Catching up...

Interesting as those three videos were (and they were interesting), I have to ask in all seriousness, "what have we learned here?"

Good question, Rob. I admit I had the same reaction. There was no epiphany, no resolution, not even a very satisfying result in the "showdown".

My philosophy for replying to trolls/zombies/sincerely misguided posters has always been "do it for the lurkers", which again does not really get at how, or why try, to reach these individuals.

Unlike the real trolls that live under bridges and feed on goats, on-line trolls feed on responses.

And like all lifeforms, they die if they don't feed.

coby, what would you do without the resident climate trolls craig, mandas, etc.? for me this would be so boring.

Time to admit you were wrong about the Arctic sea ice "recovery, "freddy"?
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

What else are you wrong about?

Nothing happening here folks. Move along. Its all perfectly normal.
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/storms-roll-into-melbourne-after-day-…

Good to know mandas allows that singular weather events can be used to determine the current measure of global war . . ., er, climate chan . . ., er, extreme weather.

That requirement that we rely on pal, er, peer reviewed science was becoming so tedious.

Coby,
Back from Europe ?
To where ?

And how long did it take on a sailboat?
. . . just sayin'

Good to see that Paul still can't read.

Can you see anywhere in my post where I suggested that that was an accurate measure of climate change Paul?

And yeah Paul, fancy me insisting on a reliance on peer reviewed science to frame the debate - how tedious!. It would be much better if we just stuck to uniformed opinion wouldn't it?

But now that you mention the issue of 'singular weather events', I have to say thanks for demonstrating just how ignorant you really are, and how, in the absence of any credibily evidence based argument, all you are able to do is to build strawmen and to cherry pick the shit you want while ignoring everything else.

Singular weather events are not sufficient to prove climate change. But it takes a very special brand of ignorance to repeatedly state that 'singular weather events' do not prove climate change, on the hundred and hundred of occasions when 'singular weather events' out of the ordinary keep occuring over and over and over and over and over again. ONE of those singular weather events - by itself - does not prove climate change. But only someone with their head so far up their arse that they can see what they had for breakfast can deny that ALL of the broken weather records taken together is in some way normal.

But then, we knew that about you already Paul.

sorry mandas good to know that this is the first year in which weather records were broken, i didnt know.

and also, a bit confused here, "hundreds . . . out of the ordinary", hmmm, sounds contradictory. but I'm sure you can clear this up and define which weather pattern was caused by CO2?

thanks,

Oh really? When commenting on a post about climate denier trolls?

Only to be expected I suppose.

Pauline, cast your eyes over this graphic.
https://www2.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/news/2009/temps_2med.jpg

What *I* see is that the weather is indicating a change in climate.

What do *you* see?

Paul

You ask me to clear it up for you and define which weather pattern was caused by CO2? I think you meant which weather pattern was caused by climate change resulting from CO2, since it would be a stupid question to ask which was caused by CO2 alone. So I will answer that one for you.

Well Paul, every single weather pattern in the world was caused by climate change. And that is so obvious that it takes a special form of stupid not to understand it.

Weather is a product of the environmental conditions. The weather is caused by the rotation of the Earth, by the arrangement of the continents and the height of the land (mountains etc), by the tides, by the vegetation and ground cover, by the moisture content of the soil, by the temperature of the ground and the temperature of the sea, etc.

And since a lot of those factors are influenced by climate change (temperature, soil moisture, etc), then the altered conditions of the climate cause altered weather patterns.

So do you get this fundamentally simple point Paul? Only an idiot would ask if a particular weather event was caused by climate change - because every weather event is caused by the existing climatic conditions. Change those, and you change the weather.

Got it?

mandas

your statement

"... when ‘singular weather events’ out of the ordinary keep occuring over and over and over and over and over again ..."

has nothing to do with saying, it is a layman's wishful thinking.

"freddy", you may have missed this:
https://www2.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/news/2009/temps_2med.jpg
...which perfectly illustrates what Mandas is attempting to explain to you.

Ahh, mandas, got me.
I did use the word cause, didn't I?

So, of course, what I meant to say -
Which weather pattern change is linked rising CO2 levels?

I think you'll have a largely different response.
(Since your latest straw man devolved to the obviously simple)

Paul

You ask this:

"...So, of course, what I meant to say - Which weather pattern change is linked rising CO2 levels?...

So how about you go back and read my post again, since I have already explained this. Ah, why bother, you apparently can't read very well, so let me make this as plain as possible for you.

Every single weather pattern change in the world is linked to rising CO2 levels, because the changing climate is changing the weather. Why are you not getting this?

So, global war . . ., climate ch . . ., er, extreme weather has devolved to everything which is nothing or nothing which is everything and koooks reign over reality.

Good grief.

So what's your point Paul?

Is it too hard for you to grasp that weather is a product of climate - and that if you change the climate you change the weather?

How about you let us know what is so difficult to understand about that.

We'll have to defer to Pauline's extensive experience of kooks reigning over reality.

