bark, it makes me truly realize how profoundly ignorant many people are, and how easily they swallow anything they are told. And society is full of people who think the same way. They stick their finger to the wind, derive an opinion from that, then immerse themselves in sources of (dis)information to back this up. Last year Betula made some absolutely puerile comments about the health of North American ecosystems on the basis of completely piss-poor examples. Combined with his other postings, its clear that his 'knowledge' base is elementary.

As I said, Betula has the sense of humor of a piece of granite. And the common sense to boot. What a sad person.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 01 Apr 2016 #permalink

I see that GSW is concerned about my 'feelings'. It turns out that my 'feelings' about the potential and realized consequences of AGW are shared by the vast majority of the scientific community. My ‘feelings’ are backed up by more data than he will ever understand. My ‘feelings’ have been studied in detail and published in every major scientific journal in the field. My ‘feelings’ indeed are being studied as I write. My ‘feelings’ are showing that species are responding to the recent warming in highly variable ways, with a clear pattern of unraveling food webs, reduced trophic complexity, and altered phenology. My ‘feelings’ are showing that if we don’t rein in climate warming then we are going to see more communities and ecosystems under threat.

For those interested in an analogy to illuminate the sillinness of GSW and his debating ‘strategy’, if one can call it that, here’s one:

GSW, like other AGW deniers, believes that projections, trends and models are meaningless. Everything must be based on NOW and forget the future. He would have made a poor steward on the Titanic. He would also I presume argue that we need to cut down all of the world’s rainforests in order to ‘prove’ that this will drive the extinction of tropical forest-dependent biota. Until then, he will claim that cutting the world’s tropical forests down isn’t necessarily bad for the species living in them; he will argue, as with the Polar Bear, that they will adapt to fragmented patches and in fact many will shift to occupy open habitats. All of thios adaptation will occur in the blink of an evolutionary eye. Antbirds, for instance, dependent on wet tropical forest floors in which they currently live, will miraculously radiate and become grassland foragers. GSW wants hard numbers showing that tens of thousands if not millions of species of insects, more than two thousand birds, hundreds of mammals and thousands of reptiles and amphibians that are found nowhere else will disappear once their tropical forest habitat is gone. If he doesn’t go that far, he’ll say that 10 or 20 per cent of these forests is enough to preserve sufficient populations of their biota; its up to me and other scientists to prove that clear cutting them is harmful. Until then, keep the saws buzzing. Or, in the case of the Arctic, the ice melting.

Yes people, this is what GSW is in effect saying, but you can replace ‘tropical forests’ with ‘Arctic ice’ in this instance. GSW wants unequivocal proof that melting of the Arctic ice cap will (1) happen as a result of AGW, and (2) that its harmful to the wildlife in the Arctic that depend on it. Forget the fact that we know that Polar Bears do depend on this ice for their reproduction and survival, he wants to continue this experiment burning fossil fuels and watching the ice melt away until the scientific community can provide absolute, concrete proof that its a disaster to not only Polar Bears but other Arctic species. Then and only then will he say, ‘OK, you win’, but by then it will of course be far too late. We are already approaching tipping points, and have probably passed many in various forms across the biosphere, but deniers forever want ‘more proof’.

This nothing new to me, folks. I encountered a guy from Toronto, a big fan of Bjorn Lomborg as well, on a blog a few years ago who argued that acid rain was a non-problem. When I challenged him and presented studies showing harmful effects on lakes and boreal forests, he said that it wasn't enough: more proof was needed. Ultimately, this is what the anti-environmental lobby are doing: lobbying for lethargy. They claim to have an interest in science but they keep pushing the envelope further and further, demanding 100% unequivocal proof, without which they claim that there is no problem. Its like trying to win a pissing match with a skunk, as one colleague told me.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 01 Apr 2016 #permalink

As the baying crown here seem to be challenged at researching scientific literature themselves there are easier ways into it — books and articles by the scientists who have worked in the field.

For a broad look at ecological systems and their disruption then the writings of E.O. Wilson should figure:

'The Diversity of Life'

'The Future Of Life'

for the deep philes this well worn title may be of value but in the context of that 'baying crowd' maybe not so much:

'Primer of Population Biology'

Jeff may well already come across that one maybe as an undergrad.

On the accelerating extinction of species then these are useful primers, don't forget each volume comes with a wealth of references to supporting material including scientific papers;

'Climate Change and Biodiversity' by Thomas E Lovejoy and Lee Hannah

'Saving a Million Species' Edited by Lee Hannah

'Driven to Extinction' by Richard Pearson

On oceanic life the books by marine conservation biologist and oceanographer (note BTW the number of oceanographers who 'get' AGW) Professor Callum Roberts including the easy for the layman to understand

'The Unnatural History of the Sea'

'Ocean of Life'

Now things have not become any better since those books were written as Roberts makes clear: We knew fish catches were too high. But it’s much worse than we thought .

More on the oceans is revelled in Lisa-ann Gershwin's excellent,

'Stung! On Jellyfish Blooms and the Future of the Ocean'

Another researcher who's books are well worth a visit is Carl Safina:

'Song For the Blue Ocean'

'Eye of the Albatross'

'Voyage of the Turtle'

The first of the above discusses the problems that forestry and other land management issues impact oceanic species populations, particularly those with a life cycle encompassing both oceanic and fresh water stages.

There is just so much information out there for those that can open their minds. That is not to say that we, collectively scientists and interested laymen, profess to know everything. What is clear is that we know enough to understand that humans are on a very dangerous path.

Now arguing with such as the 'baying crowd' here who refuse to engage with reputable information sources is like flogging a dead horse and is not like having a pissing contest with a raccoon for it is having that pissing contest, for the 'baying crowd' of glib ignorants always leave a bad smell behind.

jeff,

I'm not concerned about your "feelings", that, again, is the point - It's what you can show, what you have evidence for, that matters - that's how scientists do it.
:)

You claim #74,

"and how this makes it nigh impossible for a species like a Polar Bear with such slow generation times to adaptively respond."

A fair question would be, what is that based on? evidence or your "feelings".

Regionally Polar Bears already survive Ice free summers (with PBSG stable populations) - How much adapting do you "feel" they have to do? (evidence preferred)

And what do you "feel" is the right amount of time for them to do this? (evidence preferred)

Cronin, York and others reason future survival based on response to past warming/reduced sea ice events. It's an entirely reasonable proposition. You arguing otherwise is not .If you've got some empical evidence, fine we'll take a look, but we're not that interested in how you "feel" about it.
;)

Cronin, York and others (who are these others?) are outliers. A Master's student of mine went through over 80 studies in the literature studying the effects of climate change on Polar Bears. All but 3 suggested that with warming they are in trouble. That means around 93% of them.

And you have the audacity with your lack of any relevant expertise to suggest that 3 studies, all published in weak journals, represent the 'bottom line'. Why don't you ask the Master's student (York) and Cronin why their 'feelings' are correct? Because they are doing exactly what you claim I am doing. They are essentially crossing their fingers and saying 'we hope that the summer ice doesn't melt much more, and even if it does, that the bears will find a way through the bottleneck and adapt by leaving their ice-marine habitats to stay on land longer'. I don't give York much credit because he's a neophyte. A rookie. Cronin should know better, but at least he was way more cautious. But they do not provide any evidence whatsover that the bears will be able to survive a profound lengthening of the ice-free season in the Arctic, any more than you could provide me with evidence that because tropical forest birds survived ice-ages when tropical wet forests were reduced by 80% or so, that they will survive approximately the same amount of deforestation now.

Clearly, GSW, I need to sit you down with a notebook and educate you on the difference between r and K selection, on trade-offs between reproduction and survival, and on differences in constraints imposed on species up the food chain based on differing selection pressures they face to find food and to reproduce. What your posts prove is that you are still in your diapers in these areas.

Once again, as you clearly are unable to comprehend: Polar Bears are extremely K selected mammals. They trade off a very low reproductive output by living longer. The costs of low reproduction are borne out in that adaptation to a rapidly changing environment is based on the genetic composition of the population(s), and on their rate of reproduction, as well as on mutant genes that may enter the population and confer adaptive trait-based responses to the environment. For r-selected organisms with rapid generation times and high fecundities which are traded off against reduced life-spans, its a lot easier to respond to shifting environmental conditions because these species are more likely to pass mutant, beneficial genes to the next generation rapidly. House flies, for instance, became resistant to DDT in the 1940s within two years after being exposed to the pesticide intensively. Many insects adaptively radiate to new conditions rapidly because they produce many progeny in short times. Polar Bears and other species of top-level predators have very slow generation times and produce few progeny during reproductive events. This makes them very susceptible to rapid changes in both biotic and abiotic conditions. If the Arctic loses much of its summer ice this coming century, or if the length of time that the Arctic is ice free gets longer and longer, then the bears are going to either have to find alternate food or starve. These animals forage on pack ice, not on land. During the summer they often spend extended periods without food, returning to the ice in autumn to hunt for seals. If that ice goes as rapidly as is projected, they are in trouble.

And once again for the millionth time I refer to the scale at which past climatic shifts occurred. They are not remotely as fast as they are now. Not even close. What a few academics are saying, in constrast with the vast majority of statured experts, is that Polar Bears and other biota across the planet can deal with AGW, no matter how severe it is. You ignore all of these other studies as if they don't exist. Is this your modus operandi? And why are you are using it on me, a scientist with 170 publications and almost 5000 citations in my career? Are you serious? I know how science works even if you don't. Three or four papers in mediocre journals do not represent the bottom line. More than 80 in higher journals do. Get off your butt and read some of them, and learn something.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 01 Apr 2016 #permalink

... and those are just for starters. Every one of these journals is among the best in its field.

GSW has a lot of homework. Hopefully he won't be around here again for awhile.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 01 Apr 2016 #permalink

jeff,

You've just posted (#90) a random group of papers about Polar Bears; Everything from "Using expert knowledge(?)", black bear/ polar bear DNA markers, and I noticed one model "prediction" leading with,

"Incorporating future warming into population models, however, is challenging because reproduction and survival cannot be measured for yet unobserved environmental conditions" - well yes it is, thanks for trying anyway.

Do you have anything more relevant? You "feel" Polar Bears cannot adapt quickly enough. Where's the empirical evidence for that?

You "feel" Polar Bears will not survive future seasonal Ice-free regimes even though they clearly do now, and have done in past , where's the empirical evidence to back you up?.
;)

Posting/hand waiving about random papers was always your MO.

We had the same thing over on the Jonas Thread when he asked to see "The Science" behing the IPCC attribution statements - there wasn't any, that's why there's a hand count of "expert opinion" been promoted.

Your Derocher, Amstrup and Stirling papers aren't any better.
;)

Hardley also "feels" like he has an audience here at Deltoid:

"Yes people, this is what GSW is in effect saying"
"This nothing new to me, folks"

Who are these people/folks he is referring to? Lionel?

Delusions of grandeur....

No, GSW, reproduction cannot be estimated based on current estimates because of time lags between cause and effect; we have no idea how current warming will affect the bears until some time in the future because the animals have such a lot reproductive potential. You've never read anything about the decline of species in tropic al biomes years after the forests began to be cleared; its all there in the literature, but you just do not read nor understand it.

As I show, you just don't geddit. I can see from your posts that your understanding of the field of population ecology is poor; your messages reek of simplicity. You are clearly way, way out of your depth. Thanks for trying anyway.

And as for 'my papers', they are in journals infinitely better than the mediocre two you selected. But you wouldn't know an impact factor if it hit you in the head, would you? Its because you have not published a single paper in your life. And you still are clealry unable to understand life-history theory.

Finally, do you think the scientific community in the releavnt fields are swooning over the two papers you cited? Sorry to rain on your parade, but they won't dent the prevailing view, which is that the current rapid rate of ice loss in the Arctic as a result of AGW threatens Polar Bears and other species dependent on the pack ice there. You can live in your own fantasy world of make believe, but your profound ignorance is clearly evident.

Its fun taking you apart here. But I am busy GSW; I have science to do. Its my job. Not yours. As for Jonas, please, I have had enough laughs for the day.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 01 Apr 2016 #permalink

Birchhead, not everyone who reads this writes in. You clearly feel inclined to pop in now and again with your vacuous musings. You are as brain dead as GSW. You two clots belong together.

As for the 'debate', if one can call it that, theres a big, big world of science going on out there in which these issues are being debated and discussed. No guys, it isn't at some Heartland shindig, but in universities and research centers. And you know what? The vast majority of scientists in them agree with me on the causes and potential effects of climate change. Deltoid may be a tiny blip but the combined output of these universities isn't, and when you put it all together - guess what? - your views on GW are miniscule.

Have fun in your myopia.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 01 Apr 2016 #permalink

Thanks jeff,

"we have no idea how current warming will affect the bears until some time in the future"

Keep us posted on how you "feel" about it until then.
:)

The rest of us will rely on "reason" and the evidence of past warm episodes. - Which I think is where we came in on this.
;)

What evidence of 'past warm episodes'. It is clear that at present climate Arctic sea ice cannot survive summers (we just need to lose the very last of the MYI).

What is clear too is that last interglacial, some 130,000 years ago, never was hot enough to feature an ice free Arctic summer - even if it reduced Greenland ice by two thirds and featured sea levels at ten metres above today's (a recent article in Nature shows this could be attained by the year 2200 already, btw).

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 01 Apr 2016 #permalink

Hardley - "not everyone who reads this writes in"....did you read that "folks"?

Hardley - "But I am busy GSW; I have science to do. Its my job"....and yet, despite your busy schedule of heroics, you continue to post.

Hardley - "theres a big, big world of science going on out there in which these issues are being debated and discussed"....and yet, we are told the debate is over.

You're a constant contradiction of your own delusions.

Well done skunks you have continued to dig your holes, increasing the amount of your own you get back.

Well Hardley, your audience has spoken...

Oh look! Birchbark has fluffed from a cloud supporting a cuckoo.

Jeff – you are a star.

Posting links to environmental advocacy organisation marketing material (Polar Bears international) , solicitng for donations, isn’t Science/evidence either. I’m sure they “feel” frightfully concerned about it all (as they always have done)

I’ll part repost #97 earlier, (I thought we’d come to conclusion on this)

Thanks jeff,

“we[jeff et al] have no idea how current warming will affect the bears until some time in the future”

Keep us posted on how you “feel” about it until then.
:)

The rest of us will rely on “reason” and the evidence of past warm episodes. – Which I think is where we came in on this.
?

Lots of typos in #5, evidence of someone having lost it completely.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 01 Apr 2016 #permalink

@Betula

Ha! very good.
:)

Jeff Harvey p1 #96
" not everyone who reads this writes in "
Correct. I read but contribute infrequently.
Beyond that, im very greatfull to some
knowledgeable posters here for assisting with
queries.
Betula, i dont what the fuck you gain
out of trolling this great open thread but
it shits me to tears.
Piss off so i can follow the grown ups
mop up the dregs of denial for whom
consilience has no meaning.
Thankyou
Li D Australia

We can tell you deniers are desperate when you pretend that a mistake in typing you make is somehow proof you're right.

When you have nothing to say, why is it desperation to point out typos you make in the empty posts?

I see wow has yet to state how GSW's point about polar bears and Hardley's feelings is wrong...

Look....a spyder!

(typo left to give you something to comment about)

You're welcome.

@LiD

Hardley, your audience has just returned from the restroom. Could you please repeat the part about how “we have no idea how current warming will affect the bears until some time in the future"
There may be some queries...

