I am much to blame. I know perfectly well how much deniers like to whine and play the victim. Betty's interminable blithering was entirely predictable. Even if I'd put a great, clumsy parenthesis in the original comment saying look, y'know, it's a metaphor, kids, this would probably still have happened.
The laughable thing is that compared to what the public is going to do to the science-denying right and the climate clown troupe, I am a gentle zephyr.
To all the deniers running with the "CO2 is plant food" meme, it looks as if increased CO2 is not going to be of much benefit to trees dying of heat stress and drier conditions, which is happening on the west coast of Australia and other parts of the world. I note that the Amazon is getting drier as well. Big worry.
As for the east coast of Australia, where they've had 3 major floods in the last 4 years, I don't know how that's affecting the health of the vegetation there. Considering that previous to the floods there was a 10 year drought, if there is any benefit it might only be temporary until drought conditions return. Maybe Jeff would like to comment.
_______________________________________
NARRATION
The Rocky Mountains of North America - home to some of the most beautiful, pristine forests in the world. But the shades of burnt golden reds aren't the changing tones of Autumn; they're dead and dying trees.
Dr Craig Allen
We're looking at tree mortality over a scale of tens of millions of hectares in the last decade alone.
NARRATION
In fact, right across the globe, there are reports of trees dying in mass numbers.
Anja Taylor
From Europe, from Africa, even right across the Amazon, and right here in Australia.
NARRATION
Here in the Perth hills, trees have been dropping by the tens of thousands. Inside their carcasses are thriving parasites.
Dr George Matusick
So this is a larvae, a late instar larvae.
Anja Taylor
Oh, he's alive and well.
NARRATION
These Long Horned borers have been feasting on the live wood of Jarrah and Marri, the two dominant eucalypt species in south-west Western Australia. The insect is a native, and until recently, wasn't a problem.
Dr George Matusick
The numbers are scary. Where we might have seen one, maybe two per square metre, now we're seeing fifty, sixty, seventy, eighty. We've seen even as high as one hundred. So be one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve.
Anja Taylor
Twelve larvae came off that one little spot?
Dr George Matusick
Yeah, that one spot where the eggs were laid. And they get larger as they go away.
Anja Taylor
What, because the larvae's actually grown in size as they plough through the wood.
Dr George Matusick
Yeah … yep.
Anja Taylor
And this has had it?
Dr George Matusick
This is dead, yeah.
NARRATION
But don't blame the borers. Unable to penetrate the moist wood of healthy trees, these insects are simply opportunists.
Dr George Matusick
We don't really know how it acts normally, but we suspect that it goes into dying and dead trees.
NARRATION
Last summer provided an ideal feeding ground.
Anja Taylor
This big eucalypt took hundreds of years to grow. And died in just a couple of weeks.
NARRATION
In fact nearly every tree you see here, died suddenly and at the same time.
Prof Giles Hardy
Last summer was the hottest, driest period on record, and we had some hundred and twenty-two days with no rain, we had weeks with over forty-two degrees, and we started to see large areas just collapsing and dying. So we took an aeroplane up and it was amazing to see the extent of the yellowing and purpling and the numbers of trees that were dead. In the Perth hills, we lost approximately twenty-thousand hectares of trees.
NARRATION
Sadly, it's not just a one-off extreme event. Since the 1990s, trees of many different species have been declining across south-west Western Australia. Along the highways, thousands of Marri Trees are in blossom. They look healthy from a distance, but step a little closer, and you'll find they are marked for death.
Prof Giles Hardy
Okay, so this a very good example of a typical canker in Marri.
Anja Taylor
Wow, that's a really sick tree, isn't it?
Prof Giles Hardy
Yes. The first things we look for is the red kino vein, the bleeding, and the way the bark is lifting away off the main stem.
NARRATION
The canker is the tree's reaction to a deadly fungus, which the eucalypt tries to wall off by surrounding it with a callus. Eventually though, the pathogen wins.
Anja Taylor
If a Marri gets a canker like that, does it mean it will definitely die?
Prof Giles Hardy
Yes, this tree is definitely going to die between now and three or four years' time.
Anja Taylor
If you take a short walk along this highway, you see that Marri has a canker, that one has a canker, that one. In fact, most of the Marri trees here have cankers. That means that in ten years or so, this whole place will be unrecognisable.
Prof Giles Hardy
The canker problem is probably the most severe thing that's happening in our forests at the moment. We've never seen it causing these levels of deaths, and now it is. So something has changed.
NARRATION
Something has changed too, for the Tuart trees. At Lake Clifton, south of Perth, their twisted skeletons rise through the peppermint groves. These ones died in the 1990s. In other areas, they are failing to fruit, and the species' seed bank is drastically declining.
Prof Giles Hardy
Again, we don't fully understand what's driving these declines, but in some areas we're losing a hundred per cent of the trees.
NARRATION
Despite many different ailments, there is one obvious common stressor that could explain why so many trees are dying. They are facing higher temperatures with less water. The south-west of Western Australia has lost fifteen per cent of its rainfall in the past few decades. Average temperatures have increased by just over half a degree Celsius. Heatwaves have become longer, more frequent, and more intense.
Prof Giles Hardy
We haven't seen such scale of damage in the last fifty, sixty years, probably in recorded history.
Dr George Matusick
These are some of, if not the toughest trees I've ever seen. Now we're seeing conditions that are going outside their ability to cope.
NARRATION
US forest ecologist Dr Craig Allen sees the situation in WA as typical of the trends being observed elsewhere in the world. He's documented over a hundred examples of large-scale tree deaths in the past twenty-five years.
Dr Craig Allen
We see all around the world in places where there have been droughts, that drought - particularly droughts and heatwaves - trigger mass waves of mortality. No major forest type is immune.
NARRATION
Across the western US, tree death rate have more than doubled in the past few decades.
Dr Craig Allen
Where I work in northern New Mexico, we see everything from grasses and shrubs to trees dying.
NARRATION
Die-off events are quick and dramatic.
Dr Craig Allen
There may be insects and fungal pests that emerge at that point in time, but underlying it is the physiological stress on the trees that compromises their defences. You could think of it actually sort of like HIV in humans. HIV doesn't directly kill people, but by compromising our immune systems, it makes us vulnerable to secondary ah, you know, viruses and other things that can kill us. It's similar in trees.
NARRATION
The effect climate change may have on our forests is a huge concern. But an even greater worry - how will dying trees affect the climate? In 2005, the heart of the world's biggest rainforest suffered a drought so hot and severe it turned the Amazon jungle from a carbon sink to a carbon source. A second once-in-a-century drought happened five years later.
Dr Craig Allen
So what we're seeing in these forest die-off events around the world are trees passing the tipping point of stress - the thresholds of mortality. Unfortunately we don't know very much about these thresholds at this point.
NARRATION
To better understand tree tipping points, Dr Martin Bader is monitoring several major Western Australian species. This drought-stressed Jarrah has instruments placed from the trunk to the outer leaves to measure how water is used across the tree.
Dr Martin Bader
Okay, this is the canopy, this is where the tree loses most of its water, because the leaves are fully exposed to the sun.
NARRATION
Leaves lose water via tiny holes called stomata. These need to be open to draw in carbon dioxide for photosynthesis. But if too much water is lost, the trees can shut down their stomata.
Dr Martin Bader
We came out on a forty-degree day and did our measurements, and realised that shortly after nine o'clock, the tree basically shut down, because at that time of the day, there was only a small opportunity where the tree could actually photosynthesise. So it can't basically eat.
NARRATION
The tree avoids dying of thirst, but then begins to starve. Martin had measurements on a Banksia that died just a few months ago.
Dr Martin Bader
Any time of day was over thirty degrees, the tree ran into pretty high stress levels, and then we had a couple of days consecutively over thirty, thirty-two degrees, and it was just too much, apparently. That tipped the tree over. Sixty or seventy per cent of the Banksias died last summer.
Anja Taylor
Sixty to seventy per cent in this woodland?
Dr Martin Bader
Yeah, yeah. The Sheoaks, apparently last year we thought they died as well, but as you can see they are all, or most of them are sprouting.
Anja Taylor
Yeah, they've got re-sprouts. And so do the Banksias come back?
Dr Martin Bader
No, the Banksias are, are all dead, they're gone for good.
NARRATION
Almost overnight, this Banksia dominated woodland has shifted to one with mainly Sheoaks. The implications for nectar-loving birds, insects and mammals are profound. With climate change certain to intensify over the coming years, is there anything at all that can be done? There's good evidence trees can be protected with booster-shots. This one's a fungicide.
Prof Giles Hardy
And the tree is transpiring, and the chemical is taken up into the, into the sap flow.
Anja Taylor
This little capsule contains nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium and trace elements - all the nutrients a tree needs. Very good with a mallet. Good luck.
Prof Giles Hardy
Sometimes we see the response within six weeks. The leaves can change colour from a yellow to a nice bright healthy green.
Anja Taylor
And you can save a tree like this.
Prof Giles Hardy
And you can save a tree.
Anja Taylor
Which looks like it's almost dead.
NARRATION
It could be a savior for parks, gardens and golf courses, but ultimately injecting all the trees in the world is just not an option. Eventually climate will have the last say.
Dr Craig Allen
What's most alarming is that these die-off events may be just the tip of the iceberg. We know that warming, temperatures exacerbate tree mortality, and the climate predictions are that the world is going to get much warmer soon. Um, so we may be just at the very front edge of what could be wholesale mortality of the world's forests - the forests that we know and care about today.
I don't know what's more amusing: freddy ignoring more complete (and necessarily more complex) explanations in favour of his simplistic observations, or freddy's condescension when making "points" that everyone else already understands. He's a DKE exemplar on steroids - or a very successful Poe.
"Claims of a deceptive and biased Yamal chronology turn out to rely on outlier data that should be omitted; our new research, based on a greatly expanded dataset, supports the finding that tree-growth (and inferred summer temperature) in this region are likely greater in the last 100 years than for any previous century in the last 2000 years" - Keith Briffa, Tim Osborn, Tom Melvin
But Monty 'sticky' Bishop, the conspiraloon, will always swoon at his feet.
Try to understand that none of this matters. The fake controversy that SM has desperately tried to keep alive all these years is an irrelevance.
It tells us nothing about radiative physics that we don't already know (eg that CO2 is a long-lived, non-condensing GHG and a moderately efficacious forcing). It tells us nothing about millennial climate behaviour that we don't already have a pretty good picture of. It tells us nothing about climate sensitivity and nothing about C20th climate behaviour except that it is - apparently - rather unusual.
It is a distraction. A misdirection. A means of creating smoke *without* a fire. A tactical diversion that also serves as an endless implied smear of climate science as a whole, even though it is utterly irrelevant (see above).
You are apparently desperately naive. I get the sense you have never had to operate in a hardcore business environment. You have no apparent awareness of the games people play and they way they are played.
You aren't intellectually or experientially equipped for what willard calls "Climateball". So you have become the played, rather than the player.
* * *
As if it mattered, Briffa et al. just buried McIntyre's nonsense. Read the RC link check provides at # 8. Make an effort for once.
when sun rays reach the surface (land, water) the surface will be warmed
... and begin to radiate in the infra-red. This outgoing IR is absorbed and re-radiated by certain types of molecule in the atmospheric mix. These are commonly known as "greenhouse gasses".
As the atmospheric fraction of well-mixed GHGs increases, the absorption and re-radiation of IR continues at higher altitudes - altitudes where previously most IR was radiating out of the planetary atmosphere into space.
The decreasing temperature with altitude *decreases* the efficiency with which the radiating upper atmosphere actually emits radiation to space. This is what is meant when we say GHGs increase the altitude of effective emission.
The reduced efficiency in the radiation of energy from the planetary atmosphere into space causes a radiative imbalance to develop.
For radiative balance to be restored, the entire climate system must heat up until the radiating upper atmosphere is warm enough to counterbalance the effect of its increased altitude.
This is commonly known as "global warming" or AGW, as it is caused by anthropogenic emissions of CO2 - long known to be a greenhouse gas.
Olap, if I need the opinion of an intellectual vegetable, I'll ask the veggie directly. As Briffa, Osborn and Melvin will confirm, at least the vegetable kingdom give honest answers.
Your opinions, while long known to be of a similar calibre, suffer the additional handicap of being renowned for dishonesty, so you'll need a reference to make it even register on the radar. And as you can't, it won't.
You can’t generalize a plants response on paper. Look at the plant structure, the species, the location, the soil structure, the competition, the maturity, the micro environment, the overall health.
Two points.
First, it is entirely possible to "generalise" in the context of my questions. Let's start with the first question:
What happens directly to roots that are too wet?
Anyone who had done even first year of a horticultural certificate would know that the roots of plants that are exposed to excessive water have reduced or absent oxygen up-take, and as most plants are generally (oo, that word!) not able to function without some gaseous oxygen in the immediate vicinity of their roots they suffer adverse reactions. An excessively wet root zone also promotes the growth of pathogenic fungi such as Armillaria, Phytophthora, Pythium, and Rhizoctonia.
Together these two sequelæ can cause "damping off" or root rot in many grasses, herbs, shrubs and trees. One doesn't need to be specific in this - it is a general response seen in many species as a consequence of exposure to too much water.
Which is the whole point - too much of a good thing is not necessarily good.
The same valid generalisation approach can be applied to each of the subsequent questions, making the same overall point - more water is not necessarily better. It's quite revealing that you balked and gagged on conceding this.
Of course generality aside I have never said that plant growth responses are not complex - and indeed this has been my point and Jeff's and BBD's and Lotharsson's and others' the whole time! Your quote could as easily have been:
You can’t generalize a plants [sic] response to increased carbon dioxide on paper. Look at the plant structure, the species, the location, the soil structure, the competition, the maturity, the micro environment, the overall health.
See? That has been our point all along.
You have been attempting to smooth over the effects of climate change with comments such as:
CO2 fertilization isn’t as insignificant as [BBD] and [Jeff] would have us believe...
and
The effect of CO2 fertilization is unknown….so how can it be insignificant if you don’t know?
which are both misrepresentations of what's been said by many commentators here. Everyone acknowledges that increased carbon dioxide can enhance plant growth rates under optimal conditions - it's been said countless times by myself and many, many others, and with much reference to hothouses and Gaussian distributions of growth cofactors and Sprengel's (aka Liebig's) Law.
And it's inaccurate to say that the "effect of CO2 fertilization is unknown". Its effect is known - and its confounding by those cofactors is well understood in some cases and not so well in others. Enough is know however to infer that many places on the planet will receive such altered bioclimatic conditions that the increase in CO2 will not offset the damage caused by climate change, and indeed may exacerbate it - as has been observed in contexts where lowered nitrogen content occurring in plants subjected to in high CO2 growth results in increased rates of herbivory as pests attempt to acquire the nitrogen they need.
You have been attempting to play up the benefit of one aspect of carbon dioxide emissions Betula, whilst cavalierly dismissing or just completely ignoring the many other complex (to use a word that you use yourself) factors involved. These complexities are better understood than you make out, and the consequences are not as rosy for many species and many ecosystem functions on which humans rely.
