"I’ve already proved you to be an embellishing egotistical liar for the cause"
In your dreams, bush pruner, in your dreams. I'd like to add that I think it us both ironic and sad that people with clearly mediocre educations and occupations - by that I mean you, Betula, as well as Karen, Mack, and Olaus - like to bat on the side of those wishing to seriously damage out planet's ecosystems for the benefits of short-term profits. Now, I can understand it if you clowns had tons of cash stored away or worked as CEOs for some huge transnational corporation (and even then, only because of short-term greed), but when a bunch of second-rate illiterates sides with those intent on driving our planet's ecosystems to hell in a hand-basket? Now that requires total stupidity. And you bunch have it in spades.
As for Olaus, note how he uses the Serengeti strategy I described earlier in this thread. Ignore countless studies in the peer-reviewed literature showing the deleterious effects of recent warming on species in aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems - including zooplankton, a number of vertebrates and insect groups - and concentrate on Emperor Penguins. Note that the status of this species has also been upgraded from least concern to threatened, but Olaus will claim that this is a communist/UN plot to take away our freedoms or some such nonsense. And, like the bush pruner, ensure that the discussion (1) ignores scientific studies published in peer-reviewed journals (another commie plot?) and (2) political agendas (outlined quite well in books like Michael Klare's latest tome).
The most hilarious thing is that not a single one of this bunch of denier losers has any relevant expertise in any scientific field (well, that is except bush and tree pruning). They downplay the empirical evidence and the views of the vast majority of the scientific community, and then act as if they hold the intellectual high ground. Watch their poisonous reaction to this post - it will be greeted with hoots of derision but no substance. Par for the course.
Zoot, (and Karen),
There was hardly any effect with this ETS here , a 10c/litre petrol rise and the price of electricity escalated a bit more. But over in Aus it will "lock et in Eddie" for you guys . We literally do not use coal for electricity here but Juliar has got that solid black gold at 23 dollars / tonne to get her little taxing hands on. Don't kid yourself that big ears will repeal this or even be able to. He said he's a believer remember and knows that the great brainwashed is too big.
Karenmackspot, if you are going to pretend to be other people try and make it more convincing. The only thing Mack is missing are the references to rugby, sheep and "fush and chups".
Mack it is amazing that the pollies were not dragged out of office and sent to the dungeon in NZ.
NIWA was caught red handed falsifying temperature data, your glaciers are still growing and you still have to deal with this http://www.nzherald.co.nz/video/news/video.cfm?c_id=1501138&gal_cid=150…
Karen, Mack and Betula use nothing but sites from deniers/think tanks to promote their nonsense. I have yet to see any actual published, peer-reviewed science represented here by these neophytes. Note Karen's latest clips: one showing a train clearing snow in NZ, the other from right wing blogger Joanne Nova that are NOT in any way based on science. The first has nothing to do with science anyway; the second is by a well known libertarian denier. Where are the publications?
I would like to ask the deniers on Deltoid this: why don't you all sod off and pollute one of your own myopic right wing blogs? You aren't winning hearts and minds here. Why persist? What's clear is that, since your arguments are intellectually bankrupt, your only recourse is to insult and smear others on this site. If you want to discuss the peer-reviewed literature by all means try. The problem is that its clear that none of you read the primary literature, just the corporate media or think tank related guff.
Like this for example: (or is it too complicated for you dedniers to comprehend)
Populations of migratory bird species that did not show a phenological response to climate change are declining
Anders Pape Møller*,†,
Diego Rubolini‡,†, and
Esa Lehikoinen§
Abstract
Recent rapid climatic changes are associated with dramatic changes in phenology of plants and animals, with optimal timing of reproduction advancing considerably in the northern hemisphere. However, some species may not have advanced their timing of breeding sufficiently to continue reproducing optimally relative to the occurrence of peak food availability, thus becoming mismatched compared with their food sources. The degree of mismatch may differ among species, and species with greater mismatch may be characterized by declining populations. Here we relate changes in spring migration timing by 100 European bird species since 1960, considered as an index of the phenological response of bird species to recent climate change, to their population trends. Species that declined in the period 1990–2000 did not advance their spring migration, whereas those with stable or increasing populations advanced their migration considerably. On the other hand, population trends during 1970–1990 were predicted by breeding habitat type, northernmost breeding latitude, and winter range (with species of agricultural habitat, breeding at northern latitudes, and wintering in Africa showing an unfavorable conservation status), but not by change in migration timing. The association between population trend in 1990–2000 and change in migration phenology was not confounded by any of the previously identified predictors of population trends in birds, or by similarity in phenotype among taxa due to common descent. Our findings imply that ecological factors affecting population trends can change over time and suggest that ongoing climatic changes will increasingly threaten vulnerable migratory bird species, augmenting their extinction risk.
There's a lot more from where this comes from. I wait with baitged breath to see the deniers here struggle with their kindergarten-level understanding of ecology to fathom the signifiance of these studies....
Mack, and his Karen and Sunspot personæ, do not live in New Zealand.
No-one says "I’m from NZ" if that's where they're currently living. They'd say "I live in New Zealand" or "I'm in New Zealand".
As one who has moved both nationally and internationally I've frequently noticed the difference in the various usages - even with my old kiwi flatmate. Almost universally "from" is used in the past tense... or, in this case, by someone who's trying to project oceans and continents between his sockpuppets, and vainly hope that no-one realises that he's full of it.
KarenMackSunspot, give it up. Your penchant for particular purient forms of vocabulary and your peculiar inability with sentence structure gives you away. It gave you away long ago. Even if you migrate to sockpuppets new, we'll still pick you - you're too stupid to be able to hide for long.
Yes thanks Karen.
@ Jeff Harvey , June 24th 10.05 am.
" As for Mack, you must be proud swallowing the volumes of corporate mainstream media propaganda you've been fed in dollops over the years"
WTF are you talking about.,matey Outside of your country there is no such thing as a "corporate mainstream media" But that's par for the course for you myopic,closed-minded "intellectuals" you don't think past your nose or outside your country. Like there is a thing out there and it's called the world and it has a climate dumpkoff.
More seriously you are terrified of reading Nasif Nahle because a cold hand runs over your heart realising that your entire lifes work is invalid,and all your scientific papers..well bin them ..because somebody else will. As a scientist (as one comment said) you are making a fool of youself. You attempt to make us envious of your lavish conference life but you only comfort and kid yourself.
New paper shows Arctic temps have been much warmer than the present during 8 periods over the past 2.8 million years
A new paper published in Science examined sediment records from the Russian Arctic and finds at least 8 "super interglacials" [each lasting several thousand years] with "extreme warm conditions" up to 5C warmer than the present occurred over the past 2.8 million years. Furthermore, the paper states, "Climate [model] simulations show these extreme warm conditions are difficult to explain with greenhouse gas [CO2] and astronomical forcing [solar insolation] alone." The paper also finds the Arctic warming occurred simultaneously with Antarctic warming, indicating an interconnected, global phenomenon. Implications of the paper include: 1) The globe has been much warmer without human influence during multiple periods over the past 2.8 million years, 2) IPCC climate models are incapable of reproducing past temps and therefore unable to project future temps, and 3) global warming far exceeding alarmist IPCC projections has occurred several times in the past without triggering any "tipping points."
The reliability of Arctic climate predictions is currently hampered by insufficient knowledge of natural climate variability in the past. A sediment core from Lake El’gygytgyn (NE Russia) provides a continuous high-resolution record from the Arctic spanning the past 2.8 Ma. The core reveals numerous “super interglacials” during the Quaternary, with maximum summer temperatures and annual precipitation during marine benthic isotope stages (MIS) 11c and 31 ~4-5°C and ~300 mm higher than those of MIS 1 and 5e. Climate simulations show these extreme warm conditions are difficult to explain with greenhouse gas and astronomical forcing alone, implying the importance of amplifying feedbacks and far field influences. The timing of Arctic warming relative to West Antarctic Ice Sheet retreats implies strong interhemispheric climate connectivity. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2012/06/20/science.1222135
The more serious bit...... ditto for you Bernerd. The only reason I've a little more of a respect for you is because if you live the way you say you do. as a greenie at least you talk the talk and walk the walk.
Ummm........ here is anther peer review thingo for you Jeffery.
"Although past studies have explored these responses during portions of the Cenozoic era (the most recent 65.5 million years (Myr) of Earth history), comparatively little is known about the climate of the late Miocene (~12–5 Myr ago), an interval with pco2 values of only 200–350 parts per million by volume but nearly ice-free conditions in the Northern Hemisphere2, 3 and warmer-than-modern temperatures on the continents4."
Oh dear Jeffie. When will you stop projecting your doings onto others. You are the one constantly mouthing off about right wing multi-billion illuminati obstructing climate science without, nota bene, a shred of evidence to back your silly claims up. You are thriving on conspiracy theories Jeffie, where you can make yourself a knight in shining armor fighting down evil. Pathetic.
That said I have never claimed that CAGW is a commie or UN conspiracy. On the contrary it is very dynamic and very easy to explain with tools gathered from the sociology of religions.
Don't you ever get tired of being lied to by the likes of hockeyschtick? Did you miss this from the abstract:
"implying the importance of amplifying feedbacks and far field influences"
Amplifying feedbacks - ones that aren't fully understood, ones that imply we might be in even deeper shit than previously believed:
"The scientists suspect the trigger for intense interglacials might lie in Antarctica.... The results are of global significance, they believe, demonstrating strong indications of an ongoing collapse of ice shelves around the Antarctic Peninsula and at the margins of the West Antarctica Ice Sheet--and a potential acceleration in the near future."
Your saying that the ice shelves are going to capitalistically melt and the sea ice won't, don't you think that the sea ice might melt first ? There is no evidence of this at this time, actualy it is in the positive territory.
Olaus, you ahve not provided a single scientific paper to back up your so-called arguments. I linked one - I can link a lot of others if you like.OI know you haven't got the foggiest clue about systems and population ecology, but do give it a whirl, instead of obfuscating Your sole replies have to resort to the sand bix every time. I have also suggested reading material for you to learn about the mega-funded anti-environmental lobbies out there and all you can do is reply with 'it ain't so Jeffie 'type remarks. Read, man! Read! Take your head out of your butt!!!!!
I would just lurrvvee to debate you clowns in front of an audience. Lomborg was easy - he won''t debate me any more since I skewered him here 10 years ago. And by comparison, Ollie, you'd be a cupcake. No science, just silly retorts.
Karen: What has a study about ice conditions in the Miocene got to do with anthropogenic climate change? Zilch. The changes that occurred earlier probably took thousands of years to manifest themselves, not the space of half a century. This is the crux of the matter. We are talking about scale. Get that through your simple skull, will you? There have been 5 grerat extinction events preceding the current one in the planet's history. Does that mean that the latest one - the result of human actions across the biosphere - is nothing to worry about? Or that humans cannot be responsible for the extinctions in the first place because the previous ones were primarily based on geological/astronomical phenomena? And again the scales we are talking about pale in comparison with past ones. The extinction of dinosaurs at the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary was relatively rapid - it took about 15,000-20,000 years to be played out. The current extinction event is occurring in about 1-5% of that time. Again, we must think of temporal scales. Past climate events do not in any way weaken the huige and still growing evidence that humans are forcing changes in a largely deterministic climate system at scales way beyond the norm.
Mack: you are evn more stupid than Karen, if that is indeed possible. You write, Outside of your country there is no such thing as a “corporate mainstream media”. Good grief man, who owns most of the media? In the US NBC is owned by General Electric, Fox by Rupert Murdoch, ABC by Time-Warner et al. Most of the major newspapers in the world are part of publishing empires, or depend on corporate advertising for their survival. The advertisers are not going to take kindly to articles that threaten the status quo and profit margins. But I won't waste my breath on your brand of ignorance,k as I might as well be discussing this with one of the Brassicaceous plants I use in my research. Its clear that you aren't out of the crib in your knowledge of the MSM and parent/ownership agendas.
Essentially, this site is littered with Dunning-Kruger acolytes who think they know a lot about areas in whichthey have no basic understanding at all. No wonder my colleagues say that I am wasting my breath with you lot of idiots. The playing field not only isn't level, its a chasm. Thanks heaven thatmost of the Contributors - Bernard, Bill, Wow, Chek, Ianam, John, Lotharsson, Marco et al. are intelligent people. Karen, Mack, Betual, Duff, Olaus - what a lot of detritus you all are.
"...don’t you think that the sea ice might melt first ?"
Has it occurred to you that some of that increasing 'sea' ice is partly extra land ice that's broken off the receding ends of faster moving glaciers? It's (partly) a sign of ice lost from elsewhere in the system. Much like the currently increasing sea ice in the Greenland Sea is merely showing the movement of ice from further north on its inevitable path to melting out somewhere between Greenland and Iceland.
Nothing in the Arctic or Antarctic is as simple as you might like.
"Furthermore, I’d like to extend a big “fuck you” to the small group of sad individuals on the other side of this “debate” – you know who you are, you bunch of losers."
Yes, they just don't realize that denying science is a losing strategy. Always has been, always will be. Any other type of strategy has a better chance of success than science denial. If they had any sense, they'd realize that past science denial campaigns (e.g. tobacco, ozone, asbestos, other forms of pollution) have all ended in failure. But they don't have any sense.
"Climate simulations show these extreme warm conditions are difficult to explain with greenhouse gas and astronomical forcing alone, implying the importance of AMPLIFYING FEEDBACKS and far field influences."
This is known in some circles as an "own goal". What a brainless moron Karen is. Keep digging.
Jeffie, call the doctor, you are hallucinating! Why should I try to convince myself about something I'm already convinced about? Are you nuts, for real?
Self idolatry is your forte, we all know that. But please stop posing in front of the mirror (trying to fit your hand in the dress shirt) while reciting from Taxi driver. You make an utter fool out of yourself, angry face and all.
The multi-billion dollar right wing conspiracy is still hidden I see, only to be detected by the initiated. What a surprise – not.
A.k.a. clown-trolling - flinging the pie in one's own face. The commenter "Sunspot" was a highly accomplished expert at it. Almost every single link posted by Sunspot refuted Sunspot's claims.
I can see that your a real wiz at finance...
I can see you're very poor at post hoc rationalisation.
Lothar, sorry to tell you, but running away to the arctic will not change tha [sic] fact that the foundation of the penguine scare was bogus.
The only thing in this that is bogus is your misrepresentation of the Fretwell et al paper.
I tried to tell you gently before, Olaus Petri, but you blithely ignored my earlier comment...
I know one of the authors on the paper, and I have corresponded with another. They most vehemently disagree with the way that many people have twisted their results, in the same way that you have. Some of them have in fact tried to correct the record at various sites, and have for their troubles received abuse for having the temerity to explain the truth to the climate change deniers.
P. Lewis has already explained to you, at 9:27 am on 21 June, that the earlier figures were from studies that did not attempt a continent-encompassing survey. Further, as the Fretwell et al paper notes, Wienecke 2009 casts serious doubt on the finesse of the estimate in Martinez's contribution to Handbook of the Birds of the World
Vol 1 in 1992.
The simple fact is that Martinez had a good guesstimate of the number of emperor penguins in parts of Antarctica, and 20 years later Fretwell et al had the technology to derive a much more accurate estimate for the whole of the continent. The paper says as much:
As previous population estimates did not take account of 16 of the 46 colonies (see Figure 3), and many previous counts were of poor quality and widely separated in time [11,12,23] these historical estimates cannot be considered representative of the total breeding population of emperor penguins.
Fretwell et al were measuring a different parameter (the total number of adult emperor penguins) , and one that could very well be decreasing even though it is currently larger than the incomplete Martinez estimate from 1992.
Fretwell's et al results do not indicate any increase in penguin numbers - the authors I have spoken to have told me this - and they will require up to a decade of further surveying to detect any real change in the population dynamics of the species.
I seriously doubt that you actually read the paper, because you have completely misrepresented the very clear nature of the statements it makes. If you did read and understand it, then you are deliberately lying about its meaning. Either way, you have followed in the footsteps of many other people who have similarly and grossly misrepresented Fretwell et al 2012.
I did the truly sceptical thing and read the paper. After that I did an even more sceptical thing and spoke to the authors. You are completely and utterly wrong in your representation of their work. You owe them an apology, you owe the people on this thread an apology, and you owe truth an apology.
Bernie boy, I read what was said in the paper. I can't read the minds of your friends though. The article states noting about a real decline of jefferor penguins. Some "mays" and "ifs" in found in a crystal ball, that all. SO if you have a problem with that take it up with them, not me.
Deal with it, cry baby. Prancing around with the tail in the air talking about what your penguin friends didn't write in their paper isn't that impressive.
Like I have said all along, the paper is only valid regarding the census, ant that didn't show a decline. If anything it showed the opposite. And since the ice in antarctica is gaining mass it should be a warning sign of an unprecedented...;-)
Yawn! I see OP is still going on about increasing penguin numbers. What an absolute plonker!
Now, for sure, accurate estimates of emperor penguin numbers continent-wide have been lacking. As better methods for estimating numbers become available, those earlier numbers change. Those more accurate estimates can lead to numbers going up or down. It just so happens they've gone up. But just because the more recent estimate of penguin numbers has gone up, this doesn't mean that the actual numbers have gone up... or down.
What is certain is that in the half-dozen or so sites where colonies have been actively observed over many years and numbers are known with reasonable accuracy (such as Jenouvrier et al. study site at Terre Adélie and in the link to the former colony on Emperor Island given above) the numbers are in definite decline.
OP is just pissing into the katabatic winds off the continent when he talks about the numbers going up.
You knwo, I don't know if the deniers here are just all wilfully ignorant (WI), or plainly stupid (PS). In the case of Olaus, I will be kind and go with WI. He writes, with respect to the science behind AGW and other anthropogenic threats to the environment, "[its] easy to explain with tools gathered from the sociology of religions".
Oh. So that mails it then. Now I know why I went through seven years of university studying zoology and a PhD, undertook several post docs and now have a career as a senior scientist. It was my religious fervor! For that matter, it explains why tens of thousands of researchers around the world are trying to unravel and elucidate complex biotic and abiotic processes. Its linked to the sociology of religions. Got it.
This is supposed the be the foundation for a debate? I might as well be conversing with an ameoba.
Then there is Karen. She leans towards the plainly stupid side. She completely misinterprets a Science article showing that there were times in the recent past (meaning several hundred thousand to almost 3 million years ago) when conditions were warmer than today. She didn't determine the temporal scale over which those conditions changed from cooler to warmer (or vice versa), which may have been played out over tens of thousands of years. The authors in no way dispute the reality of the current human fingerprint on the current warming. Moreover, species, populations, individuals and ecosystems at those times were adapted over many millenia to ambient conditions. Karen's argument is like saying that, because atmsopheric concentrations of C02 were once twice or three times higher than they are now, then the current increase in this parameter is nothing to worry about. But again, it depends critically upon what C02 regimes the plant and animal life evolved under.. If ambient temperatures and C02 regimes were higher at various epochs in the past, then the extant biota was also adapted to those conditions. The problem is that contemporary biodiversity across the planet is not adapted to conditions of the Micoene, or Pliocene, or Eocene or lower Cretaceous. Current species and genotypes are adapted to much lower C02 regimes and lower ambient temperatures. Certainly over extended evolutionary time species and the communities in which they are a part will adapt, but not at the rates at which humans are changing the surface temperatures of the planet and the chemistry of the atmosphere. Adaptation is a process which generally takes thousands of years if not longer. Yet humans are altering natural systems in the blink of an evolutionary eye: a century or even less. This is what the cornucopians cannot get through their (mostly) uneducated thick heads: the importance of scale. To them 50 years is a long time; 80 years is an eternity. To natural systems its an unprecedented challenge. To make matters worse, humans are not only tinkering with the planet's climate control system, but we are altering the face of the planet in a myriad of other ways. We've decimated marine food chains by overharvesting species at the end of them, totally disrupting their functioning. We have changed the nutrient status of many aquatic systems, turning oligotrophic systems into highly eutrophic ones in the space of 50 years. We are reducing biological diversity - meansingdifferent genotypes and species - at rates unseen in 65 million years. These are the working parts of ourt global ecological life support systems. We have clear cut 50% of tropical wet forests, increased pressure on dryland habitats, thus expanding the extent of deserts, and are sucking groundwaters out at many times their recharge rates. We have doused much of the planet in synthetic organic pollutants, and have denatured many soils through overuse and acid precipitation. On top of this we are driving changes in climate at rates that would never occur without some major external forcing.
None of the deniers here are remotley capable of debating these issues, because none of them are scientists. If they'd read a little about global change scenarios, they might at least know the basics, but instead they rely on blogs like WUWT, Bishops's Hill, Joanne Nova, CA etc. for their views. Why is this? None of the deniers who run these blogs is a bonafide scientist.Certainly none of these people are trained in environmental science. But they are alluring to those whose political ideologies are based on unconstrained free markets and deregulation of the economy. Forget the science.
Then Mack, another PS acolyte, has to dredge up Nasif Nahle for his 'science'. Nahle appears never have published an article in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Instead, he contributes to right wing blogs, where his nonsense is asafe from real scrutiny by experts in the field. When I see Nahle's stuff on the pages of a journal, I will take note. But until then he is not worth the time of day in my opinion.
To be honest, I am wasting my valuable time here, as are the majority of other contributors who take on these idiots. I have yet to see Olaus concretely address a single point I and others have made. He forever accuses me of 'self-idolatry' because his hero, Jonas, made the same vqacuous remark. Listen Olaus: if the shoe fits, wear it. If you want an intellectual debate on environmental science, go ahead and try. Of course I know more than you because I have spend the past 20 years of my life researching population ecology. That's not self-idolatry: that's the simple truth. Just like I would say that James Hansen and Michael Mann know a lot more about climate science than either I or you do. Because that is their field of expertise. You don't have much of a clue about anything to do with the environment, that's patently clear to me.
Dear Jeffie, as usual you think everything is about you. True is that you behave and reason like a religions buff in cloth, but you alone isn't CAGW. ;-)
And I didn't address AGW, mind you. Its the preachers of doom, aka CAGW, that is the unscientific part of climate science, e.g raging ecologist foaming about conspiracies, evil puppet masters and right wing elders while studying nothing remotely connected to real climate science.
No, you read what you wanted to see in the paper. Or, at least what you wanted to see in what your denialist mates told you was in the paper.
I can’t read the minds of your friends though.
You don't need to read minds. You only need to read the paper, and to understand the very clear and straighforward science contained therein.
Unfortunately for you, even that basic ability was beyond you.
The article states noting [sic] about a real decline of jefferor [sic] penguins. Some “mays” and “ifs” in [sic] found in a crystal ball, that [sic] all.
FFS, the paper wasn't about decline, it was about establishing a decent baseline for future work that can detect change in population dynamics.
You're acting like a fool.
SO if you have a problem with that take it up with them, not me.
I have no problem with the paper whatsoever. And yet I did follow it up with them.
If you had genuinely wanted to make a supportable statement contrary to what the paper said, you would have done the same thing.
You didn't follow up, because you didn't want to hear confirmation that the paper didn't say what you wanted it to say, which was in direct and stark contradiction to what it actually said.
Deal with it, cry baby.
What, deal with being correct? Fine.
Idiot.
Prancing around with the tail in the air talking about what your penguin friends didn’t write in their paper isn’t that impressive.
I'm talking about what my friends did write in the paper, and they didn't write what you said they had written.
Like [sic] I have said all along, the paper is only valid regarding the census, ant [sic] that didn’t show a decline.
Oh, you blundering idiot! How could it show a decline, when it is a baseline paper?! It's measuring different things to previous work, so it can't be compared to previous work. It would be no different to China doing a census of its population, and then comparing that number to a UN census, 20 years later, of all of Asia.
Are you really as silly as you're demonstrating yourself to be?!
If anything it showed the opposite
Odin on a stick. That is complete bollocks. How on earth do you come to this conclusion? There is simply nothing validly compare the new number to, although there is a lot of other evidence to indicate that the overall numbers are going the other way.
And since the ice in antarctica is gaining mass it should be a warning sign of an unprecedented…
Garbage.
As is everything you type.
if you disagree, start putting forward something defensible. For a change.
Dear Bernie, exactly my point. The paper wasn't about a decline of penguins. So why then all these heavy emotions and this sharing of your friends "thoughts" on the matter?
And there is no contradiction to be found in trying to create a baseline to see if the number of jefferor penguins will be affected in the future and to note that the census showed a number higher than a count made before:
“We estimated the breeding population of emperor penguins at each colony during 2009 and provide a population estimate of ~238,000 breeding pairs (compared with the last previously published count of 135,000–175,000 pairs).”
Read the above slowly Bernie, if possible to your friends too. I know the results weren't reached using the same method, but nonetheless, if anything, it says that the numbers are greater than previously understood.
An increase. And since you guys are worried that ice loss will threaten the penguins you should be happy. Maybe unprecedented high levels of penguins coming our way?
A few of the lines in this article caught my attention:
Jeff: "On our trip we experienced climate change at first hand”
Jeff: “In my work as an ecologist I work on shifting zones, and here I could see it in real.”
I was curious. Why didn’t Jeff mention the climate change he saw or experienced first hand? Was he misleading the reader? Was he exaggerating? Can someone actually see climate change first hand and realize it’s climate change and not weather?
I had to know, so I asked on the April thread and then again here:
@66…”Jeff, I don’t doubt that plant zones are constantly shifting to some degree, but could you share some, if any, of the ecological consequences you experienced first hand?”
After some back and forth which included displays of Jeff’s past uncivil behaviour, I finally received a response @78 stating:
“I haven’t answered your question because I think you may be too stupid to understand it.” Of course, I forgave him for this because, as we all know, he has a superiority complex.
This was followed by a 370 word rambling @78 that didn’t answer the question. Of course, I forgave him for that because I realize he can’t help himself and he thinks I’m too stupid to realize he didn’t answer the question.
After his usual rambling, Jeff seemed to have an afterthought and realized he didn’t answer the question…so he answers it @79:
“As far as first hand goes, I’d need to look into the soil. But given I was there in winter (a warm winter at that), of course I can’t describe things first hand.”
End of May Post.
So, Jeff embellishes for the article with a lie about experiencing climate change first hand.....we know it's a lie because he states on Deltoid "of course I can't describe things first hand"....not knowing I read the article.
Yes Jeff, you are an embellishing egotistical lying sack who's ramblings are only significant in your dreams...
An example of a letter to himself...sealed with a kiss.
"Now I know why I went through seven years of university studying zoology and a PhD, undertook several post docs and now have a career as a senior scientist."
oh gawd ! He thought he was at the north pole, lol
and his, fwend got frost bite on his face while Jeff was seeing glowbull warming first hand.
hahahaha, unbelievable,
and this, hehe
"We have talked about crossing Iceland in winter for ages, and now that we’ve managed this, anything is possible!”
hahaha, better take your ice spikes, gettin over a couple of is nothing to crossing Iceland in the winter, or even summer, go for it Jeffrey,I can't wait for this
Lothar, care to add something on the topic? That the penguins are doing fine or that the prediction (based on future ice loss) really weren't up to scientific par? ;-)
I see that you might actually have a learning and/or comprehension difficulty, so I will try to use little words.