I decided to stay away from the GSW/Betula asylum for a few days to recover from my fits of laughter at the density of these two dolts. GSW calls me a 'star' for quoting the leading Polar Bear researcher alive because he is one of a team of leading scientists working for an organization that advocates for the protection of this species as its habitat disappears. Yet I don't see GSW apply the same rule to the shills he pastes up here continually, like Susan Crockford and a co-author of the Lakehead Study, Mitchell Taylor, both of whom openly are linked with the Heartland Institute. Talk about hypocrisy - or idiocy.

I've encountered lots of these types of morons before so its par for the course. Here's their strategy:

Its either the domino theory of what Michael Mann refers to as the ' Serengeti Strategy'. It works this way. GSW and Betula both have no expertise whatsoever in environmental science, and important caveats of the field are clearly beyond their competence. However, the main thrust of this argument is that GSW is doggedly sticking his discussion to the plight of Polar Bears in a warming world. I've suggested expanding the field to apply more broadly to discuss the effects of warming on a much wider range of plants and animals, for which there are thousands of studies in the scientific literature. Most show that warming is leading to range shits, either polewards or to higher elevations, as well as disruptions in trophic interactions, altered phenology patterns and weakening food webs and reduced resilience in ecosystems. Direct physiological effects with abiotic effects as stressors are being noted as well. Many research groups around the world are describing similar processes.

Against this background, GSW panicked the moment I suggested that we broaden the discussion. The reasons are twofold: first, as I said, he's way out of his depth in any relevant areas. I can see that from his inability to under population genetics and life-history theory and how this relates to adaptive variation in a changing world. GSW thinks that Polar Bears have genomes that are evolutionarily programmed to live in an ice-free Arctic environment, as well as one in which summer ice is present. Heck, he probably thinks that their genomes are so labile that they could survive in a South American rainforest or African savanna. This is the depth of his ignorance. I've demolished it repeatedly, but he comes back with it over and over again.

Polar bears are officially classified as marine mammals. They are habitat specialists, as Durocher explained in the links I put up. They depend on pack ice and have evolved to forage on it. If this ice melts, they will be forced to become largely terrestrial, and they are not evolved to this kind of lifestyle.

The second, and more important point concerning GSW comes back to the Serengeti strategy. GSW and the other anti-environmental/climate change deniers focus on single examples or smear individual scientists. Their reasoning is that if they can convince the public that one area of research is wrong, or one scientist is dishonest, then they can effectively dismiss all of the other evidence for AGW or scientists who argue that humans are the primary culprit and that we should take mitigating action. The Polar Bear has thus become a symbol for the effects of climate change on biodiversity. If GSW and the idiot brigade can somehow dismiss concern over its fate in a warming world, then all of the other thousands of studies on different species and/or systems can also be dismissed.

So this is what the debate over Polar Bears is about. Of course GSW is wrong, and wrong by a long shot. He probably thinks Bengal tigers can survive if all of India's tropical forests are cleared as well, because, like Polar Bears, they are evolutionarily labile and can simply adjust to an agricultural/urban/grassland landscape in the course of a century or less.

He couldn't debate me on a scientific level in fields in which I have been trained in a million years. That he tries is a sign of his vacuous ignorance. Betula is just his trained monkey, throwing in unfunny comments that send him into hysterics. We all should now what that means.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 03 Apr 2016 #permalink

Now there's a typo: range shits! I meant range shifts. But I guess I had GSW and Betula in mind....

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 03 Apr 2016 #permalink

Definitely a Freudian slip there Jeff but entirely appropriate as it happens. At best they're a pair of giggling lobotomites ... at worst a pair of useless turds that just keep bobbing back up round the s-bend.

The performance of Betula/GSW is astonishing. Put in a cage where there are wide choices of the fruit from genuine scientific labours and also bubkes from a few scientists who should know better but have fallen into a Heartland mode of thinking these clots chose the bubkes to consume.

Well it is widely known that rabbits eat their own dropping because of an otherwise vitamin deficiency but anthropoids require a different diet. There is not allot of future for these clowns when it comes to intelligent discourse.

Question - Who stated the following @ #60?
"Again, no ands, ifs, or buts. Climate change threatens Polar Bears"

Question - Who stated the following @ #95?
“we have no idea how current warming will affect the bears until some time in the future”

Hint: He saw a spider.

You bloody dork Betty.

Evidence to back up the position that climate change threatens Polar Bears has been presented, more than once and by more than one commentator.

Your challenge is intellectually bankrupt and morally questionable.

Of course the path to species extinction is uncertain in time and space but given the developing shape of the 'Population Structure' (key words look up their meaning [1]) extinction of species is certain except in the unlikely event that Arctic Sea ice has a miraculous recovery - I won't be holding my breath on that one.

Again your challenge is intellectually challenged in its own right, that you should think otherwise demonstrates how ignorant and stupid you are. Stupid people refuse to learn from past mistakes.

With an ageing population of reproductive Ursus maritimus consider what has happened in the human population as more women have taken to starting families later in life. The pace of change has outstripped human evolution as it has with Ursus maritimus and there could well be similar unfortunate trends.

GSW amuses us with,
"Posting links to environmental advocacy organisation marketing material (Polar Bears international) , solicitng for donations, isn’t Science/evidence either."

Please confirm something with us, GSW,
- do you visit a blog run by an ex-weatherman called "wattsupwiththat"?
- do you post opinions on various sites wherein you repeat crap you've read on said blog?
- have you been known to post links to articles which appear on that site?
- does wattsupwiththat solicit donations?

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 03 Apr 2016 #permalink

"Hint: He saw a spider"

I actually own a lovely Avicularia avicularia, captive bred...

OK< now to dispense with Barkman. Saying that 'climate change threatens Polar Bears' and 'we have no idea how climate change will affect Polar Bears until some time in the future' are the same thing. It depends on the temporal rate of change. There's where there is uncertainty. If temperatures stabilize, and the Arctic ice recovers or at least the death spiral is stopped or reversed, then the prognosis for the bears is good. If, as current indications show, the Arctic death spiral continues unabated, then Polar Bears are in deep trouble. Therefore, it is a matter of context.

From all indications, it seems like Homo sapiens is intent on taking many of the planet's ecological life support systems into the abyss.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 04 Apr 2016 #permalink

#7, tee, hee.

Jeffrey, what calibre does it fire?

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 04 Apr 2016 #permalink

Remko, Lionel et al., you know you have strcuk a nerve when all they have to comment on is feelings...

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 04 Apr 2016 #permalink

You are correct Hardley, you have no idea how climate change will affect polar bears in the future. Well said.

Now all you have to do is explain to Lionel how "certain" his "uncertainty" is...

I sense progress.

Wrong, bark-head. I said that if the climate continues to warm at the present rate, then Polar Bears are likely to disappear. Given that temperatures the first two months of this year are literally off the scale, then things are looking bleak indeed.

And while I am continuing to demolish your childish nonsense, I'll trhow in the fact that biodiversity at all levels of organization is already being affected by climate change in its various forms. Any meta-analysis would show that most of these effects are negative. Its too bad you are just too pig-ignorant to read anything in the field or to understand it.

Idiots like you tend to keep their heads stuck firmly up their butt and live as if tomorrow doesn't exist. But then again, given the hilarity of your stupid earlier comments with respect to suggesting that high C02 levels in greenhouses would represent a good proxy for natural systems, and that North American biomes are doing well on the basis of white-tailed deer and wild turkey populations, then none of the crap you spew out surprises me.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 04 Apr 2016 #permalink

GSW and Betula are as thick as two planks. In Betula's case we are talking hardwoods as well, one of which he names himself after. How appropriate.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 04 Apr 2016 #permalink

Betula.

For years you've been disparaging the science that warns that many species are at high risk of extinction is humans continue to warm the planet as they have for the last 100 years.

How about you tell us how many and which species are not in fact vulnerable to extinction, contrary to the advice of science? Please supply references and data to support your answer.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 04 Apr 2016 #permalink

Hardley - "I said that if the climate continues to warm at the present rate, then Polar Bears are likely to disappear"

So you say "if" and "likely". You also said...“we have no idea how current warming will affect the bears until some time in the future”.

Last I checked, "If", "likely" and "no idea" are not definitive statements.

My advice - Don't let your own words get to you. Hang in there...

Bernard - Your question is hypothetical and consists of an infinite amount of variables.
Of course, we must imagine that the only species that will thrive in such predicted catastrophic-only scenarios are those that are detrimental or useless to us humans... mosquitoes, tropical diseases, weeds, algal blooms, snakes, and rodents. How fitting....
I say, massive development on a global scale is the only way to prevent the world from experiencing the predicted increase in all living things that are bothersome to us humans...

Bernard – Your question is hypothetical and consists of an infinite amount of variables.

Let me correct that for you barking:

"I don't understand the difference between a statement and a question and 'hypothetical' is a word I don't understand how to use and anyway a complexity of variables is too much for my poor bark brain to cope with."

Thanks Lionel, you put it better than I could.

Betula's logic is like saying that we should keep clear cutting tropical forests across the world until there is real proof that this will generate the certain extinction of the birds and mammals found there. Heck, Orangutans are hanging on in Borneo and Indonesia, despite the burning and replacing of their tropical forest habitats with oil palm plantations, and Hyacinth Macaws still exist in a few places in Brazil despite the loss of the forests they depend on. And Bengal tigers? Heck, they seem to still be around despite the loss of forests in India.

So why worry about Polar Bears? If the ice melts, as projected, they may survive in small numbers. Or maybe not. We don't really know, so lets not change anything.

How to debate this level of stupidity?

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 04 Apr 2016 #permalink

Lionel doesn't know what a question mark is?

Hardley's response to the posting of his own words....

"How to debate this level of stupidity?"

I love this site.

Even funnier is this howler from Betula: "only scenarios are those that are detrimental or useless to us humans… mosquitoes, tropical diseases, weeds, algal blooms, snakes, and rodents"

He throws snakes into the mix. They're useless huh? Many species of snakes play vital roles in controlling populations of rats and mice. Its been shown that the local extirpation of snakes has resulted in huge spikes in rodent numbers. But this is in keeping with the - er - level of his intelligence. I'd like to see his definition of 'weeds' as well. This is kindergarten level stuff from Mr. Tree Pruner.

Then he says this, " massive development on a global scale is the only way to prevent the world from experiencing the predicted increase in all living things that are bothersome to us humans".

I hope he's joking. Seriously. If he means this, then he's even more stupid than I thought. Development? On a planet where the rich control 80% of material wealth and where the per capita impact (footprint) is already in deficit? if everyone in the south lived like the average American, we'd need another 3 Earth-like planets to sustain it. This explains why US state-corporate planners pay lip service to 'development' and poverty eradication in the south. They know that there aren't enough resources to sustain American or European-type lifestyles across the biosphere. But they do everything to ensure that power and wealth remain concentrated in the hands of the privileged few. And there's piles of documented evidence to prove it.

And one final point: development is hammering away at the planet's ecological base, on the services that permit us to exist and persist. Humanity is utterly dependent on these services, without which we'd be in even deeper trouble than we already are. There are few technological substitutes for most of them. The loss of pollinators alone - which is happening on a massive scale - represents a massive threat to agricultural production. But don't expect Mr. Pruner to understand any of this. Its way, way over his head.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 04 Apr 2016 #permalink

“How to debate this level of stupidity?”

You don't.
You expose.
And you tell them we tend to kick those who cry 'we didn't know' later.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 04 Apr 2016 #permalink

"I love this site".

That's because you are into ritual self-humilation. At least judging by your response to Bernard J. It was hilarious! Thanks for making my day with your shallowness.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 04 Apr 2016 #permalink

Whiel I am hanging Betula with his own rope, let's revise this stinker from him, "the only way to prevent the world from experiencing the predicted increase in all living things that are bothersome to us humans".

The point is to prevent the world from experiencing the predicted decrease in living things that humans are dependent upon. He's got it ass-backwards. As always.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 04 Apr 2016 #permalink

Hardley - "The point is to prevent the world from experiencing the predicted decrease in living things that humans are dependent upon"

Because only the things we don't depend on will increase under current predicted catastrophic-only climate scenarios.....unless there is development on a global scale to prevent the predictions.

Your climate change/United Nations logic.....not mine.

But It seems you are beginning to admit the absurdity of it all, so maybe there is hope for you.

"Because only the things we don’t depend on will increase under current predicted catastrophic-only climate scenarios"

What a puerile remark. You are exasperating in your view of the world and our place in it. Its not that things that humans don't like that are predicted to increase that is the problem in a rapidly warming world, but the loss of the species and systems that we do depend on that is of concern to scientists. Sure, pathogens and plagues are expected to prosper under warmer conditions, but its the species that are involved in generating the conditions that permit us to exist and persist that are under threat. And not just from climate change, but from a suite of anthropogenic stresses. Pollinators are the most obvious, but we also have species and assemblages involved in several other ecological services that will disappear. This has always been the main concern to the scientific community. You appear to think that humans exist outside of any limitations imposed by natural systems. I am sure you think that we could pave the whole planet over and that the consequences would be minimal.

The CAGW scenario is a construct of deniers. They have added the 'C' as a convenient tool for downplaying the consequences, whilst barely understanding what those consequences are likely to be. For purely selfish reasons they are willing to gamble on the future. I am sure that future generations will not look back at the present lot so kindly when the shit is really hitting the fan and we did nothing.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 04 Apr 2016 #permalink

Because only the things we don’t depend on will increase under current predicted catastrophic-only climate scenarios….

What an asinine and absurd statement. It is clear that you are totally clueless about the extent of human reliance on ecological services and the intricacy of the webs which link all the species within.

Consider just one phenomenon that is rolling out through the oceans as we decimate fish stocks — the burgeoning populations of certain species of what are commonly known as jellyfish. Now I mentioned this upthread but go find a copy of Lisa-ann Gershwin’s excellent,

‘Stung! On Jellyfish Blooms and the Future of the Ocean’.[1]

...unless there is development on a global scale to prevent the predictions.

Clot, nobody here is making predictions, that is for soothsayers and prophets, science uses projections based upon scenarios. Using different scenarios in order to allow a range of projections. You really learn nowt!

[1] BTW you may as well study the whole post in which that was inserted first time. Don't be an ignoramus all your life.

Hardley - "I am sure you think that we could pave the whole planet over and that the consequences would be minimal"

I'm not the one who believes that development on a global scale will reduce overall CO2 emissions in the short and long run, and I'm not the one who doesn't think to question how much of the worlds resources are needed for such development.....that's your department.

Lionel - "Clot, nobody here is making predictions, that is for soothsayers and prophets, science uses projections based upon scenarios"

The soothsayers at the "Institute of Physics" (Climate Change Prediction :A challenging scientific problem), the prophets at "LiveScience" (How Dry Will It Get? New Climate Change Predictions) and the tarot card readers at "Nature" (Assessment of the first consensus prediction on climate change) would disagree with you....

Betty, note I wrote 'science uses' and not the 'PR arms' of some organisations. Subtle differences escape you still.

Lionel, I'm sure you meant to say "not the "PR arms’ of some soothsayer and prophet organisations"...correct?

By the way, wasn't "Nature" one of the soothsayer organizations Hardley worked for?

"The soothsayers at the “Institute of Physics” (Climate Change Prediction :A challenging scientific problem), the prophets at “LiveScience” (How Dry Will It Get? New Climate Change Predictions) and the tarot card readers at “Nature” (Assessment of the first consensus prediction on climate change) would disagree with you…."