Of course, if you have evidence to the contrary, you could blow us out of the water by listing the areas of human endeavour and in ecosystem function where there will be a better, braver new CO2-laden world.
You are stuck in academia….just as I predicted, with “stunning accuracy”
Oh, you predicted it did you? The problem for you is that I am not in fact “stuck in academia” but I am stuck with the inconvenient (for you) habit of relying on the best science and the weight of empirical evidence.
You remind me of some of the fishing industry lobbyists with whom some of my colleagues locked horns in the late 80s and early 90s. Even within the year before the ’92 moratorium on cod fishing these industry shills were wingeing about “academics” who were trying to tell them that the industry estimations were way off beam... except it turned out that the independent population biologists were right and the fishing lackies were wrong – so wrong that when the Canadian government stepped in at the 13th hour the North Altalntic fishery was completely FUBARed and the the industry had shot itself in both feet and through the head for good measure.
It’s the same with ecology and climatology today. Your impression of the cliché garret-cloistered, “academic” don is a far cry from the bloody hard-working field researchers who spent years of their lives in often extreme environments, in direct, intimate contact with their subject material and with the non-scientific people who work in the area. The three biggest issues with scientific knowledge that I’ve seen are:
1) journalists who spin it for a story rather than teasing out the facts,
2) bureaucrats who mangle it for political ends, and
3) ignorant non-scientists who presume that they know better and come up with the sort of nonsense peddled by YE creationists, anti-vaxxers and climate change denialists.
Now, if you were to come work for me, with your arrogant attitude, seething with ideology and over generalizations, I would fire you “immediately and with no recourse to appeal, with no hesitation”.
Betula, I wouldn’t make the mistake of ever seeking in the first place employment with a Dunningly-Krugered anti-intellectual who confuses ideology (to which they are ironically prone themselves) with objective assessment of the best outputs of the scientific method. I don’t give a shit for people who regard themselves as Boss Hogs bestowing on their slave class the privilege of being an employee – all I care about is that the people that I work for and with know how to use their brains.
It was numpties like you who thought that their “professional” expertise informed them that it was fine to continue throwing their cod nets over the sides of their boats in spite of what the "academics" said – and those numpties are the sort of boss that the world is better off without.
It's certainly not the sort of employer for whom I'd waste my time working.
O'louse, you are spamming the thread with pointless crap about Yamal.
Please read # 11 again. Try to understand what the words actually mean.
Then feel free to select a topic which actually matters. Fake controversies confected by denialists over the detailed interpretation of dendro proxies in millennial climate reconstructions is so... yesterday.
Being boring is one of the worst conversation crimes, you know. However, being flat-out misleading is also frowned upon. Do, please, read the Briffa et al. article at RC. Briffa and colleagues are more reliable sources of information than SM.
Already done, by the professionals who do the work.
What YOU have to deal with is your misplaced faith in a vain, self-appointed, idiot-paranoid like McIntyre.
Realizing he exposed himself for who he really is…BDud now changes his tune.
Not at all.
Deniers in general are being given shorter shrift, but not nearly short enough. The public lacks insight into just how dishonest, self-serving and vile this behaviour is. If the public really thought about the matter, deniers would be beaten in the streets, and I for one would not lift a fucking finger to stop it.
Oops, sorry folks I seem to have fucked up the second paragraph of #25 which should have read:
"Meanwhile Olap continues his swim in his favourite sewers of fuckwittery authored by know-nothing nobodies honking on about that of which they know nothing
Compare the abstract with Codling's attempted spin: "Anthropogenic contributions to the record hot 2013 Australian summer are investigated using a suite of climate model experiments. This was the hottest Australian summer in the observational record. Australian area-average summer temperatures for simulations with natural forcings only were compared to simulations with anthropogenic and natural forcings for the period 1976–2005 and the RCP8.5 high emission simulation (2006–2020) from nine CMIP5 models. Using fraction of attributable risk to compare the likelihood of extreme Australian summer temperatures between the experiments, it was very likely (>90% confidence) there was at least a 2.5 times increase in the odds of extreme heat due to human influences using simulations to 2005, and a five-fold increase in this risk using simulations for 2006–2020. The human contribution to the increased odds of Australian summer extremes like 2013 was substantial, while natural climate variations alone, including El Niño Southern Oscillation, are unlikely to explain the record temperature.
Ever wonder why you and your like-minded crew sit in that hard-to-attain spot between contempt and being a pitiful joke Olap? Well, hopefully that clarifies it.
Then it is confirmed. You are a sadistic, sick fuck who condones and wishes to watch the beating of anyone, regardless of age, race or sex as long as your delusions convince you that their thoughts may harm you.
Oh, and I should add - because Olap and the Scandinavian troll collective farm really ARE that stupid - that satellites don't measure surface temperature.
Apologies for stating information redundantly obvious to the regulars here, but the Scandinavian troll collective farm clowns really do know less than zero.
Predictably, (and oh, how very much you wish they could avoid the dullness of that inevitability) Betty wanks himself up into a full prissy victim froth. How very and comedically October 2010 (10:10).
It's not just that the Scandinavian Troll Collective is that stupid - it's that it's even more stupid.
They were reminded only a few days ago of the fact of satellites being a temperature proxy, so you'd think that they would have approached any science mangling from Joanne Codling with a truck-load of hypercautious scepticism. Some people just can't take a hint.
And by the way, isn't it cute that they like the satellite proxy, with it's long and sorry tale of embarrassing gaffs and failures and hefty corrections, but they don't accept other proxies which are far better callibrated, procedurally straightforward and demonstrably reliable?
It's a sad indictment on the recalcitrant stupidity of the Denialatus brain that they studiously ignore the point that the dendrochronology proxies are independently confirmed by at least five other proxies.
Remember back in February this year when I drew this to the attention of one Brad Keyes* and he jumped about and skirted and hedged and blathered and generally ignored the inconvenient fact of tree rings being confirmed by these other proxies? It seems that they have the intellectual*equivalent of Joo Janta 200 Super-Chromatic Peril Sensitive Sunglasses when it comes to having truth laid out before them.
Those readers who did not catch the February bruhaha should consider reading it for a page or so from the link in the preceding paragraph. Oloaus Petri's, freddy's, Betula's et at behaviour here uncannily mimics Keyes' dodging and weaving around uncomfortable fact, and around some of the subsequent points I make about the Aono data. The data themselves are quite interesting, and the temperature reconstruction is exquisitely simple and robst.
[*I use the word advisedly]
[**Caution people - mentioning his name twice more may invoke the Beetlejuice effect...]
Wow, that 'DAS' poster really wipes the floor with them! They seem genuinely lost as to what to do...
(It's a notable feature that to the denier mind all ecosystems are the same, aren't they, so here's this cherry-picked snippet from a forest or a lab I'm tossing in even though that's not the frickin' landscape under discussion. Just like here! And Spangly dips an oar in!)
Did you notice another agrostologist - that's the thing I've learned for today - popped up to say he was going to make the same points?
I'll explain it for the Hard-of-Thinking: yet again, if the people who actually know what they're talking about appear, your simplistic sloganeering - in this case 'CO2 is plant food' - dies an exquisite and humiliating death.
(That's a metaphor again, Batty; don't get excited! Still waiting on that condemnation of The Egregious Delingpole...)
Good grief deltoids!
Come back a week later and discover such a sad place :-(
And no doubt. . . because even the moderators must be depressed. . . I will 'languish' in moderation for quite some time.
A question. . . can you see a pattern developing here? ? ?
Dead agrostologists society” counters with the same arguments raised here
Is that the "ad hominem"
"patronising and kindergarten way of speaking"
"unable to post any argument or referewnce to support claims"
"hand waving own opinion and filler"
Yeah, I know, all that sciencey shit about landscape categories and complex causation and C3s and C4s is hard, isn't it, Rudolph? So you just let all that go through in the usual blur until you found something you could react to. You poor little victim you!
And so the chum swirls, round and round. This week, the (re)turn of the CO2 is plant food misrepresentation. Next week the stinking carcass of some other long-dead misrepresentation will be ladled up for the delectation of Teh Stupid.
Y'see Redarse, while there are politically motivated groups (your kind of people!) quite content to mangle reality by proxy to further their aims (and the reality proxy here is science) by definition they're creating a cloud-cuckoo, la-la land.
This is a modern phenomenon coincident with the rise of the zealots of neo-liberalist radicalism who actually or cynically - it really doesn't matter which - believe the Rovian philosophy of creating realities to suit political agenda who have hi-jacked old-school conservatism. By old school I'm referring of course to pre Reagan-Thatcher times. The hated-by-wingnuts Jim Hansen is a conservative, as are other leading climatologists such as Kerry Emanuel.
Needless to say, denying reality or placing its demands in other than primary consideration is a loser's game which can never end well. Think the last days of Berlin'45 as a good example of wingnuts attempting to defy the inevitable through willpower alone regardless of the needless and avoidable mass misery caused even in that short period.
Oh and fuck Godwin
As with pregnancy, you're either rational or you're not. It's not something you switch off according to mood or circumstance.
Best you stick to your false equivalences and propaganda sites, it's obviously what you're more comfortable with. For now.
Sadistic-Because-your thoughts are harming me-Dud.''
"Bernard J, like Jeff Harvey, brings expert knowledge to the table. I have no doubt that many here are grateful for the opportunity to learn something"
SBD - I think you have some chocolate cake on your nose....oh shit!
Its too bad the Betula's understanding of ecological complexity is at the level of a primary school student. Bernard and I have demolished ever mute point he has raised, but he STILL comes back with more vacuous remarks.
The problem is, in true Dunning-Kruger fashion, Betula THINKS he is an expert in areas he knows very little about and about. He clearly does not read the primary literature, and instead appears to glean his 'expertise' from sites like the GWPF or, even more absurdly, Lubos Motl's blog. He also thinks being a forester, and having a BS degree in forestry, confers immense wisdom in fields he has never studies and in which he does not publish.
All that is left is for him to once again try and smear me with flippant remarks about a winter trip I made to a Park in Ontario more than a year ago. He has nothing os substance to say; he cannot with any kind of depth respond to the points Benrard and I made about the ecological and physiological consequences of increasing atmospheric concentrations of C02. And that is because our points are way over his head. What does Betula know about plant allelochemistry? the nutritional ecology of consumers up the food chain? About environmental stoichiometry? Has he ever read any of the important primary scientific literature in the field? For instance Rick Lindroth's research as well as that of many other scientists?
One thing is certain though: Betula does not give up. Either he is desperate to have the last word or else he thinks he is 'winning' here. Given that most of the other deniers have abandoned him, he must be pretty thick if he thinks the latter.
Betty - taking a break from indoctrinating his cadre of denier children - whined about 'thoughts'.
Nobody cares about the third hand ignorance that constitutes the thoughts of deniers Betty. Otherwise we'd be forever mired in the petty small-minded vendettas that you for instance engage in.
Try something coherent (in the real world that is, not just whatever passes muster between your ears) next time.
It's interesting watching Betty-John's lies evolve over time. This is where we are now:
Then it is confirmed. You are a sadistic, sick fuck who condones and wishes to watch the beating of anyone, regardless of age, race or sex as long as your delusions convince you that their thoughts may harm you.
Below are the original comments which provoked all the lying, misreprsentation, whining and playing the victim. Compare Betty's vindictive smear above with what was actually said:
- You [Betty-John Birch] have no basis for your claims
- You lack the expertise to make them
- You are simply *misrepresenting* the consequences of warming for selfish political reasons
- This makes you an enemy of mankind.
Deniers in general are being given shorter shrift, but not nearly short enough. The public lacks insight into just how dishonest, self-serving and vile this behaviour is. If the public really thought about the matter, deniers would be beaten in the streets, and I for one would not lift a fucking finger to stop it.
I am simply getting angrier and angrier with the stupid amorality of denialism. The absence of any recognition by vocal science deniers like Betty that they are simply shilling for vested corporate and political interests that will, eventually, bugger up the planet.
The sheer unacceptability of this behaviour is not sufficiently emphasised in public debate. Deniers have, to some extent, managed to normalise their shilling and lies simply by persistent repetition. Given the potential consequences, this should not be tolerated.
Deniers should be asked the same basic questions:
- what relevant expertise do you have to deny the validity of the scientific consensus on AGW?
- demonstrate a robust scientific counter-argument that substantively challenges the scientific consensus on AGW
If they have no expertise and no scientific argument (eg John Birch, serially, above), then it’s time to point out that they are politicised, lying, self-serving vermin whose actions threaten the future of our children and their descendants.
It's hard not to conclude that Betty-John's cameo of me is rather... distorted. In fact it's hard not to conclude that our Betty is being somewhat dishonest :-)
Also amusing that reminding Betty that the credentialled experts commenting here think he's an ignorant buffoon provokes accusations of devotional anulingus...
"Together these two sequelæ can cause “damping off” or root rot in many grasses, herbs, shrubs and trees."
I'm sure my words at #74 were just an oversight on your part: "Depending on species, tolerance and susceptibility. Overall. too much water creates a habitat for many fungi….root rots, leaf spots, anthracnose etc"
You state..."One doesn’t need to be specific in this – it is a general response seen in many species as a consequence of exposure to too much water"
Maybe not, if you're sitting in a stuffy office or classroom all day, however, if you are in the field all day diagnosing and problem solving, then yes, you have to be specific.
Have you ever been involved with a wetland renovation project Berntard? Other than on paper of course...
Have you ever treated a tree for Phytophthora? Phomopsis? Borers? Other than in the classroom of course...
So your shocking point is, too much of a needed thing, say water, could be detrimental....generally speaking.
You use this as a comparison to CO2, where, generally speaking, too much CO2 is not necessarily better...(or worse).
Here's where you are wrong. I never said CO2 fertilization was a good thing, or a bad thing, yet somehow it is you who claim there are "misrepresentations of what’s been said"
Is this how you run your classes, misrepresenting what you claim was misrepresented?
You claim I "have been attempting to smooth over the effects of climate change with comments such as:"
CO2 fertilization isn’t as insignificant as [BBD] and [Jeff] would have us believe.
And you call it a misrepresentation.
Yet, here is B-Dud at #72 pg 7...
"CO2 fertilisation is a fucking irrelevance compared to the effects of abrupt climate change on plant physiology and global agricultural productivity."
Well Berntard, "sayin’ it don’t make it so"...... (BDud @ 32)
Wanting it to be irrelevant (or insignificant), without truly understanding it's relevance, is a blatant misrepresentation.
Additionally, claiming climate change will be "abrupt" and claiming to know all the effects on plant physiology and global agricultural productivity." without knowing the relevance or specifics of all the unknown interactions is strictly picking and choosing scenarios that fit an ideological criteria.
Boy, Batty's another poo-obsessed freak. You're losing it, Sunshine. Devolving into Mike...