Prior to the work of Fretwell et al 2012, there was a "global population estimate of 135,000–175,000 pairs [13]". The emphasis is mine, and the reference "[13]" is to:
Martinez I (1992) 'Emperor penguin' In "Handbook of the Birds of the World Vol 1", eds del Hoyo J, Eliot A, Sargatal J, Barcelona; Lynx Edicions, 155p.
However, Martinez' estimate was based on a less accurate methodology, and did not include "16 of the 46 colonies (see Figure 3)", as explained in the paper's Results.
Contrast this to the work of Fretwell et al 2012. In case you missed it the first, second, and third times around, F12 surveyed 46 sites - 16 more than the last prior survey (Martinez, ~1992) - to derive a population estimate of 238,000 breeding pairs. That's a 35% increase in the number of colonies surveyed, to account for the additional pairs. Even if there is an overall decrease in emperor penguin numbers, the additional sites included in the survey can easily offset this. Are you really so intellectually-impaired that you can't understand this?!
One simply cannot compare the two numbers to infer anything about population dynamics. They are measuring completely different things. Not even when you protest:
I know the results weren’t reached using the same method, but nonetheless, if anything, it says that the numbers are greater than previously understood.
No, no, NO!
The F12 numbers are irrelevant to anything previously understood, in terms of population dynamcis. The paper stresses this; the authors explicitly tell me this.
Good grief, no! You've already done a more than adequate job at demonstrating you don't understand what you're talking about already. The fact that others have explained the exact source of several of your deep confusions only further reinforces my lack of need to add anything to the demonstration.
Bernard, you have to remember that Petard - like Brent and Jonarse (and with similar results) - belongs to the school of 'thought' that posits that as long as you can read and parse like a lawyer (and as dishonestly as they do), you can understand science. No further education is required - certainly none in any relevant field
He will no more ever understand what you are trying to impart any more than he will give up his dearly held delusion.
Bernard, you have to remember that Petard – like Brenda and Jonarse (and with similar results) – belongs to the school of ‘thought’ that would have us believe that as long as you can read and parse like a lawyer (and as dishonestly as they do), you can understand science. No further education is required – certainly none in any relevant field. Myron Ebell's protégés in all their incompetent glory.
He will no more ever understand what you are trying to impart any more than he will give up his dearly held delusion.
A belly up then Lothar. Good for you, but next time please use fewer words. "No mas" will do it, promise. Conclusion: The emperor penguins are doing ok and the attempts to make a scare out of them were based on false premises.
What have we learned so far, besides the usual stuff that deltoids having an authoritarian mind set lacking critical thinking? Obviously that intolerant scare mongers don't now the difference between crystal balling and science. They buy into anything involving a bit of a scare. Science? No! Strong feelings and a full monty? Yes! ;-)
My, my...a bit angry are we? Like I said Bernie and Lothar, "no mas" will do just fine. ;-)
And very correct Lothar. When somebody points out that there is no need for a scare wrt emperor penguins and people still believe it is, there must be something missing: critical thinking. ;-)
When somebody points out that there is no need for a scare wrt emperor penguins based on fallaciously comparing two different metrics and ignoring the rest of the evidence and people still believe it is, there must be something missing: critical thinking.
When somebody points out that there is no need for a scare wrt emperor penguins and people still believe it is, there must be something missing: critical thinking.
P. Lewis has already indicated to you at, 10:06 am on 24 June, that there is evidence that emperor penguins are vulnerable to increase in contemporary mean global temperature, with respect to the overall Holocene mean.
Many of those who believe that there is reason for concern for this (and for many other) species are biologists, including physiologists and ecologists. We understand much better than do you the biophysics of cold-adapted metabolisms, and of the ecology of species dependent on ice-based habitats, and we understand that what matters for the continued successful survival of such species are the dynamics of processes of change that operate over many decades and centuries.
Your persistent nonsensical misinterpretation of Fretwell et al is not a sign of your own genius; it is simply proof to the world that you don't understand fairly straighforward science.
The thing that is missing is certainly "critical thinking", but to reiterate it is missing from what passes for thought processes in the minds of such as you.
It's the same pattern of ignoring the elephants that Tim Curtin displays. Seriously, there's a whole orchard of fruit for the picking in the field of denialist psychology...
And Petri, if your "no mas" is intended to mean what it appears to mean - your non-fluence in English acknowledged - then your 'humour' is of the most morally repugnant sort, and of such a magnitiude that you truly deserve a permanent ban from this forum.
Karen/Mack/Olaus/Betula - tail-spinning through a glittering mental house of mirrors reinforced by a circular recourse to denial projection and displacement all the way to rock bottom.
Go back to pruning bushes. Its about as far as close to 'science' as you will ever get. You are a disgrace to humanity. If you think my trek across Algonquin Park and its aim (to describe the effects of climate change in the region) make me a liar, then you really ought to get away from your pruning shears more. I'll present you with lots and lots and lots of references detailing the effects of recent warming on species and species-interactions in aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, but you don't want to know any of that, do you? You want to think you scored a great big brownie point because I did not present a lengthy and immediate list of examples where climate change is affecting the transition zone in Ontario. You moron: without doing detailed research on the region I can only speculate what effects there are. But `I want to make one point very clear, bush pruner: colleagues at the University of Toronto have already noted changes in the distributions of plants in the region, and have mapped the possible scenarios based on AR4. I also noted that insect and spider activity in the park was occurring in January, which is ridiculously early for an area with an average daily temperature of -7 and night minimum of -19. That these inverts were foraging at a time when they should be in diapause is clear evidence that something is amiss. And this is just in the short term - the space of one winter. If you knew anything remotely about ecology - which, in spite of your bush pruning you clearly do not - you'd realize that effects are manifested over many years. Is climate change a very real threat to areas at the borders of biome? You bet it is. You, Betula, exhibit all of the characteristics of the despicable deniers I have debated and challenged over the years of being a research scientist. Lomborg was easy, hence why he won't debate me in a public forum any more. The main characteristic is in setting up strawmen such as expecting me to prove on the basis of a 23 day hike that warming was evidenced in the park. I did not write the press release but I sure as hell stand by it. If this is the best that you can do, you can jump into a very deep lake.
Karen, Olaus: I am sure that it does not pass by the lay reader that, when challenged on the kindergarten level of your 'science' (me at 11:54) your response,as expected, is mindless drivel (Karen, at 1:33, Olaus at 12:23) . Note to readers: deniers like Olaus and Karen make big noises, but when these are shot down, they resort to the usual innuendoes and witless remarks. If you two morons are as clever as you think you are, then see if you are capabale of discussing the reasons why abiotic conditions in the Miocene or Oligocene or Mesozoic are irrelevant to what is happening today. See if you can understand the process of scale. Or is this too much for your pea-sized brains?
"If you think my trek across Algonquin Park and its aim (to describe the effects of climate change in the region) make me a liar, then you really ought to get away from your pruning shears more"
No, I think you make you a liar..
"You moron: without doing detailed research on the region I can only speculate what effects there are"
Yes, speculation, the backbone of climate change. So you were embellishing on speculations...nice.
"But `I want to make one point very clear, bush pruner: colleagues at the University of Toronto have already noted changes in the distributions of plants in the region, and have mapped the possible scenarios based on AR4"
So you saw speculations and heard about possible scenarios first hand. Why didn't you just say that in the first place?
"I also noted that insect and spider activity in the park was occurring in January, which is ridiculously early for an area with an average daily temperature of -7 and night minimum of -19. That these inverts were foraging at a time when they should be in diapause is clear evidence that something is amiss."
Really? What was the temperature and what were the species? If it's your first trek through Algonquin in the winter, how do you know this is ridiulously early? I thought, I mean you thought you were a genius:
God, now we're having pond-life accusing others of lying...
Top tip plonker - just posting a link to something you found on Google in 20 seconds means nothing unless you also point out how and where it actually proves anyone wrong.
And I look forward to you doing that because being a bog-standard thick-headed Denier regurgi-bot you're just going to get creamed.
I mean, what sort of question is this: 'If it’s your first trek through Algonquin in the winter, how do you know this is ridiulously early?'. Um, 'literature'? 'Research'?
Do you ever simply despair of being so dense, boorish, and, well, simply pointless you sad, irrelevant little troll?
Mack - I've been talking to my friend in Onehunga and he reckons you're talking crap about the price rises due to the ETS. Maybe you should brush up on your Google skills.
...“No mas” refers to a famous line from a boxing match between Roberto Duran and Sugar Ray Leonard
So you were apparently telling me to say "I quit" to your "case" about penguins, even as I was telling you there was no point me adding to the evidence that you were deeply embarrassingly wrong on the facts and in your logic?
Tell me, when has the tactic of bluffing against people who know what they're talking about from a position of your own ignorance and error worked for you in the past?
I didn’t know you were a complete boxing illiterate
Uh, right, because no más is a boxing term rather than a very common phrase that occurs in all sorts of contexts. Oh, and your use of it was not an instance of the sort of imbecilic projection you are known for.
Apparently you're a boxing illiterate, who thinks that Leonard told Durán to say "no más". Here's a clue for you, moron: it doesn't work that way. No one is going to say "no más" to you because, unlike SRL, you completely and utterly suck and cannot land a blow.
Jeff Harvey.
Yeah in your opinion you "havn't got the time of day" for Nasif Nahle. . No, its just that you are not exactly up with your atmospheric quantam thermodynamics are you Jeff.
In fact you don't know shit from clay do you Jeff.
I think Jeff's great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great grandaddy told him that glowbull warming longer in the old day's.
Here is another peer reviewed study, and yep, warming happened to these people and no doubt the biota also.
Petard - your thorough lack of understanding is beginning to make Tim Curtin seem like a genius. Which he most certainly is not, by the way.
The most tragic thing is that you (and he) have had plenty of learning opportunities presented to you (as they say in modern-speak) but you're so enamoured of your own facile stupidity - which you astoundingly mistake for cleverness - that you're unable to take advantage of them. It's armoured denialism on steroids in action.
No Mack, its just that I am a scientist, a real one, not someone who runs a blog and whose so-called research is confined to that blog or to right wing denial sites. If Nahle's 'science' is so good, then the guy would send it to a journal where it will be critically reviewed by peers with expertise in the area, not fawned over by denialist hacks like Joanne Nova who are pushing political agendas.
The very fact that Nahle has never published in the peer-reviewed literaure says it all and means that his stuff will never be taken seriously in the mainstream. All kinds of gibberish ends up on the internet from flat Earth theories to alchemy and the like. This is why science is kept safe by peer-review. Certainly its not a perfect system but its the best we have, and certainly better than the garbage you read that placates your simpleton right wing brain.
I will give Betula some credit - he has told us that his profession is to prune trees and bushes. Why on Eareth a guy in a job like this would support those intent on taking our planet's life support systems to hell is beyond me, but, then again, it takes all types. Perchance, I would be interested to know what professions you, Olaus and Karen have.Its clear that the three of you ahve never set foiot near a university science lecture, so what is it that you actually do? At least you know who I am. My qualifications are clearly available for anyone who wants to read them. To his credit, we also know who Nahle is, although that makes it easy to see he has no relevant professional expertise in the many fields on which he writes. To do that he needs to publish. Until he does, I am afrais that his brand of physics doesn't make the cut.
Karen and Olaus: I would like to reiterate what I asked you yesterday. What do conditions in the Miocene have to do with those today. How do conditions in the past relate to conditions under which contemporary biota evolved? In your opinion, how would ecosystem functioning and services differ under different abiotic condtions? And what do you think of the importance of temporal and spatial scales in relation to adaptive radiation of genotypes, species, communities, ecosystems and biomes? How would you reconcile the differing theories accounting for species distributions - MaCarthur and Wilson's Theory of Island Biogeography against the more recent Neutral Theory by Hubble? And how does this all play out under different scenarious of global change?
I wait with baited breath for your deeply intellectual responses.
In fact you don’t know shit from clay do you Jeff.[sic]
Coming from an anally-fixated, barely-educated, subliterate sockpuppet that plays 'The Thing That Wouldn't Shut Up' on the Internet that's, um, really going to hurt
Well, there's Karenmackspots annual supply of big words almost used up. I say almost only because there was no opportunity to fit 'gummint' or 'marmalde' in that context.
Karenmackspot, the reason Nahle posts in blogs is because he's sad enough to require the adulation of illiterate numpties. Hence why his 'work' isn't science because it isn't published in actual journals for review by his peers.
I would though pay good money to see you define "atmospheric quantam (sic) thermodynamics, " in your own words, live on stage.
For once you are correct - I have little interest or experience with boxing.
I do know, however, a professional basketballer who is almost a foot taller than me, and if anyone ever said "no mas" to him, the offender would have both his arms ripped off and his face slapped with the wet ends.
"I'm afraid his brand of physics doesn't make the cut"
Aaahahahahahahahaha
And what "brand of physics" have you got to offer Jeff baby Some sort of AGW brand . Yes an "AGW brand of physics" You know a special brand of physics to "make the cut" and suit your bent requirements. But where is it Jeff ? What is this brand of physics that will "make the cut" And you of course will determine what makes the cut. What an arrogant, ignorant tosser you are.
You are about as intelligent as an ox. That ain't sayin' much.
I never claimed to be a physicist. But if I was, I would not get my world's view from unpublished people on right wing contrarian blogs.My guess is that you know even less physics than me. That being the case, since when are you able to judge whether Nahle's blog-variety 'science' is better than that found in the pages of numerous scientific journals?
The answer should be obvious. You can't, probably because you've never read the primary literature in your life. Instead, you like Nahle's 'science' because you dislike the ramifications the real stuff performed in science labs and universities around the world and published where it matters.
Come on Mack, you dumb schmuck, you must be able to do better than this.
And what “brand of physics” have you got to offer Jeff baby Some sort of AGW brand . Yes an “AGW brand of physics” You know a special brand of physics to “make the cut” and suit your bent requirements.
Christ, it's like some polluted version of Molly Bloom's soliloquy...
Fine, be coy. All I wanted to do was to point out that your socks post contemporaneously, when they're supposed to be in different countries. However, your confession to being a sock puppeteer is sufficient for me - from now on we can all take it for granted that you don't deny being a lone and a rather unintelligent numpty who talks to himself, but can't ever engage in anything scientific.
Nah, he's read what he's been told. he hasn't read the paper. You can cut and paste and to know when to end you've read the words, but only in the sense that you were following when the sentence ended. It's not even to the level of understanding, it's missing even comprehension.
Think of the advertising. You're reading a page with ads on it, and that's as far as Mack goes in reading Nahle's work.
Tim, this blog has degenerated to a shouting match in a lunatic asylum. Maybe it is time to retire Deltoid. It's been a great source of information, particularly with regard to Chris Mitchell's war on climate science and other loons such as Monckton. However reading through some of the posts here it'sclearly become a magnet for denier carpertbombers and obfusicators like Olas, Karen et. al.
I expect running a blog like this requires a lot of your free time and as such takes you away from your family and other commitments. Perhaps you could guest post on other sites such as De Smog, Climate Progress or Skeptical Science. I'm sure, given your standing amongst normal and sane climate bloggers, your contributions would be welcome.
Some more peer reviewed proof that glowbull warming just aint global.
Elephant seals help uncover slower-than-expected Antarctic melting
Wrong. They investigated a small part of eastern Antarctic to find out why melting was slower than expected (but still taking place). Even if that area were not warming, so what? No-one has ever claimed that warming would be uniformly distributed across the globe.
Your other link a few comments later emphasizes the vulnerability of a civilization to climate change. I'm not sure how this is supposed to support your views.
*Why is it met with so much hate and anger that the great threat to emperor penguins wasn’t a real one?*
Try telling that to the other 10-40% of birds, mammals and vascular plants that are threatened with extinction, or the approx. 30,000 genetically distinct populations that disappear daily (Hughes et al., 1998).
Besides, Petri, you are wrong anyway. Explain why the IUCN recently placed the Emperor Penguin on the status of 'threatened'... or is this too much to ask of your unscientific brain?
"I will give Betula some credit – he has told us that his profession is to prune trees and bushes. Why on Eareth a guy in a job like this would support those intent on taking our planet’s life support systems to hell is beyond me, but, then again, it takes all types"
The great Jeff Harvey....spends his life with his nose in the literature, when he finally goes outside for a few weeks, he sees a spider and throws out a general statement that something is amiss.....no other facts given. We're all suppose to assume and speculate as he does.
Unlike you Jeff, I don't lie to embellish the facts and I don't have a superiority complex. Yet it needs to be said, while you have been cooped up with your papers and advocacy journalism, I have spent over 30 years in the field dealing with the things you read about, which includes your predatory insect friends.
At 52 years old, I don't personally prune trees and shrubs anymore, but consider it an honor that you say I do. I have many crews that do that sort of thing...
By maintaining the health of plant material through proper pruning techniques, diagnosing and treating for insects and disease, correcting cultural problems, fertilization and the use of soil ammendments, I have saved thousands of trees over the years, improved the health of thousands more, and planted a thousand more. Meanwhile, you've been critiquing papers, speculating about catastrophic future scenarios and hoping someone notices you...
By the way, I know you aren't prone to answering questions because you become exposed when you do, but who are "those" that you assume I am supporting? Is there some great scheme or conspiracy that I am part of....Hardley?
The blog would be a lot better if the idiot brigade - represented by a few scientifically illiterate deniers - were banned henceforth. At this stage we should be discussing the ramifications of AGW, along with other anthropogenic threats to the environment, and not stupid WUWT/CA/Joanne Nova/ etc. level bilge. But Tim's excellent site was long ago overrun but brainless vermin... which is a great shame.
You know, Betula, as I said earlier, its pathetic that someone like you who claims to have a pulse on nature (that sure as hell is debatable) would support the arrogant dingbats who are driving our planet's life support systems to hell in the space of a few human generations. You are a bloody hypocrite, that is all I can say.
And no, I don't just have my nose in the literature... you have not got a clue what research I do, what my background is in the fieldof ecology and so on. You remind me of the fishermen who say that they know more about the status of coastal marine fish stocks than fish biologists, while the stocks continue to be decimated by unsustainable quotas. The same thing we once heard from whalers: that stocks are secure and will continue to be, just let us continue as we are and all will be fine. Well, we can see how these scenarios turned out. Populations of the great baleen whales have been annihalted and those of predatory fish like cod have also collapsed in areas where there were once millions of fish. So what do the fishermen do? Aside from denial that there is a problem, they then blame piscivorous mammals like seals, claiming they are depleting the stocks. Humans have long waged war on species at the terminal end of the food chain, and this is no exception.
Its pathetic, as are you.
I have spent every bit as much time in the field - in nature- as you, and for sure I know a helluva lot more than you how natural systems evolve, assemble and function. You may know a lot about tree pathogens, fertilizer regimes etc. and the like, but your understanding of community and ecosystem functioning is probably piss-poor. Just as fishermen cannot elucidate trophic cascades and inverted food webs, or foresters cannot reconcile top-down versus bottom up regulation of forest ecosystems. They aren't trained to understand this, any more than I am trained to be a brain surgeon.
I have had to deal with guys like you for years, people who think that doing some kind of job outdoors qualifies them as being experts in areas that in relaity they barely understand. I am 54 and have had a profoundly strong interest in nature, natural history and ecology since I was old enough to walk, and I grew up on a farm in Canada in an area of countryside. My long interest in biology naturally led me to a career in the field. I do not doubt that you possess some skills gleaned from your career, but don't lecture me on the natural world. I spend a lot of time in the field, and work with colleagues working on an exceedingly wide range of topics from soil microbial ecology to aquatic ecology to the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning.
Finally, I find it takes remarkable hubris for you and others to be able to judge the motives the most of the scientific community with respect to various global change scenarios. I am fed up to here with people like you who appear to think that climate change science is some vast gravy train and that the scientists working in the field must, by association, be dishonest. Again, I cannot for the life of me understand why you, of all people, comes down on the side of those willing to risk the future for the sake of short term profit. My only guess is that you have some inherent hatred of government regulation and this nonsensical and irrational fear of creeping socialism. With respect to the press release following my Algonquin Trip, if the best you can do is to accuse me of lying on the basis of a legitimate concern over recent rapid warming on a transitional biomes, well then goodie two shoes for you. Make a mountain out of a bloody mole hill if that makes your day. But several scientists have written perspective papers arguing exactly my point: that there will be serious repercussions for these biomes if climate warming continues unabated and at the current rate.
I have long realized that people like you aren not worth the time of day. I do not write into Deltoid about climate-change related effects on ecological communities for the benefit of people like you have had their minds made up on the basis of their own inherent belief systems and agendas. I write in an effort to communicate (1) that climate change is real and is happening, (2) that humans are almost certainly ther primary culprit, and (3) that the consequences for natural and managed ecosystems, their functioning, and on on a wide array of services that support human civilization are of profound concern.
Youc an take your denial somewhere else for all I am concerned. Gladly, I have met very few people in my career whose mind sets are so twisted by hatred for science and for political action as a few people on the internet. But I think it is the duty of scientists to confront deniers and I will continue to do so as long as I am able. Science is not, and never will be on your side, Betula. But certainly those with power and priviledge are. One day those people will hopefully be held accountable for the risks they are taking.
*By the way, I know you aren’t prone to answering questions because you become exposed when you do, but who are “those” that you assume I am supporting? Is there some great scheme or conspiracy that I am part of….Hardley?*
I don't know what your motives are, and frankly, I couldn't give a damn. All I know is that you are wrong.
"You know, Betula, as I said earlier, its pathetic that someone like you who claims to have a pulse on nature (that sure as hell is debatable) would support the arrogant dingbats who are driving our planet’s life support systems to hell in the space of a few human generations"
So who are these arrogant dingbats I'm supporting, arrogant dingbat? How about some detail instead of generalities, possible scenarios, speculations and assumptions..and what species of spider was that again that assured you something was amiss?
Why is it met with so much hate and anger that the great threat to emperor penguins wasn’t a real one?
1) Olaus Petri is moving the goal posts, because his initial claim was that the emperor penguin population had been shown to have increased. He was proven to be wrong on this.
2) Olaus Petri is claiming that the counters to his incorrect claim are based on "so much hate and anger". Again he is wrong - the counters are borne of frustration with his poor understanding and his grievous misrepresentation of the science, even after it has been repeatedly explained to him.
3) Olaus Petri in his shifting of the subject now claims that there is no threat to emperor penguins. Yet again he is wrong, because the very real phenomenon of global warming, given the current trajectory and the inertia inherent in the physics of the phenomenon, means that in all likelihood the Antarctic ice is seriously threatened on the scale of millenia to centuries. I doubt that OP would be quite so sanguine if I informed him that all of his and his relatives' descendants were going to be expunged from the face of the earth in a similar time frame.
In all of this OP has demonstrated skill in one thing - the ability to squeeze so much wrongness into one sentence.
I have spent over 30 years in the field dealing with the things you read about, which includes your predatory insect friends.
Then how is it possible that you have failed to notice the changes that are happening? Even if you live in a part of the world that has so far escaped the effects of climate change, how have you avoided hearing about the mountain pine beetle or the changes to USDA's plant hardiness zones, to give a couple of examples that you should be familiar with?
You must have a strange view of what ecologists do if you think they spend all their time reading about things. You need to get out of your cocoon, actually meet a few ecologists and read a bit about the wider world, including what is taking place in arboriculture.
*So who are these arrogant dingbats I’m supporting, arrogant dingbat?*
If you don't know who and what I am referring to by now, then you aren't worth any more of my time. Read what Richard said, and then think about the well documented effects of climate change on other species of vertebrates and invertebrates. Yes, these data - collected in the field over many years - and concomitant studies do exist. You just don't appear to know very much about them.
You must have a strange view of what ecologists do if you think they spend all their time reading about things.
Betula (and she's not the only one) has a strange view of what scientists do and say, full stop!
Not only does she deride what Jeff does and says, she also derides what most climate scientists do and say judging from what I've read of her output since killfile died an untimely death.
Oh come on chaps - I tend to take these fearsomely environmentalist/sons of the soil/Thomas Hardy lifestyle claims from the rabid anything-but-CO2 brigade with a bucket or three of salt.
I strongly suspect that someone else's cheeseplant on the office window sill and a pine-shaped air freshener in the car is as 'environmental' as Betty ever gets.
"Then how is it possible that you have failed to notice the changes that are happening"
Changes have always been happening,,,what's your point? Is it bad that we now have wild turkeys and coyotes here in New England when they were unheard of when I was a kid? Some years the Bluefish are feeding on Bunker, other years the Bunker are few and they are feeding on sandworms. Bluecrabs were plentiful, seemed to go away, and now we are seeing them again. We used to catch Weakfish when I was a kid, for years they were gone, came back, gone again. A moose was hit on the Merritt Parkway a few years back and a mountain lion last year. Two weeks ago a Black Bear was captured in a downtown area of Greenwich Ct....I've seen Woolly Beech Aphid come and go. This spring was dry, then wet....now we are seeing Anthacnose and leafspot....a lot of scale this year...a lot of snow two winters ago, not much last year.....
Trees and shrubs are flushed out, the grass is green, Cherry and Dogwood Blossoms were exceptional, the water table is high, plenty of squirrels,chipmunks,rabbits,racoons, opossoms and skunks....what am I looking for Richard?
Hey, are you talking about people planting Nellie Stevens Hollies and Southern Magnolia along the SouthWest section of Connecticut?
Wait, Asian longhorn Beetle and Emerald Ash Borer...is that what I'm suppose to notice? Surely these are a result of global Warming.... or was is Mile-a-minute weed?
Oh, I know, we have a lot more Mosquitos this year, West Nile Virus due to global Warming....or is it too many Ticks causing Lymes disease and Erlichiosis...is this what you are talking about?
No wait, it was Mountain Pine Beetle....is this something new to Global Warming Richard? Strange how it was a major problem when I was a college student in 1979 studying Forestry at Colorado State, yet nobody was blaming Global Warming.....in fact lumber companies were taking advantage of the blue stained wood sold for paneling...
So which observations have I failed to notice....please tell numbnuts.
So which observations have I failed to notice….please tell numbnuts.
OK, for the numbnuts, there are various reasons why populations of organisms change their distribution, including accidental or deliberate human introduction (e.g. Asian longhorn beetle). Others are changing their range seemingly because of climate change. One of these is the mountain pine beetle. You say it was a major problem in Colorado when you were a student. It is now a problem in Alberta, 1000 miles to the north, in areas where it was previously unknown. Why do you think this is?
Of course there are small changes from year to year or even from one decade to the next. There always will be, while environments change and populations evolve. Sometimes they will even be quite dramatic (e.g. the spread of the collared dove through Europe). However, in the last 50 years or so there has been a dramatic shift in the range of many species towards the poles and to higher altitudes.
what am I looking for Richard?