Basically Betula doesn't understand the difference between prediction and science.

Einstein predicted gravitational waves, 100 years ago.
He wasn't "soothsaying", he was using science, properly.
A rational person who respects the scientific method has no problem using the term "prediction" properly.
Betula, who has no idea, is unable to either use the term "prediction" correctly, nor recognise when others have done so.

Here is a rational, science and evidence-based prediction: if you take 100 6-sided dice and throw them all, the total of all the numbers that come up will add up to around 350. If I'm going to be more precise, I will add in a standard deviation which will constrain the results of 100 such tests. etc...

In Science, it is possible to make "predictions" which aren't soothsaying, because they are made on the evidence.

I am under no illusions that Betula is intellectually capable of grasping the point.

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

Lionel - "nobody here is making predictions, that is for soothsayers and prophets, science uses projections based upon scenarios"

Craig - "In Science, it is possible to make “predictions” which aren’t soothsaying, because they are made on the evidence"

Wow, look at you to go at it...

"two"...

Lionel's talking about your "predictions", not evidence-based predictions, which aren't predictions, but predictions.

If it's all too hard for you, start by examining the idea of rational enquiry.

To do that, you'll have to discard your current method which is to search for scraps mis-construed information to support a pre-conceived belief.

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

Craig says it well. The predictions of the consequences of AGW are not voodoo science but based on the empirical evidence. If Betula bothered to get off of his lazy ass and read some of it. he'd learn something. There are already countless papers showing effects of warming on species, communities and ecosystems. Nature is a journal that publishes scientific papers detailing some of these findings. That Betula thinks it is into 'soothsaying' says everything about his mindset.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 05 Apr 2016 #permalink

#49 should read "Too whit two who" and not simply two.

Betty is coming across as being 'as thick as two short planks' (to use an expression common in the navy I knew), planks of Birch at a guess.

If Betty were a dog we would be suffering a severe gumming as he is toothless.

As an example of how stuffed ecosystems are going to be there is a developing Oh Shit scenario which is going to have severe consequences.

But to the BirchBarks of the world this is no big deal.

'Wow, look at you to go at it…'

I have to agree.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 05 Apr 2016 #permalink

Following on from cRR's observation in #54.

Craig: "Lionel’s talking about your “predictions”, not evidence-based predictions, which aren’t predictions, but predictions."

jeff: "Craig says it well."

I marvel.
:)

#55 - you depend.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 05 Apr 2016 #permalink

Hardley - "That Betula thinks it is into ‘soothsaying’ says everything about his mindset."

I love it - Hardley doesn't realize he is arguing with Lionel about soothsayers, Craig doesn't realize he's arguing with Lionel about predictions, Lionel realizes you have both inadvertently destroyed his comment so he changes the subject, and you all believe I have made some sort of prediction about predictions, that apparently aren't predictions.

This is why I come back from time to time....knowing the same old lunatics will be in the asylum talking in circles, always imagining catastrophe at every turn, babbling to themselves while waiting and hoping for a visitor to come and watch them perform. Funny and sad at the same time...

Good for an occasional visit, but I sure am glad I don't live here.

Lionel realizes you have both inadvertently destroyed his comment so he changes the subject,...

Not at all, I was pointing you to evidence that we are fubaring the planet in a big way. But you try to ignore it and throw up a smokescreen of blather.

Did you bother looking up the sources I cited linked to in #41 above?

No, you would rather continue jerking around in your ignorance like some nematode.

Lionel - In regards to Jellyfish and climate change, your source (Stung!) doesn't state anything about the present temperature of the ocean in any specific region or at any specific depth. It also doesn't state anything regarding what percent of CO2 reduction over how long a period of time will change future ocean temperature in any given place or depth...or by what percent.

I also see that the issue of climate change appears to be the partial cause of the potential future catastrophic jellyfish scenario along with....mechanized trawling, habitat degradation, coastal construction and pollution. So what weight does climate change carry?

Without this information, it seems that any hint about the possibility of fixing a predicted future jellyfish catastrophe by developing the undeveloped nations.is something you would call.....soothsaying.

Just saying.

It is my observation that good governance in nations is linked to development. And good fisheries management is linked to good governance.
I know nothing about any jellyfish catastrophe, but I am fairly confident in my opinion that more development of the third-world (ideally coupled with some population reduction) will lead to better fisheries management.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 05 Apr 2016 #permalink

GSW:
"I marvel.
"

Is that your way of saying you don't understand the difference between two different things for which the same name applies?

Do you also have trouble with "ass" in an american context?

If Jeff starts talking about the effects of climate change on bark and Betula starts talking about dogs for no apparent reason, will you also marvel?

Stop marveling, and work harder to keep up.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 05 Apr 2016 #permalink

Betula still doesn't understand basic English. He's been up too many trees it appears.

For the umpteenth time, there is a pile of evidence already showing harmful effects of climate warming on species and species interactions. In some of these cases the effects are being correlated with population falls and even collapses. And it covers the a wide trophic and taxonomic spectrum. You appear to believe that the effects of climate change on natural and managed ecosystems are all based on models and projections whereas the evidence is ALREADY THERE. The next challenge is determine how it affects the functioning of systems at larger scales; the major problem here is that we are talking about immensely complex adaptive systems and out understanding of how the evolve, assemble and function is still not that advanced. But we do know that components in the system - species and species interactions to community level - are being harmed by climate change, and this being the case, it will impair the function of these systems at some point.

Now I know this little passage may be above your basic understanding of ecology (same is true for GSW) so I might as well be speaking to a wall. What clowns like you both do is expect me to shove papers right in front of you only for you to dismiss them without even understanding the content. This is how you guys think. Indeed, all climate change deniers and anti-environmentalists do it.

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

As for developing the underdeveloped nations, this is a cop-out. The global economy has grown by 15 fold since 1950 and the poor at virtually as poor as ever. That's because western planners know full well that developing the south will lead to higher per capita rates of consumption there which will conflict with our own lifestyles as we plunder their capital. Tons of evidence for this too. The Panana papers and other research shows that some 7.6 trillion dollars are being hidden away by the rich in tax havens. There's no desire to develop the south if this means we have to reduce our ecological footprints in the north by a huge amount. The south is kept poor intentionally to ensure that we can plunder their resources. Little surprise there, except amongst those naive fools who think that the US and Europe are noble believers in humans rights, freedom and democracy. Like hell they are. Betula's development comment is gibberish. He also thinks that there are enough resources on the planet to sustain US-European-level consumption and waste production rates. Perhaps in cloud cuckoo land. But not on this small planet. The developed nations alone foster large ecological deficits.

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

Lionel – In regards to Jellyfish and climate change, your source (Stung!) doesn’t state anything about the present temperature of the ocean in any specific region or at any specific depth.

It didn't need to for that information there are other specialist sources with which that author would have been familiar to be able to construct her narrative based on many facts across a broad spectrum of research. That you should try to diminish this work in that way demonstrates how ignorant or dishonest you are.

Did you bother to read the book? I doubt it for then you would have found these terms (check out the books index):

climate change; see also ecosystems, ocean warming, sea-ice diminishing

ecosystems affected by climate change; effects of ocean warming,

ocean warming

That latter is of particular interest.

Also you ignored the other sources I cited and remember all such well researched and written sources contain list of references and/or a bibliography and sometimes page notes or end notes for further enlargement or citing of sources.

What a deceptive ignoramus you now look. In summation, your own knee has just jerked you in the gonads.

Well, well, this scuppers GSWs crap. I guess its back to WUWT for him. Good riddance.

http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/full/10.1139/as-2015-0027#.VwTsRk1J…

From the abstract:

We examined trends in body condition for 900 bears captured during 1984–1986, 2000–2005, and 2007–2009 and hypothesised that body condition would be correlated with duration of sea ice. The ice-free season in SH increased by about 30 days from 1980 to 2012. Body condition declined in all age and sex classes, but the decline was less for cubs than for other social classes. If trends towards a longer ice-free season continue in the future, further declines in body condition and survival rates are likely, and ultimately declines in abundance will occur in the SH subpopulation.

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

Hardley - "The Panana papers and other research shows that some 7.6 trillion dollars are being hidden away by the rich in tax havens"......"Little surprise there, except amongst those naive fools who think that the US and Europe are noble believers in humans rights, freedom and democracy"

This is the part where Hardley mentions the U.S. companies and government officials identified in the Panama papers....have at it!

Maybe you should name that spider of yours "Panama"....

Betula: don't you think that it's a bit naive to expect the western media to report on their owners' use of tax havens?

By turboblocke (not verified) on 06 Apr 2016 #permalink

#67 - Betula is not naive. And yes, he expects our 'free' media to report according to big money interests.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 06 Apr 2016 #permalink

#69, 'Unfortunately the leaker has made the dreadful mistake of turning to the western corporate media...' - unfortunately such mistakes do not exist.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 06 Apr 2016 #permalink

cRR, yes, you are correct. This was no accident, and the western corporate media, as predicted, has moved to expose nefarious dealings of enemy states and leaders while paying less than lip service to the far bigger story of western banks and corporations. The 7.6 trillion dollar figure was not in the Panama papers but in a book written by an American economist based in California. None of this should be surprising; the rich aim to consolidate their wealth and power and do everything they can - legally and illegally - to achieve it. That's why the democracy in the US is a complete farce. The rich control every lever of US government. They've won. Shelodon Wolin refers to it as 'inverted totalitarianism', a form of corporate revolution. The sad thing is that Americans by-and-large are so utterly dumbed down by their corporate media that they truly think that they live in a healthy democracy that values human rights and freedom. Its all a myth.

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

"The sad thing is that Americans by-and-large are so utterly dumbed down by their corporate media " - it's the same with the vassal states including Holland.
This ruse will add to it.

I don't think even the original pack of documents imply US corporations except perhaps a few small ones (scapegoats) for 'trustworthiness'.
The 'leaker' is guaranteed to be one of those 'Toxic sludge is good for you' firms.
In the end even the Iceland PM did not really step down...

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 06 Apr 2016 #permalink

No problems for Cameron, who is now probably in meeting to find new ways to strangle the press.
'Shell' was never mentioned during those two days of debate...

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 06 Apr 2016 #permalink

No problems for Cameron, who is now probably in meeting to find new ways to strangle the press.

Some elements of the press need no strangling being already neutered by Brooks and her kind under the wing of a certain Australian creature.

Cameron can complain that he does not benefit from his fathers morally questionable actions as much as he likes but without that money backing him he probably would not have had the privilege of a top university education, which gave him the chance of a personal encounter with a dead pig.

"The CAGW scenario is a construct of deniers. They have added the ‘C’ as a convenient tool for downplaying the consequences, whilst barely understanding what those consequences are likely to be"

No, it's so that they can say "Where's the catastrophe?" and any catasrophe that actually happens is discounted (See Hurricane Sandy and Florida Levee flooding).

Just like when they proclaim there are no refugees from climate change and also complain about the immigrants from hot and dry nations to their more temperate homeland. Somehow they never accept the possibility of a connection...

"I see wow has yet to state how GSW’s point about polar bears and Hardley’s feelings is wrong…"

I see betty still cannot read and hasn't a clue why that is relevant. Actual hominids know why it isn't.

And the dead pig subsidies are small things. Like I said: all and sundry evaded 'Shell' in that debate. With a reason.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 06 Apr 2016 #permalink

Thanks for the link Hardley! Besides having no proof of anything, here is my favorite part:

"The leak is being managed by the grandly but laughably named “International Consortium of Investigative Journalists”, which is funded and organised entirely by the USA’s Center for Public Integrity. Their funders include
Ford Foundation
Carnegie Endowment
Rockefeller Family Fund
W K Kellogg Foundation
Open Society Foundation (Soros)

Funny how they are all liberal/progressive foundations fighting for "social justice" while shining a light on "climate change" and calling for development of the undeveloped nations ... apparently this is all "laughable" to Hardley.

All one has to do is check out some of these apparently "laughable" and obviously evil references that somehow "demolish" my point:

The Ford Foundations - "Equal Change Blog"
The Carnegie Endowment For International Peace
Rockefeller Family Fund - "Grants For Climate Change"
The Evil W K Kellogg Foundation - "supports children, families and communities...as contributors to the larger community and society." Ongoing international grant programs with opportunities in Latin America and Southern Africa focus on education, civic engagement, racial equality, human security, and child healthcare"
Open Society (Soros) - "The Adaptation Imperative—Food Security and Climate Change"

Not to mention Soros being on the external board of advisors of The Earth Institute - James Hansen' place of employment. The same Earth Institute pushing for massive development on a global scale paid for by guess who...

You really have to stop shooting yourself in the foot Hardley, you hardly have any toes left...

Betula, You haven't got any feet left...

These allegedly 'liberal' elites are little different from the conservative ones. They both aim to ensure that wealth remains concentrated. Rockefeller is hardly liberal. If you looked up the history of the Council on Foreign Relations as well as the Trilateral Commission, you'd learn something about him and democracy. cRR thinks you aren't naive. He might be right but you sure as hell are stupid.

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

Let's try again to start from your first principles, Betula.

How many and which species are not in fact vulnerable to extinction as a consequence of human-caused climate change?

And what evidence do you have to support your answer?

Once we've established that side of the equation we can look at the other, and consider the ramifications.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 06 Apr 2016 #permalink

Maybe #79 demonstrates Bettie actually might be naive. Apparently Bettie hasn't a clue of what e.g. FF, Carnegie or Kellogg are.

Still deliberating evil vs stupid.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 06 Apr 2016 #permalink

what e.g. FF, Carnegie or Kellogg are.

Aye cRR, as Bernard J would remark, Betty lives in his own epistemic bubble. He probably doesn't know what Cargill is, I would expect their name to crop up somewhere in this context.

Hardly - "To add to my last post, if Bedtula is dumb enouhg to think that US corporations are all wonderful"

Did your spider put those words in your mouth?

What I asked is for you to point out the U.S. corporations on the Panama list, which you can't seem to do. So far, all I have seen is a link insinuating about "laughable" foundations that fund climate change and social justice issues...

It seems we both agree that you own "laughable" link is laughable, it's only your spider (Panama) that is out of sorts...

Give it up Bernard, you are imagining a definitive answer to future hypotheticals about "immensely complex adaptive systems"....not going to happen. Our understanding of how they evolve, assemble and function is still not that advanced...just ask Hardley, he will surely agree.

But thanks for asking.

"What I asked is for you to point out the U.S. corporations on the Panama list" - so that's where this fake list originates from.

I mean, even Starbucks isn't implicated, however a couple of months ago it was outed how they evade taxes via the Dutch Route.
The Dutch Route (I live in the most corrupt county in the world, where banks write fiscal law and all) is used by 180 of the 200 largest coorporations of the world.
Most of them are American.
None of them are mentioned. See?

It is like the two days of debate in London. Cameron, Rudd et al are into it to over their heads, but absolutely everyone avoided any mention of Shell (or BP), the truly huge tax evaders there that part of the UK govt and probably many MP's including Labour ones get rich on.

Bettie doesn't even realize its his money they're stealing as well as ours. But then, there were Jews who voted for the NSDAP.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 06 Apr 2016 #permalink

Crr - Why am I picturing you sipping on a Starbucks as you write?
Hardley brought up the Panama list and the U.S., I'm just waiting for him to give us the names of the U.S. companies and government officials on that list...
Oddly, I haven't seen any mention by the Deltoid cellmates of the companies and governments that are actually on the list. Interesting...
Though I do agree that the "laughable" big foundations that fund mostly climate change and social justice issues are most likely the ones protecting their own interests....so we have that together.