(Also, Australians don't do much treating of trees for Phytophthora - if you actually want to know why JFGI, but you don't - and what freakin' difference would it make to what Bernard's saying if they did or he had? 'You call youselves ecologists, but have you ever held a sick elm in your arms and comforted it as it lay dying?' is just overwrought stupid, Batty, and another indicator that you macho types are hysterics at heart...)
Freddy, sod off, you're boring.
(I'll point out again that one can learn a lot by paying a visit to the Stoat's Burrow.)
Tell you what Betty "child deniers" Betula.
Why not condense your last five years of dull, drivelling, self-aggrandising denial into one single, clear, unambiguous sentence, and we'll take it from there.
Christ Bill, that pointer to Will's basement should oughta come with the warning that you may find yourself wanting to set fire to your own hair after reading five or six comments.
Whether deliberately or through unadmitted ideological obstinance, you're not getting it.
I asked you some simple questions about what happens when plants are subjected to too much of a substance essential for growth. You spent a lot of time prevaricatingwith ifs, buts and maybes, in order to disguise the simple fact that too much is not good. You can't even explicitly admit that even optimal levels are dependent on the cofactors behind which you try to hide when confronted with "too much is not better".
The message is simple, even though is galled you to get there. Too much water has negative consequences for most plants, and for their ecosystems. Too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has negative consequences for most plants, and for their ecosystems.
So your shocking point is, too much of a needed thing, say water, could be detrimental…generally speaking.
I know that this sticks in your craw, but get over it - it is simple fact. And Betula - the same applies to CO2, especially as it's effects are manifested climatically as well as chemically and biologically.
You claim I “have been attempting to smooth over the effects of climate change with comments such as:
"CO2 fertilization isn’t as insignificant as [BBD] and [Jeff] would have us believe."
And you call it a misrepresentation.
[Poor formatting corrected]
Betula.
1) No-one has denied the effect on plant growth that increased CO2 can have.
2) Jeff, BBD and others are correct to say that the overall advantages of increased CO2 growth are not significant compared with the confounders resulting from Sprengel's Law, from disrupted nutritional sequelæ, from more complex ecological interactions such as altered symbiont responses and pest/weed/disease species responses, and from the impending climatological effects that will occur in the 21st century and beyond as a result of carbon dioxide induced climate change.
Wanting it to be irrelevant (or insignificant), without truly understanding it’s relevance, is a blatant misrepresentation.
Betula.
Betula, Betula, Betula.
I don't want enhanced plant growth in response to increased atmospheric carbon dioxide to be "irrelevant" or "insignificant". I want it to be without serious negative ecological/agricultural impacts, and I want it to very much be without serious climatological impacts.
It's these sequelæ that you keep sweeping under the carpet - what's up with that?
Additionally, claiming climate change will be “abrupt” and claiming to know all the effects on plant physiology and global agricultural productivity.” without knowing the relevance or specifics of all the unknown interactions is strictly picking and choosing scenarios that fit an ideological criteria.
In ecological terms human-caused climate change with be very abrupt. A few centuries is nothing in the span of evolution, and in the capacities of species and ecosystems to adapt.
And going from a scenario where the planet is benign and optimal for the sustenance of human civilisation to being pretty much impossible for the continuance of said civilisation at the global level and likely even at the national level several hundred years later is abrupt, even in human terms. This is what will happen if humans persist with business as usual for more than a few decades from now, and it may happen even if we act in the immediate future.
Let me ask you some more questions (with at least some hope of a direct answer, that is...)
1) Do you think that the benefit of increased atmospheric CO2 for plant growth is significant and clear?
2) If yes to #1, what is your evidence base?
3) If yes to #1, to what agricultural systems and ecosystems do you think that the benefit of increased atmospheric CO2 for plant growth applies?
4) If yes to #1, what is the nature of the benefit of increased atmospheric CO2 for plant growth that you accept is occurring?
5) What negative biological sequelæ do you accept as occurring in response to increased atmospheric CO2 levels, and in what agricultural systems and ecosystems?
6) What negative biochemical sequelæ do you dispute as occurring in response to increased atmospheric CO2 levels, and in what agricultural systems and ecosystems?
7) On what evidence you do base your responses at #5 and #6?
8) Do you think that the benefit of increased CO2 for plant growth overrides the negative biochemical sequelæ of increased atmospheric CO2 levels? Note - in this response you can and should include the effect that CO2 also has on marine ecosystems.
9) Do you think that the benefit of increased CO2 for plant growth overrides the negative climatological sequelæ of increased atmospheric CO2 levels?
10) On what evidence you do base your responses at #8 and #9?
If you are wondering why I have put another series of questions to you it is because you persist in your denigration of the physical and the biological aspects of mainstream climate science, without ever explicitly stating what it is that you accept, what it is that you dispute, what sources you rely on for your position, and why you dispute that the consensus science is not correct.
None of my questions are trick questions. They are intended to elicit from you a clear and simple description of your understanding and position of each of the matters that is encompassed by the respective questions, and it is fascinating indeed that you avoid most of them like the plague.
It's very curious...
I've taught primary school and high school students, and I've taught technical college and university students. My pedagogical approach has always to get the student to answer their questions where possible, with appropriate guidance, and to put questions to them where they can't immediately see how/where to ask such themselves. I offer direct answers in circumstances where it is appropriate to do so, but I find that students learn much better and advance their own critical thinking, research and analysis skills if they learn a schema for asking the right questions and understanding how and where best to find the answers.
My students have always thanked me profusely for the effort I put into their education, and for making the subject matter interesting and accessible. The smarter ones even figure out that I taught them how to learn under their own steam. With ideologues however it is a fraught exercise to instill even basic eduction. There seems to be an intellectual phenomenon occurring, well known to psychologists dealing with mental illness, where habits of pathological thinking over-ride any rational capacity for new learning or acquiring new, positive habits.
This phenomenon is starkly apparent in the the Denialati on this thread.
Now...
Have you ever been involved with a wetland renovation project Berntard? Other than on paper of course…
Actually, yes, except it was a "rehabilitation project".
As a student teacher (before I was distracted by 15 years in immunology/oncology/pharmacology/microbiology) I taught K-12+ in the educational centre, and later in my postgraduate work I surveyed creeks in the wetlands that were to be opened to tidal flushing. After that I worked in the same catchment with freshwater species plant and animal subjected to salinity.
If you want to distract with a discussion about wetland rehabilitation go for it - I also topped my final year uni course in wetland ecology so I have the paper creds as well as the years of practical experience.
Have you ever treated a tree for Phytophthora? Phomopsis? Borers? Other than in the classroom of course…
As Bill has already told you Phytophthora is rarely treated in Australia because doing so is usually impractical in our circumstances. What we do practice is prevention and remedial hygiene, and yes I have done both. Much of my ecological fieldwork has involved driving 4WD through and surveying in dieback areas where there are specific decontamination protocols for vehicles and trailers leaving, and for cleaning camping equipment and other potential fomite material.
And further to that I advised state government officers on the original establishment of hygiene protocols for mitigating chytrid spread. As you should know some chytrid species are plant pathogens so that should give you an idea of what was involved in the establishment of protocols.
Phomopsis? Not a problem here as we don't have it. In other parts of the country where I worked previously it did occur, although many diagnosed instances were actually Eutypa lata and Diaporthe perjuncta. And I know what I'm talking about, because I used to socialise with vignerons and was once offered a job as a vineyard manager - although I refused it because I knew the company was about to be taken over, and because I was about to move to ecological research.
Borers? Yes. They're common 'pests' in Australian natives. In the end I figured out that they rarely need to be 'treated' though - in most circumstances that I saw they were not nearly the serious pest that some people seemed to think.
It's just a shame that there's no effective and guaranteed treatment for Stupid.
Upon rereading my own comment above regarding Hysteria in the Defence of Liberty being No Vice, I recall that I'm often struck that a lot of the worldview - and foreign policy - of our American cousins can be summed-up in Dr. Necessiter's classic line from The Man With Two Brains:
If the murder of twelve innocent people can help save one human life, it will have been worth it.
Jeff's Freudian slip is especially apposite - Betula has been particularly mute with regard to specifics and with science when it comes to actually making his points and addressing the substantive issues!
There are multiple independent data sets that show global warming, and they exhibit high consilience.
Are you still fixated on the GISSTemp version? I hope you remember that I smacked you good and properly over that screamingli incorrect howler of yours...
There are multiple independent data sets that show global warming, and they exhibit high consilience.
Are you still fixated on the GISSTemp version? I hope you remember that I smacked you good and properly over that screamingli incorrect howler of yours...
bernard troll, you always miss the point, BECAUSE YOU ARE WRONG, AND:
Remember, one is sampling a large planet with imperfect tools at flawed land sites and with almost NO useful oceanic data. Antarctica was terra incognita; much of the Arctic, much of Siberia, much of China, even large parts of Canada and the United States were virtually unmeasured except in very specific locations back in the 19th century. Only satellite measurements of LTT and ARGO measurements in the last decade form anything like defensibly precise measures of global temperature without unknown UHI and method/sampling errors, and ARGO is by no means stable yet in its results and still horrendously undersamples the surface area of the sea.
THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WHY "CLIMATOLOGY" IS SHUTTY JUNK SCIENCE
and you bernard troll are a true ZERO in meteorology, the only thing you do is copy paste without knowledge, information and understanding. you are a primitive moron who wastes taxpayers money
"Poo"? "Poo"--as in rhymes with "Winnie-the-pooh", bill? Jeez, bill, what can I say? At least we can be sure mummy is just delighted with her little, junior-boy bill's baby-talk style of cutie-pie, smart-lip invective.
Be honest, bill, you're having a real problem in the "undescended testicles" department, aren't you, guy? I mean, like, it shows and all, you know. I mean, like, what a gross, creep-out, little, lady-like shit you are, bill.
"@jp and all other co2-is-plant-food deniers: LEARN BASICS OF PLANT BIOLOGY, YOU FUCKWIT IDIOTS"
Um, er, Freddy, I am a senior scientist and my research involves a good deal of plant biology. And the C02 is plant food meme is so utterly wrong and simplistic that it does not deserve a cogent response. How many times must it be said that C is not limiting in terms of plant fitness but other nutrients - especially N and P are? How many times must it be said that consumers have much lower C:N ratios than plants, meaning that increased foliar C will have profound effects on the metabolism of species up the food chain and will require either compensatory feeding or else rapidly evolve alterations in metabolic pathways to deal with excess C in their diets? How many times must it be said that increased foliar C will affect plants with N or C based allelochemistry? How many times must it be said that responses in natural systems will be association and species-specific, leading to competitive asymmetries and changes in hierarchies that will greatly simplify plant communities and food webs? And so on and so forth.
So increased atmospheric C02, in answer to Betula's nonsense, is most certainly a BAD thing in the short term because it alters a range of ecophysiological properties in very unpredictable ways. As for you Freddy, I do not know under which slimy rock you crawled, but most of us here would be quite happy if you were to return there with your profound arrogance and stupidity as soon as possible. Please don't take your time.
Teh Stupid has been shown that the gridded surface temperature reconstructions are validated by the satellite data on the other thread.
So why is Teh Stupid repeating this debunked bollocks here?
why does phil jones not disclose
a: which temperature stations he has taken per year to calculate a mean global temperature?
b: why he had chosen certain temperature stations and left out others per year to calculate a mean global temperature?
c: how he had changed the raw temperature data of the chosen temperature stations per station and year to calculate a mean global temperature?
Look at the pretty picture, Teh Stupid. Note the extremely good agreement between the UAH TLT satellite reconstruction prepared by prominent sceptics John Christy and Roy Spencer, and the faked surface temperature reconstructions prepared by noted alarmist conspirators James Hansen and Phil Jones.
You don't handle having your errors and deficiencies exposed to the light of day, do you?
Admit it, you were wrong when you said that Phil Jones is with GISS.
You're also wrong with your comment about measuring the Earth's temperature. The thing about measurements over time, especially when measuring changes in a mean, is that systematic biases even when they do actually exist are effectively irrelevant. What matters is the change in anomaly over time for the reference points used. The data sets used by various independent agencies all indicate that the planet is warming, as do the melting glaciers and Arctic sea ice, the retreat of species to increasing altitudes and latitudes, the altered phenologies, the satellite observations, and a vast array of other empirical evidence.
You might disagree with reality, and that's your prerogative, but you're still wrong.
And while we're at it, this shite can go in the can too:
Yr no. 59: “…poo-obsessed…”
“Poo”? “Poo”–as in rhymes with “Winnie-the-pooh”, bill? Jeez, bill, what can I say? At least we can be sure mummy is just delighted with her little, junior-boy bill’s baby-talk style of cutie-pie, smart-lip invective.
Be honest, bill, you’re having a real problem in the “undescended testicles” department, aren’t you, guy? I mean, like, it shows and all, you know. I mean, like, what a gross, creep-out, little, lady-like shit you are, bill.
And freddy - and potty-mouth mike and Betula and all the rest of the Denialatus knuckle-draggers here - if you can't actually construct a reasoned and coherent argument against even the simplest of points of science, you're wasting your own time as much as anyone else's. Nothing clever about that.
If your capacities for physical proprioception are as buggered as your comprehensions of basic science, your mothers will be kept busy cleaning up after you in the littlest room in the house.
lil'mikey (...& freddy, Oilly, Johnny Birch and all the rest of the Ayn Rand Fanboi & Masturbatory Technique Appreciation Society): keep conjugating that cestode and one day you might grow up to be a proglotid.
And Stoopid Betty is still peddling his right wing alternative reality despite being corrected into oblivion by all and sundry. GFY Betty. We've all heard enough of your tripe to last us a lifetime.
whatever you bastard agw junkies say, you are on unsafe grounds of pure speculation BECAUSE (one of the many reasons you retarded ugly nobrain fuckwits):
Remember, one is sampling a large planet with imperfect tools at flawed land sites and with almost NO useful oceanic data. Antarctica was terra incognita; much of the Arctic, much of Siberia, much of China, even large parts of Canada and the United States were virtually unmeasured except in very specific locations back in the 19th century. Only satellite measurements of LTT and ARGO measurements in the last decade form anything like defensibly precise measures of global temperature without unknown UHI and method/sampling errors, and ARGO is by no means stable yet in its results and still horrendously undersamples the surface area of the sea.
whatever you second class spectators of ridiculous "eco"-pseudosciences (eco-shit-physioolgy, eco-shit-sociology, eco-shit-economy, eco-shit-population-betrayal, eco-shit-assholes, etc.) from the true science arena, to which you NEVER will belong, whine: THIS, YOUR RUBBISH IS IRRELEVANT AND SOCIETIES ARE GRANDIOUSLY IGNORING YOUR SHIT OF DELUDED SHIT. YOU ARE A WASTE OF WORKING SOCITIES AND YOUR "WORK" MUST BE THROWN INTO THE WASTEBASKET, AS IT IS A NASTY AND IMMORAL TO A HEALTHY SOCIETY, FUCKING IDIOTS, ASSHOLES
Freddy - Kai - which school was it that produced you, this paragon of high literacy, expansive vocabulary, nuanced scientific knowledge and sophisticated statistical understanding?