Species that you can grow now that couldn't be grown a few decades ago, and vice versa, pests that have become more significant and those that have faded away, etc. More to the point, you should be thinking about why the ranges of organisms have changed. You seem to know that it is possible that ranges have changed, but then you just shut down your noggin and do not wonder on what might be the cause(s). If climate change is not taking place, why do you think that the USDA shifted the plant hardiness zones?
"If climate change is not taking place, why do you think that the USDA shifted the plant hardiness zones?"
I've never said climate change isn't taking place, in fact i've never said Global warming isn't occurring.....I don't assume everything I see is a reult of climate change and I don't assume all climate change is bad and I don't assume climate change has never occurred before. I don't see a spider and assume something is amiss. I've seen so many fluctuations from year to year that I don't assume climate is constant.
As for the USDA Hardiness zones, they are relatively new (50-60 years) and have been upgraded before. Do you have a thousand year hardiness zone map to compare it to? Do you think the plants in each zone have always been there? Do you think organisms have ever shifted outside of y
Richard....here's what the USDA says...."Because the USDA PHZM represents 30-year averages of what are essentially extreme weather events (the coldest temperature of the year), changes in zones are not reliable evidence of whether there has been global warming."
Ooooh Betty! The excitement! changes in zones are not reliable evidence of whether there has been global warming. Let's try "reliable evidence"
Which is true - on their own it's not reliable evidence. But taken in conjunction with all the other metrics, it forms part of the consilience of evidence.
However, your exclaimed excitement over your 'hit', doesn't quite gell with your statements at 9.55 p.m. immediately prior.
Is the Betty team in disarray? Or are you just severely indecisive?
I’ve never said climate change isn’t taking place, in fact i’ve never said Global warming isn’t occurring…..I don’t assume everything I see is a reult of climate change and I don’t assume all climate change is bad and I don’t assume climate change has never occurred before. I don’t see a spider and assume something is amiss. I’ve seen so many fluctuations from year to year that I don’t assume climate is constant.
Good for you! So just what is your argument and what evidence do you use to support it? Or perhaps you just get a kick out of irritating people who are better-informed?
". . . changes in zones are not reliable evidence of whether there has been global warming.”
Of course they are not evidence in themselves, I was just trying to relate it to something you might be familiar with. The improvement in the extreme temperatures used to make the zones is, however, an additional small piece of evidence.
Let's face it, Betty: the sad truth is that, despite being around for over half a century, you really are neither smart nor observant, and you are as callow and devoid of wisdom as you were 30 years ago.
Sadly, there's a lot of you about, and Denial basically is you - in extremis in the form of the KarenMackSpot sociopath, and your warning of where you'll most-likely end up is there to see in the form of David Duff. Bet you can't avoid that fate!
I suppose you must feel some consolation in numbers, but what bigger testament to failure could there be than counting such people among your peers? Or being part of a movement whose proudest champions include the likes of Lord Monckton, James Delingpole and Senator Inhofe?
Like the bulk of your tribe you are essentially pointless, except that you can have a really good crack at gumming up the works if you congeal and stick on like grim death in sufficient numbers. Your anti-intellectual hostility is driven by a desperate need to conceal the grim reality of your inherent irrelevance from yourself.
I’ve seen so many fluctuations from year to year that I don’t assume climate is constant.
There's your problem!
Well, one of them. You appear to be confusing weather and climate. And probably local with global - both in terms of temperatures, but also giving primacy to your own observations and discounting the global aggregate of observations collected by scientists - and others.
It's very difficult to reliably assess climate change - let alone get a handle on its causes - if you simply focus on the "so many fluctuations from year to year" that you experience.
Yes, It's worth noting there are many papers around dealing with changing "tree lines" over the current interglacial. Some I've read (I think US, although there are alps, urals papers also) claim the current tree line is low to normal (relative to interglacial average) and increasing. Some areas have fosil tree lines 300m higher than todays.
So shifts in hardiness zones over decades to century time frames doesn't actually seem to be that unusual in itself and evidence of very little other than perhaps there has been some warming over the last 100yrs (post NH LIA).
Given time (I am pressed today) I can put up a lot more This is just a sampler. Bear in mind that some of these studies were published before James Hansen's famous 1988 declaration... so the topic was being considered seriously by the sciedntific community 25 years ago.
The Supreme Court, which has been doing its darnedest to give the impression of being completely in the tank for big business and The Republican Party, will probably try its hardest to produce an industry-friendly ruling that can be emitted from the bench without everyone in sight falling about in helpless laughter.
Which is easier said than done when several of your members appear to care little for any sort of personal reputation for intellectual integrity or well-reasoned jurisprudence.
Oh dear! When the Captain of the 'Warm Titanic' decides it's all over and deserts the sinking ship I really do feel it's time for you lot to make for the lifeboats of commonsense:
"Having observed that global temperatures since the turn of the millennium have not gone up in the way computer-based climate models predicted, Lovelock acknowledged, “the problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago.” [My emphasis]"
Yes, that Lovelock, your former High Priest! "Oh what a falling off was there".
@Bill: if Betula ends up in my excellent condition when she reaches 73, slim, fit and at fighting weight, then she will have done well and given her excellent counter-punching abilities it what she deserves.
@LionelA: What a SHLOCK-HORROR story! My goodness, they're all dropping like flies in Derbyshire, and Huddersfield is a wasteland, it's straight our of Cormac McCarthy's 'The Road' - not!
So, lovelock, previously predicting humanity's end (and called "hysterical alarmist" by the idiot brigade) now says "I was alarmist" agrees with the IPCC and the idiot brigade then crow "See! He doesn't think that AGW exists!!!!".
Really, the level of stupid here goes well over 9000.
Ah, David, everyone who's not befuddled - well, not as befuddled as you, at any rate - went through the whole 'Lovelock recants!' thing weeks ago. Net result - nothing.
Muller announcing the Warmists were right after all - and on the basis of actual research, not nonagenerian wilfulness - now, that was something!
Remember how old Anthony, who had thought the whole thing was stitched-up from the get-go, had to frantically backtrack and then become hysterical? Ah, how we laughed!
The morons are unmoved, of course, but, well, that's morons...
And let's not forget, as Wow has pointed out, that today is another Black Day for Denial, with the Federal District Court of Appeals ruling that it's the EPA that has CO2 figured out, rather than any of your motley heroes...
State Petitioners have not provided substantial support for their argument that the Endangerment Finding should be revised. State Petitioners point out that some studies the IPCC referenced in its assessment were not peer-reviewed, but they ignore the fact that (1) the IPCC assessment relied on around 18,000 studies that were peer-reviewed, and (2) the IPCC’s report development procedures expressly permitted the inclusion in the assessment of some non-peer-reviewed studies (“gray” literature).
Moreover, as EPA determined, the limited inaccurate information developed from the gray literature does not appear sufficient to undermine the substantial overall evidentiary support for the Endangerment Finding. State Petitioners have not, as they assert, uncovered a “pattern” of flawed science.
Only two of the errors they point out seem to be errors at all, and EPA relied on neither in making the Endangerment Finding. First, as State Petitioners assert, the IPCC misstated the percentage of the Netherlands that is below sea level, a statistic that was used for background information. However, the IPCC corrected the error, and EPA concluded that the error was “minor and had no impact,” and the Endangerment Finding did not refer to the statistic in any way. Id. at 49,576–77. Second, the IPCC acknowledged misstating the rate at which Himalayan glaciers are receding. EPA also did not rely on that projection in the Endangerment Finding. studies. [emphases mine]
Ooh, that's gotta smart! This is what the actual grown-ups, rather than the merely aged, are currently talking about.
18, 000 peer-reviewed studies. Now, maybe it's just me, but that strikes me as a little more impressive than a few Google Galileos guest-posting on a handful of far-Right blogs.
But, that's right, it's all a conspiracy, isn't it?
You really ought to try escaping the crushing confirmation-bias gravitional pull of the Right Wing blogosphere sometime, because you're probably unaware just how many 'pro AGW' (i.e. scientific, rational, evidence-based) papers appear in proper journals after proper peer-review every bloody week!
"The reason why even the Guardian’s George Monbiot has expressed total shock and dismay at the picture revealed by the documents is that their authors are not just any old bunch of academics. Their importance cannot be overestimated, What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Professor Philip Jones, the CRU’s director, is in charge of the two key sets of data used by the IPCC to draw up its reports. Through its link to the Hadley Centre, part of the UK Met Office, which selects most of the IPCC’s key scientific contributors, his global temperature record is the most important of the four sets of temperature data on which the IPCC and governments rely – not least for their predictions that the world will warm to catastrophic levels unless trillions of dollars are spent to avert it.
Dr Jones is also a key part of the closely knit group of American and British scientists responsible for promoting that picture of world temperatures conveyed by Michael Mann’s “hockey stick” graph which 10 years ago turned climate history on its head by showing that, after 1,000 years of decline, global temperatures have recently shot up to their highest level in recorded history.
Given star billing by the IPCC, not least for the way it appeared to eliminate the long-accepted Mediaeval Warm Period when temperatures were higher they are today, the graph became the central icon of the entire man-made global warming movement.
Since 2003, however, when the statistical methods used to create the “hockey stick” were first exposed as fundamentally flawed by an expert Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre, an increasingly heated battle has been raging between Mann’s supporters, calling themselves “the Hockey Team”, and McIntyre and his own allies, as they have ever more devastatingly called into question the entire statistical basis on which the IPCC and CRU construct their case.
The senders and recipients of the leaked CRU emails constitute a cast list of the IPCC’s scientific elite, including not just the “Hockey Team”, such as Dr Mann himself, Dr Jones and his CRU colleague Keith Briffa, but Ben Santer, responsible for a highly controversial rewriting of key passages in the IPCC’s 1995 report; Kevin Trenberth, who similarly controversially pushed the IPCC into scaremongering over hurricane activity; and Gavin Schmidt, right-hand man to Al Gore’s ally Dr James Hansen, whose own GISS record of surface temperature data is second in importance only to that of the CRU itself. [16] "
Martin explained in “Global WarmingGate: What Does It Mean,” the e-mails suggested:
[T]he authors co-operated covertly to ensure that only papers favorable to CO2-forced AGW [Anthropogenic Global Warming or man-made global warming] were published, and that editors and journals publishing contrary papers were punished. They also attempted to ‘discipline’ scientists and journalists who published skeptical information.
[T]he authors manipulated and ‘massaged’ the data to strengthen the case in favor of unprecedented CO2-forced AGW, and to suppress their own data if it called AGW into question.
[T]he authors co-operated (perhaps the word is ‘conspired’) to prevent data from being made available to other researchers through either data archiving requests or through the Freedom of Information Acts of both the U.S. and the UK. [17]
Ah, Karen, you really are a gift to our side of the argument.
The origin of this little piece of neural outsourcing? Christopher Booker! In that well known journal of gravitas - The Telegraph! And, what, some obscure comment at Jo Nova's?
You know, you're really supposed to tell us all that - and format the comment to make it clear its a quotation - but I can see why you might well shy away from that!
And, tell us, what did Monbiot end up saying about his originally hastily-formed conclusions, based on not realising how mendacious you lot really are? Eh?
What is it that you imagine you're achieving here, 'Karen'?
But they have nothing else to do except throw a tantrum. When reality disagrees with them, they have to present unreality as an "equally valid alternative".
The court ruling is very damaging for the deniers, especially since as they have claimed for years now that the moment the IPCC are ruled upon "the scam will crumble".
Now we see that the US legal system is really just another cog in Al Gore's massive one world government conspiracy. This, predictably, has caused so much angst amongst Karen (who believes the government are suppressing free energy) and Duff (who believes that the Brits are tilting sea measuring equipment, as told to by a dowser) that they are scattergun spamming our dear little comments thread with irrelevent nonesense in a vain attempt to prove...that they are gullible idiots? I don't know.
Chek...
"However, your exclaimed excitement over your ‘hit’, doesn’t quite gell with your statements at 9.55 p.m. immediately prior.
Is the Betty team in disarray? Or are you just severely indecisive?"
Are you really that retarded?
The "Hit something" was in reference to that fact that I sent the post before I was finished writing it.
"So just what is your argument and what evidence do you use to support it? Or perhaps you just get a kick out of irritating people who are better-informed?"
That the predictions are just that...predictions. That the alarmists hype the worst case scenarios. That ideology and bias is inherent. That the IPCC doesn't consist of 2000 scientists. That there are other scientists with different opinions. That Polar Bears have not currently been affected by climate change. That the U.N., which formed the IPCC. has an admitted goal of spreading global wealth. That climate models have flaws. That the debate isn't over. That we won't all be cannibals in the near future.That all corporations and their employees aren't evil. That all oil companies and their employees aren't evil. That all coal companies and their employees aren't evil. That capitalism isn't evil. That many on this site are hypocrites. That many on this site are arrogant. That many on this site are close minded. That some on this site are radical ie: suggesting a discussion about murdering those who disagree. That many on this site, by virtue of their monikers ie: Ianam (I am not a moron) and Luminous Beauty...are in denial. That not everything that happens is due to Global Warming. That some on this site embellish and lie...
That everything mentioned above is true and therefore, I'm a denier.
I’ve never said climate change isn’t taking place, in fact i’ve never said Global warming isn’t occurring…..I don’t assume everything I see is a reult of climate change and I don’t assume all climate change is bad and I don’t assume climate change has never occurred before. I don’t see a spider and assume something is amiss.
All of which can be said of a rock or turd or anything else that, like you, lacks a functioning human forebrain.
"I suppose you must feel some consolation in numbers, but what bigger testament to failure could there be than counting such people among your peers?"
Unlike you bill, I don't need to cling to groups or peers to hide from insecurities. I don't deny common sense for group think. For you, the emperor will always be naked.
@LionelA: What a SHLOCK-HORROR story! My goodness, they’re all dropping like flies in Derbyshire, and Huddersfield is a wasteland, it’s straight our of Cormac McCarthy’s ‘The Road’ – not!
You are one sick individual if you think such nauseating base flippancy is humorous. A case of Clarkson's disease perhaps.
"It turns out that past studies, which were based on computer models without any direct data for comparison or guidance, overestimate the water temperatures and extent of melting beneath the Fimbul Ice Shelf"
Betty I had initially considered refuting your farrago of infantile rubbish point by point. But then I remembered I do actually have a life, and who has time to deal with every paranoid assertion by the borderline insane? Not me, so I satisfied myself with this gem from you: "That the IPCC doesn’t consist of 2000 scientists".
As we all well know, the IPCC operates from a small one bedroom ap[artment above a Chinese take-away in Geneva: http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_structure.shtml#
with Raj in charge of day-to-day refreshments (coffee machine/soft drinks vernding machines/ acuum cleaning the carpets etc. etc., utility bills and compiling reports. Given the cramped nature of the accommodation (especially during plenary sessions), he has to settle for a small 'Z' guage train set no larger than an average briefcase to keep his railroad marshalling skills honed.
Dave, as we know, is in charge of anything sciency and given the cramped premises prefers outsourcing, which is why the AR4 assessment relied on around 18,000 studies that were peer-reviewed. Given an average of say 3 authors per paper to write, plus say 5 minimom to review, that works out at say 120,000 plus scientists per assessment.
What point were you trying to mak again, Betty? Apart from the painfully obvious, ill-informed, think-tank filtered garbage that we've come to expect from you by now of course.
Ah, Betty,Wally Ollie, Old Duffer,Mack Spot et al. are all in fine form, singing the self same identical industry paid propaganda, as served up by the likes of Marc/Fred/Lord Bull of Mocking tune of complete horse hockey.
So sad, to live in a brainwashed condition, a completely fictitious world, one that is totally divorced from all forms of reality.
In other news Gina Rhinoass, after investing a large chunk cash portion of her wealth(the rest is still in the ground yet to be mined, gotta love the printed propaganda lies of the so called Fibius Rich List) purchased an old already dead print media empire. There is an irony, in investing money on dead horse.
In the Age of the Internets, one can already see the Murdoch Pay Wall is failing, pricing itself out of a two billion plus market, as we speak.
Thus, it comes to pass, choose your experts wisely, and somewhere between the northern summers of 2021 and 2035, the folly of listening to Propaganda Lord Mocking of Bull, becomes truly apparent, for all to see.
"When the last tree is cut, when the last river has been poisoned, when the last fish has been caught, then we will find out that we can't eat money."
Watt tune, then will brainwashed few cry in unison?
Ah, Betty, I'm afraid your gaggle of droogs' heroically obtuse and unswerving ignorance is only equal to the expertise of tens of thousands of actual scientists in Libtardia, a magical fantasy world above the clouds- and well beyond the reach of mere evidence.
So, if we're not going to talk about actual scientists doing actual research and producing actual papers, and we're not going to talk about the US courts ruling that its the actual scientists doing actual research and producing actual papers that the EPA must base its assessments on, shall we talk about, oh, I don't know, Arctic sea ice? Monckton and the British Freedom Party? Watts more and more palpable desperation?
No? More of your opinions then? Some sad little hangover from your brief Golden Age, in 2009, when many in the media were briefly conned by your dreary little posse's disgraceful exercise in tendentious quote-mining and cherry-picking, assuring you all zero credibility thereafter?
No? How about the fact that you and the rest of the pantomime visigoths that plague this site will be remembered only as a card-carrying member of that highly non-exclusive club, The Most Stupid People in History?
You can expect to live a few decades yet. How popular are you hoping to be?
Because, believe me, there's going to be some deeply unhappy people about, wondering how the hell it was all allowed to happen...
What I expect we will see if these low albedo conditions [in Greenland] persist is 100% surface melting over the ice sheet. This would be a first in observations. It may not happen this year, but the trajectory the ice sheet is on, along with amplified Arctic warming, will have the ice sheet responding by melting more and more.
No?
Then perhaps you'd like to tell us how Mike Mann, Al Gore, and Jim Hansen are causing these instruments to give these readings?
No?
How about: precisely how bad are you going to feel when you eventually realise - because this is inevitable, unless, of course, you choose to be forever lost in the fantasy world of Epistemic Closure with Monckton and Delingpole and Bast and Inhofe - you've been doing nothing less than facilitating the wreck of the global biosphere for years?
And, no small thanks to you and your pals, it's irreversible?
Based on a considerable body of evidence. But what point are you trying to make?
That the alarmists hype the worst case scenarios.
I have not seen any climatologists promoting anything like the worst-case scenarios. Citation, please.
That ideology and bias is inherent.
Citation, please.
That the IPCC doesn’t consist of 2000 scientists.
I have no idea what point you are trying to make here.
That there are other scientists with different opinions.
Citation, please, to a climatologist who has published any research in a reputable journal to support the contention that climate change is not/will not take place.
That Polar Bears have not currently been affected by climate change.
You are a lot more complacent about this than the Polar Bear Specialist Group of the IUCN. Why do you feel you have better information than they do?
That the U.N., which formed the IPCC. has an admitted goal of spreading global wealth.
And the significance of this is . . . ?
That climate models have flaws.
All models have flaws. Please describe the flaws in climate models that you feel have exaggerated either the magnitude of climate change or of its effects. Presumably you bring this up because you have significant, well-justified concerns.
That the debate isn’t over.
The debate amongst climatologists over whether or not climate change is to be expected was essentially over 30 years ago. Which debate are you talking about?
That we won’t all be cannibals in the near future.
Please give a citation to any climatologist who has said otherwise.
That all corporations and their employees aren’t evil.
Please give a citation to any climatologist who has said otherwise.
That all oil companies and their employees aren’t evil.
Please give a citation to any climatologist who has said otherwise.
That all coal companies and their employees aren’t evil.
Please give a citation to any climatologist who has said otherwise.
That capitalism isn’t evil.
Please give a citation to any climatologist who has said otherwise.
That many on this site are hypocrites.
Irrelevant, but please give an example.
That many on this site are arrogant.
Irrelevant. Why does this affect your opinion of the science?
That many on this site are close minded.
Irrelevant, but please give an example. Why does this affect your opinion of the science?
That some on this site are radical ie: suggesting a discussion about murdering those who disagree.</blockquote
Why does this affect your opinion of the science?
That many on this site, by virtue of their monikers ie: Ianam (I am not a moron) and Luminous Beauty…are in denial.</blockquote
In denial of what? Why does this affect your opinion of the science?
That not everything that happens is due to Global Warming.
Please give a citation to any scientist who has said otherwise.
That some on this site embellish and lie…
Indeed they do! Some of the claims from those who deny the reality of climate change are quite outrageous.
That everything mentioned above is true
Not exactly.
and therefore, I’m a denier.
Funny thing is, in all of that you've not actually said that you do not accept that global climate change is taking place, or that the changes could have very serious consequences for humans. So on the evidence given here, no, you are not a denier. On the other hand, I think my suggestion that you just get a kick out of irritating people who are better-informed is probably correct.
Heck, while we're piling on this is deeply ironic:
That many on this site, by virtue of their monikers ie: Ianam (I am not a moron) and Luminous Beauty…are in denial.
The person posting under the moniker Luminous Beauty may or may not be a luminous beauty in some sense or other - but unless Betula is claiming some form of ESP or remote sensing, Betula does not actually know that the moniker does not fit. In that case, the charge of "in denial" by Betula is a completely unsupported assertion.
And ianam may be many things, but is clearly not a moron. In that case, the only person in denial on that matter is Betula.
1.Crikey, 42 hatemails from you lot in less than 24 hours!
Robert Murphy, I treat you as the only if partial exception to that comment.
Re Murphy’s Law #1: That’s why a block of ice in my living room will emit EM radiation into my warmer living room. The net heat flow will be from the room to the ice, but that doesn’t stop the ice from radiating energy (as all matter above absolute zero must do).
Where are your observations and measurements for ML #1? If your house was encased in ice a hundred metres thick, surely by ML#1 the ice’s EM radiation should warm it. If not, why not?
Your corollary to ML#1 is also wrong “A molecule of Co2 that encounters a photon of LW radiation will scatter it in all directions.” Not so, only from hot to less hot.
ML#2: “The N2 and the O2 act just like a vacuum as far as retaining the LW radiation – they don’t.” I said “the N2 and O2 CANNOT act like a vacuum as when they are present there is no vacuum. We are talking about the LW infrared, and the N2 and O2 fail to propel heat through it, as Tyndall showed and my link to UMSL.edu.confirmed.”
You reply: “No, no, NO! [Tyndall] showed that the N2 and O2 failed to stop the heat from traveling through the container and leaving it.”
That is simply untrue. Had the heat travelled through the cylinder when filled only with N2 and O2, Tyndall’s galvanometer would have measured the heat leaving the other end of the cylinder. It did not.
That finding does not mean that N2 and O2 can act “like” a vacuum, they are not and do not, but it does mean they are the real GHGs.
Enough of Murphy’s laws, but for one FINAL comment:
I am glad you repeated my source even if you clearly misunderstand it:
“It is known that symmetrical diatomic molecules like nitrogen, oxygen and hydrogen, do not absorb infrared radiation, even though their vibrational frequencies are in the infrared region. These homonuclear diatomic molecules have no permanent dipole moment and lack a mechanism by which they can interact with the electric field of the light.”
In fact this means Tyndall did show that N2 and O2 are GHG’s and do trap LW radiation, because they “do not absorb infrared radiation”, and therefore cannot reradiate it.
I previously linked to a full inventory of the infrared spectrum. There is no N2 at all, and only minuscule amounts of O2, much as Tyndall surmised. By far the largest inhabitants are the H2O and CO2, all busily radiating through their respective favoured wavelengths, along with smaller amounts of CH4 and N2O.
I almost dropped out of my chair. I thought teh Curtin had come to the open thread to acknowledge in front of everyone that he had been a complete and utter idiot in maintaining that Tyndall supported his view that N2 and O2 block LW radiation, but no such luck.
1. Crikey, 42 hatemails from you lot in less than 24 hours!
You even fail to comprehend the meaning of hatemails.
Counters to your vitriolic ideological motivated opinions are not propelled by hate. Indeed by now the only emotion that could be shown in your direction is pity. For you sure have made, and continue to do so, one big fool of yourself.
Besides blog posts are not mails, but then since when did Curtin learn to understand the correct nuances of correct language with his confusion of thought demonstrated at every turn.
Thank you for an excellent list of reading matter I will benefit greatly from studying these as they will enable me to reinforce my broad understanding. If I am able to drill through to the complete entities that is.
I doubt that the denialati and facetious muppets (Duff etc.) who infest these threads will get much out of them for they will probably fail with the first in the list on the concept of 'trophic levels', disruption between which we have been noticing for some time now.
Have you yourself ever been the least bit arrogant, close minded, have ever embellished or lied about anything? Have you ever been at all hypocritical?
What do you folks have against the human forebrain? When a doctor tells someone that they will die if they don't get treatment, do you council the person to ignore that because it's "just" a prediction? How about when your mother told you to look both ways before crossing a street because a driver might not see you and they might hit you with their car, did you ignore her advice because it's "just" a prediction?
Over and over, Betula, you use arguments that are frankly stupid and fallacious, that make you look stupid and make it obvious that you are intellectually dishonest, as with "Say it isn’t so….a computer model may be wrong?" -- Even you cannot be so stupid as to not be aware that we all know that computer models may be wrong, and that scientists are constantly working to improve them and remove errors. That is not a reason to disregard them -- in fact it's a reason to pay a lot of attention to what they say, precisely because they get tested and corrected. There's an intelligent and honest way to react to an article like that, but that's never what you do ...
In fact this means Tyndall did show that N2 and O2 are GHG’s and do trap LW radiation, because they “do not absorb infrared radiation”, and therefore cannot reradiate it.
For the umpteenth time, radiation does not need to be absorbed and reradiated ... it just radiates. It's like you're saying that no one can hit a baseball into the bleachers without someone catching it and throwing it there; if they don't the ball is "trapped".
I previously linked to a full inventory of the infrared spectrum. There is no N2 at all, and only minuscule amounts of O2, much as Tyndall surmised. By far the largest inhabitants are the H2O and CO2, all busily radiating through their respective favoured wavelengths, along with smaller amounts of CH4 and N2O.
For the umpteenth time: yes, we know: N2 and O2 are transparent to IR.
Betula has fallen for Duff's Folly, a last offensive whereby the troll discards all pretence they care about science and spams irrelevent ideological gobbledegook and long discarded memes in the face of overwhemling evidence that their position is fatally wrong.
It's especially hurtful to be called arrogant. I'm not the one denying the face of the laws of phyics based on my political persuasion.
Ah, Tim Curtin, you have earned yet another econometric F minus.
Watt a complete load of of old twaddle, red herrings, bunkum, gish gallop of furphies, that defies the law of logic, the properties of matter, basic chemistry, physics and mathematics.
Are you new here? I'm not going to repost every conversation and every link I've ever had on Deltoid to appease your curiosity, however, I will address a few of your questions...
1.That the predictions are just that…predictions.
"Based on a considerable body of evidence. But what point are you trying to make?"
That when I say they are predictions, that makes me a denier.
2. That the alarmists hype the worst case scenarios.
"I have not seen any climatologists promoting anything like the worst-case scenarios. Citation, please".