"Why am I picturing you sipping on a Starbucks as you write?" - haven't a clue. Never had Starbucks even though there's a shop in a part of my town I pass several times a week.

" I’m just waiting for him to give us the names of the U.S. companies and government officials on that list…" - you can wait a long time then (I wish you did just that. Wait. And stfu). You just got told by different people why there are no US corps/govt officials on that list. Because it was prepared by them, see.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 06 Apr 2016 #permalink

Shorter cRR - "We know the names of the companies and government officials on the list, because they aren't on the list.... and we won't mention the names of the actual companies on the list, because the companies and government officials not on the list put them there"

Got it.

It's a moron after all. We need to be nice to him.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 06 Apr 2016 #permalink

"We need to be nice to him"

Here is an idea for you cRR - you know that if you write me off your list you will assume I'm on it....so perhaps you should put me on your list and assume I'm not.

Actually I'm terrible with lists, also names. I need a symbol to follow the flow of internet conversation with, which otherwise merely exists of letters/words/statements on my screen, to which I respond as I might to a machine.

It may happen I speak out my agreement with you - exactly when you say something that perchance is reasonable or even a fact, and sometimes to tell something to my other friends on this blog as in today.

In general I feel distaste for what you say and how you say it, and I am unfortunately rather experienced with this specific repugnance already.

Now, call Susan. She has woik to do.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 06 Apr 2016 #permalink

Holy Crap I've been talking to a robot!! It all makes sense now...

Robots are not terrible with lists.
Go on.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 06 Apr 2016 #permalink

"I need a symbol to follow the flow of internet conversation with"

Then this should make perfect sense :

@) $*%^ !)*(#&!$.

Of course, one other reason why the Panama Papers don't mention US and GB entities is that the former tend to favour the Cayman Islands, Bermuda, Luxembourg, etc whilst the latter favour the British Virgin Islands, Jersey, Gibraltar etc

By turboblocke (not verified) on 06 Apr 2016 #permalink

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/climate-model-…
"The study, published today in science journal Nature, found there was no difference between 20th-century rainfall patterns and those in the pre-industrial era. The findings are at odds with earlier studies suggesting climate change causes dry areas to become drier and wet areas to become wetter.

Fredrik Ljungqvist and colleagues at Stockholm University analysed previously published records of rain, drought, tree rings, marine sediment and ice cores, each spanning at least the past millennium across the northern hemisphere"

"

The Panama papers of course include US companies and people. But the leaker - a US body - has kept most of it back in order to damage Putin and other officially designated enemies of the US. Wikileaks yesterday made this clear - why not release all of them? Of course the answer is simple - because they will implicate many prominent Americans. As the article I linked showed, US corporations are masters at tax avoidance and outsourcing. That Betula doesn't think this shows what a real dope he is - and naive.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 07 Apr 2016 #permalink

OK Stu2, one paper. One. Maybe they are right.

But one thing is for sure. Its been getting warmer in your country. A lot warmer. Thanks to AGW.

Try again.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 07 Apr 2016 #permalink

As for these 'big foundations' funding climate change issues, so do energy companies that have a vested interest in denial. Some of the oldest and largest and most influential environmental groups also receive funding from a suite of corporations actively working to weaken legislation protecting the environment through deregulation. Its called 'good cop, bad cop' strategy - you fund an organization for (1) PR purposes and (2) to stop them criticizing you as they are reticent to attack funders. I've lectured on this topic for years.

Bettie is once again so dumb that he doesn't know it. His world is a simple straight line. Seems like he's ingested a bit too much birch mark over the years. He's so easy to demolish and yet thinks he's winning here.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 07 Apr 2016 #permalink

Stu2 I cannot asses the accuracy of reporting by some interpreter of interpretations in The Australian but given that organs track record on climate change it will probably turn out to be a miss-characterisation.

I take it that this is the paper concerned but given the coy tendencies of Murdoch press when it comes to proper citations you may not have know which paper is under discussion. To be sure I am guessing there, an informed guess, as the rags article is pay walled.

"you fund an organization for (1) PR purposes and (2) to stop them criticizing you as they are reticent to attack funders"

Shorter Hardley - "The liberal/progressive organizations receiving funding for social justice/climate change are two faced"

I couldn't have said it better myself.

"The study shows the importance of placing recent precipitation changes in a millennium-long perspective. Actual measurements of precipitation are too short to tell if the observed changes today fall outside the range of natural variability. Instrumental measurements are also too short to test the ability of state-of-the-art climate models to predict which regions of the hemisphere will get drier, or wetter, with global warming," says Charpentier Ljungqvist.

Both the climate model simulations and the updated temperature reconstructions agree that the twentieth century was likely the warmest in at least the past millennium.

I wonder whether all that got through to the Wattheads and their followers.

By Turboblocke (not verified) on 07 Apr 2016 #permalink

So what you're really saying Betula, as much as it galls you and sticks in your craw to say it, is that you won't list species that you know won't be threatened by climate change because to do so would be to omit those that you can't say won't be threatened by climate change, and even omitting one species leaves you... wrong.

Got it.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 07 Apr 2016 #permalink

Shorter Betula-la-land: "I'm full of faecal matter."

Would make more sense with closed tags:

So what you’re really saying Betula, as much as it galls you and sticks in your craw to say it, is that you won’t list species that you know won’t be threatened by climate change because to do so would be to omit those that you can’t say won’t be threatened by climate change, and even omitting one species leaves you… wrong.

Got it.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 07 Apr 2016 #permalink

Betula, would it help you if I started asking you if particular species won't be threatened by climate change?

I havev a lovely long list about which I can ask you.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 07 Apr 2016 #permalink

Bernard - "So what you’re really saying Betula"

No, what I really already said was:

You are imagining a definitive answer to future hypotheticals about “immensely complex adaptive systems". Our understanding of how they evolve, assemble and function is still not that advanced…just ask Hardley, he will surely agree.

Pretty clear.

Bernard - "Betula, would it help you if I started asking you if particular species won’t be threatened by climate change?"

You are asking for a prediction about predictions based on a prediction.

Amazingly entertaining. Well done.

You are imagining a definitive answer to future hypotheticals about “immensely complex adaptive systems”. Our understanding of how they evolve, assemble and function is still not that advanced…

Actually, it is quite sophisticated enough to make some concrete projections. If you had a decent understanding of basic ecology and evolutionary biology you'd appreciate that.

And you are imagining that the uncertainties are such that they all or even mostly favour a benign outcome. Such conservative naïveté is borne of motivated thinking.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 07 Apr 2016 #permalink

You are asking for a prediction about predictions based on a prediction.

No, I'm asking you to support your contention that there is no serious potential for significant negative biological impacts of climate change.

That you refuse to engage in any actual specifics is the point, but you can dance and wriggle as much as you like - you're not fooling anyone but the scientifically ignoramuses in the climate change denialist camp where your tent is firmly pitched.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 07 Apr 2016 #permalink

Bernard - "you are imagining that the uncertainties are such that they all or even mostly favour a benign outcome"....."I’m asking you to support your contention that there is no serious potential for significant negative biological impacts of climate change"

Saying your predictions of catastrophe are not fact, and questioning how the plan of massive development on a global scale will somehow reduce overall CO2 emissions, and wondering how much of the earths resources will be needed for such a development .......apparently are sore enough subjects for you that you imagine I said predictions can only be benign.
I wonder why that is?

Bernard - "That you refuse to engage in any actual specifics is the point"

There is nothing specific about predicting predictions based on predictions.

Bernard, Hardley and Lionel - Just remember, the debate is over....

"It might be more difficult than often assumed to project into the future," the study's lead author Fredrik Ljungqvist of Stockholm University told AFP of the findings

"The truth can be much, much more complicated."

This divergence "certainly adds fuel to the fiery debate" on the link between warming and rainfall extremes, Matthew Kirby of California State University's Department of Geological Sciences wrote in a comment published by Nature.

And my personal favorite.....

"It's therefore very, very hard also to predict (precipitation extremes) with models"

Predict? What gives this "soothsayer"/ "prophet" of a scientist the right to use the word predict?

I'll come back later Lionel so you can "bleed on me"...

All very well, Betula, but how do you respond to their findings that Both the climate model simulations and the updated temperature reconstructions agree that the twentieth century was likely the warmest in at least the past millennium.

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

Again, Betula apparently doesn't know what "predict" means:
"...very, very hard also to predict...What gives this “soothsayer”/ “prophet” of a scientist the right to use the word predict".

He isn't a prophet, and he isn't a soothsayer.

When a scientist says something is hard to predict based on a model, he is communicating very, very clearly, to a person with a reasonable mind, that the thing has multiple variables, each with a range of probabilities, each with various levels of error/accuracy, which altogether add up to something which has huge error bars/ranges of probability and will therefore not give a particularly useful result.

He may be right, he may be wrong. Your interpretation of what he is talking about may be wrong. Other scientists may understand the model better, or maybe they have or will develop a better model.

On the face if it, a warmer atmosphere will carry more water, and an atmosphere carrying more water will inevitably deliver greater precipitation extremes.

Maybe he's only referring to figuring out exactly where the precipitation is going to land?

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 07 Apr 2016 #permalink

Oh, I see - Betula hasn't read any papers - Betula has simply copy and pasted some crap Betula has read on the clown-blog run by the ex-weatherman called Watts.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 07 Apr 2016 #permalink

lol.
Here's the headline the Watts-clown *didn't* give to this article:

NEW PAPER DISPROVES MWP AND LIA!!!!

"... the data do not capture the climate trends known as the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Climatic Anomaly"

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 07 Apr 2016 #permalink

Here's another headline the uni-dropout ex-weatherman *didn't* give this article:

SURFACE STATIONS PROJECT TO EXAMINE POORLY-SITED PROXY-RECORD LOCATIONS USED IN NEW STUDY

"Ljungqvist et al. were, of course, constrained by the data available for analysis — indeed, their efforts reveal a shocking lack of data. For example, Figure 1 of their paper highlights the vast geographical gaps between proxy sites. Immense areas of the Northern Hemisphere still require exploration for proxy development, many in highly populated regions. "

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 07 Apr 2016 #permalink

Watts has compared a very dense record of observations (which he disbelieves as a matter of faith), used to develop current climate models, with some extremely sparse (geographically AND temporally) proxy data (which he also disbelieves as a matter of faith) and decided the latter has "proven" something about the former.

And Betula has swallowed Watts' codswallop without thinking...

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 07 Apr 2016 #permalink

Ya gotta love - more like hate - the denialati. Like his alter ego AGW, who dismisses 98% of published studies on Polar Bears in favor of 2, Betula thinks the validity of AGW hinges on one study. Thew fact that he says 'the debate is over' is proof of his desperation. Of course its over. But not the way he thinks it is.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 08 Apr 2016 #permalink

"The liberal/progressive organizations receiving funding for social justice/climate change are two faced"

Bullshit. You are too stupid to understand what 'good cop, bad cop' strategies entail. They aren't too faced at all. And many of the corporations that fund environmental groups - Monsanto, Dow Chemical, Texaco-Cevron - aren't 'liberal progressive'. They do it for a reason, as I said before. That reason is to co-opt the debate by giving the impression that they are good responsible organizations exhibiting social responsibility. Its PR. Then, they'll contribute then times as much to think tanks, PR companies and astroturf groups lobbying to undermine regulations that limit their profit making capacities. As I said, I lecture in this area, and there's plenty of evidence to support it.

Betula, you can't debate your way out of a sodden paper bag. You're worse than useless.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 08 Apr 2016 #permalink

" Our understanding of how they evolve, assemble and function is still not that advanced"

Do not project YOUR ignorance Batty.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 08 Apr 2016 #permalink

"” Our understanding of how they evolve, assemble and function is still not that advanced”"

What's this all about? Wednesday Bingo night?

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 08 Apr 2016 #permalink

I was just thinking how deniers are reactive rather than proactive by nature.
They are such interesting specimens to observe.
Little shitballs of idiocy.
I spose in years to come the denier movement
will be seen as a type of mania affliction.

It is very professional PR, Li D. Do not underestimate.
Utter moronity attracts a lot of votes, even from those who suffer from policies they vote for.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 08 Apr 2016 #permalink

Professional PR???
Any loony can come up with
a NASA conspiracy theory.
Which is a pretty much all
it boils down to.
When one looks at CFACT, Heartland,
Realscience ( hahahahaha ) and WTFUWT
it dosnt look professional to me.
Just conspiratal loons.
That my impression anyhow cRR Kampen.
Only a freaking idiot would actually think
that fake UK Lord makes rational, coherent,
informed argument backed up by hard data.

Li, the most important thing is that AGW deniers are just another offshoot of a broader anti-environmental movement, largely (though not entirely) who come from and/or support the far right end of the political spectrum. They abhor government in most of its forms (except the military, of course) and, like many of the transnational corporations, see regulations as a kind of government tyranny that limits their profit-making capacity. The most important thing is that they hate science but understand it is a necessary tool that must be distorted, twisted, and abused to promote their agendas. They will never win the scientific debates and they know it. The scientific debate over the causes of AGW ended more than a decade ago; the remaining discussion is the extent to which AGW and other human-mediated processes will impact the natural and material economies, but we know full well that the prognosis is not good. However, that is not the aim of anti-environmentalists. They aim simply to sow enough doubt amongst policymakers and the public as to prevent any mitigating action. So long as the public is led to believe that the science is not settled, then nothing will be done and profits can continue to be maximized irrespective of the costs down the road.

The AGW denial/anti-environmental lobbies are well organized and very well funded. They use all of the well oiled tools of public relations and the propaganda industry to get their message across to the general public, most of whom are anxious to believe that everything will be OK if we just 'stay the course' and who do not want to feel like they are part of a generation sending our planet to hell. Think tanks, PR firms, and other groups receive considerable funding from industry to saturate the public with a gospel of doubt. They set up fake astroturf groups, often with envrionmentally friendly names, to give the impression that there is grassroots support for non-action. They spend literally billions lobbying politicians and in co-opting democracy. When one looks at their influence, its easy to see given the huge amount of money sloshing around in their coffers.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 08 Apr 2016 #permalink

cRR @28 -
” Our understanding of how they evolve, assemble and function is still not that advanced”

Do not project YOUR ignorance Batty.

Thomas @29
” Our understanding of how they evolve, assemble and function is still not that advanced””

What’s this all about? Wednesday Bingo night?

The best part is that I took those words are from Hardley @62, just to see the response, which is what I expected.

Hey Hardley, sorry to ruin your bingo game, but it looks like these two don't care much about what you say...

Exposing you morons for "YOUR ignorance" is just way too easy.....and fun.

BINGO!

Craig Thomas @21 - Regarding the scientist, Fredrik Ljungqvist of Stockholm University, who told AFP ...."It’s therefore very, very hard also to predict (precipitation extremes) with models."........ You stated - "He isn’t a prophet, and he isn’t a soothsayer."

You don't seem to realize that are arguing with Lionel @41 who stated -

" nobody here is making predictions, that is for soothsayers and prophets, science uses projections based upon scenarios"

So what do you have against Lionel?

I say shame on you Craig, not only is this embarrassing, but I think you owe Lionel an apology....

Look at the Keeling Curve, Li D, to see how excellently it works.
Of course you are not the target for that PR. You don't have to be.