It would be a public service to document your astonishing educational background...
Remember, one is sampling a large planet with imperfect tools at flawed land sites and with almost NO useful oceanic data. Antarctica was terra incognita; much of the Arctic, much of Siberia, much of China, even large parts of Canada and the United States were virtually unmeasured except in very specific locations back in the 19th century. Only satellite measurements of LTT and ARGO measurements in the last decade form anything like defensibly precise measures of global temperature without unknown UHI and method/sampling errors, and ARGO is by no means stable yet in its results and still horrendously undersamples the surface area of the sea.
Clearly, emphasis and repetition are both required.
Freddy - read the words:
Note the extremely good agreement between the UAH TLT satellite reconstruction prepared by prominent sceptics John Christy and Roy Spencer, and the faked surface temperature reconstructions prepared by noted alarmist conspirators James Hansen and Phil Jones.
bbd and other climate scientology greenarses, why are incapacitated do take note of:
Remember, one is sampling a large planet with imperfect tools at flawed land sites and with almost NO useful oceanic data. Antarctica was terra incognita; much of the Arctic, much of Siberia, much of China, even large parts of Canada and the United States were virtually unmeasured except in very specific locations back in the 19th century. Only satellite measurements of LTT and ARGO measurements in the last decade form anything like defensibly precise measures of global temperature without unknown UHI and method/sampling errors, and ARGO is by no means stable yet in its results and still horrendously undersamples the surface area of the sea.
before you continue to spread your usual fucking bullshit, you must understand why your faith basis is so insanely corrupt.
your speculation about human harm to nature is the most stupid nonsense anthropoid brains have ever invented. you alarm fuckwits are such a ridiculous nonsense, not consense, community. i am sure you will undergo purgatory and punishment by satan for all your incredible unmoralities and unethicalities
Professor Fuckwit, then the flaw in your ideological purity maintenance stance is obviously, then how can you possibly know? More pertinently, how can you tell for yourself without some other possibly even bigger moron telling you second hand?
Inquiring minds want to know, although in all honesty many, many more don't give a flying fuck what goes on in that pointy little head of yours.
Finding out for yourself is always a better way to learn, don't you find? Unless of course for 'health reasons' you exclude yourself from doing anything useful beyond whining like stripped gear.
#93 wasn't an answer, Professor Fuckwit.
It was an observation in question form and a further question. I guess insanity isn't as much fun as it's cracked up to be for you. It's certainly hard-baked tedious for the rest of us.
Freddy, we seem to have got off on the wrong foot.
The problem seems to stem from the fact that you are attempting to discuss the issue of climate change, a topic which, sad to say, my cat has a better grasp of, putting you at a distinct disadvantage.
And with human speech clearly also being a second (maybe third?) language for you, well, let's just say you really are a plucky little fellow coming out at all, aren't you?
(And clever, too, eluding the staff like that!)
Being expected to compete with those with functioning cerebral cortexes is clearly making you become rather agitated and incontinent. Might we perhaps even the playing field: could we consult you on some topics where you may actually have some expertise?
Let's try!
Which anti-psychotics are you on? (They're clearly not effective. Perhaps up the dose?).
Is there a particular brand of adult diaper you'd recommend?
Or genital cuff?
Do you find that sponges at the corners of the mouth work best for managing the drool, or perhaps you've experimented with suction?
Look, anyway, I reckon I can hear nurse calling, so off you run - and when you come back, do make sure you've got your big boy pants on next time, eh?
All dealt with by one simple graph. So in the shitcan it goes, again.
Remember, one is sampling a large planet with imperfect tools at flawed land sites and with almost NO useful oceanic data. Antarctica was terra incognita; much of the Arctic, much of Siberia, much of China, even large parts of Canada and the United States were virtually unmeasured except in very specific locations back in the 19th century. Only satellite measurements of LTT and ARGO measurements in the last decade form anything like defensibly precise measures of global temperature without unknown UHI and method/sampling errors, and ARGO is by no means stable yet in its results and still horrendously undersamples the surface area of the sea.
before you continue to spread your usual fucking bullshit, you must understand why your faith basis is so insanely corrupt.
your speculation about human harm to nature is the most stupid nonsense anthropoid brains have ever invented. you alarm fuckwits are such a ridiculous nonsense, not consense, community. i am sure you will undergo purgatory and punishment by satan for all your incredible unmoralities and unethicalities
since all you science deniers from the fucking agw scientology church are incapacitated enough to answer my simple questions:
why does phil jones not disclose
a: which temperature stations he has taken per year to calculate a mean global temperature?
b: why he had chosen certain temperature stations and left out others per year to calculate a mean global temperature?
c: how he had changed the raw temperature data of the chosen temperature stations per station and year to calculate a mean global temperature?
i give you now a simpler question, which will require your whole rudimentary knowledge, to answer:
among all you eco-shit-disciplines are you aware of any study which investigates a possible correlation between the level of believed global warming and the percentage of gay climate scientologists among all climate scientologists. in other words, are there more homosexuals in the agw scientology church than in any truely scientific discipline. my hypothesis would be that inclinatiion to a warmer world correlates with warming behavior of the subjects who try to support the agw climate scientology ideology
You could verify this for yourself in less than five seconds by looking at that graph. But you refuse and so exile yourself from rational debate.
What I showed you renders your blather irrelevant. I get the impression you are so insane and so stupid that you actually don't understand what was demonstrated, but it's extremely hard to tell.
Whatever the case, you operate below the level at which meaningful interaction can take place.
Unless you stop screaming abuse and start looking at the data and evidence you will stay forever in the claustrophobic, malodorous darkness you inhabit now.
No, freddy, this is what's technically known as a "fucking lie".
Just a few comments back, you refused to look at a comparison of satellite TLT temperature with surface temperature that demonstrates that the surface temperature data sets are not seriously in error.
You are dishonest, stupid and insane. You have wasted more than enough space here - now fuck off please.
YOU ONLY BELIEVE WHAT OTHER CLIMATE SCIENTOLOGISTS HAVE DIGESTED FOR YOU.
Oh Stupid One:
Christy and Spencer at UAH are sceptics and vocal critics of the IPCC. That's why the UAH satellite reconstruction is such a fair test of the surface reconstructions. If *anyone* was going to catch out any fakery in those data sets, it would be Christy and Spencer. Depend on that.
I keep on telling you this. You keep on not hearing me.
bbd fuckwit, all what you climate crook try to say has nothing at all to with my questions. here they are again for you pain in the ass without any reading comprehension:
why does phil jones not disclose
a: which temperature stations he has taken per year to calculate a mean global temperature?
b: why he had chosen certain temperature stations and left out others per year to calculate a mean global temperature?
c: how he had changed the raw temperature data of the chosen temperature stations per station and year to calculate a mean global temperature?
stop telling me about x, y, z when i ask about jones procedures to calculate his global temperature!!!!!
I ONLY WANT METHODOLOGICAL TRANSPARENCY FROM ALL PLAYERS IN THE CLIMATE SCIENTOLOGY CHURCH. I RAISED PRECISE QUESTIONS ABOUT JONES TO WHICH YOU IDIOTICALLY WIND TO GIVE ANSWERS, YOU FUCKING SHIT.
bbd fuckwit, all what you climate crook try to say has nothing at all to with my questions. here they are again for you pain in the ass without any reading comprehension:
why does phil jones not disclose
a: which temperature stations he has taken per year to calculate a mean global temperature?
b: why he had chosen certain temperature stations and left out others per year to calculate a mean global temperature?
c: how he had changed the raw temperature data of the chosen temperature stations per station and year to calculate a mean global temperature?
stop telling me about x, y, z when i ask about jones procedures to calculate his global temperature!!!!!
I ONLY WANT METHODOLOGICAL TRANSPARENCY FROM ALL PLAYERS IN THE CLIMATE SCIENTOLOGY CHURCH. I RAISED PRECISE QUESTIONS ABOUT JONES TO WHICH YOU IDIOTICALLY WIND TO GIVE ANSWERS, YOU FUCKING SHIT.
How are the hemispheric and global anomaly series calculated?
Values for the hemisphere are the weighted average of all the non-missing, grid-box anomalies in each hemisphere. The weights used are the cosines of the central latitudes of each grid box. The global average for CRUTEM4 and CRUTEM4v is a weighted average of the Northern Hemisphere (NH) and Southern Hemisphere (SH). The weights are 2 for the NH and one for the SH. For CRUTEM3 and CRUTEM3v, the global average is the average of the NH and SH values. For HadCRUT4, HadCRUT3 and HadCRUT3v the global average is the average of the NH and SH values. In the time series files, the second row of integers is the percentage of the surface area covered for each month from 1850.
What are the basic raw data used?
For land regions of the world over 4800 monthly station temperature time series are used. Coverage is denser over the more populated parts of the world, particularly, the United States, southern Canada, Europe and Japan. Coverage is sparsest over the interior of the South American and African continents and over the Antarctic. The number of available stations was small during the 1850s, but increases to over 4500 stations during the 1951-2010 period. For marine regions sea surface temperature (SST) measurements taken on board merchant and some naval vessels are used. As the majority come from the voluntary observing fleet, coverage is reduced away from the main shipping lanes and is minimal over the Southern Oceans. Improvements in coverage occur after 1980 through the deployment of fixed and drifting buoys. The development of the datasets is extensively discussed in Jones et al. (2012) and Kennedy et al. (2011). Both these sources also extensively discuss the issue of consistency and homogeneity of the measurements through time and the steps that have been made to ensure all non-climatic inhomogeneities have been removed.
Raw station data are available from the Met Office website for both CRUTEM4 and CRUTEM3.
Is it me or is Freddy Fuckwit revisiting 2006 all over again?
Certainly chumming the same old things over and over is a denier strategy and, as we now know, a hallmark of the insane. Considering it wasn't his field, Einstein was right on the money about hoping for different outcomes. His addendum should have been 'and not succeeding', just to make it absolutely plain to the chummers.
Well Freddy, you sure have a way with words, a way which demonstrates what a shouty, paranoid, ignorant twerp you are.
I have been away for awhile, just returned from an area demonstrating climate stress, and find this thread filling up with your detritus (you may have to look that up in a dictionary, that is after asking somebody what a dictionary is).
You have the temerity (look that up in your dictionary too) to throw this out
I RAISED PRECISE QUESTIONS ABOUT JONES TO WHICH YOU IDIOTICALLY WIND TO GIVE ANSWERS, YOU FUCKING SHIT.
which shows only that you need to take your med's.
Whatever, the following illustrates quite clearly what an ideologically perverted individual you are,
I ONLY WANT METHODOLOGICAL TRANSPARENCY FROM ALL PLAYERS IN THE CLIMATE SCIENTOLOGY CHURCH...
one who has clearly not developed the ability to think for themselves.
To be honest I cannot be bothered to trawl through your particular brand of diarrhea, you are one sick budgie.
Why don't you do something useful and go fight fires in, say, Arizona?
Professor Freddy the fuckwit (you don't want to read that far back) is harmless enough |Lionel.
Thread polluting but harmless re-runs from yesteryear. Although like most novelty acts and one-hit-wonders, knowing when the jokes done and to stop flogging their dead dick seems to elude them.
"lionnell asshole, fire in arizona is agw of course
PROOF IT, MORON !!!!!!!!'"
And to think Freddy once claimed he had a PhD. Certainly his crap is 'piled higher and deeper' than evenm that spewed out here by most of the climate change deniers.
Truth is, Freddy is a lunatic. A bonafide fruitcake. It is impossible to take anything he says remotely seriously because he is so over the top that his posts become self-parodies.
freddy, a real Aunt Sally, raves with this gibberish:
lionnell [sic] asshole [ROTFL], fire in arizona is agw of course
PROOF IT, MORON !!!!!!!!
The Arizona fire was set by a lightning strike on tinder dry vegetation.
Now ask yourself, sorry go find out, why climate change increases the risks of both droughts and an increase in incidence of electrical storms.
But of course you won't because you are a class act in tom fullery having learned your language from the likes of Faux pundits and Mark 'the mouth' aka a'hole Morano.
You need to polish your act freddy, it is a bit rough around the edges.
I'm addressing my comment to you because the troll refuses to examine any evidence (see upthread). So there's no point in presenting him with any as his mind is closed tighter than the proverbial crab's fundament.
The Senior Service has its venerable traditions and far from me to question them. There are, however, diverse views on this. I've heard several variants: seal; otter; penguin, even frog, - à chacun son goût...
Hello, little Deltoids! You will notice that I have waited until this afternoon before posting because, of course, on Sunday mornings you all gather in the Chapel to chant things like "I belieeeeve! I belieeeeve" and I am always a great respecter of religion.
But, I wanted to say 'thank you' for this dose of global warming we're all enjoying. Well, I know we're not supposed to actually 'enjoy' it but the fact is that most of us do and the only problem for the last 15 or so years is that we haven't had any!
Perhaps, next Sunday when you go to Chapel you could pray to the great Mann-God for a bit more global warming, well, I mean, he keeps forecasting it but somehow it never quite happens. Anyway, sorry to interrupt, carry on chanting!
Betty “if a child were a denier” Betula would like nothing better than to keep the focus on him and his cartoonish projections.
I am much to blame. I know perfectly well how much deniers like to whine and play the victim. Betty's interminable blithering was entirely predictable. Even if I'd put a great, clumsy parenthesis in the original comment saying look, y'know, it's a metaphor, kids, this would probably still have happened.
The laughable thing is that compared to what the public is going to do to the science-denying right and the climate clown troupe, I am a gentle zephyr.
Well, it's not like the issue is an honest difference of opinion, it actually is co-ordinated lying and cheating for personal profit.
Personally, I'd think it will produce a backlash similar to the current public love for the financier class.
Leaving aside the ongoing unreality show that is Batty's personal meltdown, this is genuinely interesting.
As is this.
Any further word on David Rose and that graphic?
Also, as a community service, here's the html for blockquotes again.
<blockquote>don't mention it!</blockquote>
gives
To all the deniers running with the "CO2 is plant food" meme, it looks as if increased CO2 is not going to be of much benefit to trees dying of heat stress and drier conditions, which is happening on the west coast of Australia and other parts of the world. I note that the Amazon is getting drier as well. Big worry.
As for the east coast of Australia, where they've had 3 major floods in the last 4 years, I don't know how that's affecting the health of the vegetation there. Considering that previous to the floods there was a 10 year drought, if there is any benefit it might only be temporary until drought conditions return. Maybe Jeff would like to comment.
_______________________________________
NARRATION
The Rocky Mountains of North America - home to some of the most beautiful, pristine forests in the world. But the shades of burnt golden reds aren't the changing tones of Autumn; they're dead and dying trees.
Dr Craig Allen
We're looking at tree mortality over a scale of tens of millions of hectares in the last decade alone.
NARRATION
In fact, right across the globe, there are reports of trees dying in mass numbers.