Saleemul Huq....Lead author of the chapter on Adaptation and Sustainable Development in the third assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
"The debate amongst climatologists over whether or not climate change is to be expected was essentially over 30 years ago. Which debate are you talking about?"
Where. How much. When. If. Maybe. Possibly.
5. That we won’t all be cannibals in the near future.
"Please give a citation to any climatologist who has said otherwise"
8. That Polar Bears have not currently been affected by climate change.
"You are a lot more complacent about this than the Polar Bear Specialist Group of the IUCN. Why do you feel you have better information than they do?"
Your article doesn't mention anything about the current affect of climate on Polar Bears....only future possibilities. That's my point and your problem, you think it does...
9. "So on the evidence given here, no, you are not a denier."
Did you read that ianam, Bernard, John, Bill, Lumy, et al... according to Richard, this whole time you've been embellishing and lying...
This isn't talking about worst case scenarios you bumbling buffoon.
"Which debate are you talking about?”
Where. How much. When. If. Maybe. Possibly."
Where what? How much what? What when? What If? What maybe? What possibly?
Are you intellectally incapable of comprehension, or are you just scared of thinking in case it turns you liberal?
"It affects my opinion of the the people trying to convince me they can predict the future."
So Hansen's 1988 model that predicted a 0.8-0.9C warming by 2003 over the pre-industrial average and the record since then that shows 0.7-0.9C warming from that period didn't convince you otherwise?
Figures. You don't accept the truth because you can't handle the truth.
"8. That Polar Bears have not currently been affected by climate change."
Polar bears have been.
You're a denier because you deny any evidence. Richard looked at one post where you asked questions and you didn't deny anything in the questions, you only deny any answers to them.
E.g. bald eagles were already declining. There's a difference between declines caused by active persecution of adults by ranchers and through accidental poisonings when they fed on strychnine killed 'varmints', and declines caused by massive nest failure due to egg-shell thinning. As well, other raptors and birds like cormorants suffered declines as their eggs thinned too.
He says a ban on DDT resulted in 10s to 100s of millions of deaths from malaria. DDT wasn't banned on a global scale and was still used to combat malaria. It was banned in the US and also overseas it was banned for use in agriculture as indiscriminate spraying could result in DDT resistant mosquitoes. Where DDT was not used for malaria it was because the agencies studied the issue and were using other measures that they believed were as good or better (or cheaper).
I would like to comment but we received a directive telling us to avoid commenting or speaking to the press about certain issues (i.e. anything to do with our jobs--thank you, Stephen Harper you control....oh wait, we're not allowed to criticize the federal government either). Under my pseudonym, I can't comment either but would like it if someone (Tim?) could give a short reply???
If not, I may have to wait till I work in the private sector again and am free from our Soviet-era minders and muzzlers.
I thought it was just Parks Canada that got the "don't criticize the gov't letter".
Does the PMO still allow federal employees to have business cards or are the job titles confidential now too?
I don' have the background to reply to the letter you link to but I urge someone with the knowledge to reply. It certainly seems to distort what I have read of the issues aroud DDT.
Whilst Betty, Duff and Mackarenspot fool around we have another data point for indications of a warming world with other parts of the country being similarly inundated earlier in the week and this on top of flooding elsewhere in the UK earlier in June and in May and April.
OK land use change and development has not helped but such frequent, widespread and repeated heavy rains in one year are developments of the last twenty years.
About thirteen years ago (1998) we had sudden deluges in the UK Midlands too. A part of my family was caught in a train on the West Coast mainline. Touch and go for awhile with not so many means of communication back then. I had an old computer that displayed Teletext which was useful for getting info' updates.
Daniel J. Andrews, I wouldn't believe a word of what Trewavas says. He is a shill for the large seed and chemical companies such as Monsanto et al. He has been found guilty in at least one case of libeling people he disagreed with. He is listed as an adviser to Sense about Science which is nothing but a PR group for large companies. SAS is in exactly the same position as is Friends of Science in relation to climate change.
Here is a comment on SAS:
There are other ways in which what you see is not what you get with SAS. Bizarrely, none of the leading lights of this lobby group for “promoting good science” has a science background. SAS’s founder, Dick Taverne’s professional life was in the law, politics and business. Its directors, Tracey Brown and Ellen Raphael, both studied sociology under Frank Furedi, the controversial “father” of the now defunct Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP), who during the early 1990s backflipped to the farthest fringes of the libertarian right. And both are intimates of Furedi’s so-called “LM network”, which lobbies in favour of GM foods, human cloning, global warming, and against restraints on corporations. Prior to working for SAS, both its directors worked for the PR firm Regester Larkin, which numbered several biotech corporations amongst its clients.[29] Needless to say, none of this information could be deduced from the staff biographies provided by SAS.[30]
If it was for a letter published in the Herald about the libelling of Greenpeace, it was later agreed that he didn't write the letter and that he just forwarded it to interested parties.
Links: http://ngin.tripod.com/trewavas.htm
What I read is you again using arguments that are frankly stupid and fallacious, that make you look stupid and make it obvious that you are intellectually dishonest.
"This isn’t talking about worst case scenarios you bumbling buffoon"
You're correct, this must be the best case scenario...
"On that warmer planet, ice sheets would melt quickly, causing a rise in sea levels that would put most of Manhattan under water. The world would see more prolonged droughts and heat waves, powerful hurricanes in new areas and the likely extinction of 50 percent of species".
"Why do you do it?"
Why do I do what?
"Figures. You don’t accept the truth because you can’t handle the truth"
Um, okay Jack. You were good in "One Flew Over The Cookoos Nest. That didn't end well for you.
"What I read is you again using arguments that are frankly stupid and fallacious, that make you look stupid and make it obvious that you are intellectually dishonest"
Then you missed it. Here it is again from Richard:
“So on the evidence given here, no, you are not a denier.”
"Whilst Betty, Duff and Mackarenspot fool around we have another data point for indications of a warming world with other parts of the country being similarly inundated earlier in the week and this on top of flooding elsewhere in the UK earlier in June and in May and April."
Hmmm..
"The world would see more prolonged droughts and heat waves"
"The world would see more prolonged droughts and heat waves” Just foolin around."
Ah right, so the collective IQ of Team Betty decided that the only valid meaning of that quote is that everywhere on Earth would only "see more prolonged droughts and heat waves".
And if you're a knuckle-draggin' denier moron, you might well agree that's exactly what Hansen said. Or so Team Betty would have us believe.
To legitimately complain about "hyping a worst case scenario", one has to demonstrate that what is being discussed is in fact a "worst case scenario", and furthermore that it is in fact being "hyped" or overblown. To demonstrate the latter, one has to show that the risk (e.g. likelihood and/or impact) from the scenario is being seriously overinflated - which means actually assessing the likelihood and/or impacts and potential responses using (say) best practice risk mitigation analysis tools.
I don't recall Betula even coming close, although maybe I missed it in the middle of all the woolly rhetoric. There appears to be a Betula presumption that pointing out a very bad scenario is inherently "worst case" and also inherently "hype". I don't see any analysis to support either premise - which is not surprising, because analysis is very unlikely to align with Betula's position.
Risk mitigation says that when the impacts are intolerable or unbounded - as I believe they are in the genuine "worst case scenarios" from analysis (a recent case suggesting that the earth's carrying capacity for humans could decline to around one billion total, and globally integrated civilisation would not be maintained) - then the only prudent response is to avoid that scenario at practically any cost. It is difficult to see how "avoid at practically any cost" can even be over-hyped - which, along with other statements, leads one to conclude that Betula is probably (non-consciously) rejecting the scientific conclusions that underpin the (actual) worst-case scenarios.
“This isn’t talking about worst case scenarios you bumbling buffoon”
You’re correct, this must be the best case scenario…
Again, this is another example. Are you just too stupid to grasp that there are other alternatives than worst and best? Well, it doesn't matter, the effect is that you look stupid, and intellectually dishonest.
The current melt-rate in the Arctic?
The current melt-rate in Greenland?
The US Court ruling on the EPA and CO2, and their scathing assessment of Denier 'science'?
Wild fires in the US? (there's the scope for 'adaptation' for you!) Or Siberia?
Watt's desperation? Did you see that repulsive ' "ickle birdies"/"indigenous persons" ' thing he put up from....
Monckton - that friend of all the great chaps of the British Freedom Party?
The fact that your allies here are hapless, braying, anti-intellectual thugs any person with any pretence to wisdom should be cripplingly ashamed to be associated with?
No? We'll just run with some multiply debunked BS, or material completely devoid of meaning - e.g. 'The Predictions are just that...'? Jeee-sus! 'You can't predict the future'? What are you, 12? 'Cannibalism'? Say what?
Are you planning to protect us from the rising seas by lining the coasts with your veritable army of strawmen, by any chance?
No? You're just going to continue to to be an uninformed, selfish, abrasive wrecker, then? Gutlessly hiding behind 'I never said it wasn't warming'?
And do you imagine that's going to cut much ice - or lack of it - with anyone in the future, BTW?
Of course there will be an increase in drought in areas already stressed that way just as more water will fall in other areas as the ITCZ changes in ways not previously known. Now you investigate why it would be doing this. There are other major components of the earth's circulatory systems which are subject to a similar disruption and that is just it.
"When a doctor tells someone that they will die if they don’t get treatment, do you council the person to ignore that because it’s “just” a prediction"
You're comparing apple orchards to an orange peel. Real life is much more complicated than that, but I can twist things and play the same game as you...
A doctor predicts you might feel sick if you eat too much candy, that means you are sick and he should start pumping your stomach now.
A doctor predicts you could get skin cancer from too much sun, that means you have skin cancer and you should you start chemotherapy immediately...
Polar Bears may be affected by melting ice, that means they are being affected now and should be put on the endangered species list.
You'll notice ianumb, in your example you used the word "will", which is stating a fact. My examples used words like "might", "could" and "may", which are stating predictions. The difference is apparently a problem for you....for reasons that are obvious.
Let's do one another game of apple orchards and orange peel...
A new president might strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation while in office, so that means he did strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation and is awarded the Nobel Peace Prize...
Nicely argued. "Ifs", "mays", "mights" and "coulds". Apocalyptic climate predictions are ALWAYS preceded by those words, I look out for them especially, in for example.
IF the Greenland Ice sheet disappears, sea level COULD rise by (a frightening amount) metres.
Which sounds really bad, but it won't disappear, not for thousands of years anyway, according to the MET office and others. These "Weasel" words are freely used to mislead and promote alarm among the gullible. They're like a "Free Pass" to say something ridiculous and get away with it (for some here at least).
You’ll notice ianumb, in your example you used the word “will”, which is stating a fact. My examples used words like “might”, “could” and “may”, which are stating predictions.
So, are you sayiong using will "is stating a fact"?
I say humans will not land on Mars before 2065.
Is that a statement of fact? No, it's a prediction which may or may not come true.
[I predict] Betula will never post on this forum again.
So you whinge that there are alarmist statements then whinge even more when it's pointed out to you that it is saying 'if so and so then response' which is as alarmist as the warning label on a bottle of bleach that it's somehow weaselling.
I predict nobody will ever give a toss what Betty and Wormtongue think because they're intellectually stunted morons who have nothing butbleating about emotional claptrap, i.e. 'alarm' in lieu of evidence to offer..
I further predict that pay day loan companies will continue to squeeze massive fortunes out of hapless nihilist gimps like Betty and Wormy.
"If you continue to play in traffic you could be hit by a car."
Is that an alarmist statement using weasel words, or is it something else?
Obviously, it's something else, it's a prediction (not to be confused with a prophecy). The 'if' clause is the condition, the (implied) 'then' clause is the result, given as a probability, if the condition is true.
All this whining about weasel words and alarmism is either little more than a red herring or an example of the inability to think critically. Take your pick.
@P. Lewis
If that is a prediction, where is your condition? Using the word 'will' in a prediction denotes a probability of 1 so it should only be used when the outcome is certain.
Thanks for replying. No, those are not weasel words. Playing in traffic is a bad idea, there is a real risk you would be hit by a car. You are not misleading anybody.
However the Greenland Ice Sheet statement does mislead, The 'If' premise is highly unlikely (if not impossible over a reasonable time frame), but the statement is couched in such a way that we are led to believe that it a very real and present threat - Weasel words/misled.
That I think is one of Hansen's (others as well). Another example, one of Schneider's, paraphrasing.
"IF it is half as bad as we think it COULD be, then we are all f**cked".
I think Schneiders version ended with "hell in a hand basket", but I prefer the paraphrase. Again the statement, implies, again to many here, that an apocalypse is on the way. It is misleading, and intended to be misleading, He's trying to get you to buy something (a point of view) that is devoid of substance and jam packed with "Alarm". When next you look thru the literature ,associated press release, realclimate review, guardian article etc, look for the ifs/mays/coulds and ask yourself what was the point of phrasing the statement in that way?
@Tim Curtin
"Where are your observations and measurements for ML #1? If your house was encased in ice a hundred metres thick, surely by ML#1 the ice’s EM radiation should warm it. If not, why not? "
Because of the difference in mass. The temperature of the ice and the house will eventual equalize, with the temperature of the house dropping dramatically and the ice warming infinitesimally. The house is losing more heat to the ice than it is gaining from the ice, and the ice is gaining more heat from the house than it is losing.
Replace that ice with liquid nitrogen and see if the house cools slower or faster than it does when it was ice.
@GSW
"The ‘If’ premise is highly unlikely (if not impossible over a reasonable time frame), but the statement is couched in such a way that we are led to believe that it a very real and present threat – Weasel words/misled."
Those aren't weasel words there either, nor are they designed to mislead. The condition for that prediction is itself made up of other predictions, each with its own probability, it's not just a static premise. Nor is it a guess.
Given that all the ice melts from Greenland and no other mitigating conditions change, the ocean level will rise.
Given that the global temperatures continue to rise, and no other mitigating conditions change, the all the Greenland ice will melt.
Given that GHG levels continue to rise, and no other mitigating conditions change, the global temperature will continue to rise.
None of the conditional clauses I used are intended to mislead anyone, nor are they an attempt to cover my ass, they're there to show the possibility of the conditions changing outside of the predictions.
The reason for the emotions being added is because the consequences affect us, or our descendents, directly and we can have some affect on the conditions.
P. Lewis and GaryB, don't get confused by Betula's intellectually dishonest shenanigans. I wrote:
When a doctor tells someone that they will die if they don’t get treatment, do you council the person to ignore that because it’s “just” a prediction”
That is clearly a prediction: "a statement about the way things will happen in the future, often but not always based on experience or knowledge" (Wikipedia). That it is idiomatically phrased as a statement of fact is only relevant to dishonest cretins like Betula; there would be no difference in the point in re global warming if I had written
When a doctor tells someone that established diagnostic science indicates that, with and very high probability, they will die of their disease if something else doesn't kill them first, if they don't get treatment and that even if they don't die from the disease, not getting treatment would be very foolish because of the immensely high risk ...
which is accurate, unlike Betula's stupid and dishonest "may".
There's a lot of articles there chek, any of them give timescales for the disappearance of the Ice sheet from Greenland? Try and avoid the" If (unlikely event) could" construct in your answer.
P. Lewis's condition was "I say" and "I predict", which should be taken as "I expect". The very semantics of "predict" imply a probability of less than 1. And when a doctor or a scientist says that something will happen in the future, they are implying that it is inferable from their knowledge and expertise that it will happen, with all the usual Humean caveats about the uncertainties of empirical assertions about future events. Saying that something "may" happen merely asserts that it isn't impossible -- which itself is problematic if you're going to employ radical epistemological skepticism (i.e., misplaced pedantry) to ordinary language.
@Tim Curtin
"Your corollary to ML#1 is also wrong “A molecule of Co2 that encounters a photon of LW radiation will scatter it in all directions.” Not so, only from hot to less hot."
And just how does the molecule know not to re-radiate in a specific direction?
Temperature equalizes not because the heat knows which way to go but because there is more radiation going in one direction than in the opposite direction.
This is so basic I have a hard time understanding how someone could miss it.
Grima @ 8:58 - thanks for a) confirming you're a moron who doesn't want to know, and b)) avoiding the question of what miracle are you hoping will negate the ablation of the ice sheet already occurring.
Sorry missed your reply before , this is the important bit;
"we are led to believe that it a very real and present threat – Weasel words/misled.”
Chek couldn't find any info on likely timescales to make it alarming from his library I think.
As I said, the Met office have it at ~5,000 yrs from memory. So for Hansens ~25m SLR, it's about avg 5mm/year or a foot and half per century.
Which coming from an alarmist is well, not very alarming at all. Hansen obviously thought the headline figure of 25m was more pleasing whilst taking about mid 21st century C02 levels of 450ppm. Weasel words.
Grima I repeat "and b)) avoiding the question of what miracle are you hoping will negate the ablation of the ice sheet already occurring". As confirmed by the GRACE satellite in the links.
You'll notice - if you look up the definition - that the phrase 'already occurring' completely negates your conditional-'based sophistry-for-morons.
The implied response can only be you don't care, which is most likely because - and why - you're a moron.
OK, so we're not going to talk about anything that's actually happening of genuine interest; we're stuck 'debating' conditional clauses in response to content-free posts from muppets.
Why do so many Deniers cling to 'aha, but you can't guarantee (strict interpretation) what's going to happen in the future!' as if this was a trump card - some sort of arcane wisdom only available to the Denialati elect - and not the human condition?
Answer - because if they can make enough contrarian noise inside their own heads that'll make it really difficult for any unpleasant revelations to find their way into consciousness. ('Arctic sea ice la la la what? accelerated glacier melt la la la warmest May in NH la la la eh? second globally la la la how's that? Colorado wildfires la la la la can't hear you and anyway you can't prove it')
I think they also hope this may also allow any potential muppet-equivalent onlookers to tell themselves that an actual debate is really being had!
Note to any such hypothetical lurkers - if you're really impressed by this you're lost to science and reason already, and might as well publicly join Tim Curtin and the Loyal Order of SkyDragons in believing in intelligent photons, or lend a hand to BettyOlausGSWKarenMcSpot assembling their massed Army of Strawmen...
Further on obfuscation as a Denier strategy at every level...
This argument is little more than a semantic trick...Even individual studies and research papers often synthesize past work in an area and then build upon it. This is how science works. EPA is not required to re-prove the existence of the atom every time it approaches a scientific question.
Which sounds really bad, but it won’t disappear, not for thousands of years anyway, according to the MET office and others.
I thought the argument was the MET office are falsifying data and can't predict the weather of the next let alone future climate. Suddenly, when they can be used to support your argument, they're an authoritative source.
I don't have an axe to grind over this John, if you think the MET office have it wrong, I'm perfectly happy for you to express your view. As you know, MET office forecasts for anything other than the next 24hrs (and there's been some howlers there as well) are notoriously unreliable so your scepticism is not misplaced IMO.
The bumbling, oafish child GSW's clusmy attempt to misconstrue my excellent comment has accidentally underlined my central point - deniers are happy to cherrypick when it suits them.
It's funny how the MET Office is either the authority of choice or fraudulently cooking data, whichever position suit the deniers most.
Even funnier - GSW was unable to tell I was ridiculing him and repeated the beloved carnard that climate is weather without a hint of irony.
As the evidence mounts their arguments only get weaker.
No, the Met Office is just useless - I'm still waiting, after four years, for the BBQ summer they forecast! Not that my BBQ is up to much these days given the amount of rust on it.
Incidentally, it is now official, this is the wettest, coolest Apr/May/Jun for absolute yonks. And I have just been looking at temperature stats for Texas - but these are unadulterated figures, not bent to suit a purpose. Why am I not surprised to learn that there has been virtually no increase in temperatures in Texas for the last 100 years and the only increase that has occurred is in cities where the population has exploded since the end of WWII.
There you go GSW! You can always rely on Duff to unwittingly prove my point.
No, the Met Office is just useless – I’m still waiting, after four years, for the BBQ summer they forecast!
Incidentally, it is now official, this is the wettest, coolest Apr/May/Jun for absolute yonks.
Are you sure about that Duff? Unfortunately you don't provide us with any proof except a map which shows the opposite of what you claim. In fact, a quick change of the settings shows that the majority of the US had record high temperatures!
It really is a wonder that you fail so frequently, Duff. You are a pathetic, shambling mess of a man and you only bring shame to rapidly dwindling denier population.
Sorry I wasn't able to respond earlier to Betula (June 29, 3:48 pm)
That when I say they are predictions, that makes me a denier.
It does? Even if it does, why does this require you to snipe at everyone who presents any evidence to support the fact of climate change?
2. That the alarmists hype the worst case scenarios.
When asked to support this, you give a link to a claim that humanity has only a few years left in which to take action to avoid a catastrophe. You must live a very sheltered existence if you think this is a worst case scenario. I recently (sorry, lost the links) saw a climate blog in which a large fraction of the commentators thought it was already too late.
3.That ideology and bias is inherent.
When asked for a citation, you gave a link to someone expressing the view that rich nations should help out those affected by climate change. How does this demonstrate ideology and bias as being inherent in the science?
9. “So on the evidence given here, no, you are not a denier.”
Did you read that ianam, Bernard, John, Bill, Lumy, et al… according to Richard, this whole time you’ve been embellishing and lying…
On the evidence you supplied to my questions, you are not a denier - but you conspicuously failed to answer my original question:
“So just what is your argument and what evidence do you use to support it?
You've denied saying that climate change is not happening, yet you jeer at any evidence people present that indicates that climate change is taking place.
I think you are that worst kind of denier, the coward who avoids ever clearly stating their opinions on climate change because they know they will not be able to support them with any kind of evidence.
In actual fact, the forecast was for dryer weeks than the year before. On being persistently asked "will there be a barbecue summer this year?" said "there could be".
A website I am sure teh Duff will enjoy: http://www.netweather.tv/index.cgi?action=cet;sess=
OK, it kinda contradicts his claim that April/May/June have been cold, but I am sure teh Duff will find something that he can twist to his liking...
I have submitted the June NOAA State of the Climate report to Reddit Science. A sub forum with over one and a half million subscribers. One of the mods took it down saying that it was not a peer reviewed link. I pointed out that the report is from a scientific organization (NOAA) and that the report is published by relevant scientific experts. Further, I said that State of the Climate reports are regularly cited in peer reviewed articles published in such high impact journals as Science.
I really can not see what justification they can have. It seems patently ridiculous to have a internet forum with a higher standard than the American Academy of Sciences and at the same time allow links to science articles by the New York Times to be published unmolested.
My question for you lot is their another argument I could use that I am missing?
"I’ve already proved you to be an embellishing egotistical liar for the cause"
In your dreams, bush pruner, in your dreams. I'd like to add that I think it us both ironic and sad that people with clearly mediocre educations and occupations - by that I mean you, Betula, as well as Karen, Mack, and Olaus - like to bat on the side of those wishing to seriously damage out planet's ecosystems for the benefits of short-term profits. Now, I can understand it if you clowns had tons of cash stored away or worked as CEOs for some huge transnational corporation (and even then, only because of short-term greed), but when a bunch of second-rate illiterates sides with those intent on driving our planet's ecosystems to hell in a hand-basket? Now that requires total stupidity. And you bunch have it in spades.
As for Olaus, note how he uses the Serengeti strategy I described earlier in this thread. Ignore countless studies in the peer-reviewed literature showing the deleterious effects of recent warming on species in aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems - including zooplankton, a number of vertebrates and insect groups - and concentrate on Emperor Penguins. Note that the status of this species has also been upgraded from least concern to threatened, but Olaus will claim that this is a communist/UN plot to take away our freedoms or some such nonsense. And, like the bush pruner, ensure that the discussion (1) ignores scientific studies published in peer-reviewed journals (another commie plot?) and (2) political agendas (outlined quite well in books like Michael Klare's latest tome).
The most hilarious thing is that not a single one of this bunch of denier losers has any relevant expertise in any scientific field (well, that is except bush and tree pruning). They downplay the empirical evidence and the views of the vast majority of the scientific community, and then act as if they hold the intellectual high ground. Watch their poisonous reaction to this post - it will be greeted with hoots of derision but no substance. Par for the course.
Zoot, (and Karen),
There was hardly any effect with this ETS here , a 10c/litre petrol rise and the price of electricity escalated a bit more. But over in Aus it will "lock et in Eddie" for you guys . We literally do not use coal for electricity here but Juliar has got that solid black gold at 23 dollars / tonne to get her little taxing hands on. Don't kid yourself that big ears will repeal this or even be able to. He said he's a believer remember and knows that the great brainwashed is too big.
Karenmackspot, if you are going to pretend to be other people try and make it more convincing. The only thing Mack is missing are the references to rugby, sheep and "fush and chups".
Mack it is amazing that the pollies were not dragged out of office and sent to the dungeon in NZ.
NIWA was caught red handed falsifying temperature data, your glaciers are still growing and you still have to deal with this http://www.nzherald.co.nz/video/news/video.cfm?c_id=1501138&gal_cid=150…
Australia has similar problems with temperature data, see here http://joannenova.com.au/2012/06/has-north-victoria-cooled-not-warmed-a… this has been a familiar pattern across the globe.
Only the mugs in here refuse to see the temperature manipulation.
Warning note:
Karen, Mack and Betula use nothing but sites from deniers/think tanks to promote their nonsense. I have yet to see any actual published, peer-reviewed science represented here by these neophytes. Note Karen's latest clips: one showing a train clearing snow in NZ, the other from right wing blogger Joanne Nova that are NOT in any way based on science. The first has nothing to do with science anyway; the second is by a well known libertarian denier. Where are the publications?
I would like to ask the deniers on Deltoid this: why don't you all sod off and pollute one of your own myopic right wing blogs? You aren't winning hearts and minds here. Why persist? What's clear is that, since your arguments are intellectually bankrupt, your only recourse is to insult and smear others on this site. If you want to discuss the peer-reviewed literature by all means try. The problem is that its clear that none of you read the primary literature, just the corporate media or think tank related guff.
Like this for example: (or is it too complicated for you dedniers to comprehend)
Populations of migratory bird species that did not show a phenological response to climate change are declining
Anders Pape Møller*,†,
Diego Rubolini‡,†, and
Esa Lehikoinen§
Abstract
Recent rapid climatic changes are associated with dramatic changes in phenology of plants and animals, with optimal timing of reproduction advancing considerably in the northern hemisphere. However, some species may not have advanced their timing of breeding sufficiently to continue reproducing optimally relative to the occurrence of peak food availability, thus becoming mismatched compared with their food sources. The degree of mismatch may differ among species, and species with greater mismatch may be characterized by declining populations. Here we relate changes in spring migration timing by 100 European bird species since 1960, considered as an index of the phenological response of bird species to recent climate change, to their population trends. Species that declined in the period 1990–2000 did not advance their spring migration, whereas those with stable or increasing populations advanced their migration considerably. On the other hand, population trends during 1970–1990 were predicted by breeding habitat type, northernmost breeding latitude, and winter range (with species of agricultural habitat, breeding at northern latitudes, and wintering in Africa showing an unfavorable conservation status), but not by change in migration timing. The association between population trend in 1990–2000 and change in migration phenology was not confounded by any of the previously identified predictors of population trends in birds, or by similarity in phenotype among taxa due to common descent. Our findings imply that ecological factors affecting population trends can change over time and suggest that ongoing climatic changes will increasingly threaten vulnerable migratory bird species, augmenting their extinction risk.