CFACT, WUWT, Heartland are VERY professional. The fact that you don't see that already proves this fact. Their rubbish was never meant to appeal to the ratio. It's about talking to the underbellies. Those who are 'immune' (if anyone is, perhaps I am) see excruciating moronity.
And this fact disarms us, if we keep underestimating them for their apparent dumbness so we keep running around, driven by our sense of integrity and our wish to spread knowledge, just to be bashed again by happy Batties who get happier every time their nonsense is taken so seriously it has to be debunked again.
Most people are not immune and many - that is: enough - people absorb the big lie hooklinesinkerrod.
The Keeling Curve proves it.
Do not underestimate.
A post like #35 is professional trolling. Like the Shoa was professional mass murder. Professional, I repeat. Do not underestimate.

Me, I don't debate thugs. They exist solely for my amusement.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 08 Apr 2016 #permalink

Craig Thomas - "Betula has simply copy and pasted some crap Betula has read on the clown-blog run by the ex-weatherman called Watts."

Actually, I haven't posted anything from Watts, and the original study is from journal Nature. You are hurting Hardley's feelings, as he used to work there.

Poor Hardley, getting it from all sides now..

Hey cRR, have those symbols spinning around in your head told you to wish for the death and destruction of any major cities lately, or is the medicine working?

To cRR Kampen and Jeff Harvey.
With respect, i spose i feel that
articulating a conspiracy is not the best
way to fight the freaks.
A conspiracy that a bunch of greedy fuckers
is making up conspiracy theories to manipulate
policy making by government almost matches
the loons theories on scientists being in it for
the money, which is, as we know, laughable.
The way i see it is the loons make themselves
look stupid.

Hardley shockingly proves that he has a hard time with context when he make this statement.:

"Thew fact that he says ‘the debate is over’ is proof of his desperation. Of course its over. But not the way he thinks it is."

Again, try reading this comment from Nature Hardley:

"his divergence “certainly adds fuel to the fiery debate” on the link between warming and rainfall extremes, Matthew Kirby of California State University’s Department of Geological Sciences wrote in a comment published by Nature."

So question - How can the debate be over if the divergence "adds fuel to the fiery debate"?

This should be good...

Because, Batty, its one comment in one paper. And nowhere in the paper do the authors dispute that AGW is very real. They talk about precipitation patterns alone - but there are a myriad of effects caused by warming.

But again you nincompoop, its ONE paper. One! Read that again: ONE!!!!!!! What idiots like you do is blow single studies out of all proportion as if they represent the bottom line - and ONLY if the arguments in these studies are those you agree with. You are cherry picking a single study and even comments within that single study. I can assure you that the authors would not agree with you that AGW is a non-problem.

is it warming? Yes. Are humans responsible? Yes. Those conclusions are settled. Are the consequences of warming likely to be harmful on natural and managed ecosystems? Yes. But in variable ways. The scale of harm is where there is uncertainty. But we do know that if the world warms by more than 2 C in the coming decades, then we can expect nasty surprises. If it goes beyond 4 C, then we are in deep, deep shit.

The problem with discussing this with you, Betula, is that you clearly (1) are well beyond your competence in understanding the science, and (2) you begin the discussion with a pre-determined view based on your own political and economic views. You are not an unbiased thinker; you have a pre-dtermined view of science and politics and it bleeds ouf of everythign you say. It would be fun debating you in public, spewing out the elementary crap that you do. Too bad I will never get that chance.

As for Deltoid, again, given you think tis a nothing site, its strange how easy you are to wind up. Heck, for the past two weeks, about 40% of the posts are yours. Hypocrite.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 08 Apr 2016 #permalink

"All very well, Betula, but how do you respond to their findings that..."

Don't conform to betty's a priori demand for the right conclusion? The same way as always, by ignoring it.

And one final nail in Batty's intellectual coffin, although I agree with cRR that he's a thug (albeit a stupid one). Some of his posts are so brazenly shallow that they make me shake my head in wonder that people like him exist.

Just because we don't know a great deal about how ecosystems function doesn't mean that we should merrily assault them from all sides. I'm sure most people don't know how a life support machine works in a hospital but that doesn't suggest that people should take components out of it. We do know that these complex systems generate conditions that permit humans to exist at all, and that simplifying them pushes them towards a point beyond which they break down and the vital services they produce disappear as well. Natural systems have in-built redundancy that enables them to be damaged or simplified to an extent, but its patently stupid to think this gives us license to slash and burn our way across the biosphere.

Before you next try and use my words to support one of your pathetic arguments, try and use your noggin a little better to grasp the meaning. You clearly like throwing banana skins down in front of you.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 08 Apr 2016 #permalink

2"like many of the transnational corporations, see regulations as a kind of government tyranny that limits their profit-making capacity"

And, moreover, THIS is the "reason" why they're destitute and scrabbling for crumbs.

Not that the rich, who they wish to become, are shitting down on them, but that teh gubment" is stopping these rich people from being able to "trickle down" to them and are stopping these idiots from getting rich.

A sure sign of Betula's lack of grasp on reality is that he actually thinks he's winning here - as he did when he spewed out the nonsense earlier about greenhouses and C02 and on the health of North American ecosystems. When these comments were trashed, he just moved on. Deniers are masters at the art. Bait and switch. Bait and switch.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 08 Apr 2016 #permalink

Hardley - "As for Deltoid, again, given you think tis a nothing site, its strange how easy you are to wind up. Heck, for the past two weeks, about 40% of the posts are yours. Hypocrite."

And since I am not stuck on this site like you, soon I will go away for several months and there will be very few comments once again. And poor you will be stuck in your solitary confinement with no reason to bang on the walls...

And when I come back, it will be the same people here posting the same old drivel, hoping that catastrophe arrives sooner than later (just ask cRR).... just so they can satisfy their imaginations.

How do I know these things....

Wow, you left out a major part of the sentence. Let me help....
"how do you respond to their findings that Both the climate model simulations and the updated temperature reconstructions agree that the twentieth century was likely the warmest in at least the past millennium"

I respond by saying how does this prove your vision of a catastrophic future, and how does the plan for massive development on a global scale prove your vision wrong?

Hardley - "as he did when he spewed out the nonsense earlier about greenhouses and C02 and on the health of North American ecosystems"

Sort of liking witnessing a spider first hand, eh Hardley?

Hardley - "but its patently stupid to think this gives us license to slash and burn our way across the biosphere"

It's even more stupid to believe someone said that without being able to back it up.

Welcome to your stupidity.

#39, that was my finest fuck with climate revisionists, ever. O boy I'm cumming again... :)
The big baboon actually offered his butt to me and did all the work for me.
One of the craziest results of that operation was that climate revisionists actually began to defend me.
Hah!

Li D - the approach needs to be multidisciplinary and grassroots-individualistic. I use the bullies for my amusement and I call the thugs what they are, and sometimes I expose some. This works a bit (and it certainly works for me).
Other strategies include, of course, meticulous debunking - writings not intended to teach the trolls, but to inform the general public. Et cetera. You find your way.
But. Never underestimate. You are NOT dealing with 'loons', there - they'd love you to think you are though.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 08 Apr 2016 #permalink

Birchman is on fire! Birchman is oin fire! F****** hilarious. Seems like he has too much time on his hands.

Go away you clot. We are sick of you.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 08 Apr 2016 #permalink

Hardley, still waiting for you to back up your statement...yelling "Go away" isn't cutting it.

Kampen, i'm not sure how your obsession with death, destruction and backsides can be deemed fucking with prediction revisionists, however, it's not surprising someone with such obsessions could think that way...

Good luck with that.

#54 that was a nice report from your look in the mirror, but I am not interested.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 08 Apr 2016 #permalink

Betty is too Batty even for his own sandbox of a thread, he could not hold a coherent argument with himself. In his world of black & white, white could be black and black could be white to the point of boorish grey.

"Wow, you left out a major part of the sentence."

Nope. Sorry. I didn't. It's not at all relevant to your assertion based purely on ignorance and stupidity and a desire to have the "right" answer that "feels" correct, because it leaves you alone.

When falling to your death after I throw you off a cliff, do you look at the ground rushing toward your melon head and think "Well, nothing bad so far. And a nice refreshing breeze!"?

In what way does the continuation of that trend NOT constitute a catastrophe in the future???

"i’m not sure how your obsession with death, destruction and backsides can be deemed fucking with prediction revisionists"

Well, nobody is sure where you get this idea of his obsession from either. But I guess when you're a prediction revisionist (as are all deniers http://skepticalscience.com/comparing-global-temperature-predictions.ht… ) being focked over as badly as you have been here, I guess you will make up any old fantasy to pretend it's somehow not your fault.

"And since I am not stuck on this site"

IRONY ALERT! IRONY ALERT! Please disconnect all irony meters from measurement, imminent explosion predicted!

You're definitely stuck on this site, Betty. You just can't stop it.

Wow - "in what way does the continuation of that trend NOT constitute a catastrophe in the future???"

Um, that fact that despite your imagination, you haven't pushed me off a cliff.

I get it.... reality is tough for you.

Wow - "Well, nobody is sure where you get this idea of his obsession from either"

I read.

Wow - "You’re definitely stuck on this site, Betty. You just can’t stop it"

No wow, I will go away for 6 months or a year as I always have, not thinking about how sad it is to be stuck here, and then it will cross my mind....is it possible that those same morons can still be babbling to themselves day in and day out about the same thing all this time? And never get anywhere? At that point, I will pay a visit and find that it's true, they are still here.
Then as usual, the Deltoidians will get all excited for a few moments because they finally have someone to argue with, and they can attempt to show off their imagined wit....and I will understand, because It gives the them a sense of purpose.
Of course, I will continue to occasionally post their own words and they will think they are mine and argue with me not realizing they are arguing among themselves....even when I point it out to them.
I have to admit it is entertaining, but only for so long, because it does become sad.
And then I leave.

"I guess you will make up any old fantasy to pretend it’s somehow not your fault." fair bloody dinkum. Also, I crevassed my lips because I had to crack a little laugh there.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 08 Apr 2016 #permalink

Calling Batty's produce 'very professional' doesn't evoke even a tiniest hand wave of a 'thank you'.
Apparently to it (ì.e. Batty), the remark is just too trivial. It would be like it (Batty) telling us that CO2 is a GHG or that Arctic ice is declining.
Note this.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 08 Apr 2016 #permalink

You don’t seem to realize that are arguing with Lionel @41 who stated –

” nobody here is making predictions, that is for soothsayers and prophets, science uses projections based upon scenarios”

Note the context of my writing that, it was in connection with the projected future of the polar bear population. Most everybody clued up understood that but not you Betsy Booby.

It is little wonder that you cannot 'get' context when you can come up with this tortured thinking:

I respond by saying how does this prove your vision of a catastrophic future, and how does the plan for massive development on a global scale prove your vision wrong?

Hey lummock, is this your mom (the big girl) in action? Whatever, it is a clear demonstration of how scrambled thought processes can be, especially those based upon ignorance.

Lionel - I'm an atheist, but keep trying.....even a blind nut like you finds a squirrel once in a while.

Lionel - "Note the context of my writing that, it was in connection with the projected future of the polar bear population. Most everybody clued up understood that but not you Betsy Booby"

I understood the context perfectly Lionel, but nice try....

Since you insist on trying to hide your embarrassment by clinging to the subject of polar bears, let me point you in the direction of this study written by, as you would call them.... "soothsayers and prophets"

"Predicting climate change impacts on polar bear litter size"

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3105343/

Predicting the ecological impacts of climate warming is critical for species conservation....

Predicting ecological impacts is not the same as projecting population dynamics you clot.

Nuance escapes the ideologically challenged.

As for the Bible nut clip the fact that you are an atheist has no bearing on the message conveyed in my dropping that in. Once again you are logically challenged.

Lionel - "As for the Bible nut clip the fact that you are an atheist has no bearing on the message conveyed in my dropping that in"

Right - because your "Mom" reference apparently has a lot to do with proving a predicted catastrophic future and solving the prediction with massive global development.....and me pointing out I'm an atheist has no bearing on the fact that you linked a religious nut clip...

You're a genius.

Considering Betula hates this site, he sure is dominating it with his crapola these days. This is a sure sign of desperation. If he thought he was 'winning', he would have left long ago. But he keeps coming back. He's either a classic troll or an idiot. Or both?

Again, its no use discussing the ecological effects of AGW with Battyman because he doesn't understand the basics. He doesn't read the primary literature and the closest he has come to studying anything in the field is when he is hacking off a tree branch with some aphids pholem-feeding from leaf tissues. Its like discussing evolution with the Jehovah Witnesses who come knocking on your door. They are about as clued in to the subject as Battyman is to population and evolutionary ecology. And, like them, he uses his ignorance to dismiss science. I have said that >20 major journals in ecology are full of studies reporting effects of warming on a suite of ecophysiological processes. Battyman's reply is to say that there isn't any evidence. This is the thrust of his intelligence - one states an fact and the other dismisses it.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 09 Apr 2016 #permalink

I also cannot stop giggling (seriously) over Batty's reply to Lionel with respect to predicted effects of warming on Polar Bear populations. We already know that a new study has just been published (thanks for sending me the link rrK) showing that the physiological state of Polar Bears in one of the major populations has declined significantly and linearly since the 1980s. As I have said on here many times, numbers in a population do not tell nearly the whole story. One must look at their per capita fitness. Its like saying that Sudan is better off than the Netherlands because there are more people living there. But if one looks at the demographics of the people living in Sudan, then it becomes clear that they aren't doing very well at all - life expectancy is much lower than in the Netherlands and people are not as healthy. This simple point sails right over GSWs head and Battyman's too.

Batty's latest tactic - if one can call his stupidity that - is to suggest that predictions are meaningless. Thus, we need to wait until Polar Bears are dropping dead in a pandemic and then Batty might, just might acknowledge that there is indeed a problem. I say might because he is smart, no doubt about that, but profoundly ignorant at the same time. The two often go hand in hand.

I am sure that Batty thinks that the clear cutting of tropical forests is no big deal because scientists predict that this will lead to the rapid demise of the species that live in these forests. Batty wants proof! Predictions don't matter. If astronomers at NASA predict an asteroid is on course to hit Earth, Batty wants 100% proof, otherwise he says we can ignore it.

You see, as I have said before - and I have dealt with smart but ignorant people like Batty a lot over the past 15 years - the anti-environmental AGW-denial crowd want 100% unequivocal proof of any issue that gets in their bonnets. If its acid rain, they want 100% unequivocal proof that it harms freshwater and forest ecosystems. If it is some form of water pollution, they want 100% unequivocal proof that it harms the biota in the system and the people drinking the water. If its estimates of a mass extinction caused by humanity, they want 100% unequivocal proof that species and populations are disappearing. Until they get that proof, there is no problem. And that means nothing should be done.

This is the way Battyman thinks. And there are many like him.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 09 Apr 2016 #permalink

'you know, where you wished the following people and all others in the city dead…'

No, you do. Your only problem with me is that I said what YOU want.
Like I said, this was my finest fuck with climate revisionism. The way the real wish of climate revisionists went around the internet that time with Cyclone Ita rolls me off the chair laughing every time I see another idiot running around with my bait : )

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 09 Apr 2016 #permalink

#66, you're not an atheist but a knownothing ('agnost').

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 09 Apr 2016 #permalink

Hey Hardley, I see you are continuing with your trend - you can't back up what you imagine.