Anja Taylor
From Europe, from Africa, even right across the Amazon, and right here in Australia.
NARRATION
Here in the Perth hills, trees have been dropping by the tens of thousands. Inside their carcasses are thriving parasites.
Dr George Matusick
So this is a larvae, a late instar larvae.
Anja Taylor
Oh, he's alive and well.
NARRATION
These Long Horned borers have been feasting on the live wood of Jarrah and Marri, the two dominant eucalypt species in south-west Western Australia. The insect is a native, and until recently, wasn't a problem.
Dr George Matusick
The numbers are scary. Where we might have seen one, maybe two per square metre, now we're seeing fifty, sixty, seventy, eighty. We've seen even as high as one hundred. So be one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve.
Anja Taylor
Twelve larvae came off that one little spot?
Dr George Matusick
Yeah, that one spot where the eggs were laid. And they get larger as they go away.
Anja Taylor
What, because the larvae's actually grown in size as they plough through the wood.
Dr George Matusick
Yeah … yep.
Anja Taylor
And this has had it?
Dr George Matusick
This is dead, yeah.
NARRATION
But don't blame the borers. Unable to penetrate the moist wood of healthy trees, these insects are simply opportunists.
Dr George Matusick
We don't really know how it acts normally, but we suspect that it goes into dying and dead trees.
NARRATION
Last summer provided an ideal feeding ground.
Anja Taylor
This big eucalypt took hundreds of years to grow. And died in just a couple of weeks.
NARRATION
In fact nearly every tree you see here, died suddenly and at the same time.
Prof Giles Hardy
Last summer was the hottest, driest period on record, and we had some hundred and twenty-two days with no rain, we had weeks with over forty-two degrees, and we started to see large areas just collapsing and dying. So we took an aeroplane up and it was amazing to see the extent of the yellowing and purpling and the numbers of trees that were dead. In the Perth hills, we lost approximately twenty-thousand hectares of trees.
NARRATION
Sadly, it's not just a one-off extreme event. Since the 1990s, trees of many different species have been declining across south-west Western Australia. Along the highways, thousands of Marri Trees are in blossom. They look healthy from a distance, but step a little closer, and you'll find they are marked for death.
Prof Giles Hardy
Okay, so this a very good example of a typical canker in Marri.
Anja Taylor
Wow, that's a really sick tree, isn't it?
Prof Giles Hardy
Yes. The first things we look for is the red kino vein, the bleeding, and the way the bark is lifting away off the main stem.
NARRATION
The canker is the tree's reaction to a deadly fungus, which the eucalypt tries to wall off by surrounding it with a callus. Eventually though, the pathogen wins.
Anja Taylor
If a Marri gets a canker like that, does it mean it will definitely die?
Prof Giles Hardy
Yes, this tree is definitely going to die between now and three or four years' time.
Anja Taylor
If you take a short walk along this highway, you see that Marri has a canker, that one has a canker, that one. In fact, most of the Marri trees here have cankers. That means that in ten years or so, this whole place will be unrecognisable.
Prof Giles Hardy
The canker problem is probably the most severe thing that's happening in our forests at the moment. We've never seen it causing these levels of deaths, and now it is. So something has changed.
NARRATION
Something has changed too, for the Tuart trees. At Lake Clifton, south of Perth, their twisted skeletons rise through the peppermint groves. These ones died in the 1990s. In other areas, they are failing to fruit, and the species' seed bank is drastically declining.
Prof Giles Hardy
Again, we don't fully understand what's driving these declines, but in some areas we're losing a hundred per cent of the trees.
NARRATION
Despite many different ailments, there is one obvious common stressor that could explain why so many trees are dying. They are facing higher temperatures with less water. The south-west of Western Australia has lost fifteen per cent of its rainfall in the past few decades. Average temperatures have increased by just over half a degree Celsius. Heatwaves have become longer, more frequent, and more intense.
Prof Giles Hardy
We haven't seen such scale of damage in the last fifty, sixty years, probably in recorded history.
Dr George Matusick
These are some of, if not the toughest trees I've ever seen. Now we're seeing conditions that are going outside their ability to cope.
NARRATION
US forest ecologist Dr Craig Allen sees the situation in WA as typical of the trends being observed elsewhere in the world. He's documented over a hundred examples of large-scale tree deaths in the past twenty-five years.
Dr Craig Allen
We see all around the world in places where there have been droughts, that drought - particularly droughts and heatwaves - trigger mass waves of mortality. No major forest type is immune.
NARRATION
Across the western US, tree death rate have more than doubled in the past few decades.
Dr Craig Allen
Where I work in northern New Mexico, we see everything from grasses and shrubs to trees dying.
NARRATION
Die-off events are quick and dramatic.
Dr Craig Allen
There may be insects and fungal pests that emerge at that point in time, but underlying it is the physiological stress on the trees that compromises their defences. You could think of it actually sort of like HIV in humans. HIV doesn't directly kill people, but by compromising our immune systems, it makes us vulnerable to secondary ah, you know, viruses and other things that can kill us. It's similar in trees.
NARRATION
The effect climate change may have on our forests is a huge concern. But an even greater worry - how will dying trees affect the climate? In 2005, the heart of the world's biggest rainforest suffered a drought so hot and severe it turned the Amazon jungle from a carbon sink to a carbon source. A second once-in-a-century drought happened five years later.
Dr Craig Allen
So what we're seeing in these forest die-off events around the world are trees passing the tipping point of stress - the thresholds of mortality. Unfortunately we don't know very much about these thresholds at this point.
NARRATION
To better understand tree tipping points, Dr Martin Bader is monitoring several major Western Australian species. This drought-stressed Jarrah has instruments placed from the trunk to the outer leaves to measure how water is used across the tree.
Dr Martin Bader
Okay, this is the canopy, this is where the tree loses most of its water, because the leaves are fully exposed to the sun.
NARRATION
Leaves lose water via tiny holes called stomata. These need to be open to draw in carbon dioxide for photosynthesis. But if too much water is lost, the trees can shut down their stomata.
Dr Martin Bader
We came out on a forty-degree day and did our measurements, and realised that shortly after nine o'clock, the tree basically shut down, because at that time of the day, there was only a small opportunity where the tree could actually photosynthesise. So it can't basically eat.
NARRATION
The tree avoids dying of thirst, but then begins to starve. Martin had measurements on a Banksia that died just a few months ago.
Dr Martin Bader
Any time of day was over thirty degrees, the tree ran into pretty high stress levels, and then we had a couple of days consecutively over thirty, thirty-two degrees, and it was just too much, apparently. That tipped the tree over. Sixty or seventy per cent of the Banksias died last summer.
Anja Taylor
Sixty to seventy per cent in this woodland?
Dr Martin Bader
Yeah, yeah. The Sheoaks, apparently last year we thought they died as well, but as you can see they are all, or most of them are sprouting.
Anja Taylor
Yeah, they've got re-sprouts. And so do the Banksias come back?
Dr Martin Bader
No, the Banksias are, are all dead, they're gone for good.
NARRATION
Almost overnight, this Banksia dominated woodland has shifted to one with mainly Sheoaks. The implications for nectar-loving birds, insects and mammals are profound. With climate change certain to intensify over the coming years, is there anything at all that can be done? There's good evidence trees can be protected with booster-shots. This one's a fungicide.
Prof Giles Hardy
And the tree is transpiring, and the chemical is taken up into the, into the sap flow.
Anja Taylor
This little capsule contains nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium and trace elements - all the nutrients a tree needs. Very good with a mallet. Good luck.
Prof Giles Hardy
Sometimes we see the response within six weeks. The leaves can change colour from a yellow to a nice bright healthy green.
Anja Taylor
And you can save a tree like this.
Prof Giles Hardy
And you can save a tree.
Anja Taylor
Which looks like it's almost dead.
NARRATION
It could be a savior for parks, gardens and golf courses, but ultimately injecting all the trees in the world is just not an option. Eventually climate will have the last say.
Dr Craig Allen
What's most alarming is that these die-off events may be just the tip of the iceberg. We know that warming, temperatures exacerbate tree mortality, and the climate predictions are that the world is going to get much warmer soon. Um, so we may be just at the very front edge of what could be wholesale mortality of the world's forests - the forests that we know and care about today.
Pasted from
jp baby: trees need water. if water is lacking then it is dry
i hope this was not too complex for your small brain
lesson to all cagw fraudulents:
when sun rays reach the surface (land, water) the surface will be warmed
Perhaps someone will check this and tell me if I'm right or wrong. I think I'm right and Willis is wrong but I could be wrong :D
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/06/wondering-willis-eschenbach-wonders…
I don't know what's more amusing: freddy ignoring more complete (and necessarily more complex) explanations in favour of his simplistic observations, or freddy's condescension when making "points" that everyone else already understands. He's a DKE exemplar on steroids - or a very successful Poe.
The new Yamal fellas:
http://climateaudit.org/2013/06/28/cru-abandons-yamal-superstick/#comme…
Any thoughts on the matter besides foul language? ;-)
Yes, MicIntyre's still a paranoid AND a c*nt
"Claims of a deceptive and biased Yamal chronology turn out to rely on outlier data that should be omitted; our new research, based on a greatly expanded dataset, supports the finding that tree-growth (and inferred summer temperature) in this region are likely greater in the last 100 years than for any previous century in the last 2000 years" - Keith Briffa, Tim Osborn, Tom Melvin
But Monty 'sticky' Bishop, the conspiraloon, will always swoon at his feet.
Didn't think so chek.
Constant drooling fetal position iis so your only forte chek. ;-)
... and inability to do anything other than swim in the conspiraloon sewers is all you can do.
That'd be because you have no answer to Osborn, Briffa and Melvin, except your second-hand paranoid fantasies.
Olaus
Try to understand that none of this matters. The fake controversy that SM has desperately tried to keep alive all these years is an irrelevance.
It tells us nothing about radiative physics that we don't already know (eg that CO2 is a long-lived, non-condensing GHG and a moderately efficacious forcing). It tells us nothing about millennial climate behaviour that we don't already have a pretty good picture of. It tells us nothing about climate sensitivity and nothing about C20th climate behaviour except that it is - apparently - rather unusual.
It is a distraction. A misdirection. A means of creating smoke *without* a fire. A tactical diversion that also serves as an endless implied smear of climate science as a whole, even though it is utterly irrelevant (see above).
You are apparently desperately naive. I get the sense you have never had to operate in a hardcore business environment. You have no apparent awareness of the games people play and they way they are played.
You aren't intellectually or experientially equipped for what willard calls "Climateball". So you have become the played, rather than the player.
* * *
As if it mattered, Briffa et al. just buried McIntyre's nonsense. Read the RC link check provides at # 8. Make an effort for once.
Fred-fred sez:
... and begin to radiate in the infra-red. This outgoing IR is absorbed and re-radiated by certain types of molecule in the atmospheric mix. These are commonly known as "greenhouse gasses".
As the atmospheric fraction of well-mixed GHGs increases, the absorption and re-radiation of IR continues at higher altitudes - altitudes where previously most IR was radiating out of the planetary atmosphere into space.
The decreasing temperature with altitude *decreases* the efficiency with which the radiating upper atmosphere actually emits radiation to space. This is what is meant when we say GHGs increase the altitude of effective emission.
The reduced efficiency in the radiation of energy from the planetary atmosphere into space causes a radiative imbalance to develop.
For radiative balance to be restored, the entire climate system must heat up until the radiating upper atmosphere is warm enough to counterbalance the effect of its increased altitude.
This is commonly known as "global warming" or AGW, as it is caused by anthropogenic emissions of CO2 - long known to be a greenhouse gas.
:-)
Dendrohyperclimatism "isn't radiative physics", BBD says. :-D Correct, it is, or was, crap, now even confirmed by Briffa.
:-)
Olap, if I need the opinion of an intellectual vegetable, I'll ask the veggie directly. As Briffa, Osborn and Melvin will confirm, at least the vegetable kingdom give honest answers.
Your opinions, while long known to be of a similar calibre, suffer the additional handicap of being renowned for dishonesty, so you'll need a reference to make it even register on the radar. And as you can't, it won't.
Betula said:
Two points.
First, it is entirely possible to "generalise" in the context of my questions. Let's start with the first question:
What happens directly to roots that are too wet?
Anyone who had done even first year of a horticultural certificate would know that the roots of plants that are exposed to excessive water have reduced or absent oxygen up-take, and as most plants are generally (oo, that word!) not able to function without some gaseous oxygen in the immediate vicinity of their roots they suffer adverse reactions. An excessively wet root zone also promotes the growth of pathogenic fungi such as Armillaria, Phytophthora, Pythium, and Rhizoctonia.
Together these two sequelæ can cause "damping off" or root rot in many grasses, herbs, shrubs and trees. One doesn't need to be specific in this - it is a general response seen in many species as a consequence of exposure to too much water.
Which is the whole point - too much of a good thing is not necessarily good.
The same valid generalisation approach can be applied to each of the subsequent questions, making the same overall point - more water is not necessarily better. It's quite revealing that you balked and gagged on conceding this.
Of course generality aside I have never said that plant growth responses are not complex - and indeed this has been my point and Jeff's and BBD's and Lotharsson's and others' the whole time! Your quote could as easily have been:
See? That has been our point all along.
You have been attempting to smooth over the effects of climate change with comments such as:
and
which are both misrepresentations of what's been said by many commentators here. Everyone acknowledges that increased carbon dioxide can enhance plant growth rates under optimal conditions - it's been said countless times by myself and many, many others, and with much reference to hothouses and Gaussian distributions of growth cofactors and Sprengel's (aka Liebig's) Law.
And it's inaccurate to say that the "effect of CO2 fertilization is unknown". Its effect is known - and its confounding by those cofactors is well understood in some cases and not so well in others. Enough is know however to infer that many places on the planet will receive such altered bioclimatic conditions that the increase in CO2 will not offset the damage caused by climate change, and indeed may exacerbate it - as has been observed in contexts where lowered nitrogen content occurring in plants subjected to in high CO2 growth results in increased rates of herbivory as pests attempt to acquire the nitrogen they need.
You have been attempting to play up the benefit of one aspect of carbon dioxide emissions Betula, whilst cavalierly dismissing or just completely ignoring the many other complex (to use a word that you use yourself) factors involved. These complexities are better understood than you make out, and the consequences are not as rosy for many species and many ecosystem functions on which humans rely.
Of course, if you have evidence to the contrary, you could blow us out of the water by listing the areas of human endeavour and in ecosystem function where there will be a better, braver new CO2-laden world.
Oh, you predicted it did you? The problem for you is that I am not in fact “stuck in academia” but I am stuck with the inconvenient (for you) habit of relying on the best science and the weight of empirical evidence.
You remind me of some of the fishing industry lobbyists with whom some of my colleagues locked horns in the late 80s and early 90s. Even within the year before the ’92 moratorium on cod fishing these industry shills were wingeing about “academics” who were trying to tell them that the industry estimations were way off beam... except it turned out that the independent population biologists were right and the fishing lackies were wrong – so wrong that when the Canadian government stepped in at the 13th hour the North Altalntic fishery was completely FUBARed and the the industry had shot itself in both feet and through the head for good measure.