There's a lot more from where this comes from. I wait with baitged breath to see the deniers here struggle with their kindergarten-level understanding of ecology to fathom the signifiance of these studies....
Mack, and his Karen and Sunspot personæ, do not live in New Zealand.
No-one says "I’m from NZ" if that's where they're currently living. They'd say "I live in New Zealand" or "I'm in New Zealand".
As one who has moved both nationally and internationally I've frequently noticed the difference in the various usages - even with my old kiwi flatmate. Almost universally "from" is used in the past tense... or, in this case, by someone who's trying to project oceans and continents between his sockpuppets, and vainly hope that no-one realises that he's full of it.
KarenMackSunspot, give it up. Your penchant for particular purient forms of vocabulary and your peculiar inability with sentence structure gives you away. It gave you away long ago. Even if you migrate to sockpuppets new, we'll still pick you - you're too stupid to be able to hide for long.
Maybe you need to pray to Helios Jeffery.
Yes thanks Karen.
@ Jeff Harvey , June 24th 10.05 am.
" As for Mack, you must be proud swallowing the volumes of corporate mainstream media propaganda you've been fed in dollops over the years"
WTF are you talking about.,matey Outside of your country there is no such thing as a "corporate mainstream media" But that's par for the course for you myopic,closed-minded "intellectuals" you don't think past your nose or outside your country. Like there is a thing out there and it's called the world and it has a climate dumpkoff.
More seriously you are terrified of reading Nasif Nahle because a cold hand runs over your heart realising that your entire lifes work is invalid,and all your scientific papers..well bin them ..because somebody else will. As a scientist (as one comment said) you are making a fool of youself. You attempt to make us envious of your lavish conference life but you only comfort and kid yourself.
New paper shows Arctic temps have been much warmer than the present during 8 periods over the past 2.8 million years
A new paper published in Science examined sediment records from the Russian Arctic and finds at least 8 "super interglacials" [each lasting several thousand years] with "extreme warm conditions" up to 5C warmer than the present occurred over the past 2.8 million years. Furthermore, the paper states, "Climate [model] simulations show these extreme warm conditions are difficult to explain with greenhouse gas [CO2] and astronomical forcing [solar insolation] alone." The paper also finds the Arctic warming occurred simultaneously with Antarctic warming, indicating an interconnected, global phenomenon. Implications of the paper include: 1) The globe has been much warmer without human influence during multiple periods over the past 2.8 million years, 2) IPCC climate models are incapable of reproducing past temps and therefore unable to project future temps, and 3) global warming far exceeding alarmist IPCC projections has occurred several times in the past without triggering any "tipping points."
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/new-paper-shows-arctic-tem…
Abstract
The reliability of Arctic climate predictions is currently hampered by insufficient knowledge of natural climate variability in the past. A sediment core from Lake El’gygytgyn (NE Russia) provides a continuous high-resolution record from the Arctic spanning the past 2.8 Ma. The core reveals numerous “super interglacials” during the Quaternary, with maximum summer temperatures and annual precipitation during marine benthic isotope stages (MIS) 11c and 31 ~4-5°C and ~300 mm higher than those of MIS 1 and 5e. Climate simulations show these extreme warm conditions are difficult to explain with greenhouse gas and astronomical forcing alone, implying the importance of amplifying feedbacks and far field influences. The timing of Arctic warming relative to West Antarctic Ice Sheet retreats implies strong interhemispheric climate connectivity.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2012/06/20/science.1222135
The more serious bit...... ditto for you Bernerd. The only reason I've a little more of a respect for you is because if you live the way you say you do. as a greenie at least you talk the talk and walk the walk.
Ummm........ here is anther peer review thingo for you Jeffery.
"Although past studies have explored these responses during portions of the Cenozoic era (the most recent 65.5 million years (Myr) of Earth history), comparatively little is known about the climate of the late Miocene (~12–5 Myr ago), an interval with pco2 values of only 200–350 parts per million by volume but nearly ice-free conditions in the Northern Hemisphere2, 3 and warmer-than-modern temperatures on the continents4."
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v486/n7401/full/nature11200.html
lol.............CO2...............lol
Oh dear Jeffie. When will you stop projecting your doings onto others. You are the one constantly mouthing off about right wing multi-billion illuminati obstructing climate science without, nota bene, a shred of evidence to back your silly claims up. You are thriving on conspiracy theories Jeffie, where you can make yourself a knight in shining armor fighting down evil. Pathetic.
That said I have never claimed that CAGW is a commie or UN conspiracy. On the contrary it is very dynamic and very easy to explain with tools gathered from the sociology of religions.
:-)
barnturd, it's quite amusing watching your bumbling theories, and now YOU are trying justify you eloquent theory by how someone speaks !
I reckon that you would speak like you had a mouth full of marbles and as for being a greenie, sheeeeeezeeee !
If you needed to crappola in the bush you would use your bow tie to wipe your hole.
Nup, barnturd is not a greenie, I reckon he is drowning in bad greenie investments, you won't get your doe back bernie.
Karen 9.04 am
Don't you ever get tired of being lied to by the likes of hockeyschtick? Did you miss this from the abstract:
"implying the importance of amplifying feedbacks and far field influences"
Amplifying feedbacks - ones that aren't fully understood, ones that imply we might be in even deeper shit than previously believed:
"The scientists suspect the trigger for intense interglacials might lie in Antarctica.... The results are of global significance, they believe, demonstrating strong indications of an ongoing collapse of ice shelves around the Antarctic Peninsula and at the margins of the West Antarctica Ice Sheet--and a potential acceleration in the near future."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120621195929.htm
Maybe you too need to pray to Helios sidcup.
Have you seen this siddy ?
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic…
Karen
You graph shows Southern Hemisphere SEA ICE anomaly. Ice shelves are not sea ice you dumb fuck.
So.........let me see siddy...........
Your saying that the ice shelves are going to capitalistically melt and the sea ice won't, don't you think that the sea ice might melt first ? There is no evidence of this at this time, actualy it is in the positive territory.
Did your mummy tell you scary bed time stories ?
Olaus, you ahve not provided a single scientific paper to back up your so-called arguments. I linked one - I can link a lot of others if you like.OI know you haven't got the foggiest clue about systems and population ecology, but do give it a whirl, instead of obfuscating Your sole replies have to resort to the sand bix every time. I have also suggested reading material for you to learn about the mega-funded anti-environmental lobbies out there and all you can do is reply with 'it ain't so Jeffie 'type remarks. Read, man! Read! Take your head out of your butt!!!!!
I would just lurrvvee to debate you clowns in front of an audience. Lomborg was easy - he won''t debate me any more since I skewered him here 10 years ago. And by comparison, Ollie, you'd be a cupcake. No science, just silly retorts.
Karen: What has a study about ice conditions in the Miocene got to do with anthropogenic climate change? Zilch. The changes that occurred earlier probably took thousands of years to manifest themselves, not the space of half a century. This is the crux of the matter. We are talking about scale. Get that through your simple skull, will you? There have been 5 grerat extinction events preceding the current one in the planet's history. Does that mean that the latest one - the result of human actions across the biosphere - is nothing to worry about? Or that humans cannot be responsible for the extinctions in the first place because the previous ones were primarily based on geological/astronomical phenomena? And again the scales we are talking about pale in comparison with past ones. The extinction of dinosaurs at the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary was relatively rapid - it took about 15,000-20,000 years to be played out. The current extinction event is occurring in about 1-5% of that time. Again, we must think of temporal scales. Past climate events do not in any way weaken the huige and still growing evidence that humans are forcing changes in a largely deterministic climate system at scales way beyond the norm.
Mack: you are evn more stupid than Karen, if that is indeed possible. You write, Outside of your country there is no such thing as a “corporate mainstream media”. Good grief man, who owns most of the media? In the US NBC is owned by General Electric, Fox by Rupert Murdoch, ABC by Time-Warner et al. Most of the major newspapers in the world are part of publishing empires, or depend on corporate advertising for their survival. The advertisers are not going to take kindly to articles that threaten the status quo and profit margins. But I won't waste my breath on your brand of ignorance,k as I might as well be discussing this with one of the Brassicaceous plants I use in my research. Its clear that you aren't out of the crib in your knowledge of the MSM and parent/ownership agendas.
Essentially, this site is littered with Dunning-Kruger acolytes who think they know a lot about areas in whichthey have no basic understanding at all. No wonder my colleagues say that I am wasting my breath with you lot of idiots. The playing field not only isn't level, its a chasm. Thanks heaven thatmost of the Contributors - Bernard, Bill, Wow, Chek, Ianam, John, Lotharsson, Marco et al. are intelligent people. Karen, Mack, Betual, Duff, Olaus - what a lot of detritus you all are.
"...don’t you think that the sea ice might melt first ?"
Has it occurred to you that some of that increasing 'sea' ice is partly extra land ice that's broken off the receding ends of faster moving glaciers? It's (partly) a sign of ice lost from elsewhere in the system. Much like the currently increasing sea ice in the Greenland Sea is merely showing the movement of ice from further north on its inevitable path to melting out somewhere between Greenland and Iceland.
Nothing in the Arctic or Antarctic is as simple as you might like.
"Furthermore, I’d like to extend a big “fuck you” to the small group of sad individuals on the other side of this “debate” – you know who you are, you bunch of losers."
Yes, they just don't realize that denying science is a losing strategy. Always has been, always will be. Any other type of strategy has a better chance of success than science denial. If they had any sense, they'd realize that past science denial campaigns (e.g. tobacco, ozone, asbestos, other forms of pollution) have all ended in failure. But they don't have any sense.
First recorded loss of an emperor penguin colony in the recent period of Antarctic regional warming: implications for other colonies.
Mack:
Epic foreign language Fail.
Karen:
Epic English fail.
Hmmmm, coincidence...or something else?
And:
Epic logic Fail. (Both on the part of the commenter, and Nahle himself when one reads him.)
"Have you seen this siddy ?"
That moron Karen would never think to change "antarctic" to "arctic":
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png
Cited by Karen:
"Climate simulations show these extreme warm conditions are difficult to explain with greenhouse gas and astronomical forcing alone, implying the importance of AMPLIFYING FEEDBACKS and far field influences."
This is known in some circles as an "own goal". What a brainless moron Karen is. Keep digging.
Climate simulations ?
So far they have all failed miserably, barnturds tea leaves would be more accurate.
"… you are terrified of reading Nasif Nahle…"
Every time you read something from that clown, your IQ drops 10 points.
You, sunspot, are an example of just that effect.
Lotharsson I can see that your a real wiz at finance :-P
http://www.acronymfinder.com/Direct-Operating-Expense-%28financial-mana…
Lotharsson -
'Dumpkoff' - that was a reference to 'Karl Marks', wasn't it?
When you think about it, given the continual - and humiliating - acting-out of an anal fixation, 'dumpkoff' is about right.
Here's something - apart from the identical sub-literacy and Freudian fixations, try watching out for* -
One: " *consistent double quotation marks, often with weird spacings* "
Two: any other punctuation with weird spacings* .
Three: exclamations or interrogations - often multiple - with weird spacings* !!!
Four: elongated ellipses..........with no spacings at all!
five: sentences that are not initially capitalised.
Six sentences that are not punctuated at all
Seven:. sentences. that 'are, randomly Punctuated
Eight: names switch from capital to no capital more-or-less randomly, even in the same sentence; e.g. jeff, Bill, Jeffie, bill etc..
Nine: The Grocer's Apostrophe!
Because I put it to you that each of our 2 'individuals' consistently does each of the above. I mean, really, what are the odds?
Now, I reckon it could well do your head in, KarenMcSpot, trying to 'prove' your way out of this one!
Also - which of 'you' uses which smartarse version of Bernard's name - and do you reckon you always remember that right? ;-)
Could someone here please point me to a one hundred year chart for the ice volume for the Antarctic continent ?
Yoo leed An exyting lyph birdbrain *!(!!!!
Could someone here please also point me to a one hundred year chart for the ice volume for the Arctic ?
Jeffie, call the doctor, you are hallucinating! Why should I try to convince myself about something I'm already convinced about? Are you nuts, for real?
Self idolatry is your forte, we all know that. But please stop posing in front of the mirror (trying to fit your hand in the dress shirt) while reciting from Taxi driver. You make an utter fool out of yourself, angry face and all.
The multi-billion dollar right wing conspiracy is still hidden I see, only to be detected by the initiated. What a surprise – not.
A.k.a. clown-trolling - flinging the pie in one's own face. The commenter "Sunspot" was a highly accomplished expert at it. Almost every single link posted by Sunspot refuted Sunspot's claims.
I can see you're very poor at post hoc rationalisation.
Olaus Petri said:
The only thing in this that is bogus is your misrepresentation of the Fretwell et al paper.
I tried to tell you gently before, Olaus Petri, but you blithely ignored my earlier comment...
I know one of the authors on the paper, and I have corresponded with another. They most vehemently disagree with the way that many people have twisted their results, in the same way that you have. Some of them have in fact tried to correct the record at various sites, and have for their troubles received abuse for having the temerity to explain the truth to the climate change deniers.
P. Lewis has already explained to you, at 9:27 am on 21 June, that the earlier figures were from studies that did not attempt a continent-encompassing survey. Further, as the Fretwell et al paper notes, Wienecke 2009 casts serious doubt on the finesse of the estimate in Martinez's contribution to Handbook of the Birds of the World
Vol 1 in 1992.
The simple fact is that Martinez had a good guesstimate of the number of emperor penguins in parts of Antarctica, and 20 years later Fretwell et al had the technology to derive a much more accurate estimate for the whole of the continent. The paper says as much:
Fretwell et al were measuring a different parameter (the total number of adult emperor penguins) , and one that could very well be decreasing even though it is currently larger than the incomplete Martinez estimate from 1992.
Fretwell's et al results do not indicate any increase in penguin numbers - the authors I have spoken to have told me this - and they will require up to a decade of further surveying to detect any real change in the population dynamics of the species.
I seriously doubt that you actually read the paper, because you have completely misrepresented the very clear nature of the statements it makes. If you did read and understand it, then you are deliberately lying about its meaning. Either way, you have followed in the footsteps of many other people who have similarly and grossly misrepresented Fretwell et al 2012.
I did the truly sceptical thing and read the paper. After that I did an even more sceptical thing and spoke to the authors. You are completely and utterly wrong in your representation of their work. You owe them an apology, you owe the people on this thread an apology, and you owe truth an apology.
The ball is in your court.
Why? You'd merely ignore it sunspot.
(And finance.)
Bernie boy, I read what was said in the paper. I can't read the minds of your friends though. The article states noting about a real decline of jefferor penguins. Some "mays" and "ifs" in found in a crystal ball, that all. SO if you have a problem with that take it up with them, not me.
Deal with it, cry baby. Prancing around with the tail in the air talking about what your penguin friends didn't write in their paper isn't that impressive.
Like I have said all along, the paper is only valid regarding the census, ant that didn't show a decline. If anything it showed the opposite. And since the ice in antarctica is gaining mass it should be a warning sign of an unprecedented...;-)
Yawn! I see OP is still going on about increasing penguin numbers. What an absolute plonker!
Now, for sure, accurate estimates of emperor penguin numbers continent-wide have been lacking. As better methods for estimating numbers become available, those earlier numbers change. Those more accurate estimates can lead to numbers going up or down. It just so happens they've gone up. But just because the more recent estimate of penguin numbers has gone up, this doesn't mean that the actual numbers have gone up... or down.
What is certain is that in the half-dozen or so sites where colonies have been actively observed over many years and numbers are known with reasonable accuracy (such as Jenouvrier et al. study site at Terre Adélie and in the link to the former colony on Emperor Island given above) the numbers are in definite decline.
OP is just pissing into the katabatic winds off the continent when he talks about the numbers going up.
[Well followed up BJ.]
The only investment of any kind that I have is my family.
Sorry, you illiterate bastard, but you'll have to try harder.
By the way, KarenMackSunspot, in which country to you live?
You knwo, I don't know if the deniers here are just all wilfully ignorant (WI), or plainly stupid (PS). In the case of Olaus, I will be kind and go with WI. He writes, with respect to the science behind AGW and other anthropogenic threats to the environment, "[its] easy to explain with tools gathered from the sociology of religions".
Oh. So that mails it then. Now I know why I went through seven years of university studying zoology and a PhD, undertook several post docs and now have a career as a senior scientist. It was my religious fervor! For that matter, it explains why tens of thousands of researchers around the world are trying to unravel and elucidate complex biotic and abiotic processes. Its linked to the sociology of religions. Got it.
This is supposed the be the foundation for a debate? I might as well be conversing with an ameoba.
Then there is Karen. She leans towards the plainly stupid side. She completely misinterprets a Science article showing that there were times in the recent past (meaning several hundred thousand to almost 3 million years ago) when conditions were warmer than today. She didn't determine the temporal scale over which those conditions changed from cooler to warmer (or vice versa), which may have been played out over tens of thousands of years. The authors in no way dispute the reality of the current human fingerprint on the current warming. Moreover, species, populations, individuals and ecosystems at those times were adapted over many millenia to ambient conditions. Karen's argument is like saying that, because atmsopheric concentrations of C02 were once twice or three times higher than they are now, then the current increase in this parameter is nothing to worry about. But again, it depends critically upon what C02 regimes the plant and animal life evolved under.. If ambient temperatures and C02 regimes were higher at various epochs in the past, then the extant biota was also adapted to those conditions. The problem is that contemporary biodiversity across the planet is not adapted to conditions of the Micoene, or Pliocene, or Eocene or lower Cretaceous. Current species and genotypes are adapted to much lower C02 regimes and lower ambient temperatures. Certainly over extended evolutionary time species and the communities in which they are a part will adapt, but not at the rates at which humans are changing the surface temperatures of the planet and the chemistry of the atmosphere. Adaptation is a process which generally takes thousands of years if not longer. Yet humans are altering natural systems in the blink of an evolutionary eye: a century or even less. This is what the cornucopians cannot get through their (mostly) uneducated thick heads: the importance of scale. To them 50 years is a long time; 80 years is an eternity. To natural systems its an unprecedented challenge. To make matters worse, humans are not only tinkering with the planet's climate control system, but we are altering the face of the planet in a myriad of other ways. We've decimated marine food chains by overharvesting species at the end of them, totally disrupting their functioning. We have changed the nutrient status of many aquatic systems, turning oligotrophic systems into highly eutrophic ones in the space of 50 years. We are reducing biological diversity - meansingdifferent genotypes and species - at rates unseen in 65 million years. These are the working parts of ourt global ecological life support systems. We have clear cut 50% of tropical wet forests, increased pressure on dryland habitats, thus expanding the extent of deserts, and are sucking groundwaters out at many times their recharge rates. We have doused much of the planet in synthetic organic pollutants, and have denatured many soils through overuse and acid precipitation. On top of this we are driving changes in climate at rates that would never occur without some major external forcing.
None of the deniers here are remotley capable of debating these issues, because none of them are scientists. If they'd read a little about global change scenarios, they might at least know the basics, but instead they rely on blogs like WUWT, Bishops's Hill, Joanne Nova, CA etc. for their views. Why is this? None of the deniers who run these blogs is a bonafide scientist.Certainly none of these people are trained in environmental science. But they are alluring to those whose political ideologies are based on unconstrained free markets and deregulation of the economy. Forget the science.
Then Mack, another PS acolyte, has to dredge up Nasif Nahle for his 'science'. Nahle appears never have published an article in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Instead, he contributes to right wing blogs, where his nonsense is asafe from real scrutiny by experts in the field. When I see Nahle's stuff on the pages of a journal, I will take note. But until then he is not worth the time of day in my opinion.
To be honest, I am wasting my valuable time here, as are the majority of other contributors who take on these idiots. I have yet to see Olaus concretely address a single point I and others have made. He forever accuses me of 'self-idolatry' because his hero, Jonas, made the same vqacuous remark. Listen Olaus: if the shoe fits, wear it. If you want an intellectual debate on environmental science, go ahead and try. Of course I know more than you because I have spend the past 20 years of my life researching population ecology. That's not self-idolatry: that's the simple truth. Just like I would say that James Hansen and Michael Mann know a lot more about climate science than either I or you do. Because that is their field of expertise. You don't have much of a clue about anything to do with the environment, that's patently clear to me.
Dear Jeffie, as usual you think everything is about you. True is that you behave and reason like a religions buff in cloth, but you alone isn't CAGW. ;-)
And I didn't address AGW, mind you. Its the preachers of doom, aka CAGW, that is the unscientific part of climate science, e.g raging ecologist foaming about conspiracies, evil puppet masters and right wing elders while studying nothing remotely connected to real climate science.
Amen!
No, you read what you wanted to see in the paper. Or, at least what you wanted to see in what your denialist mates told you was in the paper.
You don't need to read minds. You only need to read the paper, and to understand the very clear and straighforward science contained therein.
Unfortunately for you, even that basic ability was beyond you.
FFS, the paper wasn't about decline, it was about establishing a decent baseline for future work that can detect change in population dynamics.
You're acting like a fool.
I have no problem with the paper whatsoever. And yet I did follow it up with them.
If you had genuinely wanted to make a supportable statement contrary to what the paper said, you would have done the same thing.
You didn't follow up, because you didn't want to hear confirmation that the paper didn't say what you wanted it to say, which was in direct and stark contradiction to what it actually said.
What, deal with being correct? Fine.
Idiot.
I'm talking about what my friends did write in the paper, and they didn't write what you said they had written.
Oh, you blundering idiot! How could it show a decline, when it is a baseline paper?! It's measuring different things to previous work, so it can't be compared to previous work. It would be no different to China doing a census of its population, and then comparing that number to a UN census, 20 years later, of all of Asia.
Are you really as silly as you're demonstrating yourself to be?!
Odin on a stick. That is complete bollocks. How on earth do you come to this conclusion? There is simply nothing validly compare the new number to, although there is a lot of other evidence to indicate that the overall numbers are going the other way.
Garbage.
As is everything you type.
if you disagree, start putting forward something defensible. For a change.
Dear Bernie, exactly my point. The paper wasn't about a decline of penguins. So why then all these heavy emotions and this sharing of your friends "thoughts" on the matter?
And there is no contradiction to be found in trying to create a baseline to see if the number of jefferor penguins will be affected in the future and to note that the census showed a number higher than a count made before:
“We estimated the breeding population of emperor penguins at each colony during 2009 and provide a population estimate of ~238,000 breeding pairs (compared with the last previously published count of 135,000–175,000 pairs).”
Read the above slowly Bernie, if possible to your friends too. I know the results weren't reached using the same method, but nonetheless, if anything, it says that the numbers are greater than previously understood.
An increase. And since you guys are worried that ice loss will threaten the penguins you should be happy. Maybe unprecedented high levels of penguins coming our way?
Or should I worry about that too? ;-)
Jeff Hardly....
Are you saying I didn't prove you're an embellishing egotistical liar for the cause? Really? In my dreams?
Let's take a look at this repost from the May open thread:
May 5, 10:39 am
Anyone see this brief article about Jeff Harvey’s Algonquin trip awhile back?
http://www.nioo.knaw.nl/en/node/2137
A few of the lines in this article caught my attention:
Jeff: "On our trip we experienced climate change at first hand”
Jeff: “In my work as an ecologist I work on shifting zones, and here I could see it in real.”
I was curious. Why didn’t Jeff mention the climate change he saw or experienced first hand? Was he misleading the reader? Was he exaggerating? Can someone actually see climate change first hand and realize it’s climate change and not weather?
I had to know, so I asked on the April thread and then again here:
@66…”Jeff, I don’t doubt that plant zones are constantly shifting to some degree, but could you share some, if any, of the ecological consequences you experienced first hand?”
After some back and forth which included displays of Jeff’s past uncivil behaviour, I finally received a response @78 stating:
“I haven’t answered your question because I think you may be too stupid to understand it.” Of course, I forgave him for this because, as we all know, he has a superiority complex.
This was followed by a 370 word rambling @78 that didn’t answer the question. Of course, I forgave him for that because I realize he can’t help himself and he thinks I’m too stupid to realize he didn’t answer the question.
After his usual rambling, Jeff seemed to have an afterthought and realized he didn’t answer the question…so he answers it @79:
“As far as first hand goes, I’d need to look into the soil. But given I was there in winter (a warm winter at that), of course I can’t describe things first hand.”
End of May Post.
So, Jeff embellishes for the article with a lie about experiencing climate change first hand.....we know it's a lie because he states on Deltoid "of course I can't describe things first hand"....not knowing I read the article.
Yes Jeff, you are an embellishing egotistical lying sack who's ramblings are only significant in your dreams...
Jeff Hardly....@11:54.
An example of a letter to himself...sealed with a kiss.
"Now I know why I went through seven years of university studying zoology and a PhD, undertook several post docs and now have a career as a senior scientist."
Shorter OP: I just found some loose change in the couch, so my net worth must not have been declining over the last year like I thought!
"Sometimes during our ‘polar plod"
oh gawd ! He thought he was at the north pole, lol
and his, fwend got frost bite on his face while Jeff was seeing glowbull warming first hand.
hahahaha, unbelievable,
and this, hehe
"We have talked about crossing Iceland in winter for ages, and now that we’ve managed this, anything is possible!”
hahaha, better take your ice spikes, gettin over a couple of is nothing to crossing Iceland in the winter, or even summer, go for it Jeffrey,I can't wait for this
Lothar, care to add something on the topic? That the penguins are doing fine or that the prediction (based on future ice loss) really weren't up to scientific par? ;-)
Olau Petri.
I see that you might actually have a learning and/or comprehension difficulty, so I will try to use little words.
Prior to the work of Fretwell et al 2012, there was a "global population estimate of 135,000–175,000 pairs [13]". The emphasis is mine, and the reference "[13]" is to:
However, Martinez' estimate was based on a less accurate methodology, and did not include "16 of the 46 colonies (see Figure 3)", as explained in the paper's Results.
Contrast this to the work of Fretwell et al 2012. In case you missed it the first, second, and third times around, F12 surveyed 46 sites - 16 more than the last prior survey (Martinez, ~1992) - to derive a population estimate of 238,000 breeding pairs. That's a 35% increase in the number of colonies surveyed, to account for the additional pairs. Even if there is an overall decrease in emperor penguin numbers, the additional sites included in the survey can easily offset this. Are you really so intellectually-impaired that you can't understand this?!
One simply cannot compare the two numbers to infer anything about population dynamics. They are measuring completely different things. Not even when you protest:
No, no, NO!
The F12 numbers are irrelevant to anything previously understood, in terms of population dynamcis. The paper stresses this; the authors explicitly tell me this.
You are wrong, wrong, and a thousand times wrong
That is what you should be worringing about.