You can't back up this statement - "to think this gives us license to slash and burn our way across the biosphere”

And now you can't back this statement up - "Considering Betula hates this site"

Question - Isn't it difficult to go through life as a so-called scientist when you can't separate imagination from fact?

Hardley - "I also cannot stop giggling (seriously)"

I can picture Hardley all hunched over, scratching his little spiders belly while giggling incessantly...

It's the perfect image.

cRR - "No, you do. Your only problem with me is that I said what YOU want."

No, one of my many problems with you is that you said what you said, only you think someone else said it.

Don't worry, you are safe here at the Deltoid home for scrambled symbols.

Crr - "you’re not an atheist but a knownothing"

I know this - You imagine what I am and you imagine what I say....you are desperate.

Hardley - "Batty wants proof! Predictions don’t matter. If astronomers at NASA predict an asteroid is on course to hit Earth, Batty wants 100% proof, otherwise he says we can ignore it"

1. Predictions are for soothsayer and prophets - ask Lionel, he'll fill you in

2. Is there an asteroid heading for earth?

Thank you for your time.

Hardley - "If its estimates of a mass extinction caused by humanity, they want 100% unequivocal proof that species and populations are disappearing. Until they get that proof, there is no problem. And that means nothing should be done"

How is massive development on a global scale predicted to fix the predictions, that are derived from predictions?

Thanks.

Hardley - "I have said that >20 major journals in ecology are full of studies reporting effects of warming on a suite of ecophysiological processes. Battyman’s reply is to say that there isn’t any evidence"

Now all you have to do is copy and paste this imaginary reply you are referring to....so we can a glimpse into that head of yours.

Good luck with that.

That you should keep you guys busy for awhile....I'll be back to visit when the April open thread arrives.

Looks like someone has taken a laxative — all those bubkas just dropped above.

There is nothing specific about predicting predictions based on predictions.

Bafflegab.

I'm simply asking you to list which species won't be threatened by human-caused global warming.

Thus far you've been to afraid to suggest even a single species.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 09 Apr 2016 #permalink

Batty makes 9 posts in a row. Must be something of a record. Also, he hasn't responded to the evidence that AGW is harming biodiversity at many different levels of organization. And lastly, his comments prove what I said about deniers - they believe that without 100% proof there is no problem.

I'll stick with my spider - more common sense in his left front tarsus than Batty has in his entire body.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 10 Apr 2016 #permalink

"No, one of my many problems with you is that you said what you said" - Like I said, I just expressed your wish. That is your problem with me. You and other climate revisionists were outed by taking my bait.
You, climate revisionists, want Cairns wiped off the map. And my statement was even much weaker than what you wish. Because YOU wish all inhabitants of Cairns dead in the same event - an observation I avoided, even explicitly so as you undoubtely have read - for you to fall into.

#84 it stinks of desperation. There is fear in those bowels.

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

As a matter of truth some climate revisionists began to defend me, because they understood what I actually did.
Those many who did not step in to that, e.g. Batty, are for wiping Cairns off the map and destroying all of its inhabitants.
Batty and ilk have wished for Syria to become what it became since and because of the hyperdraught.
Batty and ilk are clamouring for drowning Bangladesh and getting about 100 million climate refugees plus the usual wars accompanying such flights.
Batty and ilk want New York taken out by a Sandy 2.0 at 870 hPa.
Thugs. Criminals.

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

a -> o

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

"Many drugs are now being developed from coral reef animals and plants as possible cures for cancer, arthritis, human bacterial infections, viruses, and other diseases.

Storehouses of immense biological wealth, reefs also provide economic and environmental services to millions of people. Coral reefs may provide goods and services worth $375 billion each year. This is an amazing figure for an environment that covers less than 1 percent of the Earth’s surface (Costanza et al., 1997)."

I guess Batty and ilk are dancing and celebrating as now at least half of the Barrier Reef is under destruction (in fact, how much of the rest is dying still needs to be assessed).

Thugs. Criminals.

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

cRR @#91 That is an extremely important point and one worth emphasising and applicable to the money driven surge in tropical deforestation from the Amazon to Indonesia.

It is a repeated theme described in any good text on the current 6th great extinction event. An event that the majority are totally unaware of, for their attention is deliberately diverted by sport, celebrity tittle-tattle and any other ephemera that can suit the purpose — propaganda by omission.

Quick review:

1. cRR Kampen imagines a catastrophe.

2. cRR Kampen expresses that he wants the catastrophe to happen.

3. cRR Kampen imagines that the reason he wants the imagined catastrophe to happen.... is for the good of people he imagines want the catastrophe.

4. cRR Kampen imagines that he taught the people that he imagines want the catastrophe, an imaginary lesson.

5. Crr Kampen imagines the lesson to be this....that the people he imagined want the catastrophe, will now begin to imagine the catastrophe he imagined they wanted,

6. cRR also imagines that this is the only way to to prevent further catastrophes from being imagined.....because it is their lack of imagination that caused the catastrophe he imagined they wanted in the first place.

7. Imagine that.

Good times here at Deltoid, you have no idea how much I appreciate this.

Thank you.

"I guess Batty and ilk are dancing and celebrating"

When all you have is scrambled symbols bouncing off the walls in your head, a "guess" is the best you will ever come up with.

# 92, yeah.
Radio news just then in Holland: a person killed in a crash (is news, never mind that on average 2 people die per day in Dutch traffic). And someone set a tattoo! And there's some talk about the Dutch tax evading route of course only pertaining to some small czar malversations - never talk about the owners of this country: Shell and Exxon.
That was the news.
Fuck the oceans, fuck the rain forests or for that matter any forest (Poland, now under a fascist govt, has of course planned a big coal burner on the very last piece of European ancient forest - just because).
Fuck humanity, eh, Batty? Thug, criminal.

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

#93 - why turn your attention to me? How am I relevant at all, Batty?

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

#94 - why turn your attention to me? How am I relevant at all, Batty?

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

Huh, may as well wonder what's relevant about betty.

Turns up, whines that nobody is posting, then posts a shittone of bullshit and rubbish, disproving the original post..

LiD is right, they're morons.

They get coached and parrot what they're taught to do.

A parrot can hold quite a long conversation. This doesn't make it a genius.

"Fuck humanity, eh, Batty?"

Now the symbols are telling Kampen that I run the news in Holland...

It just keeps getting better.

April 11th and Deltoid is still on March open thread. At this rate, I predict that next March the few remaining Deltoidians will be posting in July...

And since this is a prediction, it has to be true.

Kampen - "why turn your attention to me? How am I relevant at all, Batty?"

Because I imagine you imagine you are.... so it has to be true. You're a good teacher.

I predict that Batty will deny that a mass extinction is underway until humans are the final victim.

And since this is a prediction, it has to be true.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 11 Apr 2016 #permalink

Betty will deny whatever is necessary to be able to claim proof that they're skeptical rather than in deep denial.

Goodness. So you can read a calendar, Betty.

However, this isn't a private enterprise and you're not the employer or manager of the blog owner, so they really don't have to give a shit about your timetable.

However, it's clear you're floundering when the only thing you complain about is the calendar...

Speaking of predictions, many of the most important fields of human endeavor are based on them. Economics is one. Economists are always making predictions. I guess we don't need them. Why have weather forecasts? They are predictions, after all. In Batty's world, you don't do something until after the fact.

Many predictions have been made about the effects of climate change on biodiversity, and many have turned out to be true or are turning out to be true. Effects on phenology. Effects of species distributions. Effects on seasonal activity patterns. Effects on biota in both marine and terrestrial ecosystems. Batty won't accept that because he doesn't read scientific journals. Well, at least if they don't say what he likes. So he dismisses countless studies as being irrelevant because they don't predict the outcome of this global experiment. Well, they do: fraying food webs and collapsing ecosystems, based on changes in the abundance of the species in them. But Batty wants to wait until all the data are in. Let's see those faltering systems! he cries. If we cannot quantify it, then don't do anything. Keep burning those fossil fuels and fiddling while Rome burns!

Its his clarion cry. And he thinks everyone is as dumb as he is. Many are. That's the sad truth.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 11 Apr 2016 #permalink

More Batty's can be found in action here with weapons grade BS which isn't far from the truth for the topic of CRISPR (a GM technique) has raised red flags about bio-security — see GMO Watch.

Poor Hardley....predicting that I will deny predictions have to be considered as fact is not a prediction, but a fact. So it is true that you were wrong...

"Many predictions have been made about the effects of climate change on biodiversity"

Lionel would tell you that predictions are made by "soothsayers" and "prophets"....

Hardley - "But Batty wants to wait until all the data are in. Let’s see those faltering systems! he cries"

So Shakespearean Hardley, it's a tragedy you took the road of a scientist...

Lionel would tell you that predictions are made by “soothsayers” and “prophets”….

Once again, CONTEXT you clown!

Lionel - "Once again, CONTEXT you clown!"

Yes, let's take a look at that context:

Hardley – “The point is to prevent the world from experiencing the predicted decrease in living things that humans are dependent upon”

Me - "Because only the things we don’t depend on will increase under current predicted catastrophic-only climate scenarios…..unless there is development on a global scale to prevent the predictions".

Lionel - "Clot, nobody here is making predictions, that is for soothsayers and prophets, science uses projections based upon scenarios."

So again I say to Hardley - predictions are for soothsayers and prophets....just ask Lionel.

Betula still hasn't figured out the difference between predictions, and predictions.

Dunning-Kruger in action....

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

Start with an easy one, Betula, see if you can figure out the difference between "bark" and "bark".
For bonus points, try to see if you can figure out how the rest of us understand which one of those two words is being used when we read it in a sentence.

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

Here's another exercise for Betula, which should correspond with a Betulan skill level:
Click on this link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event
- have a look at the image over the right hand side of the page
- note the clickable links above each of the 6 major spikes in extinctions
- try to see if you can find one labelled 'H'
- try to click on it
- get an adult to read you the accompanying text

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

"So Shakespearean Hardley, it’s a tragedy you took the road of a scientist"

Says a clot who doesn't know science from voodoo. Again, with all the bluffing bull**** Betula says on here he doesn't answer the question which is: how is AGW affecting natural and managed ecosystems and the species in them? And what are the repercussions?

We already know where we are heading. Barking brain wants to keep his head shoved firmly up his butt to shut out all of the inconvenient truths.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 12 Apr 2016 #permalink

Still more laughs:

Hardley – “The point is to prevent the world from experiencing the predicted decrease in living things that humans are dependent upon”

Me – “Because only the things we don’t depend on will increase under current predicted catastrophic-only climate scenarios…..unless there is development on a global scale to prevent the predictions”.

Its hard to believe that anyone could write such utter gobbledegook in response to my argument, but Betula managed it. His response makes absolutely no sense at all. Its gibberish. We depend on a lot of different functional groups in nature - species involved in pollination, nutrient cycling, pest control and water purification. These species are all components in food webs and communities, linked at higher levels to ecosystems. And we know that many are being negatively affected by climate change. There is already a major crisis over the decline in pollinators.

Betula speaks like a primary school child.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 12 Apr 2016 #permalink

Hardley - "His response makes absolutely no sense at all."

Because I was mimicking you...

You see, now it makes sense.

'Huh, may as well wonder what’s relevant about betty.' asks Wow.
Do not underestimate, Wow.
Batty actually does some research and uses results (that would obviously be: abuses).
Like one Watts one day tried to find out about me, I found traces of that e.g. LinkedIn.
Like my FB account was hacked, just after the Bradthing tried to research me thru private communications which got him everywhere but anywhere.
Please, don't underestimate the thugs.

And yes, I'm a good teacher. Damned good, in fact.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 12 Apr 2016 #permalink

"Betula still hasn’t figured out the difference between predictions, and predictions"

Sure I have...

When I use the word prediction, the Deltoidians say predictions are for soothsayers and prophets...

When a Deltoidian uses the word prediction, it means prediction.

That was easy.

"And yes, I’m a good teacher. Damned good, in fact."

Someone is in love...

Golly gee Betula, I thought you were only capable of self-parody. You are clearly a man of many talents. Too bad that intelligence is not one of them.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 12 Apr 2016 #permalink

Betula, I see that you're still avoiding my question about which species won't be threatened by global warming. Perhaps you are hiding because you have grokked where I would take the conversation after...

Still, let's go there too. cRR has already taken the wind from my sails, but I'll ask you neverthless - are corals threatened by human-caused cliamte change?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 12 Apr 2016 #permalink

"Someone is in love…"

Now there's an example of the pot calling the kettle, black for you...

As for predictions, once again Batty likes them as long as they aren't related to climate change. And that's because he comes across as a Ted Cruz-style Republican with a taste of the Tea Party thrown in. I am sure he loves Sarah Palin.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 12 Apr 2016 #permalink

Kampen - "Batty actually does some research and uses results"...."Please, don’t underestimate the thugs"

Poor Kampen, someone found his actual words and posted them. Now that's what I call abuse..... Damn thugs!

Bernard he won't answer it because he can't. And he doesn't want to give us any more rope to hang him with here. So he'll twist, dodge, fake, spin, avoid, etc. This is the peril of online discussions. People like Barking Betula can answer what they want and dispense with the rest. Bati and switch. Masters of the art.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 12 Apr 2016 #permalink

Batty and bait; got em' confused. Must be the spider Batty likes to keep insulting.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 12 Apr 2016 #permalink

"Betula, I see that you’re still avoiding my question about which species won’t be threatened"

I see you are still obsessed with finding someone to speculate about hypotheticals...

"Now there’s an example of the pot calling the kettle, black for you"....says the greatest scientist that Hardley has ever known.

"Must be the spider Batty likes to keep insulting."

Now Professor Hardley is concerned about the spiders feelings...

What's next arachnotherapy?

'..someone found his actual words and posted them.'

Batty is part of some team effort, we now know.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 12 Apr 2016 #permalink

Kampen - "Batty is part of some team effort, we now know".

Yes, it's a big scheme....we are out to get you and there is no place to hide.
It's cRR we are after...he appears to be the brains behind the alarmist operation, the teacher if you will....and a damned good one in fact.

If only we could unscramble those symbols in his head, we could get to the bottom of this...

Hey Hardley, do you think Kampen is afraid of spiders?

No cRR, I think Batty is all on his own.

And he is patently unfunny, but I assume he laughs hysterically at his own jokes. We all know what is a sure sign of.

As for answering Bernard's simple query, Batty knows that he's cornered. I can list a pile of species declining as a result of warming alone. No predictions needed. The data for them are pouring in. Warming negatively affects them. Next step is to elucidate how species declines affect food webs, communities and ecosystems. Doesn't take much brain matter to know that if species decline, they contribute less to ecological processes. The prognosis is not good.

Expect Batty to come back with some witless remark which sends him once again into hysterical fits.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 12 Apr 2016 #permalink

#33, so the 'someone' who 'found his actual words' would be Batty again?
In that case they, the Batties, suffer from the Sybil condition. Poor traumatized things.

'It’s cRR we are after...' - except you (plural) never really found me. Serengeti has nowt on me.

Someone as a kid of eight let Aussie redbacks crawl over his hands, no problem. I do not fear whom I don't harass. Including spiders of any kind. Or for that matter, snikes.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 12 Apr 2016 #permalink

Hardley - Can you tell me how much affect the development of the undeveloped nations will have on global average temperatures over any given period of time?

Thanks.

#36 - The Batties are threatening me. Oi. Gawrsh.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 12 Apr 2016 #permalink

Actually, that would be Rod Serling building on your paranoia.
Maybe You could team up with Hardley and do a trek in Algonquin.....look a spider!!