It’s the same with ecology and climatology today. Your impression of the cliché garret-cloistered, “academic” don is a far cry from the bloody hard-working field researchers who spent years of their lives in often extreme environments, in direct, intimate contact with their subject material and with the non-scientific people who work in the area. The three biggest issues with scientific knowledge that I’ve seen are:
1) journalists who spin it for a story rather than teasing out the facts,
2) bureaucrats who mangle it for political ends, and
3) ignorant non-scientists who presume that they know better and come up with the sort of nonsense peddled by YE creationists, anti-vaxxers and climate change denialists.
Betula, I wouldn’t make the mistake of ever seeking in the first place employment with a Dunningly-Krugered anti-intellectual who confuses ideology (to which they are ironically prone themselves) with objective assessment of the best outputs of the scientific method. I don’t give a shit for people who regard themselves as Boss Hogs bestowing on their slave class the privilege of being an employee – all I care about is that the people that I work for and with know how to use their brains.
It was numpties like you who thought that their “professional” expertise informed them that it was fine to continue throwing their cod nets over the sides of their boats in spite of what the "academics" said – and those numpties are the sort of boss that the world is better off without.
It's certainly not the sort of employer for whom I'd waste my time working.
Thanks, again, to Bernard J. for taking the time to review the fertilisation blether on this thread and summarise what is correct, and what is not.
Bernard J, like Jeff Harvey, brings expert knowledge to the table. I have no doubt that many here are grateful for the opportunity to learn something.
O'louse, you are spamming the thread with pointless crap about Yamal.
Please read # 11 again. Try to understand what the words actually mean.
Then feel free to select a topic which actually matters. Fake controversies confected by denialists over the detailed interpretation of dendro proxies in millennial climate reconstructions is so... yesterday.
Being boring is one of the worst conversation crimes, you know. However, being flat-out misleading is also frowned upon. Do, please, read the Briffa et al. article at RC. Briffa and colleagues are more reliable sources of information than SM.
Sorry, I missed the link to the RC article by Briffa and colleagues:
Yamal and Polar Urals - a research update
Ya-malpractice = Catastrophic Mannmade global warming. ;-)
Deal with it. :-)
Olaus
Umm, no. See explanation as to why this is nonsense at # 11
Already done, by the professionals who do the work.
What YOU have to deal with is your misplaced faith in a vain, self-appointed, idiot-paranoid like McIntyre.
We could simply delete the entire dendro proxy "debate" and it would make exactly no difference to the laws of physics.
So why do contrarians argue about it with such obsessive tenacity?
One day, I'll puzzle this out...
:-)
"You will be metaphorically beaten in the streets of public opinion"
Realizing he exposed himself for who he really is...BDud now changes his tune. The beating has now turned into a metaphor beating...
Dud...will you metaphorically not lift a fucking finger to stop it?
Dendrotruth with some help from Steve M good news, isn't it? Cheer up, will ya(mal). ;-)
By the way, there seems to be a scale problem regarding the Aussie hottie:
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/06/australias-angry-hot-summer-was-hot-an…
;-)
Betty finally catches on, and it only took mere days.
Meanwhile Olap continues his swim in his favourite sewers of fuckwittery authored by know-nothing nobodies.
Nope!
Not at all.
Oops, sorry folks I seem to have fucked up the second paragraph of #25 which should have read:
"Meanwhile Olap continues his swim in his favourite sewers of fuckwittery authored by know-nothing nobodies honking on about that of which they know nothing
Compare the abstract with Codling's attempted spin:
"Anthropogenic contributions to the record hot 2013 Australian summer are investigated using a suite of climate model experiments. This was the hottest Australian summer in the observational record. Australian area-average summer temperatures for simulations with natural forcings only were compared to simulations with anthropogenic and natural forcings for the period 1976–2005 and the RCP8.5 high emission simulation (2006–2020) from nine CMIP5 models. Using fraction of attributable risk to compare the likelihood of extreme Australian summer temperatures between the experiments, it was very likely (>90% confidence) there was at least a 2.5 times increase in the odds of extreme heat due to human influences using simulations to 2005, and a five-fold increase in this risk using simulations for 2006–2020. The human contribution to the increased odds of Australian summer extremes like 2013 was substantial, while natural climate variations alone, including El Niño Southern Oscillation, are unlikely to explain the record temperature.
Ever wonder why you and your like-minded crew sit in that hard-to-attain spot between contempt and being a pitiful joke Olap? Well, hopefully that clarifies it.
BDud..
Then it is confirmed. You are a sadistic, sick fuck who condones and wishes to watch the beating of anyone, regardless of age, race or sex as long as your delusions convince you that their thoughts may harm you.
Metaphorically speaking of course.
Oh, and I should add - because Olap and the Scandinavian troll collective farm really ARE that stupid - that satellites don't measure surface temperature.
Apologies for stating information redundantly obvious to the regulars here, but the Scandinavian troll collective farm clowns really do know less than zero.
Predictably, (and oh, how very much you wish they could avoid the dullness of that inevitability) Betty wanks himself up into a full prissy victim froth. How very and comedically October 2010 (10:10).
Bettty-John, sayin' it don't make it so.
But don't let that stop you!
:-)
Hey, Batty, could you point out any of your condemnations of James 'Not Enough Bullets' Delingpole? Points will be awarded for sententiousness. Ta.
An, the pathetic tragedy that is Oily - he really, truly seems to imagine he has a point! These brains really must be studied by science...
Chek at #31.
It's not just that the Scandinavian Troll Collective is that stupid - it's that it's even more stupid.
They were reminded only a few days ago of the fact of satellites being a temperature proxy, so you'd think that they would have approached any science mangling from Joanne Codling with a truck-load of hypercautious scepticism. Some people just can't take a hint.
And by the way, isn't it cute that they like the satellite proxy, with it's long and sorry tale of embarrassing gaffs and failures and hefty corrections, but they don't accept other proxies which are far better callibrated, procedurally straightforward and demonstrably reliable?
What's with that, eh?
It's a sad indictment on the recalcitrant stupidity of the Denialatus brain that they studiously ignore the point that the dendrochronology proxies are independently confirmed by at least five other proxies.
Remember back in February this year when I drew this to the attention of one Brad Keyes* and he jumped about and skirted and hedged and blathered and generally ignored the inconvenient fact of tree rings being confirmed by these other proxies? It seems that they have the intellectual*equivalent of Joo Janta 200 Super-Chromatic Peril Sensitive Sunglasses when it comes to having truth laid out before them.
Those readers who did not catch the February bruhaha should consider reading it for a page or so from the link in the preceding paragraph. Oloaus Petri's, freddy's, Betula's et at behaviour here uncannily mimics Keyes' dodging and weaving around uncomfortable fact, and around some of the subsequent points I make about the Aono data. The data themselves are quite interesting, and the temperature reconstruction is exquisitely simple and robst.
[*I use the word advisedly]
[**Caution people - mentioning his name twice more may invoke the Beetlejuice effect...]
...robust...
Heh, I was wondering what might have caused this latest bout of "CO2 good" nonsense, and it seems that Joanne Codling has had a hand in that too.
The poster "Dead agrostologists society" counters with the same arguments raised here, and raises some interesting confounders to boot.
The congregation there hasn't figured out that the organist has collapsed, and they're still singing the first verse of their hymn - over and over.
Wow, that 'DAS' poster really wipes the floor with them! They seem genuinely lost as to what to do...
(It's a notable feature that to the denier mind all ecosystems are the same, aren't they, so here's this cherry-picked snippet from a forest or a lab I'm tossing in even though that's not the frickin' landscape under discussion. Just like here! And Spangly dips an oar in!)
Did you notice another agrostologist - that's the thing I've learned for today - popped up to say he was going to make the same points?
I'll explain it for the Hard-of-Thinking: yet again, if the people who actually know what they're talking about appear, your simplistic sloganeering - in this case 'CO2 is plant food' - dies an exquisite and humiliating death.
(That's a metaphor again, Batty; don't get excited! Still waiting on that condemnation of The Egregious Delingpole...)
Good grief deltoids!
Come back a week later and discover such a sad place :-(
And no doubt. . . because even the moderators must be depressed. . . I will 'languish' in moderation for quite some time.
A question. . . can you see a pattern developing here? ? ?
Yep :-)
For absolutely no reason. . . still awaiting moderation.
Is that the "ad hominem"
"patronising and kindergarten way of speaking"
"unable to post any argument or referewnce to support claims"
"hand waving own opinion and filler"
Do you mean these same arguments?
No, it's substantive commentary by eg Jeff Harvey, Bernard J. both bringing expert knowledge to the table.
Read the thread before posting any more stupid shite like this.
Thanks!
Yeah, I know, all that sciencey shit about landscape categories and complex causation and C3s and C4s is hard, isn't it, Rudolph? So you just let all that go through in the usual blur until you found something you could react to. You poor little victim you!
Boring. Next.
And so the chum swirls, round and round. This week, the (re)turn of the CO2 is plant food misrepresentation. Next week the stinking carcass of some other long-dead misrepresentation will be ladled up for the delectation of Teh Stupid.
And they can't even see it for what it is.
Y'see Redarse, while there are politically motivated groups (your kind of people!) quite content to mangle reality by proxy to further their aims (and the reality proxy here is science) by definition they're creating a cloud-cuckoo, la-la land.
This is a modern phenomenon coincident with the rise of the zealots of neo-liberalist radicalism who actually or cynically - it really doesn't matter which - believe the Rovian philosophy of creating realities to suit political agenda who have hi-jacked old-school conservatism. By old school I'm referring of course to pre Reagan-Thatcher times. The hated-by-wingnuts Jim Hansen is a conservative, as are other leading climatologists such as Kerry Emanuel.
Needless to say, denying reality or placing its demands in other than primary consideration is a loser's game which can never end well. Think the last days of Berlin'45 as a good example of wingnuts attempting to defy the inevitable through willpower alone regardless of the needless and avoidable mass misery caused even in that short period.
Oh and fuck Godwin
As with pregnancy, you're either rational or you're not. It's not something you switch off according to mood or circumstance.
Best you stick to your false equivalences and propaganda sites, it's obviously what you're more comfortable with. For now.
Sadistic-Because-your thoughts are harming me-Dud.''
"Bernard J, like Jeff Harvey, brings expert knowledge to the table. I have no doubt that many here are grateful for the opportunity to learn something"
SBD - I think you have some chocolate cake on your nose....oh shit!
#41-43
Patronising way of speaking
Hand waving
Own opinion
Filler.
Q.E.D.
Its too bad the Betula's understanding of ecological complexity is at the level of a primary school student. Bernard and I have demolished ever mute point he has raised, but he STILL comes back with more vacuous remarks.
The problem is, in true Dunning-Kruger fashion, Betula THINKS he is an expert in areas he knows very little about and about. He clearly does not read the primary literature, and instead appears to glean his 'expertise' from sites like the GWPF or, even more absurdly, Lubos Motl's blog. He also thinks being a forester, and having a BS degree in forestry, confers immense wisdom in fields he has never studies and in which he does not publish.
All that is left is for him to once again try and smear me with flippant remarks about a winter trip I made to a Park in Ontario more than a year ago. He has nothing os substance to say; he cannot with any kind of depth respond to the points Benrard and I made about the ecological and physiological consequences of increasing atmospheric concentrations of C02. And that is because our points are way over his head. What does Betula know about plant allelochemistry? the nutritional ecology of consumers up the food chain? About environmental stoichiometry? Has he ever read any of the important primary scientific literature in the field? For instance Rick Lindroth's research as well as that of many other scientists?
One thing is certain though: Betula does not give up. Either he is desperate to have the last word or else he thinks he is 'winning' here. Given that most of the other deniers have abandoned him, he must be pretty thick if he thinks the latter.
#45 - The sure way to tell Redarse is when the pseudo-scientists come out to play. That's the constituency you've chosen - cranks and pseuds.
# 44 Betty-John
You aren't even convincing yourself any more, let alone anyone else.
Can anyone else here a sort of whining noise in here, or is it just me?
There it is again! A thin, irritating whining like someone playing the victim for rhetorical effect. Seems to get louder as I approach #39 and #45.
Most strange...
Sadistic - Because Your Thoughts Are Harming Me - Dud...
"Can anyone else here a sort of whining noise in here, or is it just me?"
It's you. Your nostrils are filled with "cake".
Betty - taking a break from indoctrinating his cadre of denier children - whined about 'thoughts'.
Nobody cares about the third hand ignorance that constitutes the thoughts of deniers Betty. Otherwise we'd be forever mired in the petty small-minded vendettas that you for instance engage in.
Try something coherent (in the real world that is, not just whatever passes muster between your ears) next time.
It's interesting watching Betty-John's lies evolve over time. This is where we are now:
Below are the original comments which provoked all the lying, misreprsentation, whining and playing the victim. Compare Betty's vindictive smear above with what was actually said:
Page 9 #20
Later:
Page 9 #53
It's hard not to conclude that Betty-John's cameo of me is rather... distorted. In fact it's hard not to conclude that our Betty is being somewhat dishonest :-)
Also amusing that reminding Betty that the credentialled experts commenting here think he's an ignorant buffoon provokes accusations of devotional anulingus...
climate fuckwits
the next lesson for you ignorants in decent scence:
LEARN TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THEORY AND HYPOTHESIS, YOU ASSHOLES!!!!!!!!!
YOUR HYPOTHESIS IS: ANTHROPOGENIC CO2 WARMS THE ATMOSPHERE AS MEASURED 2M ABOVE THE SURFACE BY THERMOMETER READINGS
THIS HYPOTHESIS HAS SO FAR NEVER BEEN VERIFIED OR FALSIFIED!!!!!!!
HOWEVER, YOU BOLLOCKS MONGERS BEHAVE AS IF IT HAS BEEN VERIFIED, ARSELCKS, STINKING FROM SHIT
YOU BETRAY THE WHOLE WORLD AND YOU INFLICT INCREDIBLE DAMAGE ON HUMANITY!!!!!!
MORONS!!!!!!!! FUCKWITS!!!!!!!!
Freddy
You can deny the laws of physics which demonstrably do produce a "greenhouse effect" and have always done so.
You can deny that known paleoclimate behaviour is inexplicable without accounting for the radiative properties of the atmosphere.
You can be a self-parody of all-caps and spittle until your ears fall off, but it won't change anything.
Berntard @ 15....
"Together these two sequelæ can cause “damping off” or root rot in many grasses, herbs, shrubs and trees."
I'm sure my words at #74 were just an oversight on your part: "Depending on species, tolerance and susceptibility. Overall. too much water creates a habitat for many fungi….root rots, leaf spots, anthracnose etc"
You state..."One doesn’t need to be specific in this – it is a general response seen in many species as a consequence of exposure to too much water"
Maybe not, if you're sitting in a stuffy office or classroom all day, however, if you are in the field all day diagnosing and problem solving, then yes, you have to be specific.