Good grief, no! You've already done a more than adequate job at demonstrating you don't understand what you're talking about already. The fact that others have explained the exact source of several of your deep confusions only further reinforces my lack of need to add anything to the demonstration.
Bernard, you have to remember that Petard - like Brent and Jonarse (and with similar results) - belongs to the school of 'thought' that posits that as long as you can read and parse like a lawyer (and as dishonestly as they do), you can understand science. No further education is required - certainly none in any relevant field
He will no more ever understand what you are trying to impart any more than he will give up his dearly held delusion.
Bernard, you have to remember that Petard – like Brenda and Jonarse (and with similar results) – belongs to the school of ‘thought’ that would have us believe that as long as you can read and parse like a lawyer (and as dishonestly as they do), you can understand science. No further education is required – certainly none in any relevant field. Myron Ebell's protégés in all their incompetent glory.
He will no more ever understand what you are trying to impart any more than he will give up his dearly held delusion.
A belly up then Lothar. Good for you, but next time please use fewer words. "No mas" will do it, promise. Conclusion: The emperor penguins are doing ok and the attempts to make a scare out of them were based on false premises.
What have we learned so far, besides the usual stuff that deltoids having an authoritarian mind set lacking critical thinking? Obviously that intolerant scare mongers don't now the difference between crystal balling and science. They buy into anything involving a bit of a scare. Science? No! Strong feelings and a full monty? Yes! ;-)
Eh? It's critical thinking that exposed your lack of the same.
All you've managed to come up with is silly blather that you can't defend, topped with what seems to be a snide little racist slur.
Reiterated bollocks remains bollocks. (Few enough words for Your Wordiness?)
Ah, projection at its finest.
My, my...a bit angry are we? Like I said Bernie and Lothar, "no mas" will do just fine. ;-)
And very correct Lothar. When somebody points out that there is no need for a scare wrt emperor penguins and people still believe it is, there must be something missing: critical thinking. ;-)
Wrong on that too. At least you're consistent.
Fixed it for you.
Olaus Petri:
P. Lewis has already indicated to you at, 10:06 am on 24 June, that there is evidence that emperor penguins are vulnerable to increase in contemporary mean global temperature, with respect to the overall Holocene mean.
Many of those who believe that there is reason for concern for this (and for many other) species are biologists, including physiologists and ecologists. We understand much better than do you the biophysics of cold-adapted metabolisms, and of the ecology of species dependent on ice-based habitats, and we understand that what matters for the continued successful survival of such species are the dynamics of processes of change that operate over many decades and centuries.
Your persistent nonsensical misinterpretation of Fretwell et al is not a sign of your own genius; it is simply proof to the world that you don't understand fairly straighforward science.
The thing that is missing is certainly "critical thinking", but to reiterate it is missing from what passes for thought processes in the minds of such as you.
It's the same pattern of ignoring the elephants that Tim Curtin displays. Seriously, there's a whole orchard of fruit for the picking in the field of denialist psychology...
And Petri, if your "no mas" is intended to mean what it appears to mean - your non-fluence in English acknowledged - then your 'humour' is of the most morally repugnant sort, and of such a magnitiude that you truly deserve a permanent ban from this forum.
Karen/Mack/Olaus/Betula - tail-spinning through a glittering mental house of mirrors reinforced by a circular recourse to denial projection and displacement all the way to rock bottom.
Low comedy or high tragedy? It's hard to say.
Sorry Bernie, even though your performance here makes one think of a punching bag, I didn't know you were a complete boxing illiterate. ;-)
To calm you down "No mas" refers to a famous line from a boxing match between Roberto Duran and Sugar Ray Leonard:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roberto_Durán#No_M.C3.A1s
Betula,
Go back to pruning bushes. Its about as far as close to 'science' as you will ever get. You are a disgrace to humanity. If you think my trek across Algonquin Park and its aim (to describe the effects of climate change in the region) make me a liar, then you really ought to get away from your pruning shears more. I'll present you with lots and lots and lots of references detailing the effects of recent warming on species and species-interactions in aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, but you don't want to know any of that, do you? You want to think you scored a great big brownie point because I did not present a lengthy and immediate list of examples where climate change is affecting the transition zone in Ontario. You moron: without doing detailed research on the region I can only speculate what effects there are. But `I want to make one point very clear, bush pruner: colleagues at the University of Toronto have already noted changes in the distributions of plants in the region, and have mapped the possible scenarios based on AR4. I also noted that insect and spider activity in the park was occurring in January, which is ridiculously early for an area with an average daily temperature of -7 and night minimum of -19. That these inverts were foraging at a time when they should be in diapause is clear evidence that something is amiss. And this is just in the short term - the space of one winter. If you knew anything remotely about ecology - which, in spite of your bush pruning you clearly do not - you'd realize that effects are manifested over many years. Is climate change a very real threat to areas at the borders of biome? You bet it is. You, Betula, exhibit all of the characteristics of the despicable deniers I have debated and challenged over the years of being a research scientist. Lomborg was easy, hence why he won't debate me in a public forum any more. The main characteristic is in setting up strawmen such as expecting me to prove on the basis of a 23 day hike that warming was evidenced in the park. I did not write the press release but I sure as hell stand by it. If this is the best that you can do, you can jump into a very deep lake.
Karen, Olaus: I am sure that it does not pass by the lay reader that, when challenged on the kindergarten level of your 'science' (me at 11:54) your response,as expected, is mindless drivel (Karen, at 1:33, Olaus at 12:23) . Note to readers: deniers like Olaus and Karen make big noises, but when these are shot down, they resort to the usual innuendoes and witless remarks. If you two morons are as clever as you think you are, then see if you are capabale of discussing the reasons why abiotic conditions in the Miocene or Oligocene or Mesozoic are irrelevant to what is happening today. See if you can understand the process of scale. Or is this too much for your pea-sized brains?
Hardly....
"If you think my trek across Algonquin Park and its aim (to describe the effects of climate change in the region) make me a liar, then you really ought to get away from your pruning shears more"
No, I think you make you a liar..
"You moron: without doing detailed research on the region I can only speculate what effects there are"
Yes, speculation, the backbone of climate change. So you were embellishing on speculations...nice.
"But `I want to make one point very clear, bush pruner: colleagues at the University of Toronto have already noted changes in the distributions of plants in the region, and have mapped the possible scenarios based on AR4"
So you saw speculations and heard about possible scenarios first hand. Why didn't you just say that in the first place?
"I also noted that insect and spider activity in the park was occurring in January, which is ridiculously early for an area with an average daily temperature of -7 and night minimum of -19. That these inverts were foraging at a time when they should be in diapause is clear evidence that something is amiss."
Really? What was the temperature and what were the species? If it's your first trek through Algonquin in the winter, how do you know this is ridiulously early? I thought, I mean you thought you were a genius:
http://www.americanarachnology.org/JoA_free/JoA_v12_n3/arac_12_3_0297.p…
God, now we're having pond-life accusing others of lying...
Top tip plonker - just posting a link to something you found on Google in 20 seconds means nothing unless you also point out how and where it actually proves anyone wrong.
And I look forward to you doing that because being a bog-standard thick-headed Denier regurgi-bot you're just going to get creamed.
I mean, what sort of question is this: 'If it’s your first trek through Algonquin in the winter, how do you know this is ridiulously early?'. Um, 'literature'? 'Research'?
Do you ever simply despair of being so dense, boorish, and, well, simply pointless you sad, irrelevant little troll?
Mack - I've been talking to my friend in Onehunga and he reckons you're talking crap about the price rises due to the ETS. Maybe you should brush up on your Google skills.
So you were apparently telling me to say "I quit" to your "case" about penguins, even as I was telling you there was no point me adding to the evidence that you were deeply embarrassingly wrong on the facts and in your logic?
Tell me, when has the tactic of bluffing against people who know what they're talking about from a position of your own ignorance and error worked for you in the past?
No Lothar, I was telling you to yield with less empty words. Pay attention will ya.
I'm quite satisfied knowing that the penguins are doing ok and that the ice scare was just what it was: a scare without scientific substance.
You should be happy about me bringing good news to your doorstep. Why aren't you? ;-)
" What was the temperature"
Clearly higher than the average, imbecile.
"how do you know this is ridiulously early"
Presumably because the area has an "average daily temperature of -7 and night minimum of -19".
http://www.americanarachnology.org/JoA_free/JoA_v12_n3/arac_12_3_0297.p…
Sigh. You're really too stupid to comprehend that the paper supports Jeff, even if you just read the abstract.
I wasn't yielding.
You should try it sometime. See "thread, this".
I will be, should you ever manage to do so.
Uh, right, because no más is a boxing term rather than a very common phrase that occurs in all sorts of contexts. Oh, and your use of it was not an instance of the sort of imbecilic projection you are known for.
Apparently you're a boxing illiterate, who thinks that Leonard told Durán to say "no más". Here's a clue for you, moron: it doesn't work that way. No one is going to say "no más" to you because, unlike SRL, you completely and utterly suck and cannot land a blow.
Some more peer reviewed proof that glowbull warming just aint global.
Elephant seals help uncover slower-than-expected Antarctic melting
http://www.agu.org/news/press/pr_archives/2012/2012-31.shtml
Zoot,
9c/ litre...10c /litre or whatever.. pedantic stuff.
Jeff Harvey.
Yeah in your opinion you "havn't got the time of day" for Nasif Nahle. . No, its just that you are not exactly up with your atmospheric quantam thermodynamics are you Jeff.
In fact you don't know shit from clay do you Jeff.
I think Jeff's great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great grandaddy told him that glowbull warming longer in the old day's.
Here is another peer reviewed study, and yep, warming happened to these people and no doubt the biota also.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/05/24/1112743109.abstract
Inamnam, anything you want to add besides feelings from a fetus potion?
O yes we have pedantic , semantic pricks here. It was quantum.
oh deary me, barnturd will be chocking at the bit to tease me again.
grandaddy told him that glowbull warming "TOOK" longer in the old day’s.
sorry again barnturd :)
Petard - your thorough lack of understanding is beginning to make Tim Curtin seem like a genius. Which he most certainly is not, by the way.
The most tragic thing is that you (and he) have had plenty of learning opportunities presented to you (as they say in modern-speak) but you're so enamoured of your own facile stupidity - which you astoundingly mistake for cleverness - that you're unable to take advantage of them. It's armoured denialism on steroids in action.
No Mack, its just that I am a scientist, a real one, not someone who runs a blog and whose so-called research is confined to that blog or to right wing denial sites. If Nahle's 'science' is so good, then the guy would send it to a journal where it will be critically reviewed by peers with expertise in the area, not fawned over by denialist hacks like Joanne Nova who are pushing political agendas.
The very fact that Nahle has never published in the peer-reviewed literaure says it all and means that his stuff will never be taken seriously in the mainstream. All kinds of gibberish ends up on the internet from flat Earth theories to alchemy and the like. This is why science is kept safe by peer-review. Certainly its not a perfect system but its the best we have, and certainly better than the garbage you read that placates your simpleton right wing brain.
I will give Betula some credit - he has told us that his profession is to prune trees and bushes. Why on Eareth a guy in a job like this would support those intent on taking our planet's life support systems to hell is beyond me, but, then again, it takes all types. Perchance, I would be interested to know what professions you, Olaus and Karen have.Its clear that the three of you ahve never set foiot near a university science lecture, so what is it that you actually do? At least you know who I am. My qualifications are clearly available for anyone who wants to read them. To his credit, we also know who Nahle is, although that makes it easy to see he has no relevant professional expertise in the many fields on which he writes. To do that he needs to publish. Until he does, I am afrais that his brand of physics doesn't make the cut.
Karen and Olaus: I would like to reiterate what I asked you yesterday. What do conditions in the Miocene have to do with those today. How do conditions in the past relate to conditions under which contemporary biota evolved? In your opinion, how would ecosystem functioning and services differ under different abiotic condtions? And what do you think of the importance of temporal and spatial scales in relation to adaptive radiation of genotypes, species, communities, ecosystems and biomes? How would you reconcile the differing theories accounting for species distributions - MaCarthur and Wilson's Theory of Island Biogeography against the more recent Neutral Theory by Hubble? And how does this all play out under different scenarious of global change?
I wait with baited breath for your deeply intellectual responses.
Coming from an anally-fixated, barely-educated, subliterate sockpuppet that plays 'The Thing That Wouldn't Shut Up' on the Internet that's, um, really going to hurt
KarenMackSpot.
In which country do you live - Australia, the USA, or the UK?
"atmospheric quantam (sic) thermodynamics "
Well, there's Karenmackspots annual supply of big words almost used up. I say almost only because there was no opportunity to fit 'gummint' or 'marmalde' in that context.
Karenmackspot, the reason Nahle posts in blogs is because he's sad enough to require the adulation of illiterate numpties. Hence why his 'work' isn't science because it isn't published in actual journals for review by his peers.
I would though pay good money to see you define "atmospheric quantam (sic) thermodynamics, " in your own words, live on stage.
Olaus Petri.
For once you are correct - I have little interest or experience with boxing.
I do know, however, a professional basketballer who is almost a foot taller than me, and if anyone ever said "no mas" to him, the offender would have both his arms ripped off and his face slapped with the wet ends.
Why do you think that might be?
Oh, and Olaus Petri - you're still completely and utterly wrong about the emperor penguins.
That's just not going to change.
"I'm afraid his brand of physics doesn't make the cut"
Aaahahahahahahahaha
And what "brand of physics" have you got to offer Jeff baby Some sort of AGW brand . Yes an "AGW brand of physics" You know a special brand of physics to "make the cut" and suit your bent requirements. But where is it Jeff ? What is this brand of physics that will "make the cut" And you of course will determine what makes the cut. What an arrogant, ignorant tosser you are.
KarenMackSpot, can you ask KarenMackSpot in which country he lives?
Mack, you sad sack,
You are about as intelligent as an ox. That ain't sayin' much.
I never claimed to be a physicist. But if I was, I would not get my world's view from unpublished people on right wing contrarian blogs.My guess is that you know even less physics than me. That being the case, since when are you able to judge whether Nahle's blog-variety 'science' is better than that found in the pages of numerous scientific journals?
The answer should be obvious. You can't, probably because you've never read the primary literature in your life. Instead, you like Nahle's 'science' because you dislike the ramifications the real stuff performed in science labs and universities around the world and published where it matters.
Come on Mack, you dumb schmuck, you must be able to do better than this.
Homeschooled, I reckon.
"You can’t, probably because you’ve never read the primary literature in your life."
Be fair. He's not read Nahle's stuff either.
WOW,
"He"s not read Nahle's stuff either" Wrong. I'm in the comments pretty well all the way through. Pop over there and take a look wow . :)
Nope, I'm right: you haven't read Nahle's work.
Wow, he may have read Nahle's stuff, but UNDERSTANDING the field is another story altogether... and how much of the REAL literature has Mack read?
My guess: little or none. He's another one of those whose science education is by right wing blog.
"Bernard J.
10:17 am
KarenMackSpot.
"In which country do you live – Australia, the USA, or the UK?"
barnturd, if you thinking about trying to get a date with me FORGET IT !!
Can't you see I'm already having a threesome !
KarenMackSpot.
Fine, be coy. All I wanted to do was to point out that your socks post contemporaneously, when they're supposed to be in different countries. However, your confession to being a sock puppeteer is sufficient for me - from now on we can all take it for granted that you don't deny being a lone and a rather unintelligent numpty who talks to himself, but can't ever engage in anything scientific.
At least now it's official.
Good grief, that concept has to be too advanced for them!
"he may have read Nahle’s stuff"
Nah, he's read what he's been told. he hasn't read the paper. You can cut and paste and to know when to end you've read the words, but only in the sense that you were following when the sentence ended. It's not even to the level of understanding, it's missing even comprehension.
Think of the advertising. You're reading a page with ads on it, and that's as far as Mack goes in reading Nahle's work.
Tim, this blog has degenerated to a shouting match in a lunatic asylum. Maybe it is time to retire Deltoid. It's been a great source of information, particularly with regard to Chris Mitchell's war on climate science and other loons such as Monckton. However reading through some of the posts here it'sclearly become a magnet for denier carpertbombers and obfusicators like Olas, Karen et. al.
I expect running a blog like this requires a lot of your free time and as such takes you away from your family and other commitments. Perhaps you could guest post on other sites such as De Smog, Climate Progress or Skeptical Science. I'm sure, given your standing amongst normal and sane climate bloggers, your contributions would be welcome.
Anyway, that's just a suggestion. Cheers, Mark.
KarerMackSpot: @6:45am
Wrong. They investigated a small part of eastern Antarctic to find out why melting was slower than expected (but still taking place). Even if that area were not warming, so what? No-one has ever claimed that warming would be uniformly distributed across the globe.
Your other link a few comments later emphasizes the vulnerability of a civilization to climate change. I'm not sure how this is supposed to support your views.
Why is it met with so much hate and anger that the great threat to emperor penguins wasn't a real one?
Bernie even came running with his penguin friends rambling about something besides the point, and now he tops it off with a basketball player.
:-)
*Why is it met with so much hate and anger that the great threat to emperor penguins wasn’t a real one?*
Try telling that to the other 10-40% of birds, mammals and vascular plants that are threatened with extinction, or the approx. 30,000 genetically distinct populations that disappear daily (Hughes et al., 1998).
Besides, Petri, you are wrong anyway. Explain why the IUCN recently placed the Emperor Penguin on the status of 'threatened'... or is this too much to ask of your unscientific brain?
Jeff Hardley...
"I will give Betula some credit – he has told us that his profession is to prune trees and bushes. Why on Eareth a guy in a job like this would support those intent on taking our planet’s life support systems to hell is beyond me, but, then again, it takes all types"
The great Jeff Harvey....spends his life with his nose in the literature, when he finally goes outside for a few weeks, he sees a spider and throws out a general statement that something is amiss.....no other facts given. We're all suppose to assume and speculate as he does.
Unlike you Jeff, I don't lie to embellish the facts and I don't have a superiority complex. Yet it needs to be said, while you have been cooped up with your papers and advocacy journalism, I have spent over 30 years in the field dealing with the things you read about, which includes your predatory insect friends.
At 52 years old, I don't personally prune trees and shrubs anymore, but consider it an honor that you say I do. I have many crews that do that sort of thing...
By maintaining the health of plant material through proper pruning techniques, diagnosing and treating for insects and disease, correcting cultural problems, fertilization and the use of soil ammendments, I have saved thousands of trees over the years, improved the health of thousands more, and planted a thousand more. Meanwhile, you've been critiquing papers, speculating about catastrophic future scenarios and hoping someone notices you...
By the way, I know you aren't prone to answering questions because you become exposed when you do, but who are "those" that you assume I am supporting? Is there some great scheme or conspiracy that I am part of....Hardley?
Mark/Uncle Buck,
The blog would be a lot better if the idiot brigade - represented by a few scientifically illiterate deniers - were banned henceforth. At this stage we should be discussing the ramifications of AGW, along with other anthropogenic threats to the environment, and not stupid WUWT/CA/Joanne Nova/ etc. level bilge. But Tim's excellent site was long ago overrun but brainless vermin... which is a great shame.
You know, Betula, as I said earlier, its pathetic that someone like you who claims to have a pulse on nature (that sure as hell is debatable) would support the arrogant dingbats who are driving our planet's life support systems to hell in the space of a few human generations. You are a bloody hypocrite, that is all I can say.
And no, I don't just have my nose in the literature... you have not got a clue what research I do, what my background is in the fieldof ecology and so on. You remind me of the fishermen who say that they know more about the status of coastal marine fish stocks than fish biologists, while the stocks continue to be decimated by unsustainable quotas. The same thing we once heard from whalers: that stocks are secure and will continue to be, just let us continue as we are and all will be fine. Well, we can see how these scenarios turned out. Populations of the great baleen whales have been annihalted and those of predatory fish like cod have also collapsed in areas where there were once millions of fish. So what do the fishermen do? Aside from denial that there is a problem, they then blame piscivorous mammals like seals, claiming they are depleting the stocks. Humans have long waged war on species at the terminal end of the food chain, and this is no exception.
Its pathetic, as are you.
I have spent every bit as much time in the field - in nature- as you, and for sure I know a helluva lot more than you how natural systems evolve, assemble and function. You may know a lot about tree pathogens, fertilizer regimes etc. and the like, but your understanding of community and ecosystem functioning is probably piss-poor. Just as fishermen cannot elucidate trophic cascades and inverted food webs, or foresters cannot reconcile top-down versus bottom up regulation of forest ecosystems. They aren't trained to understand this, any more than I am trained to be a brain surgeon.
I have had to deal with guys like you for years, people who think that doing some kind of job outdoors qualifies them as being experts in areas that in relaity they barely understand. I am 54 and have had a profoundly strong interest in nature, natural history and ecology since I was old enough to walk, and I grew up on a farm in Canada in an area of countryside. My long interest in biology naturally led me to a career in the field. I do not doubt that you possess some skills gleaned from your career, but don't lecture me on the natural world. I spend a lot of time in the field, and work with colleagues working on an exceedingly wide range of topics from soil microbial ecology to aquatic ecology to the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning.
Finally, I find it takes remarkable hubris for you and others to be able to judge the motives the most of the scientific community with respect to various global change scenarios. I am fed up to here with people like you who appear to think that climate change science is some vast gravy train and that the scientists working in the field must, by association, be dishonest. Again, I cannot for the life of me understand why you, of all people, comes down on the side of those willing to risk the future for the sake of short term profit. My only guess is that you have some inherent hatred of government regulation and this nonsensical and irrational fear of creeping socialism. With respect to the press release following my Algonquin Trip, if the best you can do is to accuse me of lying on the basis of a legitimate concern over recent rapid warming on a transitional biomes, well then goodie two shoes for you. Make a mountain out of a bloody mole hill if that makes your day. But several scientists have written perspective papers arguing exactly my point: that there will be serious repercussions for these biomes if climate warming continues unabated and at the current rate.
I have long realized that people like you aren not worth the time of day. I do not write into Deltoid about climate-change related effects on ecological communities for the benefit of people like you have had their minds made up on the basis of their own inherent belief systems and agendas. I write in an effort to communicate (1) that climate change is real and is happening, (2) that humans are almost certainly ther primary culprit, and (3) that the consequences for natural and managed ecosystems, their functioning, and on on a wide array of services that support human civilization are of profound concern.
Youc an take your denial somewhere else for all I am concerned. Gladly, I have met very few people in my career whose mind sets are so twisted by hatred for science and for political action as a few people on the internet. But I think it is the duty of scientists to confront deniers and I will continue to do so as long as I am able. Science is not, and never will be on your side, Betula. But certainly those with power and priviledge are. One day those people will hopefully be held accountable for the risks they are taking.
*By the way, I know you aren’t prone to answering questions because you become exposed when you do, but who are “those” that you assume I am supporting? Is there some great scheme or conspiracy that I am part of….Hardley?*
I don't know what your motives are, and frankly, I couldn't give a damn. All I know is that you are wrong.
Hardley.
"You know, Betula, as I said earlier, its pathetic that someone like you who claims to have a pulse on nature (that sure as hell is debatable) would support the arrogant dingbats who are driving our planet’s life support systems to hell in the space of a few human generations"
So who are these arrogant dingbats I'm supporting, arrogant dingbat? How about some detail instead of generalities, possible scenarios, speculations and assumptions..and what species of spider was that again that assured you something was amiss?
Hey look! A Blue Lobster! Something is amiss....
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/rare-blue-lobster-caught-canada-21…
Hardley, Is your whole life an assumption? If I were to guess, it appears you may be educated beyond your intelligence...
Irony: Betty demanding specifics.
Olaus Petri said at 2:45 pm on 26 June:
Why is it met with so much hate and anger that the great threat to emperor penguins wasn’t a real one?
1) Olaus Petri is moving the goal posts, because his initial claim was that the emperor penguin population had been shown to have increased. He was proven to be wrong on this.
2) Olaus Petri is claiming that the counters to his incorrect claim are based on "so much hate and anger". Again he is wrong - the counters are borne of frustration with his poor understanding and his grievous misrepresentation of the science, even after it has been repeatedly explained to him.
3) Olaus Petri in his shifting of the subject now claims that there is no threat to emperor penguins. Yet again he is wrong, because the very real phenomenon of global warming, given the current trajectory and the inertia inherent in the physics of the phenomenon, means that in all likelihood the Antarctic ice is seriously threatened on the scale of millenia to centuries. I doubt that OP would be quite so sanguine if I informed him that all of his and his relatives' descendants were going to be expunged from the face of the earth in a similar time frame.
In all of this OP has demonstrated skill in one thing - the ability to squeeze so much wrongness into one sentence.
Betula:
Then how is it possible that you have failed to notice the changes that are happening? Even if you live in a part of the world that has so far escaped the effects of climate change, how have you avoided hearing about the mountain pine beetle or the changes to USDA's plant hardiness zones, to give a couple of examples that you should be familiar with?
You must have a strange view of what ecologists do if you think they spend all their time reading about things. You need to get out of your cocoon, actually meet a few ecologists and read a bit about the wider world, including what is taking place in arboriculture.
A warning from history, David Duff's (and mine) tainted land and don't mention the war the tar sands of Alberta and the mines of Oz.
*So who are these arrogant dingbats I’m supporting, arrogant dingbat?*
If you don't know who and what I am referring to by now, then you aren't worth any more of my time. Read what Richard said, and then think about the well documented effects of climate change on other species of vertebrates and invertebrates. Yes, these data - collected in the field over many years - and concomitant studies do exist. You just don't appear to know very much about them.
Betula (and she's not the only one) has a strange view of what scientists do and say, full stop!
Not only does she deride what Jeff does and says, she also derides what most climate scientists do and say judging from what I've read of her output since killfile died an untimely death.
They are all wrong, obviously. Sheesh!
Oh come on chaps - I tend to take these fearsomely environmentalist/sons of the soil/Thomas Hardy lifestyle claims from the rabid anything-but-CO2 brigade with a bucket or three of salt.
I strongly suspect that someone else's cheeseplant on the office window sill and a pine-shaped air freshener in the car is as 'environmental' as Betty ever gets.
Richard Simons....
"Then how is it possible that you have failed to notice the changes that are happening"
Changes have always been happening,,,what's your point? Is it bad that we now have wild turkeys and coyotes here in New England when they were unheard of when I was a kid? Some years the Bluefish are feeding on Bunker, other years the Bunker are few and they are feeding on sandworms. Bluecrabs were plentiful, seemed to go away, and now we are seeing them again. We used to catch Weakfish when I was a kid, for years they were gone, came back, gone again. A moose was hit on the Merritt Parkway a few years back and a mountain lion last year. Two weeks ago a Black Bear was captured in a downtown area of Greenwich Ct....I've seen Woolly Beech Aphid come and go. This spring was dry, then wet....now we are seeing Anthacnose and leafspot....a lot of scale this year...a lot of snow two winters ago, not much last year.....
Trees and shrubs are flushed out, the grass is green, Cherry and Dogwood Blossoms were exceptional, the water table is high, plenty of squirrels,chipmunks,rabbits,racoons, opossoms and skunks....what am I looking for Richard?