---
Quick review:

1. cRR Kampen imagines a catastrophe.

2. cRR Kampen expresses that he wants the catastrophe to happen.

3. cRR Kampen imagines that the reason he wants the imagined catastrophe to happen…. is for the good of people he imagines want the catastrophe.

4. cRR Kampen imagines that he taught the people that he imagines want the catastrophe, an imaginary lesson.

5. Crr Kampen imagines the lesson to be this….that the people he imagined want the catastrophe, will now begin to imagine the catastrophe he imagined they wanted,

6. cRR also imagines that this is the only way to to prevent further catastrophes from being imagined…..because it is their lack of imagination that caused the catastrophe he imagined they wanted in the first place.

7. Imagine that.

Good times here at Deltoid, you have no idea how much I appreciate this.

Thank you.
---
Did Batties a page ago.

Fucking well done.
I really am the best teacher. I feel worthy of a megaphone.
Has this already viralled?

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 12 Apr 2016 #permalink

Kampen, thanks for reposting, just in case one of the other 3 people on this blog missed it...

It really is a fine example of your teachings. You are an imaginary Guru of sorts...

With regard to the myriad of Tim Curtains
who float lightly about the interweb, trying
to be relevant with a type of slightly
punkish and certainly childish anti consilience,
it really comes down to this...
Theres a umbrella thing called maturity. Encompasses
all manner of ways of living and acting in the world as
an adult with responsibilities to their families and
communities.
And you have all failed miserably.
Do enjoy your 1% scum status whilst you are alive.
" Yeah, he was a bit of a rebel. Reckoned he was smarter
than NASA and had the ego to hassle NASA about it "
Good legacy eh.
Acting like toddlers in a tantrum.

Lionel - Do you think social justice and development of the undeveloped nations can put an end to omega pressure patterns before it's too late?

Here's one for you, Betula, do you think developing nations should continue to develop using plentiful cheap clean energy from renewable sources?
Or should they instead pollute their countries by choosing the more expensive fossil fuel option?

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

So the answer to my question is "Here’s one for you, Betula"'.....that is very informative.

Craig - I don't have a problem with development, I asked a simple question.
What I would like to know is how development on a global scale (as planned by the U.N. to end global poverty and climate change) will reduce overall CO2 emissions in the short and long run?
Of course, you have to take into account the massive amounts of construction and materials, increases in manufacturing, transportation, shipping, consumption and overall use of the earths resources etc...
So development will result in CO2 emissions being reduced by how much and over what period of time?
And how will this affect things like omega pressure patterns and spiders....over what period of time?
And who will pay for this development... in perpetuity?
And what entity will oversee the collection, enforcement, prioritization,distribution and monitoring of monies?
How much redistribution of global wealth will it take until we witness a change in predictions first hand?

Thanks.

Didnt know there was a cohesive plan by UN

Batty imagines a massive global conspiracy under the auspices of the UN that wants to reallocate funds from the rich nations to develop the poor south, and somehow is trying to link this with efforts to mitigate greenhouse gases. If proof were ever needed that he's a Tea Party-follower into conspiracy theories, then this is it. I'm sure he follows some of the far right loons on US television spouting this kind of crap.

Recall that Batty recently discussed what he perceived to be 'pest' organisms and threw snakes in for good measure. That he once argued that greenhouses, with their elevated C02 concentrations, represent a good proxy for natural systems, hence the latter will benefit from pumping more and more C02 into the atmosphere (straight out of the Oregon Petition). He also once claimed that the health and vitality of North American ecosystems could be accurately gauged on the abundance of white-tailed deer populations and on the success of wild turkey reintroductions.

Debating this kind of nincompoop is not only difficult, its virtually impossible. A right wing conspiracy-nut; probably a member of the NRA and a big fan of Ted Nugent as well.

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

Briefly, because I hate time wasting trolls, Batty asks who will pay to develop the south. Given Batty has never read a thing about ecological footprints in his life, nor anything about economics in the south, he believes that the rich nations are self-contained and support themselves on their own resource base. He therefore thinks that US-based wars have never had anything to do with capital repatriation, outright expansionism and subjugation of other countries resources. He doesn't think that our state-corporate sector loots the lands of the poor, and that the entire Washington Consensus is a construct aimed at ensuring that capital flows remain largely uni-directional. He's never read a thing from leading economists like Samir Amin and Patrick Bond, who write about this in quite some detail. Or even John Perkins, whose bestselling book 'Confessions of an Economic Hit Man' spelled out western agendas in complete clarity. I am sure he's never read a thing written by planners like George Kennan in his life, or the famous words of once-touted Republican candidate Smedley Butler in his book, 'War is a Racket' where he laid out the real US agendas and then was quickly put out to pasture by his party.

Instead, he probably hides under his bed with his arsenal of weapons at the read waiting for those evil left wing UN people to come and take away his property and his wealth.

How utterly stupid.

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

#43 - it is nothing short of spectacular. April belongs to the three or four coldest months in Greenland (in fact, the last week of March is climatologically the coldest part of year in the north).

Looking at the previous interglacial present earth temp implies about half of the Inlandsis must go. As we all know the only interesting thing is how fast that will have happened and it certainly looks like mere centuries. At PRESENT global temp, note this.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 13 Apr 2016 #permalink

Kampen is imagining that somewhere in his linked article it states that 3 El Ninos are directly linked to man made climate change, which in turn must be caused by me asking questions....which makes questions the main cause of man made climate change i.e.: criminal.

The Guru of imagination has reached a new imaginary state....the teacher has risen.

Hardley - "He also once claimed that the health and vitality of North American ecosystems could be accurately gauged on the abundance of white-tailed deer populations and on the success of wild turkey reintroduction"

This from a "scientist" who saw a spider and declared he witnessed climate change first hand...

Deltoid at it's finest.

"Didnt know there was a cohesive plan by UN"

It's not cohesive, thus the questions.

Perhaps you should read more often.....try any U.N. related site.

You're welcome.

Another hard to parse report from a look in the mirror is #53.
Batties think that Niños are human-caused.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 13 Apr 2016 #permalink

"This from a “scientist” who saw a spider and declared he witnessed climate change first hand…"

Actually, I saw lots of spiders as well as several species of insects. And huge numbers of collemboles - perhaps sveral million - active about 4 weeks ahead of their normal temporal life cycle. So yes, given it was the dead of winter, this phenomena was a clear sign that it was a lot warmer than it should have been. And similar processes are being observed all over the planet; species emerging from winter disapuse earlier and earlier, adjusting their distributions poelwards or to higher elevations, having extra generations, and becoming desynchronized with their food supply. What Batty does is mangle an article written by a person in admin here and then run with it. That's his M.O. All of the piles of evidence published in journals besides the anecdotes prove that its warming.

Don't try to take me head on with respect to ecology Barkhead. I'll annihilate you every time. You are a rookie. An old one at that. Your turkey comment indeeds shows what a stupid gobbler you are.

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

"Batties think that Niños are human-caused"

Actually, Batties thinks a lot of things. Most of them dead wrong. He's one of our leading Dunning-Kruger acolytes here on Deltoid. In fact, he's so utterly stupid that he once tried to accuse me and others here of being examples of D-K, when indeed he freely comments on fields in which he has no relevanttraining or expertise at all. Such as the ecological effects of AGW. Some of his comments on here are so simple as to make one almost feel pangs of sympathy.

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

'Some of his comments on here are so simple as to make one almost feel pangs of sympathy.'

Not me.
If I were a climate revisionist (while, of course, knowing FAR better just like Exxon did 40 yrs ago) that is quite the way I would play the game.
Project everything (so the first time someone told me I was Dunning-Krugering I would henceforth acuse him plus all bona fide scientists of DK'ing).
Call scientific consensus 'religion'.
Evade, systematically evade questions that have certain simple answers. While pretending to be decent and pretending to be irritated because I never get answers to my (silly) questions (because I was evading yours in the first place).

Don't underestimate. This is thought-over thuggery.

Same thing with Lamar Smith. The guy is not stupid. That is all pretense. Thinking it is stupidity makes one vulnerable to that kind of criminal manipulation.
Heartland's response to being subpoenaed - crying hell over 'freedom of speech' - is professional, not 'childish' or 'stupid'.

Proof: Keeling Curve.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 13 Apr 2016 #permalink

"Batties think that Niños are human-caused"

Now all you have to do, is ask your imagination where this came from.

"Evade, systematically evade questions that have certain simple answers"

You have to actually ask questions in order for them to be evaded...imaginary symbols in your head don't count as questions.

And... Peabody is done for.
Sing for the Aussie tax payer who will of course foot that bill (and the CEO bonusses of the failing company of course). Maybe just as well as they voted for a govt that put a huge amount of capital on a stack and burnt it.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 13 Apr 2016 #permalink

#60, you said it, remember.

#61, like that :D :D

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 13 Apr 2016 #permalink

Bye, Peabody, bye!

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 13 Apr 2016 #permalink

"you said it, remember"

Nope. Show me.

At this point, Kampen is having an argument with his imagination about what it was I said.
I can't imagine the mess being created in that skull right now...symbols are flying everywhere...oh the humanity!

I see you are still obsessed with finding someone to speculate about hypotheticals…

There's nothing hypothetical about my question. Climate change is occurring. Science can tell us how the observed warming will affecrt species if that warming is allowed to continue.

What do you claim is hypothetical? The fact of warming, or the fact that science can inform us of the ecological consequences thereof?

Come on Betula, you make asserions that there's nothing to worry about. On what basis do you make these asserions?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 13 Apr 2016 #permalink

Bernard - "What do you claim is hypothetical?"

Predicting the future interactions of all the variables on earth and the negative-only affects of every species at every location if X were to occur over no specific time period and assuming X can be controlled by global development which will in turn cause all interactions on earth to behave differently , thus having a positive-only affect on all species at every location....over no specific time period.

That hypothetical.

#65, here: 'Kampen is imagining that somewhere in his linked article it states that 3 El Ninos are directly linked to man made climate change'. In #53.

So Batties think El Niño's are human-caused. They say I merely 'imagine' that.
The relation is to El Niño's causing ever worse coral bleaching events (in fact now three are known). El Niño's are of course getting hotter and that is human caused. Batties know all that so they hid it in the troll retoric.

#66, oi, tempted to use 'imagination' for the second time already... Viral pathogen.

#68 more projection.
There's nothing hypothetical about the mass extinction event at all.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 13 Apr 2016 #permalink

Kampen - "El Niño’s are of course getting hotter and that is human caused"

Of course, it doesn't state that in the article and Kampen no proof of that. So let's review:

Me - ‘Kampen is imagining that somewhere in his linked article it states that 3 El Ninos are directly linked to man made climate change"

Kampen - "So Batties think El Niño’s are human-caused"

So not only did Kampen call himself a Battie, but he imagined that his thoughts are in my imagination.

You're the best Kampen. I'm even beginning to think you top Hardley....the only difference is he has spiders in his head and you have scrambled symbols...

"Predicting the future interactions of all the variables on earth and the negative-only affects of every species at every location if X were to occur over no specific time period and assuming X can be controlled by global development which will in turn cause all interactions on earth to behave differently , thus having a positive-only affect on all species at every location….over no specific time period." and bleh bleh bleh bleh bleh.

https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/2016/04/04/coralmap/f591103f0be0e…

Humanity is fucked and deserves it.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 13 Apr 2016 #permalink

#70, ' scrambled symbols' - projection. Can't even spell a name correctly themselves.

You killed the coral. Go lie down with it.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 13 Apr 2016 #permalink

Scrambled symbols worth repeating....

Kampen – “El Niño’s are of course getting hotter and that is human caused”

Kampen – “So Batties think El Niño’s are human-caused”

Can't make it up.

Thank you Deltoid.

"Predicting the future interactions of all the variables on earth and the negative-only affects of every species at every location if X were to occur over no specific time period and assuming X can be controlled by global development which will in turn cause all interactions on earth to behave differently , thus having a positive-only affect on all species at every location….over no specific time period"

Talk about gobbeldegook. What a load of tosh.

Can't makemake it up.

Thanks Birch-bark.

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

Kampen - "You killed the coral. Go lie down with it."

Now Kampen's symbols are not only telling him that it is questions that kill coral, but they are telling him that bleached coral is dead coral...

Tim Lambert...I can't thank you enough, wherever you are.

Hardley you are correct, it wasn't made up...

And you are Hardley welcome!

#73, 'Can’t make it up.' - No, your kind is not creative, but destructive. Soooo easy.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 13 Apr 2016 #permalink

Yes, cRR, mass extinction is not hypothetical. Any more than the destruction of tropical forests and the threat posed by invasive species is hypothetical. Batty cannot answer Bernard's simple enquiry so he goes off on a tangent into waffle-waffle land.

Here's a simple answer to Beranrd's question: climate change is harming biodiversity at all levels of organization. Its reducing system resilience and is making systems more prone to collapse. If left unchecked, AGW will rebound severely on humanity because of the loss of vital ecological services. As the MEA showed back in 2005, 60% of vital services are being degraded severely, and warming may be the most important factor in this process; it is certainly up there with habitat loss.

Now that is a simple answer, but Battie cannot give it because he's too indoctrinated with his own myopic political views too accept what the vast majority of scientists already know. Its interesting watching him unravel on here while making vacuous quips that he alone thinks are funny.

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

Battie, if you have any proof that AGW is entirely benign and that there is evidence that natural systems will and are adapting to it, then please show me those studies. Please also provide links to studies revealing how past rapid climatic shifts did not generate mass extinction events. The Permian-Triassic extinction comes to mind, but there are others.

I've got a pile of papers showing harmful effects of warming on terrestrial, freshwater and marine ecosystems. Let's shee yours showing how it does no harm at all.

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

Just one more time, because it's priceless...

Kampen – “El Niño’s are of course getting hotter and that is human caused”

Kampen – “So Batties think El Niño’s are human-caused”

Hardley - "Battie, if you have any proof that AGW is entirely benign"

First you should prove where that was stated.

Kampens scrambled symbols are now telling him I introduced a fish into the topic....

I, me, introduced a fish into the topic. Are you jealous, Batties?
This species has some special characteristics. Yours. For one, they are irritatingly easy to catch. For another, they take the hook almost to the tail. Finally, they don't fight, as if they don't know whether they are hooked.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 13 Apr 2016 #permalink

Kampen, are you sure your imagination isn't going to blame me for "introducing" it? Check with your imagination and get back to me...

You seem to feel a little insecure. How may I help you?

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 13 Apr 2016 #permalink

I need no help from your imagination, but thanks for imagining I do....

Did I pass the test?

So AGW is not benign after all... or is it? Battie can't make up his mind.

At least wild turkeys are proving that North American biomes are in great shape. Battie says so; must be true.

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

Unexpectedly, North American biomes thriving say Scientists,

"Global warming induced ‘fertilization effect’ causing B.C.’s forests to grow back faster than expected"
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/global-warming-induced-fertili…
“In B.C., the scientific evidence is that our forests are growing faster than in the past due to a warming climate,” said Arora. “This is helping us recover from the carbon impact of the mountain pine beetle outbreak sooner than we imagined.”

Which is good news.
:)

Biomass production is not an indication that North American forests are 'thriving'. And note where GSW gets his source. The National Post. Anything therse right wingnuts can do to argue that we need to keep polluting, slashing, burning, and assaulting nature for profit. And of course, even if this was good news, which it isn't, thereare's about 100 times as much bad news in terms of ecological effects of warming and increased atmospheric C02 concentrations.