Have you ever been involved with a wetland renovation project Berntard? Other than on paper of course...
Have you ever treated a tree for Phytophthora? Phomopsis? Borers? Other than in the classroom of course...
So your shocking point is, too much of a needed thing, say water, could be detrimental....generally speaking.
You use this as a comparison to CO2, where, generally speaking, too much CO2 is not necessarily better...(or worse).
Here's where you are wrong. I never said CO2 fertilization was a good thing, or a bad thing, yet somehow it is you who claim there are "misrepresentations of what’s been said"
Is this how you run your classes, misrepresenting what you claim was misrepresented?
You claim I "have been attempting to smooth over the effects of climate change with comments such as:"
CO2 fertilization isn’t as insignificant as [BBD] and [Jeff] would have us believe.
And you call it a misrepresentation.
Yet, here is B-Dud at #72 pg 7...
"CO2 fertilisation is a fucking irrelevance compared to the effects of abrupt climate change on plant physiology and global agricultural productivity."
Well Berntard, "sayin’ it don’t make it so"...... (BDud @ 32)
Wanting it to be irrelevant (or insignificant), without truly understanding it's relevance, is a blatant misrepresentation.
Additionally, claiming climate change will be "abrupt" and claiming to know all the effects on plant physiology and global agricultural productivity." without knowing the relevance or specifics of all the unknown interactions is strictly picking and choosing scenarios that fit an ideological criteria.
..
BDud....
"devotional anulingus"
Yes, that's it!
Boy, Batty's another poo-obsessed freak. You're losing it, Sunshine. Devolving into Mike...
(Also, Australians don't do much treating of trees for Phytophthora - if you actually want to know why JFGI, but you don't - and what freakin' difference would it make to what Bernard's saying if they did or he had? 'You call youselves ecologists, but have you ever held a sick elm in your arms and comforted it as it lay dying?' is just overwrought stupid, Batty, and another indicator that you macho types are hysterics at heart...)
Freddy, sod off, you're boring.
(I'll point out again that one can learn a lot by paying a visit to the Stoat's Burrow.)
Tell you what Betty "child deniers" Betula.
Why not condense your last five years of dull, drivelling, self-aggrandising denial into one single, clear, unambiguous sentence, and we'll take it from there.
Christ Bill, that pointer to Will's basement should oughta come with the warning that you may find yourself wanting to set fire to your own hair after reading five or six comments.
Betula.
Whether deliberately or through unadmitted ideological obstinance, you're not getting it.
I asked you some simple questions about what happens when plants are subjected to too much of a substance essential for growth. You spent a lot of time prevaricatingwith ifs, buts and maybes, in order to disguise the simple fact that too much is not good. You can't even explicitly admit that even optimal levels are dependent on the cofactors behind which you try to hide when confronted with "too much is not better".
The message is simple, even though is galled you to get there. Too much water has negative consequences for most plants, and for their ecosystems. Too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has negative consequences for most plants, and for their ecosystems.
I know that this sticks in your craw, but get over it - it is simple fact. And Betula - the same applies to CO2, especially as it's effects are manifested climatically as well as chemically and biologically.
Betula.
1) No-one has denied the effect on plant growth that increased CO2 can have.
2) Jeff, BBD and others are correct to say that the overall advantages of increased CO2 growth are not significant compared with the confounders resulting from Sprengel's Law, from disrupted nutritional sequelæ, from more complex ecological interactions such as altered symbiont responses and pest/weed/disease species responses, and from the impending climatological effects that will occur in the 21st century and beyond as a result of carbon dioxide induced climate change.
Betula.
Betula, Betula, Betula.
I don't want enhanced plant growth in response to increased atmospheric carbon dioxide to be "irrelevant" or "insignificant". I want it to be without serious negative ecological/agricultural impacts, and I want it to very much be without serious climatological impacts.
It's these sequelæ that you keep sweeping under the carpet - what's up with that?
In ecological terms human-caused climate change with be very abrupt. A few centuries is nothing in the span of evolution, and in the capacities of species and ecosystems to adapt.
And going from a scenario where the planet is benign and optimal for the sustenance of human civilisation to being pretty much impossible for the continuance of said civilisation at the global level and likely even at the national level several hundred years later is abrupt, even in human terms. This is what will happen if humans persist with business as usual for more than a few decades from now, and it may happen even if we act in the immediate future.
Let me ask you some more questions (with at least some hope of a direct answer, that is...)
1) Do you think that the benefit of increased atmospheric CO2 for plant growth is significant and clear?
2) If yes to #1, what is your evidence base?
3) If yes to #1, to what agricultural systems and ecosystems do you think that the benefit of increased atmospheric CO2 for plant growth applies?
4) If yes to #1, what is the nature of the benefit of increased atmospheric CO2 for plant growth that you accept is occurring?
5) What negative biological sequelæ do you accept as occurring in response to increased atmospheric CO2 levels, and in what agricultural systems and ecosystems?
6) What negative biochemical sequelæ do you dispute as occurring in response to increased atmospheric CO2 levels, and in what agricultural systems and ecosystems?
7) On what evidence you do base your responses at #5 and #6?
8) Do you think that the benefit of increased CO2 for plant growth overrides the negative biochemical sequelæ of increased atmospheric CO2 levels? Note - in this response you can and should include the effect that CO2 also has on marine ecosystems.
9) Do you think that the benefit of increased CO2 for plant growth overrides the negative climatological sequelæ of increased atmospheric CO2 levels?
10) On what evidence you do base your responses at #8 and #9?
If you are wondering why I have put another series of questions to you it is because you persist in your denigration of the physical and the biological aspects of mainstream climate science, without ever explicitly stating what it is that you accept, what it is that you dispute, what sources you rely on for your position, and why you dispute that the consensus science is not correct.
None of my questions are trick questions. They are intended to elicit from you a clear and simple description of your understanding and position of each of the matters that is encompassed by the respective questions, and it is fascinating indeed that you avoid most of them like the plague.
It's very curious...
I've taught primary school and high school students, and I've taught technical college and university students. My pedagogical approach has always to get the student to answer their questions where possible, with appropriate guidance, and to put questions to them where they can't immediately see how/where to ask such themselves. I offer direct answers in circumstances where it is appropriate to do so, but I find that students learn much better and advance their own critical thinking, research and analysis skills if they learn a schema for asking the right questions and understanding how and where best to find the answers.
My students have always thanked me profusely for the effort I put into their education, and for making the subject matter interesting and accessible. The smarter ones even figure out that I taught them how to learn under their own steam. With ideologues however it is a fraught exercise to instill even basic eduction. There seems to be an intellectual phenomenon occurring, well known to psychologists dealing with mental illness, where habits of pathological thinking over-ride any rational capacity for new learning or acquiring new, positive habits.
This phenomenon is starkly apparent in the the Denialati on this thread.
Now...
Actually, yes, except it was a "rehabilitation project".
As a student teacher (before I was distracted by 15 years in immunology/oncology/pharmacology/microbiology) I taught K-12+ in the educational centre, and later in my postgraduate work I surveyed creeks in the wetlands that were to be opened to tidal flushing. After that I worked in the same catchment with freshwater species plant and animal subjected to salinity.
If you want to distract with a discussion about wetland rehabilitation go for it - I also topped my final year uni course in wetland ecology so I have the paper creds as well as the years of practical experience.
As Bill has already told you Phytophthora is rarely treated in Australia because doing so is usually impractical in our circumstances. What we do practice is prevention and remedial hygiene, and yes I have done both. Much of my ecological fieldwork has involved driving 4WD through and surveying in dieback areas where there are specific decontamination protocols for vehicles and trailers leaving, and for cleaning camping equipment and other potential fomite material.
And further to that I advised state government officers on the original establishment of hygiene protocols for mitigating chytrid spread. As you should know some chytrid species are plant pathogens so that should give you an idea of what was involved in the establishment of protocols.
Phomopsis? Not a problem here as we don't have it. In other parts of the country where I worked previously it did occur, although many diagnosed instances were actually Eutypa lata and Diaporthe perjuncta. And I know what I'm talking about, because I used to socialise with vignerons and was once offered a job as a vineyard manager - although I refused it because I knew the company was about to be taken over, and because I was about to move to ecological research.
Borers? Yes. They're common 'pests' in Australian natives. In the end I figured out that they rarely need to be 'treated' though - in most circumstances that I saw they were not nearly the serious pest that some people seemed to think.
It's just a shame that there's no effective and guaranteed treatment for Stupid.
Upon rereading my own comment above regarding Hysteria in the Defence of Liberty being No Vice, I recall that I'm often struck that a lot of the worldview - and foreign policy - of our American cousins can be summed-up in Dr. Necessiter's classic line from The Man With Two Brains:
Lest it be twisted out of context, when I said:
I was referring to the fact that changes over a few centuries are occurring at a rate far beyond the capacities of species and ecosystems to adapt.
And Betula.
It hasn't gone unnoticed that neither you nor your denialist colleagues still haven't addressed the questions about signal and noise...
Apparently his greatest hero is from Monty Python: The Black "Come back here and take what's coming to you. I'll bite your legs off!" Knight.
Jeff's Freudian slip is especially apposite - Betula has been particularly mute with regard to specifics and with science when it comes to actually making his points and addressing the substantive issues!
bill troll, i understand your ambition why you want to elicit the impression that you are not intelligent or wise.
that’s the reason why you are unable to answer the following questions:
why does phil jones not disclose
a: which temperature stations he has taken per year to calculate a mean global temperature?
b: why he had chosen certain temperature stations and left out others per year to calculate a mean global temperature?
c: how he had changed the raw temperature data of the chosen temperature stations per station and year to calculate a mean global temperature?
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/06/01/june-2013-open-thread/comment-page-11/#comment-158874.
There are multiple independent data sets that show global warming, and they exhibit high consilience.
Are you still fixated on the GISSTemp version? I hope you remember that I smacked you good and properly over that screamingli incorrect howler of yours...
Take 2.
Freddy.
There are multiple independent data sets that show global warming, and they exhibit high consilience.
Are you still fixated on the GISSTemp version? I hope you remember that I smacked you good and properly over that screamingli incorrect howler of yours...
bernard troll, you always miss the point, BECAUSE YOU ARE WRONG, AND:
Remember, one is sampling a large planet with imperfect tools at flawed land sites and with almost NO useful oceanic data. Antarctica was terra incognita; much of the Arctic, much of Siberia, much of China, even large parts of Canada and the United States were virtually unmeasured except in very specific locations back in the 19th century. Only satellite measurements of LTT and ARGO measurements in the last decade form anything like defensibly precise measures of global temperature without unknown UHI and method/sampling errors, and ARGO is by no means stable yet in its results and still horrendously undersamples the surface area of the sea.
THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WHY "CLIMATOLOGY" IS SHUTTY JUNK SCIENCE
and you bernard troll are a true ZERO in meteorology, the only thing you do is copy paste without knowledge, information and understanding. you are a primitive moron who wastes taxpayers money
@jp and all other co2-is-plant-food deniers:
LEARN BASICS OF PLANT BIOLOGY, YOU FUCKWIT IDIOTS
again, next chance for poor level bernard:
why does phil jones not disclose
a: which temperature stations he has taken per year to calculate a mean global temperature?
b: why he had chosen certain temperature stations and left out others per year to calculate a mean global temperature?
c: how he had changed the raw temperature data of the chosen temperature stations per station and year to calculate a mean global temperature?
WHEN I WRITE PHIL JONES, I MEAN PHIL JONES, bernard bastard fuckwit
Hey bill!
Yr no. 59: "...poo-obsessed..."
"Poo"? "Poo"--as in rhymes with "Winnie-the-pooh", bill? Jeez, bill, what can I say? At least we can be sure mummy is just delighted with her little, junior-boy bill's baby-talk style of cutie-pie, smart-lip invective.
Be honest, bill, you're having a real problem in the "undescended testicles" department, aren't you, guy? I mean, like, it shows and all, you know. I mean, like, what a gross, creep-out, little, lady-like shit you are, bill.
Coprolalic fellow-travellers of young Freddy here are scarcely in a position to be speculating on the inadequacies of others, Michael.
"@jp and all other co2-is-plant-food deniers: LEARN BASICS OF PLANT BIOLOGY, YOU FUCKWIT IDIOTS"
Um, er, Freddy, I am a senior scientist and my research involves a good deal of plant biology. And the C02 is plant food meme is so utterly wrong and simplistic that it does not deserve a cogent response. How many times must it be said that C is not limiting in terms of plant fitness but other nutrients - especially N and P are? How many times must it be said that consumers have much lower C:N ratios than plants, meaning that increased foliar C will have profound effects on the metabolism of species up the food chain and will require either compensatory feeding or else rapidly evolve alterations in metabolic pathways to deal with excess C in their diets? How many times must it be said that increased foliar C will affect plants with N or C based allelochemistry? How many times must it be said that responses in natural systems will be association and species-specific, leading to competitive asymmetries and changes in hierarchies that will greatly simplify plant communities and food webs? And so on and so forth.
So increased atmospheric C02, in answer to Betula's nonsense, is most certainly a BAD thing in the short term because it alters a range of ecophysiological properties in very unpredictable ways. As for you Freddy, I do not know under which slimy rock you crawled, but most of us here would be quite happy if you were to return there with your profound arrogance and stupidity as soon as possible. Please don't take your time.
Teh Stupid has been shown that the gridded surface temperature reconstructions are validated by the satellite data on the other thread.
So why is Teh Stupid repeating this debunked bollocks here?
Look at the pretty picture, Teh Stupid. Note the extremely good agreement between the UAH TLT satellite reconstruction prepared by prominent sceptics John Christy and Roy Spencer, and the faked surface temperature reconstructions prepared by noted alarmist conspirators James Hansen and Phil Jones.
UAH TLT, GISTEMP, HadCRUT4 1979 - present; monthly means; common 1981 - 2010 baseline
You know this because we've only just been through it. You are deliberately repeating debunked rubbish.
You are a fucking liar.
Freddy.
You don't handle having your errors and deficiencies exposed to the light of day, do you?
Admit it, you were wrong when you said that Phil Jones is with GISS.
You're also wrong with your comment about measuring the Earth's temperature. The thing about measurements over time, especially when measuring changes in a mean, is that systematic biases even when they do actually exist are effectively irrelevant. What matters is the change in anomaly over time for the reference points used. The data sets used by various independent agencies all indicate that the planet is warming, as do the melting glaciers and Arctic sea ice, the retreat of species to increasing altitudes and latitudes, the altered phenologies, the satellite observations, and a vast array of other empirical evidence.
You might disagree with reality, and that's your prerogative, but you're still wrong.
Time for some DIY moderation again:
And while we're at it, this shite can go in the can too:
And freddy - and potty-mouth mike and Betula and all the rest of the Denialatus knuckle-draggers here - if you can't actually construct a reasoned and coherent argument against even the simplest of points of science, you're wasting your own time as much as anyone else's. Nothing clever about that.