Hey, are you talking about people planting Nellie Stevens Hollies and Southern Magnolia along the SouthWest section of Connecticut?
Wait, Asian longhorn Beetle and Emerald Ash Borer...is that what I'm suppose to notice? Surely these are a result of global Warming.... or was is Mile-a-minute weed?
Oh, I know, we have a lot more Mosquitos this year, West Nile Virus due to global Warming....or is it too many Ticks causing Lymes disease and Erlichiosis...is this what you are talking about?
No wait, it was Mountain Pine Beetle....is this something new to Global Warming Richard? Strange how it was a major problem when I was a college student in 1979 studying Forestry at Colorado State, yet nobody was blaming Global Warming.....in fact lumber companies were taking advantage of the blue stained wood sold for paneling...
So which observations have I failed to notice....please tell numbnuts.
Lionel don't forget about today's mess. Up to 50 billion at Sellafield and 4 billion at Dounreay. What other nuclear money pits are there?
OK, for the numbnuts, there are various reasons why populations of organisms change their distribution, including accidental or deliberate human introduction (e.g. Asian longhorn beetle). Others are changing their range seemingly because of climate change. One of these is the mountain pine beetle. You say it was a major problem in Colorado when you were a student. It is now a problem in Alberta, 1000 miles to the north, in areas where it was previously unknown. Why do you think this is?
Of course there are small changes from year to year or even from one decade to the next. There always will be, while environments change and populations evolve. Sometimes they will even be quite dramatic (e.g. the spread of the collared dove through Europe). However, in the last 50 years or so there has been a dramatic shift in the range of many species towards the poles and to higher altitudes.
Species that you can grow now that couldn't be grown a few decades ago, and vice versa, pests that have become more significant and those that have faded away, etc. More to the point, you should be thinking about why the ranges of organisms have changed. You seem to know that it is possible that ranges have changed, but then you just shut down your noggin and do not wonder on what might be the cause(s). If climate change is not taking place, why do you think that the USDA shifted the plant hardiness zones?
Richard Simons...
"If climate change is not taking place, why do you think that the USDA shifted the plant hardiness zones?"
I've never said climate change isn't taking place, in fact i've never said Global warming isn't occurring.....I don't assume everything I see is a reult of climate change and I don't assume all climate change is bad and I don't assume climate change has never occurred before. I don't see a spider and assume something is amiss. I've seen so many fluctuations from year to year that I don't assume climate is constant.
As for the USDA Hardiness zones, they are relatively new (50-60 years) and have been upgraded before. Do you have a thousand year hardiness zone map to compare it to? Do you think the plants in each zone have always been there? Do you think organisms have ever shifted outside of y
I hit something!
outside of your lifetime?
Richard....here's what the USDA says...."Because the USDA PHZM represents 30-year averages of what are essentially extreme weather events (the coldest temperature of the year), changes in zones are not reliable evidence of whether there has been global warming."
http://planthardiness.ars.usda.gov/PHZMWeb/AboutWhatsNew.aspx
Ooooh Betty! The excitement! changes in zones are not reliable evidence of whether there has been global warming. Let's try "reliable evidence"
Which is true - on their own it's not reliable evidence. But taken in conjunction with all the other metrics, it forms part of the consilience of evidence.
However, your exclaimed excitement over your 'hit', doesn't quite gell with your statements at 9.55 p.m. immediately prior.
Is the Betty team in disarray? Or are you just severely indecisive?
Good for you! So just what is your argument and what evidence do you use to support it? Or perhaps you just get a kick out of irritating people who are better-informed?
". . . changes in zones are not reliable evidence of whether there has been global warming.”
Of course they are not evidence in themselves, I was just trying to relate it to something you might be familiar with. The improvement in the extreme temperatures used to make the zones is, however, an additional small piece of evidence.
Let's face it, Betty: the sad truth is that, despite being around for over half a century, you really are neither smart nor observant, and you are as callow and devoid of wisdom as you were 30 years ago.
Sadly, there's a lot of you about, and Denial basically is you - in extremis in the form of the KarenMackSpot sociopath, and your warning of where you'll most-likely end up is there to see in the form of David Duff. Bet you can't avoid that fate!
I suppose you must feel some consolation in numbers, but what bigger testament to failure could there be than counting such people among your peers? Or being part of a movement whose proudest champions include the likes of Lord Monckton, James Delingpole and Senator Inhofe?
Like the bulk of your tribe you are essentially pointless, except that you can have a really good crack at gumming up the works if you congeal and stick on like grim death in sufficient numbers. Your anti-intellectual hostility is driven by a desperate need to conceal the grim reality of your inherent irrelevance from yourself.
Doesn't really work, does it?
There's your problem!
Well, one of them. You appear to be confusing weather and climate. And probably local with global - both in terms of temperatures, but also giving primacy to your own observations and discounting the global aggregate of observations collected by scientists - and others.
It's very difficult to reliably assess climate change - let alone get a handle on its causes - if you simply focus on the "so many fluctuations from year to year" that you experience.
The men in white coats will be around to pick you up shortly Bill.
Gee - that was a zinger. Did you think of that yourself, or did your writers produce that one?
In memory of the Old Men's War on Science - I'm sure many here may enjoy this.
@Betula,Richard
Yes, It's worth noting there are many papers around dealing with changing "tree lines" over the current interglacial. Some I've read (I think US, although there are alps, urals papers also) claim the current tree line is low to normal (relative to interglacial average) and increasing. Some areas have fosil tree lines 300m higher than todays.
So shifts in hardiness zones over decades to century time frames doesn't actually seem to be that unusual in itself and evidence of very little other than perhaps there has been some warming over the last 100yrs (post NH LIA).
Have you heard the news today? Oh boy.
EPA can regulate CO2 pollution.
Like the judge said in the smack down on the denialists, the EPA don't have to continually prove the atom before they can regulate.
Here is a snippet of what I am talking about:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v441/n7089/abs/nature04539.html
http://www.pnas.org/content/96/17/9701.short
http://www.springerlink.com/content/p7v30152u043113q/
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/42/16195.short
http://www.pnas.org/content/100/21/12219.short
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2006.01178.x/full
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2486.2000.00322.x/full
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/270/1523/1467.short
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/320/5877/800.short
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1474-919X.2004.00327.x/full
http://www.cabdirect.org/abstracts/19941100095.html
http://www.lssu.edu/faculty/gsteinhart/GBS-LSSU/BIOL333-Fish%20Ecology_…
http://www.scopenvironment.org/downloadpubs/scope29/chapter08.html
http://www.springerlink.com/content/ebbhqftxem7ype71/
http://www.springerlink.com/content/w0423qq4m267g471/
http://www.springerlink.com/content/k321276u26505620/
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/2845499
http://cedarcreek.umn.edu/biblio/fulltext/t1002.pdf
http://www.cabdirect.org/abstracts/20000616787.html;jsessionid=A7F12DE4…
http://www.sfu.ca/geog315-new/readings/pastor+post.pdf
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167880900002322
Given time (I am pressed today) I can put up a lot more This is just a sampler. Bear in mind that some of these studies were published before James Hansen's famous 1988 declaration... so the topic was being considered seriously by the sciedntific community 25 years ago.
The Supreme Court, which has been doing its darnedest to give the impression of being completely in the tank for big business and The Republican Party, will probably try its hardest to produce an industry-friendly ruling that can be emitted from the bench without everyone in sight falling about in helpless laughter.
Which is easier said than done when several of your members appear to care little for any sort of personal reputation for intellectual integrity or well-reasoned jurisprudence.
Oh dear! When the Captain of the 'Warm Titanic' decides it's all over and deserts the sinking ship I really do feel it's time for you lot to make for the lifeboats of commonsense:
"Having observed that global temperatures since the turn of the millennium have not gone up in the way computer-based climate models predicted, Lovelock acknowledged, “the problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago.” [My emphasis]"
Yes, that Lovelock, your former High Priest! "Oh what a falling off was there".
@Bill: if Betula ends up in my excellent condition when she reaches 73, slim, fit and at fighting weight, then she will have done well and given her excellent counter-punching abilities it what she deserves.
@LionelA: What a SHLOCK-HORROR story! My goodness, they're all dropping like flies in Derbyshire, and Huddersfield is a wasteland, it's straight our of Cormac McCarthy's 'The Road' - not!
Category error - there may be a High Priest in your method of belief acquisition and retention, but there's no High Priest in science.
There's only evidence and logic. And Lovelock's recent pronouncements have failed on both counts.
But I'm quite sure that's beyond your comprehension. Or maybe just your will to comprehend.
So, lovelock, previously predicting humanity's end (and called "hysterical alarmist" by the idiot brigade) now says "I was alarmist" agrees with the IPCC and the idiot brigade then crow "See! He doesn't think that AGW exists!!!!".
Really, the level of stupid here goes well over 9000.
Ah, David, everyone who's not befuddled - well, not as befuddled as you, at any rate - went through the whole 'Lovelock recants!' thing weeks ago. Net result - nothing.
Muller announcing the Warmists were right after all - and on the basis of actual research, not nonagenerian wilfulness - now, that was something!
Remember how old Anthony, who had thought the whole thing was stitched-up from the get-go, had to frantically backtrack and then become hysterical? Ah, how we laughed!
The morons are unmoved, of course, but, well, that's morons...
"it’s straight our of Cormac McCarthy’s ‘The Road’ – not!"
Now we know the standard of evidence Duff is demands.
And let's not forget, as Wow has pointed out, that today is another Black Day for Denial, with the Federal District Court of Appeals ruling that it's the EPA that has CO2 figured out, rather than any of your motley heroes...
Ooh, that's gotta smart! This is what the actual grown-ups, rather than the merely aged, are currently talking about.
18, 000 peer-reviewed studies. Now, maybe it's just me, but that strikes me as a little more impressive than a few Google Galileos guest-posting on a handful of far-Right blogs.
But, that's right, it's all a conspiracy, isn't it?
You really ought to try escaping the crushing confirmation-bias gravitional pull of the Right Wing blogosphere sometime, because you're probably unaware just how many 'pro AGW' (i.e. scientific, rational, evidence-based) papers appear in proper journals after proper peer-review every bloody week!
Hence this section over at SkS.
But, by all means, clutch your sad little treasure...
The foundations of AGW and the prophesies of a scorched earth just had cold water poured over them :)
http://judithcurry.com/2012/06/25/questioning-the-forest-et-al-2006-sen…
Hmm. A story that says "questioning" (I.e. not saying it's falsified) is "pouring cold water" over AGW???
Really, spotty, how the hell do you make this stuff up? Is it congenital or learned?
What's that Skippyduff? Not the Lovelock thing again?
I believe I already asked you the last time to show me how many papers by Lovelock had the IPCC included in their reports, didn't I Skippyduff?
Then you just went off and laid low and no doubt bounced yourself silly since then and forgot all about that, didn't you Skippyduff?
And here you are again with the same thing. You're a stupid and forgetful old macropod, aren't you Skippyduff?
A History Reminder,
"The reason why even the Guardian’s George Monbiot has expressed total shock and dismay at the picture revealed by the documents is that their authors are not just any old bunch of academics. Their importance cannot be overestimated, What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Professor Philip Jones, the CRU’s director, is in charge of the two key sets of data used by the IPCC to draw up its reports. Through its link to the Hadley Centre, part of the UK Met Office, which selects most of the IPCC’s key scientific contributors, his global temperature record is the most important of the four sets of temperature data on which the IPCC and governments rely – not least for their predictions that the world will warm to catastrophic levels unless trillions of dollars are spent to avert it.
Dr Jones is also a key part of the closely knit group of American and British scientists responsible for promoting that picture of world temperatures conveyed by Michael Mann’s “hockey stick” graph which 10 years ago turned climate history on its head by showing that, after 1,000 years of decline, global temperatures have recently shot up to their highest level in recorded history.
Given star billing by the IPCC, not least for the way it appeared to eliminate the long-accepted Mediaeval Warm Period when temperatures were higher they are today, the graph became the central icon of the entire man-made global warming movement.
Since 2003, however, when the statistical methods used to create the “hockey stick” were first exposed as fundamentally flawed by an expert Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre, an increasingly heated battle has been raging between Mann’s supporters, calling themselves “the Hockey Team”, and McIntyre and his own allies, as they have ever more devastatingly called into question the entire statistical basis on which the IPCC and CRU construct their case.
The senders and recipients of the leaked CRU emails constitute a cast list of the IPCC’s scientific elite, including not just the “Hockey Team”, such as Dr Mann himself, Dr Jones and his CRU colleague Keith Briffa, but Ben Santer, responsible for a highly controversial rewriting of key passages in the IPCC’s 1995 report; Kevin Trenberth, who similarly controversially pushed the IPCC into scaremongering over hurricane activity; and Gavin Schmidt, right-hand man to Al Gore’s ally Dr James Hansen, whose own GISS record of surface temperature data is second in importance only to that of the CRU itself. [16] "
Martin explained in “Global WarmingGate: What Does It Mean,” the e-mails suggested:
[T]he authors co-operated covertly to ensure that only papers favorable to CO2-forced AGW [Anthropogenic Global Warming or man-made global warming] were published, and that editors and journals publishing contrary papers were punished. They also attempted to ‘discipline’ scientists and journalists who published skeptical information.
[T]he authors manipulated and ‘massaged’ the data to strengthen the case in favor of unprecedented CO2-forced AGW, and to suppress their own data if it called AGW into question.
[T]he authors co-operated (perhaps the word is ‘conspired’) to prevent data from being made available to other researchers through either data archiving requests or through the Freedom of Information Acts of both the U.S. and the UK. [17]
Ah, Karen, you really are a gift to our side of the argument.
The origin of this little piece of neural outsourcing? Christopher Booker! In that well known journal of gravitas - The Telegraph! And, what, some obscure comment at Jo Nova's?
You know, you're really supposed to tell us all that - and format the comment to make it clear its a quotation - but I can see why you might well shy away from that!
And, tell us, what did Monbiot end up saying about his originally hastily-formed conclusions, based on not realising how mendacious you lot really are? Eh?
What is it that you imagine you're achieving here, 'Karen'?
Sound and fury, signifying nothing, Bill.
But they have nothing else to do except throw a tantrum. When reality disagrees with them, they have to present unreality as an "equally valid alternative".
The court ruling is very damaging for the deniers, especially since as they have claimed for years now that the moment the IPCC are ruled upon "the scam will crumble".
Now we see that the US legal system is really just another cog in Al Gore's massive one world government conspiracy. This, predictably, has caused so much angst amongst Karen (who believes the government are suppressing free energy) and Duff (who believes that the Brits are tilting sea measuring equipment, as told to by a dowser) that they are scattergun spamming our dear little comments thread with irrelevent nonesense in a vain attempt to prove...that they are gullible idiots? I don't know.
Carry on chaps!
FIFY.
Speaking of the slow-motion radical changes going on in the US which may impact any Supreme Court ruling on the EPA regulations...
"Why is it met with so much hate and anger that the great threat to emperor penguins wasn’t a real one?"
Olaus just can't help but project his own feelings of fear, anger and hatred onto others.
So much so, that in his attempts to rationalize his denial, he becomes confused about the relationship of the past, present and future.
Sad, isn't it?
Chek...
"However, your exclaimed excitement over your ‘hit’, doesn’t quite gell with your statements at 9.55 p.m. immediately prior.
Is the Betty team in disarray? Or are you just severely indecisive?"
Are you really that retarded?
The "Hit something" was in reference to that fact that I sent the post before I was finished writing it.
Richard...
"So just what is your argument and what evidence do you use to support it? Or perhaps you just get a kick out of irritating people who are better-informed?"
That the predictions are just that...predictions. That the alarmists hype the worst case scenarios. That ideology and bias is inherent. That the IPCC doesn't consist of 2000 scientists. That there are other scientists with different opinions. That Polar Bears have not currently been affected by climate change. That the U.N., which formed the IPCC. has an admitted goal of spreading global wealth. That climate models have flaws. That the debate isn't over. That we won't all be cannibals in the near future.That all corporations and their employees aren't evil. That all oil companies and their employees aren't evil. That all coal companies and their employees aren't evil. That capitalism isn't evil. That many on this site are hypocrites. That many on this site are arrogant. That many on this site are close minded. That some on this site are radical ie: suggesting a discussion about murdering those who disagree. That many on this site, by virtue of their monikers ie: Ianam (I am not a moron) and Luminous Beauty...are in denial. That not everything that happens is due to Global Warming. That some on this site embellish and lie...
That everything mentioned above is true and therefore, I'm a denier.
All of which can be said of a rock or turd or anything else that, like you, lacks a functioning human forebrain.
bill...
"I suppose you must feel some consolation in numbers, but what bigger testament to failure could there be than counting such people among your peers?"
Unlike you bill, I don't need to cling to groups or peers to hide from insecurities. I don't deny common sense for group think. For you, the emperor will always be naked.
"All of which can be said of a rock or turd or anything else that, like you, lacks a functioning human forebrain."
Meanwhile, we can hear a distant sound coming for ianams house... " I am not a moron.....I am not a moron...I am not a moron...."
Old Duffer
You are one sick individual if you think such nauseating base flippancy is humorous. A case of Clarkson's disease perhaps.
Say it isn't so....a computer model may be wrong?
"It turns out that past studies, which were based on computer models without any direct data for comparison or guidance, overestimate the water temperatures and extent of melting beneath the Fimbul Ice Shelf"
http://www.agu.org/news/press/pr_archives/2012/2012-31.shtml
Betty I had initially considered refuting your farrago of infantile rubbish point by point. But then I remembered I do actually have a life, and who has time to deal with every paranoid assertion by the borderline insane? Not me, so I satisfied myself with this gem from you: "That the IPCC doesn’t consist of 2000 scientists".
As we all well know, the IPCC operates from a small one bedroom ap[artment above a Chinese take-away in Geneva:
http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_structure.shtml#
with Raj in charge of day-to-day refreshments (coffee machine/soft drinks vernding machines/ acuum cleaning the carpets etc. etc., utility bills and compiling reports. Given the cramped nature of the accommodation (especially during plenary sessions), he has to settle for a small 'Z' guage train set no larger than an average briefcase to keep his railroad marshalling skills honed.
Dave, as we know, is in charge of anything sciency and given the cramped premises prefers outsourcing, which is why the AR4 assessment relied on around 18,000 studies that were peer-reviewed. Given an average of say 3 authors per paper to write, plus say 5 minimom to review, that works out at say 120,000 plus scientists per assessment.
What point were you trying to mak again, Betty? Apart from the painfully obvious, ill-informed, think-tank filtered garbage that we've come to expect from you by now of course.
Ah, Betty,Wally Ollie, Old Duffer,Mack Spot et al. are all in fine form, singing the self same identical industry paid propaganda, as served up by the likes of Marc/Fred/Lord Bull of Mocking tune of complete horse hockey.
So sad, to live in a brainwashed condition, a completely fictitious world, one that is totally divorced from all forms of reality.
In other news Gina Rhinoass, after investing a large chunk cash portion of her wealth(the rest is still in the ground yet to be mined, gotta love the printed propaganda lies of the so called Fibius Rich List) purchased an old already dead print media empire. There is an irony, in investing money on dead horse.
In the Age of the Internets, one can already see the Murdoch Pay Wall is failing, pricing itself out of a two billion plus market, as we speak.
Thus, it comes to pass, choose your experts wisely, and somewhere between the northern summers of 2021 and 2035, the folly of listening to Propaganda Lord Mocking of Bull, becomes truly apparent, for all to see.
"When the last tree is cut, when the last river has been poisoned, when the last fish has been caught, then we will find out that we can't eat money."
Watt tune, then will brainwashed few cry in unison?
Ah, Betty, I'm afraid your gaggle of droogs' heroically obtuse and unswerving ignorance is only equal to the expertise of tens of thousands of actual scientists in Libtardia, a magical fantasy world above the clouds- and well beyond the reach of mere evidence.
So, if we're not going to talk about actual scientists doing actual research and producing actual papers, and we're not going to talk about the US courts ruling that its the actual scientists doing actual research and producing actual papers that the EPA must base its assessments on, shall we talk about, oh, I don't know, Arctic sea ice? Monckton and the British Freedom Party? Watts more and more palpable desperation?
No? More of your opinions then? Some sad little hangover from your brief Golden Age, in 2009, when many in the media were briefly conned by your dreary little posse's disgraceful exercise in tendentious quote-mining and cherry-picking, assuring you all zero credibility thereafter?
No? How about the fact that you and the rest of the pantomime visigoths that plague this site will be remembered only as a card-carrying member of that highly non-exclusive club, The Most Stupid People in History?
You can expect to live a few decades yet. How popular are you hoping to be?
Because, believe me, there's going to be some deeply unhappy people about, wondering how the hell it was all allowed to happen...
Or perhaps we could talk about this?
No?
Then perhaps you'd like to tell us how Mike Mann, Al Gore, and Jim Hansen are causing these instruments to give these readings?
No?
How about: precisely how bad are you going to feel when you eventually realise - because this is inevitable, unless, of course, you choose to be forever lost in the fantasy world of Epistemic Closure with Monckton and Delingpole and Bast and Inhofe - you've been doing nothing less than facilitating the wreck of the global biosphere for years?
And, no small thanks to you and your pals, it's irreversible?
Based on a considerable body of evidence. But what point are you trying to make?
I have not seen any climatologists promoting anything like the worst-case scenarios. Citation, please.
Citation, please.
I have no idea what point you are trying to make here.
Citation, please, to a climatologist who has published any research in a reputable journal to support the contention that climate change is not/will not take place.
You are a lot more complacent about this than the Polar Bear Specialist Group of the IUCN. Why do you feel you have better information than they do?
And the significance of this is . . . ?
All models have flaws. Please describe the flaws in climate models that you feel have exaggerated either the magnitude of climate change or of its effects. Presumably you bring this up because you have significant, well-justified concerns.
The debate amongst climatologists over whether or not climate change is to be expected was essentially over 30 years ago. Which debate are you talking about?
Please give a citation to any climatologist who has said otherwise.
Please give a citation to any climatologist who has said otherwise.
Please give a citation to any climatologist who has said otherwise.
Please give a citation to any climatologist who has said otherwise.
Please give a citation to any climatologist who has said otherwise.
Irrelevant, but please give an example.
Irrelevant. Why does this affect your opinion of the science?
Irrelevant, but please give an example. Why does this affect your opinion of the science?
Heck, while we're piling on this is deeply ironic:
The person posting under the moniker Luminous Beauty may or may not be a luminous beauty in some sense or other - but unless Betula is claiming some form of ESP or remote sensing, Betula does not actually know that the moniker does not fit. In that case, the charge of "in denial" by Betula is a completely unsupported assertion.
And ianam may be many things, but is clearly not a moron. In that case, the only person in denial on that matter is Betula.
Also, clearly you're not a Birch - hypocrite, liar, right back at ya - but perhaps you're just a Bircher? Seems about Right*...
(*geddit?)
1.Crikey, 42 hatemails from you lot in less than 24 hours!
Robert Murphy, I treat you as the only if partial exception to that comment.
Re Murphy’s Law #1: That’s why a block of ice in my living room will emit EM radiation into my warmer living room. The net heat flow will be from the room to the ice, but that doesn’t stop the ice from radiating energy (as all matter above absolute zero must do).
Where are your observations and measurements for ML #1? If your house was encased in ice a hundred metres thick, surely by ML#1 the ice’s EM radiation should warm it. If not, why not?
Your corollary to ML#1 is also wrong “A molecule of Co2 that encounters a photon of LW radiation will scatter it in all directions.” Not so, only from hot to less hot.
ML#2: “The N2 and the O2 act just like a vacuum as far as retaining the LW radiation – they don’t.” I said “the N2 and O2 CANNOT act like a vacuum as when they are present there is no vacuum. We are talking about the LW infrared, and the N2 and O2 fail to propel heat through it, as Tyndall showed and my link to UMSL.edu.confirmed.”
You reply: “No, no, NO! [Tyndall] showed that the N2 and O2 failed to stop the heat from traveling through the container and leaving it.”
That is simply untrue. Had the heat travelled through the cylinder when filled only with N2 and O2, Tyndall’s galvanometer would have measured the heat leaving the other end of the cylinder. It did not.
That finding does not mean that N2 and O2 can act “like” a vacuum, they are not and do not, but it does mean they are the real GHGs.
Enough of Murphy’s laws, but for one FINAL comment:
I am glad you repeated my source even if you clearly misunderstand it:
“It is known that symmetrical diatomic molecules like nitrogen, oxygen and hydrogen, do not absorb infrared radiation, even though their vibrational frequencies are in the infrared region. These homonuclear diatomic molecules have no permanent dipole moment and lack a mechanism by which they can interact with the electric field of the light.”
In fact this means Tyndall did show that N2 and O2 are GHG’s and do trap LW radiation, because they “do not absorb infrared radiation”, and therefore cannot reradiate it.
I previously linked to a full inventory of the infrared spectrum. There is no N2 at all, and only minuscule amounts of O2, much as Tyndall surmised. By far the largest inhabitants are the H2O and CO2, all busily radiating through their respective favoured wavelengths, along with smaller amounts of CH4 and N2O.
Wrong thread, Tim.
Wrong content, too.
I almost dropped out of my chair. I thought teh Curtin had come to the open thread to acknowledge in front of everyone that he had been a complete and utter idiot in maintaining that Tyndall supported his view that N2 and O2 block LW radiation, but no such luck.
Teh Curtin, it hurts!
Also, especially for teh Curtin (to get him all confused):
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2012/2012GL051409.shtml
Curtin,
You even fail to comprehend the meaning of hatemails.
Counters to your vitriolic ideological motivated opinions are not propelled by hate. Indeed by now the only emotion that could be shown in your direction is pity. For you sure have made, and continue to do so, one big fool of yourself.
Besides blog posts are not mails, but then since when did Curtin learn to understand the correct nuances of correct language with his confusion of thought demonstrated at every turn.
Your clear hypocrisy in lambasting others in this way was made clear to you here by Robert Murphy in his June 25, 1:39 pm post
"That’s why a block of ice in my living room will emit EM radiation into my warmer living room"
If it is emitting to a warmer place, then why can't CO2 emit to a warmer place????
And let us not forget calling Grant Foster 'Goebbelistic'...
(Tim L - or host - is 'less Goebbelistic', apparently.)
Jeff Harvey @ June 27, 9:02 am
Thank you for an excellent list of reading matter I will benefit greatly from studying these as they will enable me to reinforce my broad understanding. If I am able to drill through to the complete entities that is.
I doubt that the denialati and facetious muppets (Duff etc.) who infest these threads will get much out of them for they will probably fail with the first in the list on the concept of 'trophic levels', disruption between which we have been noticing for some time now.
If you have two plates heated up by a power supply of 200W each, how much radiation do they give off?
They're the same size and material.
Does the photoelectric effect stop when the material is hotter than the source of the photons? I.e. a stimulated source.
Have you yourself ever been the least bit arrogant, close minded, have ever embellished or lied about anything? Have you ever been at all hypocritical?