Since GSW does not have a clue about the field of stoichiometry, he's advised to keep his mouth shut. Note also the switch from Polar Bears since the recent publication of the article showing a decline in per capita fitness and condition of the bears since the 1980s.

So much for GSWs 'good news'. A right wing rag.

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

I wouldn't call Phys.org a "right wing rag". And all because they use the word "Thriving" in connection with "North American biomes"

"*Thriving* B.C. forests outpace pine-beetle CO2 losses by 2020"
http://phys.org/news/2016-04-bc-forests-outpace-pine-beetle-co2.html

"Climate change is accelerating this recovery. It is projected to make BC warmer, but also parts of it wetter due to increased precipitation. Meanwhile, the greenhouse gas CO2 produces a "fertilization effect" that increases photosynthesis. Taken together, these warmer, wetter, more CO2–rich conditions allow high-latitude forests to recover faster from harvest, fire and insect disturbances than they otherwise would. This boost in growth in turn allows for greater storing of carbon in vegetation, forest floor litter and soil."

"The scientists' findings have been published in Geophysical Research Letters, a peer-reviewed scientific journal of the American Geophysical Union."

You are an odd character jeff.
:)

Hardley - "So AGW is not benign after all"

Yes, I did I notice you can't show where any such thing was ever said.
Unless you can provide a link to your imagination, you will remain the joke that you are....and always my consistent comic relief.

"Same thing with Lamar Smith. The guy is not stupid. That is all pretense"

Stupidity is not a one-dimensional problem.

For some, they WANT to be stupid. Gullibility lets them feel better. It's why Al Gore's movie was called An Inconvenient Truth.

It would be so much more convenient if it were wrong, why bother trying to find holes in an argument that makes it wrong?

Al Gore and his Inconvenient Exaggerations.

Don't worry wow, that 20 foot sea level rise should be here any day now....

Betula, it's really not that difficult. If you say that human-cause climate change is benign you must have evidence that contradicts the huge body of science that says it is not benign.

Where is your evidence?

Just one more time, because it’s priceless…

Kampen – “El Niño’s are of course getting hotter and that is human caused”

Kampen – “So Batties think El Niño’s are human-caused”

Actually, Betula, cRR's statements are entirely consistent with each other and with the physics of climate.

The fact is that the cause of El Niño is trivially understood to be non-human. This is entirely consistent with cRR's second statement.

The fact is that the warming trajectory of the planet, caused by human carbon emissions, superimposes on the occurrence of El Niño, so that they are becoming progressively warmer. Entirely consistent with cRR's first statement.

So what's your problem?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 14 Apr 2016 #permalink

Betula, it's really not that difficult. If you say that human-cause climate change is benign you must have evidence that contradicts the huge body of science that says it is not benign.

Where is your evidence?

Just one more time, because it’s priceless…

Kampen – “El Niño’s are of course getting hotter and that is human caused”

Kampen – “So Batties think El Niño’s are human-caused”

Actually, Betula, cRR's statements are entirely consistent with each other and with the physics of climate.

The fact is that the cause of El Niño is trivially understood to be non-human. This is entirely consistent with cRR's second statement.

The fact is that the warming trajectory of the planet, caused by human carbon emissions, superimposes on the occurrence of El Niño, so that they are becoming progressively warmer. Entirely consistent with cRR's first statement.

So what's your problem?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 14 Apr 2016 #permalink

"Al Gore and his Inconvenient Exaggerations."

Lie.

The swindle movie WAS a lie. You just blather it out as if it were reality.

PS And when the WAIS and Greenland ice sheet melt, you will get 20ft sea level rises. It's a fact of maths. That was ALL that was predicted in AIT on the subject.

It's solely a DENIER canard that it was predicted to have happened (some are not so fucking ridiculous to claim that and posit it was "this century" or some other equally made up BS, avoiding in this case that "this century" has not passed and that therefore the claim it is wrong has not been shown).

"So what’s your problem?"

The fact that you or Kampen can't seem to come up with a statement by me claiming "El Niño’s are human-caused"

Nice try though.

Next.

Wow - "That was ALL that was predicted in AIT on the subject"

Lionel will tell you that predictions are for "soothsayers" and "prophets".

He will then say it was taken out of context, at which point I will repost his "context" (again) and he will then change the subject (again).

And the Deltoid wheel will continue to spin...weeeee!

Bernard - "If you say that human-cause climate change is benign you must have evidence"

But first, you must have evidence I said it was benign.

Noted: 'Stupidity is not one dimensional problem'. Thanks, Wow.

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

From the discussion of the Arora et al. study:

"Limitations remain in our study. First, we do not comprehensively assess the effect of uncertainty in model parameter values. Figure S5 characterizes how the uncertainty in the half-life of the stem component of the dead trees changes the diagnosed effect of the MPB disturbance. Similar sensitivity analyses for other model parameters, planned for future, will yield further insight into the associated uncertainty in so far as the objective is to determine the model response to the MPB disturbance versus the response to changing climate and increasing [CO2]. Second, the model also suffers from structural uncertainty due to lack of representation of certain processes whose effect can only be assessed qualitatively. The model version used in our study does not dynamically simulate the fractional coverage of its PFTs. Studies that have used bioclimatic envelopes for projecting future distribution of tree species in BC [Hamann and Wang, 2006; Wang et al., 2012] suggest that climate envelopes for relatively productive species that currently exist in coastal and mild-climate interior regions will expand over rest of BC at the expense of less productive subboreal, subalpine, and alpine ecosystems. The implications for the resulting carbon balance of these projected changes, however, are unclear since tree species do not migrate as quickly as the projected shifts in climate envelopes. The terrestrial ecosystem model used does not account for the age distribution of forest stands. The modeled response to climate change and increasing [CO2] is based on that of an average-aged tree in the landscape, without an explicit representation of self-thinning that would increase mortality as biomass increases. The average age of forests in BC is increasing, and so the reduction in tree growth due to increasing age counteracts the environmentally driven growth enhancement [Hember et al., 2012]."

Note what I said earlier about the ability of trees to track a rapidly warming climate. Most species exist within well-defined thermal envelopes and have thermoneutral optima. Once temperatures go above (or below) these envelopes then the species have to expend more metabolic energy, potentially compromising their fitness and survival. This explains why species have weel defined geographical distributions. If climate warming continues unabated, then this will more than offset any short term increases in biomass, unless they are able to shift their distributions. The problem with this is obvious: trees and many large plants do not diperse as effectively as more mobile organisms, and their soil-based mutualists including mycorrhizal fungae will certainly not track them effectively.

And then there is also the matter of shifting C:N:P rations in plant tissues. Carbon is not a limiting nutrient for most plants. Moreover, if carbon concentrations become excessive, then this shunts out other nutrients that are vital for plant growth as well as consumers associated with the plant. And, as I have explained before, changes in plant stoichiometry also affect plant allelochemistry as well as volatile profiles. All of these changes have profound ecological consequences. Scientists trained in the relevant fields - including me - are well aware of this. Nitwits who have no formal education in the fields, including GSW and Betula, don't. To them its all a simple matter of linear dynamics.

The paper is actually well written and not sensationalized as the right wing corporate media have done. The conclusions and limitations are clearly spelled out. Trust the denial lobby to exaggerate the findings out of all proportion.

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

"Lionel will tell you that predictions are for “soothsayers” and “prophets”."

If you accept his word as absolute truth and accuracy, why the fuck are you arguing about how he's wrong?

Or do you know you're wrong, but can't let it lie?

"He will then say it was taken out of context,"

Isn't that a prediction??? See your earlier claim re: predictions. Prove it, retard.

What is the context of the claim about flooding and the 20ft rise, you thundering idiot? Lets see if you can manage your "prediction" OF YOUR OWN ACTIONS.

Or will you ignore the question and pretend it's never been asked, and cause the denialidiot wheel to spin yet one more time?

Re your post, cRR, Scott Adams put it well in a story about him and the dead new battery in his phone.

Apparently he was an idiot who couldn't even insert the battery the right way round. Yet despite this monumental stupidity, he managed to operate a complex vehicle and not kill anyone with it on his irate drive to the local store.

Stupidity isn't a singular value like some sort of RPG stat.

Understanding that you can understand the stupidity of apparently smart people.

And accept that some, e.g. Betty, are just monumentally dense morons without a single glimmer of intelligence.

Me - “He will then say it was taken out of context,”

Wow - "Isn’t that a prediction??? See your earlier claim re: predictions. Prove it, retard"

Lionel @ 67 pg 3 - Note the context of my writing that, it was in connection with the projected future of the polar bear population.

Lionel @ 12 Pg 4 - "Once again, CONTEXT you clown!"

Of course, it never was taken out of context:

Me – “Because only the things we don’t depend on will increase under current predicted catastrophic-only climate scenarios…..unless there is development on a global scale to prevent the predictions”.

Lionel – “Clot, nobody here is making predictions, that is for soothsayers and prophets, science uses projections based upon scenarios.”

Poor Wow.

And then there is this gem from Wow - "If you accept his word as absolute truth and accuracy, why the fuck are you arguing about how he’s wrong?"

Who said he was wrong?

"Of course, it never was taken out of context:"

Given you've lied about the context, why do you expect anyone to take your word this time either? Especially when it's so easy to check (if boring to wade through your tripe)?

"Who said he was wrong?"

Who said he was right?

Wow - "Who said he was right?"

Lionel.... he's the one who said it.

You do have a hard time with words, don't you. Did you attend the same school of scrambled symbols as Kampen?

Wow - "Given you’ve lied about the context, why do you expect anyone to take your word this time either? Especially when it’s so easy to check (if boring to wade through your tripe)?"

Since I have already given you the context, where is the iie?

Tell you what, you being slow and all, I'll make what is easy for most, easier for you...

Lionel's comment is at #43 pg 2. Make sure you copy anything you see there about polar bears and get back to me.

No need to be embarrassed, I already know you're dumb as dirt.

"Since I have already given you the context, where is the iie?"

Since you have lied about what it is, you haven't given the context, betty.

"Lionel…. he’s the one who said it."

No he didn't. Lionel was the one you were talking about, retard.

I think this conversation would go much better if you knew what you were talking about.
Perhaps you should read the comments before you comment rather than prove yourself to be on the retarded side.....which is what you have done.

I can't help you.

I can’t help you.

We know that you clot, been obvious since your first Deltoid contribution. Now foxtrot-oscar like the little beetle infester you are.

But I wonder how much of a hand your day job had in this

The first of the above discusses the problems that forestry and other land management issues impact oceanic species populations, particularly those with a life cycle encompassing both oceanic and fresh water stages.

This found by going via link at that Page2 #43 post.

My guess is this is one reason you are so hostile whilst remaining ignorant of the consequences of your actions.

Context you clown, projections may be called predictions to reach the uneducated, but you appear to fall into that special category of uneducated and ineducable - one of the deliberately ignorant. IOW a member of The Wendy Club.

Lionel #67 pg 3 - "Note the context of my writing that, it was in connection with the projected future of the polar bear population. Most everybody clued up understood that but not you Betsy Boob"

Polar Bears? Lets look:

Lionel # 43 pg 2 -

"What an asinine and absurd statement. It is clear that you are totally clueless about the extent of human reliance on ecological services and the intricacy of the webs which link all the species within."

"Consider just one phenomenon that is rolling out through the oceans as we decimate fish stocks — the burgeoning populations of certain species of what are commonly known as jellyfish. Now I mentioned this upthread but go find a copy of Lisa-ann Gershwin’s excellent,"

‘Stung! On Jellyfish Blooms and the Future of the Ocean’.[1]
…unless there is development on a global scale to prevent the predictions.
"Clot, nobody here is making predictions, that is for soothsayers and prophets, science uses projections based upon scenarios"

All this in response to my (sarcastic) comment to Hardley @ 41 pg 2:

Hardley – “The point is to prevent the world from experiencing the predicted decrease in living things that humans are dependent upon”

"Because only the things we don’t depend on will increase under current predicted catastrophic-only climate scenarios…..unless there is development on a global scale to prevent the predictions."

Nothing out of context, except your retarded imaginations.

The Deltoid asylum at it's best.

Retarded Soothsayer Stew Recipe -

Lionel - "Clot, nobody here is making predictions, that is for soothsayers and prophets, science uses projections based upon scenarios"

Mixed with this - “Note the context of my writing that, it was in connection with the projected future of the polar bear population. Most everybody clued up understood that but not you Betsy Boob”

Makes this - http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1890/07-2089.1/abstract

Jellyfish for desert.

Yes, it's "dessert".

Ah, more madeupbollox from the current moron infestation.

sorry dear, but nobody's reading.

I predicted you would say that.

Of course, it was your only option.

And that's because you know I'm right.

You said it's "so easy to check", yet you have nothing.

Give it up Wow, let it go....you're done.

It's easy to check, and it's all here on this thread. Are you asking me to link to this thread????

Or is pretending you're even dumber than previously discussed your best option now?

Still nothing. Impressive.

No, not impressive at all, betty.

You're being quite pathetic,really, but I guess that's the best you got.

You know, nothing,but the ego-led need to say SOMETHING, no matter how dumbasss it is.

You have yet to link to anything you claim I lied about. Nothing. At what point do you become embarrassed?

And, as usual, you haven't read what I've said.

Why do you want me to link to THIS THREAD WE ARE ON, betty? Are you really so dumb you need pointing at it while you're still on it?

And what will you do with it? The same as you did when I pointed out your lying or complete idiocy (take your pick: feel free to pick both) when you were talking about Lionel but claimed it was someone Lionel was talking about.

You never even noticed.

Betsy Boo Boo.

From that Wiley link in your #14 (which is a repeat on your part) we find that the Abstract kicks off thusly:

Projections of polar bear (Ursus maritimus) sea ice habitat distribution in the polar basin during the 21st century were developed to understand the consequences of anticipated sea ice reductions on polar bear populations....

Now I have pointed that out up-thread already, you are just so slow, being as thick as two short planks (to use an old naval expression), presumably of Birch.

Now stop being such a £u(k wit.

Wow - when you were talking about Lionel but claimed it was someone Lionel was talking about.

It would help if you actually read what Lionel said, you know, so you would know what you were talking about.

Wow - Why do you want me to link to THIS THREAD WE ARE ON, betty?

Look, I just linked you on this thread, showing how you still haven't linked anything. Nothing.

See how easy that was.

Lionel, regarding #14, I suggest you eat your dessert.

"It would help if you actually read what Lionel said"

I did. And I also read what you said. And I read what I said. And I read your reply.

And the statement I made you have "replied" to here is neither relevant nor accurate.

IOW another lie.

"Look, I just linked you on this thread"

Which I didn't require or ask for.

"showing how you still haven’t linked anything"

Yeah, and I've never said otherwise.

"See how easy that was."

See how it wasn't relevant.

Wow - "I did. And I also read what you said. And I read what I said. And I read your reply"

And you still have no idea what we are talking about.

Now all you have to do is put it all in order, put away your ideologies and imagination, and comprehend what was said.

It is only then that you will realize just how retarded you are.

"And you still have no idea what we are talking about."

Ah, well, another lie, betty. So sad.

Fairly pointless trying to nail this Betula jelly to the wall, a typical double-talking dipshit, parodied in 'Blazing Saddles'.

"Fairly pointless trying to nail this Betula jelly to the wall"

Hard to do when you aren't sure if you are talking about Jelly fish or polar bears...eh Lionel?