If your capacities for physical proprioception are as buggered as your comprehensions of basic science, your mothers will be kept busy cleaning up after you in the littlest room in the house.
lil'mikey (...& freddy, Oilly, Johnny Birch and all the rest of the Ayn Rand Fanboi & Masturbatory Technique Appreciation Society): keep conjugating that cestode and one day you might grow up to be a proglotid.
And Stoopid Betty is still peddling his right wing alternative reality despite being corrected into oblivion by all and sundry. GFY Betty. We've all heard enough of your tripe to last us a lifetime.
whatever you bastard agw junkies say, you are on unsafe grounds of pure speculation BECAUSE (one of the many reasons you retarded ugly nobrain fuckwits):
Remember, one is sampling a large planet with imperfect tools at flawed land sites and with almost NO useful oceanic data. Antarctica was terra incognita; much of the Arctic, much of Siberia, much of China, even large parts of Canada and the United States were virtually unmeasured except in very specific locations back in the 19th century. Only satellite measurements of LTT and ARGO measurements in the last decade form anything like defensibly precise measures of global temperature without unknown UHI and method/sampling errors, and ARGO is by no means stable yet in its results and still horrendously undersamples the surface area of the sea.
whatever you second class spectators of ridiculous "eco"-pseudosciences (eco-shit-physioolgy, eco-shit-sociology, eco-shit-economy, eco-shit-population-betrayal, eco-shit-assholes, etc.) from the true science arena, to which you NEVER will belong, whine: THIS, YOUR RUBBISH IS IRRELEVANT AND SOCIETIES ARE GRANDIOUSLY IGNORING YOUR SHIT OF DELUDED SHIT. YOU ARE A WASTE OF WORKING SOCITIES AND YOUR "WORK" MUST BE THROWN INTO THE WASTEBASKET, AS IT IS A NASTY AND IMMORAL TO A HEALTHY SOCIETY, FUCKING IDIOTS, ASSHOLES
Freddy - Kai - which school was it that produced you, this paragon of high literacy, expansive vocabulary, nuanced scientific knowledge and sophisticated statistical understanding?
It would be a public service to document your astonishing educational background...
And freddy, I've already asked once but I'll ask again - does God like it when you say so many naughty words?
You have problems, Sunshine. Anyone who's crazier than l'il mike has serious issues indeed...
Are you blind?
Look at the graph:
UAH TLT, GISTEMP, HadCRUT4 1979 - present; monthly means; common 1981 - 2010 baseline
You have been debunked so stop repeating rubbish.
How can anybody be this stupid and manage to breath and type at the same time?
Clearly, emphasis and repetition are both required.
Freddy - read the words:
Note the extremely good agreement between the UAH TLT satellite reconstruction prepared by prominent sceptics John Christy and Roy Spencer, and the faked surface temperature reconstructions prepared by noted alarmist conspirators James Hansen and Phil Jones.
Do you get this yet?
Do you?
Look at the graph, Freddy.
Look at it.
bbd asshole: i don't look at graphs with corrupt data from climate scientology church
did you get it?
i don't look it for health reasons, one get's infected with all the methodological flaws from your climate scientology church
read again, fucking arselick: i don't look at your pervert graph, you nasty satan!!!
bbd and other climate scientology greenarses, why are incapacitated do take note of:
Remember, one is sampling a large planet with imperfect tools at flawed land sites and with almost NO useful oceanic data. Antarctica was terra incognita; much of the Arctic, much of Siberia, much of China, even large parts of Canada and the United States were virtually unmeasured except in very specific locations back in the 19th century. Only satellite measurements of LTT and ARGO measurements in the last decade form anything like defensibly precise measures of global temperature without unknown UHI and method/sampling errors, and ARGO is by no means stable yet in its results and still horrendously undersamples the surface area of the sea.
before you continue to spread your usual fucking bullshit, you must understand why your faith basis is so insanely corrupt.
your speculation about human harm to nature is the most stupid nonsense anthropoid brains have ever invented. you alarm fuckwits are such a ridiculous nonsense, not consense, community. i am sure you will undergo purgatory and punishment by satan for all your incredible unmoralities and unethicalities
Professor Fuckwit, then the flaw in your ideological purity maintenance stance is obviously, then how can you possibly know? More pertinently, how can you tell for yourself without some other possibly even bigger moron telling you second hand?
Inquiring minds want to know, although in all honesty many, many more don't give a flying fuck what goes on in that pointy little head of yours.
@spoiled bernard brat why are you unable to meet justified criticism?
why does phil jones not disclose
a: which temperature stations he has taken per year to calculate a mean global temperature?
b: why he had chosen certain temperature stations and left out others per year to calculate a mean global temperature?
c: how he had changed the raw temperature data of the chosen temperature stations per station and year to calculate a mean global temperature?
WHO OF THE CLIMATE MORONS DARES TO ANSWER THOSE 3 QUESTIONS????
SHOW SOME COURAGE, FUCKWIT CRAPS
chek asshole, this was no answer, try again, climate hypocrite
Here you go Professor Fuckwit - this should answer your questions.
Finding out for yourself is always a better way to learn, don't you find? Unless of course for 'health reasons' you exclude yourself from doing anything useful beyond whining like stripped gear.
#93 wasn't an answer, Professor Fuckwit.
It was an observation in question form and a further question. I guess insanity isn't as much fun as it's cracked up to be for you. It's certainly hard-baked tedious for the rest of us.
chek teh stupid asshole, you scientology climate pupils are NEVER precise, light weight want-be
your link is IN NO WAY an answer to my questions!!!! where is the list of stations jones has used of a specific year for temperature averaging?????
you cannot read, FUCKWIT CROOK
Freddy, we seem to have got off on the wrong foot.
The problem seems to stem from the fact that you are attempting to discuss the issue of climate change, a topic which, sad to say, my cat has a better grasp of, putting you at a distinct disadvantage.
And with human speech clearly also being a second (maybe third?) language for you, well, let's just say you really are a plucky little fellow coming out at all, aren't you?
(And clever, too, eluding the staff like that!)
Being expected to compete with those with functioning cerebral cortexes is clearly making you become rather agitated and incontinent. Might we perhaps even the playing field: could we consult you on some topics where you may actually have some expertise?
Let's try!
Which anti-psychotics are you on? (They're clearly not effective. Perhaps up the dose?).
Is there a particular brand of adult diaper you'd recommend?
Or genital cuff?
Do you find that sponges at the corners of the mouth work best for managing the drool, or perhaps you've experimented with suction?
Look, anyway, I reckon I can hear nurse calling, so off you run - and when you come back, do make sure you've got your big boy pants on next time, eh?
Oh my sides. You utter clown!
You don't even understand that Spencer and Christy are sceptics!
And the satellite data set they curate *validates* the surface temperature reconstructions.
So all your ranting shite is irrelevant and it's sceptics that demonstrate that you are a fuckwit! Not me!
That's what's so funny, and that's why your ridiculous refusal to look at the graph is so ironic.
You really need to look at the graph!
Truly, a clownshoe among clownshoes. Priceless.
:-)
Seriously moderators?
I await moderation?
You must be joking?
WTF are the rules?
All dealt with by one simple graph. So in the shitcan it goes, again.
Sigh.
Freddy must be a poe.
No-one as stupid as he pretends to be could actually power up a computer and log onto his ISP.
since all you science deniers from the fucking agw scientology church are incapacitated enough to answer my simple questions:
why does phil jones not disclose
a: which temperature stations he has taken per year to calculate a mean global temperature?
b: why he had chosen certain temperature stations and left out others per year to calculate a mean global temperature?
c: how he had changed the raw temperature data of the chosen temperature stations per station and year to calculate a mean global temperature?
i give you now a simpler question, which will require your whole rudimentary knowledge, to answer:
among all you eco-shit-disciplines are you aware of any study which investigates a possible correlation between the level of believed global warming and the percentage of gay climate scientologists among all climate scientologists. in other words, are there more homosexuals in the agw scientology church than in any truely scientific discipline. my hypothesis would be that inclinatiion to a warmer world correlates with warming behavior of the subjects who try to support the agw climate scientology ideology
answers welcome, you fucking assholes
It doesn't matter.
You could verify this for yourself in less than five seconds by looking at that graph. But you refuse and so exile yourself from rational debate.
What I showed you renders your blather irrelevant. I get the impression you are so insane and so stupid that you actually don't understand what was demonstrated, but it's extremely hard to tell.
Whatever the case, you operate below the level at which meaningful interaction can take place.
Unless you stop screaming abuse and start looking at the data and evidence you will stay forever in the claustrophobic, malodorous darkness you inhabit now.
Rather you than me.
bbd climate doomer:
i am always looking "at the data and evidence"
BUT YOU SCIENCE DENIERS NOT. THAT'S THE PROBLEM WITH YOU IGNORANTS. YOU ONLY BELIEVE WHAT OTHER CLIMATE SCIENTOLOGISTS HAVE DIGESTED FOR YOU.
Not a science discipline, but Betty 'child deniers' Betula has already volunteered that he can't turn around without bumping into a gay US Marine.
Is that due to AGW warming or does a preference for lycra follow the warming? Bit of a chicken and egg question it seems to me.,
No, freddy, this is what's technically known as a "fucking lie".
Just a few comments back, you refused to look at a comparison of satellite TLT temperature with surface temperature that demonstrates that the surface temperature data sets are not seriously in error.
You are dishonest, stupid and insane. You have wasted more than enough space here - now fuck off please.
Oh Stupid One:
Christy and Spencer at UAH are sceptics and vocal critics of the IPCC. That's why the UAH satellite reconstruction is such a fair test of the surface reconstructions. If *anyone* was going to catch out any fakery in those data sets, it would be Christy and Spencer. Depend on that.
I keep on telling you this. You keep on not hearing me.
You are very, very stupid.
UAH TLT, GISTEMP, HadCRUT4 1979 - present; monthly means; common 1981 - 2010 baseline
Look! GISTEMP and UAH TLT have exactly the same trend since 1979.
HadCRUT4 is a very close match over the same period.
Remember, Christy and Spencer are SCEPTICS and we are comparing SATELLITE data with surface measurements.
Try to penetrate the self-generated fog of insanity and denial and LOOK at the evidence.
bbd fuckwit, all what you climate crook try to say has nothing at all to with my questions. here they are again for you pain in the ass without any reading comprehension:
why does phil jones not disclose
a: which temperature stations he has taken per year to calculate a mean global temperature?
b: why he had chosen certain temperature stations and left out others per year to calculate a mean global temperature?
c: how he had changed the raw temperature data of the chosen temperature stations per station and year to calculate a mean global temperature?
stop telling me about x, y, z when i ask about jones procedures to calculate his global temperature!!!!!
I ONLY WANT METHODOLOGICAL TRANSPARENCY FROM ALL PLAYERS IN THE CLIMATE SCIENTOLOGY CHURCH. I RAISED PRECISE QUESTIONS ABOUT JONES TO WHICH YOU IDIOTICALLY WIND TO GIVE ANSWERS, YOU FUCKING SHIT.
Oh just fuck off, fred-fred.
Enough of this shit.
A certain lazy and insane troll needs to get on with his own homework instead of being a pain in the arse in comments here.
Here's a starting point:
Is it me or is Freddy Fuckwit revisiting 2006 all over again?
Certainly chumming the same old things over and over is a denier strategy and, as we now know, a hallmark of the insane. Considering it wasn't his field, Einstein was right on the money about hoping for different outcomes. His addendum should have been 'and not succeeding', just to make it absolutely plain to the chummers.
For fred-fred, life is an eternal present. As it is for a goldfish.
Well Freddy, you sure have a way with words, a way which demonstrates what a shouty, paranoid, ignorant twerp you are.
I have been away for awhile, just returned from an area demonstrating climate stress, and find this thread filling up with your detritus (you may have to look that up in a dictionary, that is after asking somebody what a dictionary is).
You have the temerity (look that up in your dictionary too) to throw this out
which shows only that you need to take your med's.
Whatever, the following illustrates quite clearly what an ideologically perverted individual you are,
one who has clearly not developed the ability to think for themselves.
To be honest I cannot be bothered to trawl through your particular brand of diarrhea, you are one sick budgie.
Why don't you do something useful and go fight fires in, say, Arizona?
Good to see you back, Lionel. Was wondering.
Professor Freddy the fuckwit (you don't want to read that far back) is harmless enough |Lionel.
Thread polluting but harmless re-runs from yesteryear. Although like most novelty acts and one-hit-wonders, knowing when the jokes done and to stop flogging their dead dick seems to elude them.
lionnell asshole, fire in arizona is agw of course
PROOF IT, MORON !!!!!!!!
Freddy.
Faux or genuine, you are a very seriously damaged individual.
Go seek specialist help.
given the consistent sub-literacy of his clearly unrevised rantings, i'm particularly enjoying the irony of 'PROOF IT'!
'lionel' and 'PROVE', since you asked, petal!
"lionnell asshole, fire in arizona is agw of course
PROOF IT, MORON !!!!!!!!'"
And to think Freddy once claimed he had a PhD. Certainly his crap is 'piled higher and deeper' than evenm that spewed out here by most of the climate change deniers.
Truth is, Freddy is a lunatic. A bonafide fruitcake. It is impossible to take anything he says remotely seriously because he is so over the top that his posts become self-parodies.
freddy, a real Aunt Sally, raves with this gibberish:
The Arizona fire was set by a lightning strike on tinder dry vegetation.
Now ask yourself, sorry go find out, why climate change increases the risks of both droughts and an increase in incidence of electrical storms.
But of course you won't because you are a class act in tom fullery having learned your language from the likes of Faux pundits and Mark 'the mouth' aka a'hole Morano.
You need to polish your act freddy, it is a bit rough around the edges.
Lionel A
Here's one of the several analyses at Tamino's that demonstrates the point clearly.
And here's another.
I'm addressing my comment to you because the troll refuses to examine any evidence (see upthread). So there's no point in presenting him with any as his mind is closed tighter than the proverbial crab's fundament.
Indeed BBD, Climate Central is another of my goto's, as is Tamino's place of course.
BTW 'crab’s fundament'? It was always a 'ducks fundament' to we in the RN.
The Senior Service has its venerable traditions and far from me to question them. There are, however, diverse views on this. I've heard several variants: seal; otter; penguin, even frog, - à chacun son goût...
:-)
Hello, little Deltoids! You will notice that I have waited until this afternoon before posting because, of course, on Sunday mornings you all gather in the Chapel to chant things like "I belieeeeve! I belieeeeve" and I am always a great respecter of religion.
But, I wanted to say 'thank you' for this dose of global warming we're all enjoying. Well, I know we're not supposed to actually 'enjoy' it but the fact is that most of us do and the only problem for the last 15 or so years is that we haven't had any!
Perhaps, next Sunday when you go to Chapel you could pray to the great Mann-God for a bit more global warming, well, I mean, he keeps forecasting it but somehow it never quite happens. Anyway, sorry to interrupt, carry on chanting!
Gaia! Gaia! Gaia!