Here is the reality, though:
https://www2.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/news/2009/temps_2med.jpg

Can you see what the weather is telling you, Pauline?

mandas, your argumentation is pure tautology, therefore pure nonsense, totally unscientific:

1. it is far from certain that global warming exists (mess with temperature stations, eg look at surfacestations.org) and the many obscurities about "global temperature" calculations with many up-homogenzations of temperature data, eg by NOAA and GISS

2. you stubbornly repeat your major misbelief that everything re earth's climate and weather is dependent on little bit human co2.

you should start to look at clouds as major factor, after the sun, affecting earth's surface temperatures.

i recommend to you that you read the IPCC AR4 about clouds, where you can learn that the IPCC admits that the level of scientific understanding of clouds is low. you should accept this.

What you should all accept is that the Greenhouse Effect does not exist, it is an illusion.

What Greenhouse Effect?

From real physics:

Temperature of Earth with voluminous real gas atmosphere with mass therefore weight under gravity,

mainly condensable nitrogen and oxygen: 15°C

Temperature of Earth without atmosphere: -18°C

Compare with the Moon without atmosphere: -23°C

Temperature of the Earth with real gas atmosphere of mainly condensable nitrogen and oxygen, but,

without water, think deserts: 67°C

Which is the real "thermal blanket" around the Earth?

Where is the physical process of the Greenhouse Effect claim that "greenhouse gases warm the Earth 33°C from the -18°C it would be without them?

At best this is mass delusion, at worst, this is "scientists" without even an elementary grasp of the physical properties and processes of matter and energy:

who cannot tell the difference between real gases and the fictional ideal;

who have not noticed the whole of the Water Cycle is missing from their models;

who have not noticed they have no rain in their Carbon Cycle;

who have zilch capacity for sense of scale and cannot tell the difference between their claimed trace gas carbon dioxide which is practically 100% hole in the atmosphere "thermal blanket" and the real gas air nitrogen and oxygen with mass therefore weight under gravity which weighs down on us around 14lbs per square inch, a ton on our shoulders;

who think our millions of degrees hot Star we call the Sun is a cold star of 6000°C, which is around the temp of the Earth's innards;

who think our real millions of degree hot Star the Sun therefore radiates insignificant amounts of longwave infrared heat, which they have, it has to be said, idiotically calculated by some 'planckian' method based on the thin 300 mile wide visible light atmosphere around our millions of degree hot Sun;

or, who claim there is some "invisible barrier like the glass of a greenhouse at TOA preventing direct thermal infrared from the Sun entering", unknown to real physics;

who have not noticed the Solar Constant, which is the measurement of how much direct longwave infared heat energy from the Sun arrives at the surface by the amount it heats matter at the surface, has been moved in their GHE energy budget to TOA and misattributed to visible light from the Sun;

who claim it is visible light from the Sun which heats matter, which is a physically impossibility,

who are therefore unable to see where the real missing longwave infrared heat direct from the Sun is in Trenberth's comic cartoon, being fraudulently used to pretend it comes from the "atmosphere under TOA backradiated by greenhouse gases"..

etc., etc.,

Do the rest of us in the world who rely on you for accuracy as you claim to be scientists a favour -

stop your posturing. You have no knowledge of physics basics.

The Greenhouse Effect is an Illusion, it is not physically possible, it does not exist, it is hoax to promote AGW.

It is the biggest science fraud to date and the longer you continue to promote it the longer the fraud will continue to the detriment of real science, and real scientists.

There is no physical process to get the “33°C warming by greenhouse gases”, its an illusion created by the science fraud of misappropriating the minus 18°C and applying it where it does not belong..

CT
You seem amazed that a warmer earth brings more high temp records than low temp records.

This is as important as "97% consensus" and "two warmest decades".

Good grief. What a Gish Gallop of incoherence and ignorance from Myrrh...it is hard to choose how and what to respond to. 67oC desserts? On Earth? Visible light can not transmit energy to the earth's surface? The sun is not around 6KoC on its surface, but rather "millions of degrees"?

I think Myrrh should head over to Climate Etc and discuss his blog science theories there.

No Pauline, I am not at all amazed that a warming earth causes a bias in certain weather events.

That pattern of weather events is one of the indicators of climate change. And it is global.

Coby

Freddy has been quiet lately - it looks as though another troll has raised his ugly head to see if we will feed him.

Perhaps we can harness this truly inexhaustible source of troll energy and finally say good-bye to the carbon economy for ever!

mandas, you cannot "feed a climate troll", you are just ugly arrogant as you appear to think that you are a better individual due to unexplainable reasons.

the problem you have is that your speculation of a warming planet due to human influences cannot be substantiated by scienctific methodology

you are the troll, the true non-science troll, devoid of knowledge how science works. you are just a lay person, a believer, and no scientist, since you admitted to work as wildlife park manager in down under.

Coby and other hand wringers,

All you need to do to rid the world of carbon is get off the couch.
Your opportunity is limitless.

When we see you acting like its a crisis, well, then, we may reevaluate.