Tell the truth now.
What do you folks have against the human forebrain? When a doctor tells someone that they will die if they don't get treatment, do you council the person to ignore that because it's "just" a prediction? How about when your mother told you to look both ways before crossing a street because a driver might not see you and they might hit you with their car, did you ignore her advice because it's "just" a prediction?
Over and over, Betula, you use arguments that are frankly stupid and fallacious, that make you look stupid and make it obvious that you are intellectually dishonest, as with "Say it isn’t so….a computer model may be wrong?" -- Even you cannot be so stupid as to not be aware that we all know that computer models may be wrong, and that scientists are constantly working to improve them and remove errors. That is not a reason to disregard them -- in fact it's a reason to pay a lot of attention to what they say, precisely because they get tested and corrected. There's an intelligent and honest way to react to an article like that, but that's never what you do ...
For the umpteenth time, radiation does not need to be absorbed and reradiated ... it just radiates. It's like you're saying that no one can hit a baseball into the bleachers without someone catching it and throwing it there; if they don't the ball is "trapped".
For the umpteenth time: yes, we know: N2 and O2 are transparent to IR.
Betula has fallen for Duff's Folly, a last offensive whereby the troll discards all pretence they care about science and spams irrelevent ideological gobbledegook and long discarded memes in the face of overwhemling evidence that their position is fatally wrong.
It's especially hurtful to be called arrogant. I'm not the one denying the face of the laws of phyics based on my political persuasion.
*denying the laws of physics...
Ah, Tim Curtin, you have earned yet another econometric F minus.
Watt a complete load of of old twaddle, red herrings, bunkum, gish gallop of furphies, that defies the law of logic, the properties of matter, basic chemistry, physics and mathematics.
Richard...
Are you new here? I'm not going to repost every conversation and every link I've ever had on Deltoid to appease your curiosity, however, I will address a few of your questions...
1.That the predictions are just that…predictions.
"Based on a considerable body of evidence. But what point are you trying to make?"
That when I say they are predictions, that makes me a denier.
2. That the alarmists hype the worst case scenarios.
"I have not seen any climatologists promoting anything like the worst-case scenarios. Citation, please".
3 1/2 years to go....
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14834318/ns/us_news-environment/t/warming-e…
3.That ideology and bias is inherent.
"Citation, please."
Saleemul Huq....Lead author of the chapter on Adaptation and Sustainable Development in the third assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
http://www.scidev.net/en/climate-change-and-energy/climate-change-impac…
4. That the debate isn’t over.
"The debate amongst climatologists over whether or not climate change is to be expected was essentially over 30 years ago. Which debate are you talking about?"
Where. How much. When. If. Maybe. Possibly.
5. That we won’t all be cannibals in the near future.
"Please give a citation to any climatologist who has said otherwise"
Sorry, my mistake. I actually think we will be cannibals...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSlB1nW4S54
6. You ask this question a lot regarding arrogance, hypocrites etc..."Why does this affect your opinion of the science?"
It affects my opinion of the the people trying to convince me they can predict the future.
7. That not everything that happens is due to Global Warming.
"Please give a citation to any scientist who has said otherwise"
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
8. That Polar Bears have not currently been affected by climate change.
"You are a lot more complacent about this than the Polar Bear Specialist Group of the IUCN. Why do you feel you have better information than they do?"
Your article doesn't mention anything about the current affect of climate on Polar Bears....only future possibilities. That's my point and your problem, you think it does...
9. "So on the evidence given here, no, you are not a denier."
Did you read that ianam, Bernard, John, Bill, Lumy, et al... according to Richard, this whole time you've been embellishing and lying...
"1.That the predictions are just that…predictions. "
And predictions are made to guide future actions (which will change the situation being predicted. Duh).
"2. That the alarmists hype the worst case scenarios."
Yup. All that "IT WILL BE ONE WORLD ORDER!!!" or "We'll be living in caves!!!" alarmism is ALWAYS aping over the worst (im)possible case scenarios.
Why do you do it?
"“I have not seen any climatologists promoting anything like the worst-case scenarios. Citation, please”.
3 1/2 years to go….
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14834318/ns/us_news-environment/t/warming-e…"
This isn't talking about worst case scenarios you bumbling buffoon.
"Which debate are you talking about?”
Where. How much. When. If. Maybe. Possibly."
Where what? How much what? What when? What If? What maybe? What possibly?
Are you intellectally incapable of comprehension, or are you just scared of thinking in case it turns you liberal?
"It affects my opinion of the the people trying to convince me they can predict the future."
So Hansen's 1988 model that predicted a 0.8-0.9C warming by 2003 over the pre-industrial average and the record since then that shows 0.7-0.9C warming from that period didn't convince you otherwise?
Figures. You don't accept the truth because you can't handle the truth.
"8. That Polar Bears have not currently been affected by climate change."
Polar bears have been.
You're a denier because you deny any evidence. Richard looked at one post where you asked questions and you didn't deny anything in the questions, you only deny any answers to them.
You're a denier, Betty.
A bit off-topic, but I know Tim has covered this before. Trewavas and signatories have a correspondence in Nature that take some truths about DDT but give it a twist to say something different.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v486/n7404/full/486473a.html
E.g. bald eagles were already declining. There's a difference between declines caused by active persecution of adults by ranchers and through accidental poisonings when they fed on strychnine killed 'varmints', and declines caused by massive nest failure due to egg-shell thinning. As well, other raptors and birds like cormorants suffered declines as their eggs thinned too.
He says a ban on DDT resulted in 10s to 100s of millions of deaths from malaria. DDT wasn't banned on a global scale and was still used to combat malaria. It was banned in the US and also overseas it was banned for use in agriculture as indiscriminate spraying could result in DDT resistant mosquitoes. Where DDT was not used for malaria it was because the agencies studied the issue and were using other measures that they believed were as good or better (or cheaper).
I would like to comment but we received a directive telling us to avoid commenting or speaking to the press about certain issues (i.e. anything to do with our jobs--thank you, Stephen Harper you control....oh wait, we're not allowed to criticize the federal government either). Under my pseudonym, I can't comment either but would like it if someone (Tim?) could give a short reply???
If not, I may have to wait till I work in the private sector again and am free from our Soviet-era minders and muzzlers.
@Daniel J. Andrews
I thought it was just Parks Canada that got the "don't criticize the gov't letter".
Does the PMO still allow federal employees to have business cards or are the job titles confidential now too?
I don' have the background to reply to the letter you link to but I urge someone with the knowledge to reply. It certainly seems to distort what I have read of the issues aroud DDT.
Whilst Betty, Duff and Mackarenspot fool around we have another data point for indications of a warming world with other parts of the country being similarly inundated earlier in the week and this on top of flooding elsewhere in the UK earlier in June and in May and April.
OK land use change and development has not helped but such frequent, widespread and repeated heavy rains in one year are developments of the last twenty years.
About thirteen years ago (1998) we had sudden deluges in the UK Midlands too. A part of my family was caught in a train on the West Coast mainline. Touch and go for awhile with not so many means of communication back then. I had an old computer that displayed Teletext which was useful for getting info' updates.
Daniel J. Andrews, I wouldn't believe a word of what Trewavas says. He is a shill for the large seed and chemical companies such as Monsanto et al. He has been found guilty in at least one case of libeling people he disagreed with. He is listed as an adviser to Sense about Science which is nothing but a PR group for large companies. SAS is in exactly the same position as is Friends of Science in relation to climate change.
Here is a comment on SAS:
http://tinyurl.com/6w4nsdk
Which libel case?
If it was for a letter published in the Herald about the libelling of Greenpeace, it was later agreed that he didn't write the letter and that he just forwarded it to interested parties.
Links:
http://ngin.tripod.com/trewavas.htm
http://ngin.tripod.com/deceit5.html
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=922
What I read is you again using arguments that are frankly stupid and fallacious, that make you look stupid and make it obvious that you are intellectually dishonest.
Wow...
"This isn’t talking about worst case scenarios you bumbling buffoon"
You're correct, this must be the best case scenario...
"On that warmer planet, ice sheets would melt quickly, causing a rise in sea levels that would put most of Manhattan under water. The world would see more prolonged droughts and heat waves, powerful hurricanes in new areas and the likely extinction of 50 percent of species".
"Why do you do it?"
Why do I do what?
"Figures. You don’t accept the truth because you can’t handle the truth"
Um, okay Jack. You were good in "One Flew Over The Cookoos Nest. That didn't end well for you.
"Polar bears have been"
Citation please.
ianam...
"What I read is you again using arguments that are frankly stupid and fallacious, that make you look stupid and make it obvious that you are intellectually dishonest"
Then you missed it. Here it is again from Richard:
“So on the evidence given here, no, you are not a denier.”
Lionel A
"Whilst Betty, Duff and Mackarenspot fool around we have another data point for indications of a warming world with other parts of the country being similarly inundated earlier in the week and this on top of flooding elsewhere in the UK earlier in June and in May and April."
Hmmm..
"The world would see more prolonged droughts and heat waves"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14834318/ns/us_news-environment/t/warming-e…
Just foolin around.
"The world would see more prolonged droughts and heat waves” Just foolin around."
Ah right, so the collective IQ of Team Bettydecided that the only valid meaning of that q
"The world would see more prolonged droughts and heat waves” Just foolin around."
Ah right, so the collective IQ of Team Betty decided that the only valid meaning of that quote is that everywhere on Earth would only "see more prolonged droughts and heat waves".
And if you're a knuckle-draggin' denier moron, you might well agree that's exactly what Hansen said. Or so Team Betty would have us believe.
No Betty it isn't talking about the best case scenario.
Did you bother to read it?
You've been given the citation a half dozen times at least Betty. I'm not giving it again.
To legitimately complain about "hyping a worst case scenario", one has to demonstrate that what is being discussed is in fact a "worst case scenario", and furthermore that it is in fact being "hyped" or overblown. To demonstrate the latter, one has to show that the risk (e.g. likelihood and/or impact) from the scenario is being seriously overinflated - which means actually assessing the likelihood and/or impacts and potential responses using (say) best practice risk mitigation analysis tools.
I don't recall Betula even coming close, although maybe I missed it in the middle of all the woolly rhetoric. There appears to be a Betula presumption that pointing out a very bad scenario is inherently "worst case" and also inherently "hype". I don't see any analysis to support either premise - which is not surprising, because analysis is very unlikely to align with Betula's position.
Risk mitigation says that when the impacts are intolerable or unbounded - as I believe they are in the genuine "worst case scenarios" from analysis (a recent case suggesting that the earth's carrying capacity for humans could decline to around one billion total, and globally integrated civilisation would not be maintained) - then the only prudent response is to avoid that scenario at practically any cost. It is difficult to see how "avoid at practically any cost" can even be over-hyped - which, along with other statements, leads one to conclude that Betula is probably (non-consciously) rejecting the scientific conclusions that underpin the (actual) worst-case scenarios.
Ah Betty Troll@June 29, 3:48 pm.
An interesting head in the sands of denial, mostly fact free trolling, you have going there. Must be worth an F minus in propaganda, one could say.
"The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is." Winston Churchill
Then you missed it.
No, I saw an instance of what I referred to, and this is yet another one.
Again, this is another example. Are you just too stupid to grasp that there are other alternatives than worst and best? Well, it doesn't matter, the effect is that you look stupid, and intellectually dishonest.
So, Betty, shall we talk about -
The current melt-rate in the Arctic?
The current melt-rate in Greenland?
The US Court ruling on the EPA and CO2, and their scathing assessment of Denier 'science'?
Wild fires in the US? (there's the scope for 'adaptation' for you!) Or Siberia?
Watt's desperation? Did you see that repulsive ' "ickle birdies"/"indigenous persons" ' thing he put up from....
Monckton - that friend of all the great chaps of the British Freedom Party?
The fact that your allies here are hapless, braying, anti-intellectual thugs any person with any pretence to wisdom should be cripplingly ashamed to be associated with?
No? We'll just run with some multiply debunked BS, or material completely devoid of meaning - e.g. 'The Predictions are just that...'? Jeee-sus! 'You can't predict the future'? What are you, 12? 'Cannibalism'? Say what?
Are you planning to protect us from the rising seas by lining the coasts with your veritable army of strawmen, by any chance?
No? You're just going to continue to to be an uninformed, selfish, abrasive wrecker, then? Gutlessly hiding behind 'I never said it wasn't warming'?
And do you imagine that's going to cut much ice - or lack of it - with anyone in the future, BTW?
Bet:
The only thing you can do well.
Of course there will be an increase in drought in areas already stressed that way just as more water will fall in other areas as the ITCZ changes in ways not previously known. Now you investigate why it would be doing this. There are other major components of the earth's circulatory systems which are subject to a similar disruption and that is just it.
Why do you think this is happening bozo with this being just one part of that bigger picture .
For anyone vaguely interested in TC's greatest hits, check out his 1:01pm comment over here on page 8.
Do not attempt to eat or drink at the same time if you value your computer equipment. Also, consider covering the desk with soft furnishings.
(Responses to TC's model should probably go on that thread rather than this one.)
A nice thought:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Nil_Illegitimi.html
Wow...
"You’ve been given the citation a half dozen times at least Betty. I’m not giving it again."
Ah, more embellishing and lies...with a side of delusion.
Dicky, I posted it....June 29, 3:48 pm....you copied it to me June 29, 4:00 pm. That's hardly you giving it to me, and it's hardly a half dozen times.
But I suppose it's not a lie if you believe it, so I should say it's more embellishment and delusion, with a side of lies.
Is this how you interpret Global Climate Models?
Lionel A...
"Why do you think this is happening bozo with this being just one part of that bigger picture"
Are you asking me why wildfires have been occurring forever or are you asking me about wildland-urban interface?
Somehow I missed this gem from ianam....
"When a doctor tells someone that they will die if they don’t get treatment, do you council the person to ignore that because it’s “just” a prediction"
You're comparing apple orchards to an orange peel. Real life is much more complicated than that, but I can twist things and play the same game as you...
A doctor predicts you might feel sick if you eat too much candy, that means you are sick and he should start pumping your stomach now.
A doctor predicts you could get skin cancer from too much sun, that means you have skin cancer and you should you start chemotherapy immediately...
Polar Bears may be affected by melting ice, that means they are being affected now and should be put on the endangered species list.
You'll notice ianumb, in your example you used the word "will", which is stating a fact. My examples used words like "might", "could" and "may", which are stating predictions. The difference is apparently a problem for you....for reasons that are obvious.
Let's do one another game of apple orchards and orange peel...
A new president might strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation while in office, so that means he did strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation and is awarded the Nobel Peace Prize...
@Betula,
Nicely argued. "Ifs", "mays", "mights" and "coulds". Apocalyptic climate predictions are ALWAYS preceded by those words, I look out for them especially, in for example.
IF the Greenland Ice sheet disappears, sea level COULD rise by (a frightening amount) metres.
Which sounds really bad, but it won't disappear, not for thousands of years anyway, according to the MET office and others. These "Weasel" words are freely used to mislead and promote alarm among the gullible. They're like a "Free Pass" to say something ridiculous and get away with it (for some here at least).
;)
So, are you sayiong using will "is stating a fact"?
I say humans will not land on Mars before 2065.
Is that a statement of fact? No, it's a prediction which may or may not come true.
[I predict] Betula will never post on this forum again.
Is that a statement of fact? Hope so.
So you whinge that there are alarmist statements then whinge even more when it's pointed out to you that it is saying 'if so and so then response' which is as alarmist as the warning label on a bottle of bleach that it's somehow weaselling.
Truly you're only happy when you're miserable.
I predict nobody will ever give a toss what Betty and Wormtongue think because they're intellectually stunted morons who have nothing butbleating about emotional claptrap, i.e. 'alarm' in lieu of evidence to offer..
I further predict that pay day loan companies will continue to squeeze massive fortunes out of hapless nihilist gimps like Betty and Wormy.
"If you continue to play in traffic you could be hit by a car."
Is that an alarmist statement using weasel words, or is it something else?
Obviously, it's something else, it's a prediction (not to be confused with a prophecy). The 'if' clause is the condition, the (implied) 'then' clause is the result, given as a probability, if the condition is true.
All this whining about weasel words and alarmism is either little more than a red herring or an example of the inability to think critically. Take your pick.
@P. Lewis
If that is a prediction, where is your condition? Using the word 'will' in a prediction denotes a probability of 1 so it should only be used when the outcome is certain.
@GaryB
Thanks for replying. No, those are not weasel words. Playing in traffic is a bad idea, there is a real risk you would be hit by a car. You are not misleading anybody.
However the Greenland Ice Sheet statement does mislead, The 'If' premise is highly unlikely (if not impossible over a reasonable time frame), but the statement is couched in such a way that we are led to believe that it a very real and present threat - Weasel words/misled.
That I think is one of Hansen's (others as well). Another example, one of Schneider's, paraphrasing.
"IF it is half as bad as we think it COULD be, then we are all f**cked".
I think Schneiders version ended with "hell in a hand basket", but I prefer the paraphrase. Again the statement, implies, again to many here, that an apocalypse is on the way. It is misleading, and intended to be misleading, He's trying to get you to buy something (a point of view) that is devoid of substance and jam packed with "Alarm". When next you look thru the literature ,associated press release, realclimate review, guardian article etc, look for the ifs/mays/coulds and ask yourself what was the point of phrasing the statement in that way?
@Tim Curtin
"Where are your observations and measurements for ML #1? If your house was encased in ice a hundred metres thick, surely by ML#1 the ice’s EM radiation should warm it. If not, why not? "
Because of the difference in mass. The temperature of the ice and the house will eventual equalize, with the temperature of the house dropping dramatically and the ice warming infinitesimally. The house is losing more heat to the ice than it is gaining from the ice, and the ice is gaining more heat from the house than it is losing.
Replace that ice with liquid nitrogen and see if the house cools slower or faster than it does when it was ice.
Grima 'suckass' Wormtonge weaseled: "However the Greenland Ice Sheet statement does mislead, The ‘If’ premise is highly unlikely"
The Greenlandice sheet is ablating NOW, you moron.
http://search.nasa.gov/search/search.jsp?nasaInclude=greenland&x=33&y=10
Or have you and Watts' other lo-IQ contingent decided amongst yourselves not to worry about it till the last ice cube left there melts?
Just like the desperate will find with 3000%+ payday interest rate loans, what miracle are you counting on to stop it? Do please share, cretin.
@GSW
"The ‘If’ premise is highly unlikely (if not impossible over a reasonable time frame), but the statement is couched in such a way that we are led to believe that it a very real and present threat – Weasel words/misled."
Those aren't weasel words there either, nor are they designed to mislead. The condition for that prediction is itself made up of other predictions, each with its own probability, it's not just a static premise. Nor is it a guess.
Given that all the ice melts from Greenland and no other mitigating conditions change, the ocean level will rise.
Given that the global temperatures continue to rise, and no other mitigating conditions change, the all the Greenland ice will melt.
Given that GHG levels continue to rise, and no other mitigating conditions change, the global temperature will continue to rise.
None of the conditional clauses I used are intended to mislead anyone, nor are they an attempt to cover my ass, they're there to show the possibility of the conditions changing outside of the predictions.
The reason for the emotions being added is because the consequences affect us, or our descendents, directly and we can have some affect on the conditions.
P. Lewis and GaryB, don't get confused by Betula's intellectually dishonest shenanigans. I wrote:
That is clearly a prediction: "a statement about the way things will happen in the future, often but not always based on experience or knowledge" (Wikipedia). That it is idiomatically phrased as a statement of fact is only relevant to dishonest cretins like Betula; there would be no difference in the point in re global warming if I had written
which is accurate, unlike Betula's stupid and dishonest "may".
@Chek
There's a lot of articles there chek, any of them give timescales for the disappearance of the Ice sheet from Greenland? Try and avoid the" If (unlikely event) could" construct in your answer.
;)
P. Lewis's condition was "I say" and "I predict", which should be taken as "I expect". The very semantics of "predict" imply a probability of less than 1. And when a doctor or a scientist says that something will happen in the future, they are implying that it is inferable from their knowledge and expertise that it will happen, with all the usual Humean caveats about the uncertainties of empirical assertions about future events. Saying that something "may" happen merely asserts that it isn't impossible -- which itself is problematic if you're going to employ radical epistemological skepticism (i.e., misplaced pedantry) to ordinary language.
@Tim Curtin
"Your corollary to ML#1 is also wrong “A molecule of Co2 that encounters a photon of LW radiation will scatter it in all directions.” Not so, only from hot to less hot."
And just how does the molecule know not to re-radiate in a specific direction?
Temperature equalizes not because the heat knows which way to go but because there is more radiation going in one direction than in the opposite direction.
This is so basic I have a hard time understanding how someone could miss it.
@ianam
"(i.e., misplaced pedantry)"
Those are my middle names.
Gary Misplaced Pedantry B.
Grima @ 8:58 - thanks for a) confirming you're a moron who doesn't want to know, and b)) avoiding the question of what miracle are you hoping will negate the ablation of the ice sheet already occurring.
@GaryB
Sorry missed your reply before , this is the important bit;
"we are led to believe that it a very real and present threat – Weasel words/misled.”
Chek couldn't find any info on likely timescales to make it alarming from his library I think.
As I said, the Met office have it at ~5,000 yrs from memory. So for Hansens ~25m SLR, it's about avg 5mm/year or a foot and half per century.
Which coming from an alarmist is well, not very alarming at all. Hansen obviously thought the headline figure of 25m was more pleasing whilst taking about mid 21st century C02 levels of 450ppm. Weasel words.
Grima I repeat "and b)) avoiding the question of what miracle are you hoping will negate the ablation of the ice sheet already occurring". As confirmed by the GRACE satellite in the links.
You'll notice - if you look up the definition - that the phrase 'already occurring' completely negates your conditional-'based sophistry-for-morons.
The implied response can only be you don't care, which is most likely because - and why - you're a moron.
OK, so we're not going to talk about anything that's actually happening of genuine interest; we're stuck 'debating' conditional clauses in response to content-free posts from muppets.
Why do so many Deniers cling to 'aha, but you can't guarantee (strict interpretation) what's going to happen in the future!' as if this was a trump card - some sort of arcane wisdom only available to the Denialati elect - and not the human condition?
Answer - because if they can make enough contrarian noise inside their own heads that'll make it really difficult for any unpleasant revelations to find their way into consciousness. ('Arctic sea ice la la la what? accelerated glacier melt la la la warmest May in NH la la la eh? second globally la la la how's that? Colorado wildfires la la la la can't hear you and anyway you can't prove it')
I think they also hope this may also allow any potential muppet-equivalent onlookers to tell themselves that an actual debate is really being had!
Note to any such hypothetical lurkers - if you're really impressed by this you're lost to science and reason already, and might as well publicly join Tim Curtin and the Loyal Order of SkyDragons in believing in intelligent photons, or lend a hand to BettyOlausGSWKarenMcSpot assembling their massed Army of Strawmen...
Further on obfuscation as a Denier strategy at every level...
I thought the argument was the MET office are falsifying data and can't predict the weather of the next let alone future climate. Suddenly, when they can be used to support your argument, they're an authoritative source.
Make your minds up!
@John
I don't have an axe to grind over this John, if you think the MET office have it wrong, I'm perfectly happy for you to express your view. As you know, MET office forecasts for anything other than the next 24hrs (and there's been some howlers there as well) are notoriously unreliable so your scepticism is not misplaced IMO.
;)
The bumbling, oafish child GSW's clusmy attempt to misconstrue my excellent comment has accidentally underlined my central point - deniers are happy to cherrypick when it suits them.
It's funny how the MET Office is either the authority of choice or fraudulently cooking data, whichever position suit the deniers most.
Even funnier - GSW was unable to tell I was ridiculing him and repeated the beloved carnard that climate is weather without a hint of irony.
As the evidence mounts their arguments only get weaker.
Why, it's almost like Curtin - N2 and O2 are either opaque to or transparent to longwave IR, depending on what he's arguing at the time.
No, the Met Office is just useless - I'm still waiting, after four years, for the BBQ summer they forecast! Not that my BBQ is up to much these days given the amount of rust on it.
Incidentally, it is now official, this is the wettest, coolest Apr/May/Jun for absolute yonks. And I have just been looking at temperature stats for Texas - but these are unadulterated figures, not bent to suit a purpose. Why am I not surprised to learn that there has been virtually no increase in temperatures in Texas for the last 100 years and the only increase that has occurred is in cities where the population has exploded since the end of WWII.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/cag3.html
There you go GSW! You can always rely on Duff to unwittingly prove my point.
No, the Met Office is just useless – I’m still waiting, after four years, for the BBQ summer they forecast!
Are you sure about that Duff? Unfortunately you don't provide us with any proof except a map which shows the opposite of what you claim. In fact, a quick change of the settings shows that the majority of the US had record high temperatures!
And look at this!
The US just had its hottest 12 month period on record!
It really is a wonder that you fail so frequently, Duff. You are a pathetic, shambling mess of a man and you only bring shame to rapidly dwindling denier population.
Sorry I wasn't able to respond earlier to Betula (June 29, 3:48 pm)
It does? Even if it does, why does this require you to snipe at everyone who presents any evidence to support the fact of climate change?
When asked to support this, you give a link to a claim that humanity has only a few years left in which to take action to avoid a catastrophe. You must live a very sheltered existence if you think this is a worst case scenario. I recently (sorry, lost the links) saw a climate blog in which a large fraction of the commentators thought it was already too late.
When asked for a citation, you gave a link to someone expressing the view that rich nations should help out those affected by climate change. How does this demonstrate ideology and bias as being inherent in the science?
On the evidence you supplied to my questions, you are not a denier - but you conspicuously failed to answer my original question:
You've denied saying that climate change is not happening, yet you jeer at any evidence people present that indicates that climate change is taking place.
I think you are that worst kind of denier, the coward who avoids ever clearly stating their opinions on climate change because they know they will not be able to support them with any kind of evidence.
David spreads the convenient lie.
In actual fact, the forecast was for dryer weeks than the year before. On being persistently asked "will there be a barbecue summer this year?" said "there could be".
A website I am sure teh Duff will enjoy:
http://www.netweather.tv/index.cgi?action=cet;sess=
OK, it kinda contradicts his claim that April/May/June have been cold, but I am sure teh Duff will find something that he can twist to his liking...
Note that in my post on the July thread at 10.18, the link I gave finishes at June 2011. I wonder if DD will notice...
I have submitted the June NOAA State of the Climate report to Reddit Science. A sub forum with over one and a half million subscribers. One of the mods took it down saying that it was not a peer reviewed link. I pointed out that the report is from a scientific organization (NOAA) and that the report is published by relevant scientific experts. Further, I said that State of the Climate reports are regularly cited in peer reviewed articles published in such high impact journals as Science.
I really can not see what justification they can have. It seems patently ridiculous to have a internet forum with a higher standard than the American Academy of Sciences and at the same time allow links to science articles by the New York Times to be published unmolested.
My question for you lot is their another argument I could use that I am missing?
I would go over that mod and message the moderators (http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/science).